Credit Where Credit is Due
Full Preterism vs. Todd Dennis, Former Full Preterist

It is more than a little amusing to see how dramatically my public reputation shifted once it became clear that I had really left full preterism and intended to oppose it. For years I have kept my mouth shut in the face of many libelous smears, and have tried very hard not to defend myself (this is usually pointless when one has already been found guilty without a trial.).

Whereas those in positions of leadership within the scope of Full Preterism had been saying very nice things about me publicly before my departure, such positive opinions became noticeably more sour.

Now, I certainly harbor no hate towards any of my former colleagues. Nor do I have evil plans (although people have put words into my mouth to the effect that I do). What I do have is a sincere desire to point out the errors of interpretation I went along with over the decade I was a Full Preterist... while continuing to point out the errors of interpretation I went along with while a Dispensationalist.

By the way, the term "Hyper Preterism" is not a pejorative to me. It is an actual, doctrinally descriptive term for that form of preterism which goes too far in fulfillment. Nearly every full preterist believes that fulfillment can be taken too far in a "hyper" sense, although most choose not to define it. What I have done it taken the time to classify where I believe that "hyper" line to be.

Clearly, it makes the natives a bit restless when a former chief (PreteristArchive.com started the online full preterist movement back in 1996, in case that fact wasn't known to the reader - knowing this helps put the severity of the responses to me in much better context, it seems) starts hanging around with a new tribe. But the smear pieces written by those who assumed that I was acting in bad faith are just so over the top, as to invite questions about the spiritual walk of the authors. Thankfully, more than one of those people have seen the error of their past behaviors for themselves, and have apologized for their ungodly smears.


As in all things, may the Holy Spirit guide our hearts and minds in all holiness and purity.

For the fun of it, I will be archiving the various comments on my repudiation of full preterism to show the amazing change in opinion towards me in just a short time. If I find any relating to my repudiation of Dispensationalism, I will post those too.

 CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
An Interview with Todd Dennis


Interview Conducted By Virgil Vaduva
(2006)

[Admin Note: Though I officially left Full Preterism at the 2006 NCMI Conference (Within a few weeks of this publication), all comments accurately reflect my current beliefs... aside from an identification within the confines of "Fulfilled Eschatology."]


Todd Dennis is a soft-spoken man; in fact when I spoke with him he seemed to be much more willing to listen rather than say much in return, and his overall gracious attitude and kindness is readily shown throughout every corner of his well-known website, The Preterist Archive. Todd was kind enough to take precious time out of his busy schedule to answer a few questions, and I am very much thankful for his generosity throughout this interview.

Virgil Vaduva: Your website is one of the first sites I ran across when I started to study Preterism. Can you tell us a little about what prompted you to start Preterist Archive and how it all came about?

Todd Dennis: While pastoring a Dispensationalist church in the mid 1990s, the Spirit was leading me into greater understanding of the history and context of the New Testament period. What was unexpected, though, was that the closer my perspective became to that of the New Testament period and the expectations of the people in that era, the more alienated I became from the beliefs and expectations of Christians in my own era.

As the differences between what I had been taught by men and what was being revealed from Above became more pronounced, I sincerely wondered if I was the only one in the world who was being shown such things. Immediately upon coming online at the start of 1995, my goal was to find anyone else on the Internet who was being shown the same first century fulfillment of eschatology. Failing to find anyone else, it seemed important to make a website which could serve as a beacon to reach out to the theologically-minded world, and also to support likeminded refugees from Futurism that might be found online.

It was about a month or two after starting the website that a brother emailed me to share that the view I was presenting was historically called "Preterism". Armed with that term, my search for materials intensified and began to yield large quantities of writings during, and even prior to, the Christian era which associated the fall of Jerusalem with the fulfillment of eschatology. As a result of these finds, it seemed natural to strategically organize the website into a posture for the propagation of the Preterist view, and also as a means of comforting and organizing into a united and viable theological front the large number of persecuted Preterists who were contacting me.

Virgil: How is Preterist Archive doing now and what new projects are you working on?

Todd: Though the project is now over ten years old, these same two goals have generally been maintained. However, over time many other goals have been added - especially the organization of preteristic literature into clearly defined categories. This year has been quite busy in this regard. Most notably, the website has ceased being a mouthpiece for the "Full Preterist" movement it helped sculpt, and no longer places that view up on a pedestal. Having seen the goal of Preterism's acceptance to the theological round table fulfilled, and with the advent of many other websites which present and defend a "Full Preterist" view, there is no longer the urgency to present that particular view as there was in 1995. Instead, PreteristArchive.com is now offering a more broad "Encyclopedic" approach, serving as a clearinghouse for the study of all aspects of fulfilled eschatology.

Virgil: What do you think about the demographics of Preterism? What one characteristic is important and common to your audience on Preterist Archive?

Todd: I'm not that interested in nor involved with the nuts and bolts of the "ism" aspect of the Preterist approach. However, it is impossible to ignore the trends that present themselves from many angles, such as through the reception of emails.

What seems to be the distinctive angle of the archive is that the overwhelming majority of readers are of Futurist persuasion. Though Preteristic minded people often visit and contribute materials to the site, the average visitor is only "pret-curious", in both positive and negative ways. This is particularly satisfying to me personally (and explains the increasing shift toward a completely balanced approach), as a great number of the people who come to the website in an antagonistic mindset, seeking anything to discredit the view any way possible, leave their quest forever effected for the better. There are a large number of such people now in leadership roles of the "Modern Preterist Movement".

One focus of the website that tends to cater to the common ground between Futurists and Preterists is appreciation for proof of the historicity of Christianity and its approaches to eschatology. Seeing as how every modern system is the result of development throughout the Christian era, all can enjoy archeological or papyrological revelations which point to the beliefs and practices of the ancient era of the faith. When this approach is tied into to the historical events surrounding the Roman-Jewish war, the pursuit takes on a powerful dimension that unites history and theology.

Virgil: As one who runs a major Preterist website, do you see Preterism as an "Internet-only aberration" as it has been often labeled by detractors?

Todd: That is an easy charge to make, considering the high visibility of the Internet; I feel certain, though, that the number of people out there who are being led by the Spirit in isolation far outnumber those currently online. These people are sadly isolated, and in most cases are completely unaware of terms such as "Preterism". In due time, and as the world increasingly gets wired, I'm sure they will be able to likewise find comfort and fellowship online.

Besides, the literary world, independent of the Internet, has become highly involved with preteristic thought. And even more significant seems to be the converging of all disciplines of scientific and theological inquiry, and the recognition of the role the events of AD70 have had in the formation of the modern world.

Virgil: As you well know, there are many differences between Full Preterists and other eschatological positions that are Preteristic in nature. Do you think these differences are reconcilable, and if so how?

Todd: These different views are all reconcilable in Christ. I believe that the Grand Truth is not Preterist or Futurist.. but that it is spiritual in nature represented by the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, as we will share a focus on things above, we will find our earthly differences diminishing. Though some may feel more comfortable looking below and pointing out the weaknesses of others, I believe we are called to seek the healing of the Body of Christ by looking above and pointing at our King and His power and glory.

Virgil: You recently made an interesting proposition regarding the semantics of Preterism, namely renaming Full Preterism as Modern Preterism. When I think of the word "Modern" I think in philosophical terms associated with 20th century thought, as opposed to "Postmodernism" for example. How do you use these terms and why do beneficial to refer to Full Preterism in terms of "Modern Preterism?

Todd: This move was strictly for the organizational purposes of the website. Though some have tried to take these terms and use them in theological conversation, that was not the intention behind the shift in terminology. The main goal of the reclassification of terms was to form a more clear spirit of inquiry at the site -- one which doesn't enter into the tug of war over the typical terminology. Utilizing terms such as "full" or "consistent" or "hyper" in association with "Full Preterism" (or, even worse, the tendency to use the term "Preterism" to organize "Full Preterist" thought) really misses the mark. People feel passionately about this topic on all sides, so I wanted to find organziational terminology that was above all else fair.

"Historical Preterism" is used to organize to all developed forms of "Partial Preterism" throughout the centuries, whereas "Modern Preterism" is used to organize those strictly "Full Preterist" views developed popularly in the 20th Century. [Note, Full Preterism is no longer classified with "Modern Preterism"]

Associating the term "Modern" with 20th Century seems very appropriate and fair to all sides -- particularly considering how incredibly recent is the literary origin of this approach. In my decade of intense searching, it appears that the middle of the 20th century is the earliest era of a published consistent fully preterist approach. That is not to say that one is not to be found earlier (or was not held earlier, as a developed approach was almost certainly held by someone prior to then), just that the popular systematized form of "Full Preterism" as we know it today is of modern origin. On a side note, there actually is a pre-Christian form of Preterism that is Jewish in origin, and dates back to before the first century B.C., but that is categorized under "Jewish Sources".

Virgil: In my personal interactions I have observed that semantics often get in the way of constructive dialogue. For example, Partial Preterists call us "Hyper Preterists," (in a somewhat derogatory manner). What descriptive term do you use to describe Preterism in your interactions in order to avoid conflict and create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue?

Todd: I tend to use the term "preteristic" when speaking of an approach of fulfilled prophecy relating to "end things", because so much is typically added to the rudimentary "Preterist" idea. As we strip away all of the other aspects of theology that we add to the idea of first century eschatological fulfillment, a certain rudimentary, embryonic form appears -- one that is very much in line, I think, with the first century palestinian idea. If it is taken for granted that there is a 'kerygma' form of the gospel.., then this idea would be that for end-times fulfillment. To me, this 'kerygma' form is actually the *true preterism*, and is shared by both partial and full preterists alike.

Part of my 2006 classification shift has been to be more specific in the identification of full preterist views. Though many "Full Preterists" speak of "we preterists" or "us preterists", believing that there is a cohesive form of that approach, it seems to me that there really is no such thing as a systematic "Full Preterism" that stands on its own without resort to other aspects of one's theology. In every case, that end-times view is tied to one soteriology or another, creating a "Hybrid Preterism" between the two.

So to me all Preterists are "Hybrid" to some extent. My own personal "Hybrid Preterism" connects fulfilled eschatology with a Spiritual Idealist point of view. (For those who are interested there are materials being gathered on this view at the site, and I'll be presenting it formally at the New Creation Ministries conference at the end of July in Arizona.) Others are more comfortable in a Reformed/Calvinistic Hybrid approach, whereas others may be more comfortable operating in an Hybrid of Preterism and "Emergent" theology. I think it is very important though, for the sake of clarity and honesty, not to confuse any of these hybrids with the fundamental Preterist idea itself. Eschatology is about "last things" for a reason, as we are defined much more by our soteriology more than our eschatology. If the cross of Christ isn't the focal point of our fellowship, then we are certain to find disappointment and despair in trying to unite around anything else.

So, in the spirit of "fair play" and "full disclosure", I feel like it is the responsibility of "Full Preterists" to present their own view as simply a hybrid of Preterism, clearly stating the other aspects of theology that truly define their view.

Virgil: You mentioned the surge of Preterist eschatology within the controversial Emergent Church. At least one solid Preterist book has come out of the Emergent Church, and Brian McLaren has been a strong proponent of Preterist eschatology. What do you think about these developments, and how do you think they are affecting the Preterist movement?

Todd: Emergent Preterism is just one of the many hybrids out there. There are hybrids of emergent, calvinism, arminianism, universalism, christian identity, and probably any other system available out there. It has just as much right to exist as any does any other system of religious thought. Ultimately, though, I believe that all systems fall short of the mark, and only serve to comfort us in our general ignorance of the eternal, invisible, spiritual system within the Kingdom of Christ and God.

Virgil: Todd, thanks again for taking time to answer these questions. May God continue to bless your ministry! Do you have any closing comments for the Planet Preterist readers?

Todd: My best advice to all Christians is to love one another. As we think and talk about Preterism it is important to keep the exercise in its proper perspective. If we can keep the basis of our fellowship on conforming to the image of Christ, then we will manifest much more brotherly love towards the body. If, however, we insist or expect others to conform to our image and our theology, then we sow the seeds of dissapointment, anger and division.

We really mustn't take ourselves or our ideas too seriously. I truly believe that the magical thinking of "A Preterist Reformation" has taken the idea backward instead of forward. It is so easy to focus on AD70 that we can easily forget about AD30 -- or for that matter what it means for us in AD2006.

Todd Dennis (todd@preteristarchive.com)

And then, upon leaving Full Preterism (but not leaving my charitable attempt to reach people for the truth which goes beyond systems):

 

Todd Dennis and his Cult of Personal Destruction

By Virgil Vaduva
(2008)

[with my notes]

Since I became a Preterist I only spoke with Todd Dennis twice on the phone, so I don't really know the man very well at all; I also don't keep track of everything happening out there in the Preterist netherworld, of who hates who and who shanks who in order to get up to the top. I was therefore quite surprised when a few days ago someone sent me a note with a quote from Todd Dennis: "[I] wait until Planet Preterist was on its last leg & then come in & deliver the death blow."

[For the record, this infamous 'quote' was not written by me, but by another person who was trying to hurt my reputation. In an attempt to disqualify my testimony, he posted his recollection of a public conversation from a year prior. He then crafted a "quote" and posted it, presenting it in as damaging a context as possible as though some sinister plan was afoot. He went on, writing, "What coward lets his friends take all the arrows & then comes in at the last moment to behave like he won the battle? A man sculpting a cult of his own making, thats who." This person has since left full preterism, and has apologized for all such smears and mischaracterizations. Even still, his quote is taken as truth, being used to this day as the foundation for similar character attacks.]

Does it sound like Todd Denis is the kind of guy that would kick someone when he is down? It does to me. [Perhaps we should take all attacks on Virgil's character at face value.]

This made me even more curious, so I started looking into what is happening with Todd and his website, and even attempting to understand the system he invented called "preterist idealism." I sent out a few emails to folks asking what is going on with him and about these statements he is making towards people he barely knows, then I was even more surprised when someone wrote back with this response:

[And now for some more opinionated hearsay from a disgruntled full preterist seeking to settle some score:]

Todd blames the loss of his family and the divorce on full-preterism, and particularly universalism (which he believes is inherently rooted in full-preterism)...Todd blames you and a few other full-preterist promoters for his family tragedy.

[This is total nonsense, and frankly makes no sense. It is just an outright fabrication. By the way, if I must explain, I did not lose my family. My wife left me, her children, and Christianity all at the same time and later became a Hindu. I certainly don't blame preterists for her decisions. She was not a preterist, and preterism had nothing to do with it, of course. Whoever said this obviously couldn't think of a single legitimate reason why I would leave full preterism.]

Ok, is your mouth still hanging open?  Now, I will be happy to take the blame for the Castro-looking coffee stain on my shirt, the times when I cut people off in traffic and even my attempt to trademark Preterism, but to be blamed for someone's divorce is really a new one for me.   I've had people blame me for anything and everything related to theology, but was never blamed for a divorce, and while I don't want to poke fun at Todd's situation, I assure him and everyone else that I have never met his ex-wife nor was I ever alone in a room with her.

Now, with that said, Todd Dennis does not seem to be the guy to go face someone like a man. [On what grounds is this judgment made? I continue to talk to many full preterists about our disagreements. I'm on Paltalk all the time - even opening a public room called "A Balanced Look at Preterist Eschatology"] I called him yesterday to discuss these newfound revelations and he did not respond or called back. [I missed his call.. perhaps he could have tried again before assuming I was avoiding him.] Granted I am a little slow and I may be behind the times and dates regarding his "masterful plan" to destroy Preterism, but he could at least take my calls and say hello. So I don't know what is more troubling: the arrogance of a stranger who sees himself as powerful and important as to being able to destroy relationships and people [Where does this come from?], or the cowardice of a stranger who is unable to face the people he is attempting to destroy? [Anyone who knows me knows I am not attempting to destroy anyone, but am simply opposing a doctrinal system I used to endorse.]

Whether or not Todd sees the wrong in what he is doing can be debated, but is that even the point? Is it not true that throughout the past 6 years or so, this place, Planet Preterist has been one of the most open, generous and growing places for Preterists online? Looking back at all the gathering places for us Preterists, this website has been growing steadily and surely. When we started in 2002 the website received a little over 5,000 page views and had about 75 registered users. Only in 2008 so far the website received 1.8 million page views and it looks like we will crack the 2 million views mark for the first time with 4,640 registered users as of today, and most readers of the website are non-registered users. Not bad for a place on its last leg. [Congratulations on the numbers; however, sometimes a group can think that they are rich when they are poor.]

Another one of the en vogue accusations thrown at Preterists now is that "Preterism is a cult." I noticed this being thrown around by a couple of Todd's followers [Followers?]. Let me address this very quickly. Doctors Lanja Lalich and Michael Langone with the American Family Foundation created a checklist of fourteen characteristics of a cult. Rather than going into the whole list in detail (you can read it all yourself here: http://www.csj.org), there are three characteristics which immediately jump out:

Questioning, doubt and dissent are discouraged or even punished ¨C About two years ago, Planet Preterist hosted a month of doubt, where we encouraged everyone to openly and anonymously if necessary express doubt in public. This really irked the certainty police to the point of sending out mass emails warning folks about Planet Preterist encouraging Christians to doubt and ask questions. I get the feeling that we are overdue for another session of expressing our doubts and questions openly and without fear.

The group is elitist ¨C Since the very beginning, Planet Preterist has accepted anyone and everyone willing to write, comment and participate here and in our conferences; all we ever asked was to respect other opinions and do not personally attack others. In opposition to that, Todd Dennis wrote: "Consistency within the system is really what sets the newbies apart from the more experienced, generally speaking. Just like with Dispensationalism, one can believe that Jesus is King now, but if the system will not allow it, then they are just inconsistent, and inexperienced within their own hermeneutic, not really representing it for what it teaches. The same is true, in my opinion, with that form of full preterism (most notably found among the Reformed) which teaches that everything was fulfilled historically by AD70, and yet that not everyone in the world enjoys its benefits." Elitist and arrogant? You be the judge. [I thought this was a good and valid point. After all, it is possible to be comfortable while being inconsistent in one's theology, isn't it? In fact, it remains my estimation that the true "consistent preterists" are the Universalists. This was carefully laid out in a series of public discussion board threads in 2005, and then at a public lecture in 2007.]

The leadership dictates in great detail how members should think, act and feel ¨C besides the fact that Preterism has no leader or leaders that I know of, here we encourage Christians to do the exact opposite: question the status quo, be different, do not ever buy what others tell you, measure everything against the word of God.

With all this said, you the reader are probably asking: who is Todd Dennis, and why do I even care about any of this? To give you an answer, I will quote a good friend: "The most dangerous people are those who are motivated by a zeal that cannot be rationally explained or controlled." I do not believe that Todd Dennis is dangerous, but he seems to be motivated by an irrational zeal [Based upon which evidence? Was it the material from the email that was later repudiated? Perhaps VV should set a higher standard for evidence.] which is clouding his mind and controls him and all he does. Good people and ideas are judged by their fruits, and so far, the fruits of "preterist idealism" seem to be hate, injustice and elitism. [Perhaps a bit emotional and overblown?

The very fact that a guy uses his divorce and personal life to rationalize attacking other people [not true] should tell you enough about his theology and his relationship with the Creator so that we can only pray for him to recover and do what's right in relation to those around him, his family and people he is using to further whatever agenda he has created in his mind. [In other words, 'don't listen to what the former full preterist is saying, I heard he said some mean stuff about me'.]

Please either reach out to Todd if you know him, or pray for him so that he is redeemed and healed of his hate and evil plans.

Well, that is amusing. But lest one think that it is a hurt that blew over in time, here is a more recent post.. from January of 2009:

 

Todd Dennis unable to wait for “last leg”

By Virgil Vaduva
(2009)

[again with my notes]

About two years ago Todd Dennis wrote, “[I] wait until Planet Preterist was on its last leg & then come in & deliver the death blow.” [First of all, he is basing this quote on what another person wrote that I said. It was never presented as something I wrote. This subtle shift is intended to make the hearsay appear solid. This is the exact same smear that was later repudiated by the one who made it when he left full preterism. Nevertheless, it must have struck enough of an opportunistic chord to remain useful as the undisputed truth.]

As I previous wrote, I have no idea what Todd’s motivation was in writing such a sentence, or why he would want to deal a “death blow” to this website, but judging by a recent article written by Todd, he seems to be out of ideas and out of touch with the emergent eschatology gaining ground among most young Christians. [This is true, I know very little about emergent eschatology.] Todd’s criticism of Preterism sounds more like the broken records played for years by the nearly defunct dispensational critics, which yet have to submit meaningful criticism to a Preterist audience. [The criticisms have been meaningful for some people, just not for VV. That's fine, but its not right to say that nothing meaningful has been submitted.]

In a recent article written on a website called “The Hyper Preterist Archive,” Todd Dennis is claiming that Preterism is at odds with historic Christianity because it claims that the New Covenant was not fully established until A.D. 70 rather than making the cross the central point of the faith. [Is this not a correct observation? Full preterism is hugely out of balance on this issue, as any examination will show.] Todd Dennis concludes that Preterism is fundamentally different from Christianity, as it has always been known. [Is this not a correct observation?  I even proudly said as much while a full preterist.] This is “attack Preterism 101:” We’ve never believed things this way, and because you are different, you must be heretics. [It is not just different, but embracing a doctrine never held by any denomination or creed, and which was explicitly condemned by Paul in his strongest language. And, if everyone is pointing this out, then perhaps it has some validity.]

According to Todd Dennis, by focusing on A.D. 70, Preterism destroys the centrality of the Cross and it is an “attack on the very foundations of Christianity.” [The context was in saying that the cross had to be augmented by AD70 in order to come into effect. This is truly a fundamentally different doctrine than has ever been held. It makes Jesus' statement "it is finished" into "no it wasn't"] I assume that as a result of this, all Preterist are damned heretics that will likely stoke the fires of hell. [This is a cruel assumption. I certainly never said that - nor did I ever even THINK it. To put these words in my mouth, and then use his own words to attack my character is completely abhorrent.]

Once we look past Todd’s obvious fear mongering, we realize that there is nothing new and nothing of substance to be found in his article. [In other words, 'there is no reason for any full preterist to read or examine the writings of this former full preterist'] In fact Dennis got it wrong on several levels. First, Preterist eschatology usually focuses on the resurrection of the dead, not on A.D. 70 or the destruction of the temple. [The resurrection is placed by full preterists in AD70 at the destruction of the temple. Talk about splitting hairs in an attempt to deflect criticism!]

Preterism places all these events in the first century regardless of what year, month or day they happened. The only reason for which the Jewish Temple even comes into the picture is due to the fact that the animal sacrifices performed in the temple were representative of a separation between man and God, which could only be bridged by Christ, and not just Christ’s death, but also his resurrection. [This has no bearing on the fact that when the veil of the temple was split in two, that representative problem was shown to have been solved. The substance doesn't have to wait for the representation of the old to cease before it is effectual. Besides, according to Paul the first was made old way back in Jeremiah 31:31, not AD70] The temple served as a symbol of a present reality, a present time that ultimately negated the cross. [Actually, Paul writes regarding the wilderness tabernacle in the past tense regarding the time that was then present. He is not speaking of Herod's temple at all!]

It is ultimately the importance, or if he so desires, the centrality of the cross which necessitates the destruction of the temple; of all people, Todd Dennis should understand this. [Warning: This is a gigantic red herring (logical fallacy). In other words, "a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument". The point is whether or not there was access into the most holy place prior to AD70. Paul says yes, full preterism says no.]

Should we understand that because Todd Dennis considers the cross to be at the center that he minimizes the importance of the Resurrection? That would be nothing short of an attack on the very foundation of Christianity, and after all, what is the death of Christ without the resurrection of Christ? By focusing on the cross, Dennis ignores the life-giving power of God and destroys the hope of life and resurrection of all believers. [More of the red herring] Without the resurrection of Christ, the storyline is irrelevant; after all Jesus said, “I AM the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.” Why is Todd Dennis focusing on death rather than life? [The tearing of the flesh which brings the blood of covering. Paul makes the death of first importance and bases the burial and resurrection upon that act. ] The resurrection of Jesus is at the very core of the Christian faith and doctrine. I am certain Todd Dennis knows this as well, so his attempt to use the centrality of the cross as a means to attack Preterism is (in my opinion) disingenuous at best. [Let us remember that the issue is whether access was given to the Most Holy Place prior to AD70. Paul says yes (as pointed out by using Hebrews 10:19-22), HyP says no.] At the very least he should have put the cross and the resurrection together and claimed that Preterists minimize both, but alas, the article is already out and it is too late to edit it. Sorry Todd.

The third point to be made is the fact that Todd Dennis is seemingly unable to shed his traditionalist and modernist approach to the biblical narrative. When he looks at the scripture he sees a line with a beginning and an end in the cross and death of Jesus. The Biblical narrative is however not a story that ended with the death of Jesus on the cross. [More of the red herring. The final word of Jesus was that the plan was fulfilled. The separation is removed in His sacrifice, and didn't need to wait another 40 years. Hopefully, Virgil address this point later.] The beauty of the narrative approach to the Scripture is that the story not only continues to be told or even experienced by each one of us on a daily basis (we die, we are resurrected and brought to life in Christ), but it is also a communal story: we experience the narrative as God’s people, corporately living, dying and being resurrected in Christ. Todd’s approach would apparently have us die, because the death (the cross) is according to him central to Christianity? [More of that red herring. The issue is entrance into the Most Holy Place. Unless that point is addressed, this all becomes misdirection to keep from addressing Hebrews 10:19-22.]

I think not, and I beg to disagree with Todd’s narrow approach to the Biblical narrative. [Total misdirection! This seems an obvious method of distracting from the exegesis given in the article, which has never been addressed.] Even with the stranglehold that modernism has on Christianity today, I would suggest that most Christians would still disagree with Todd’s assertion and suggest that what is central to our faith is not the death of Jesus, rather his resurrection from the dead. [None of this is being denied - except that we must remember the self sacrifice of Jesus is the story of the cross itself. The resurrection is God's response to that willing deliverance. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" Add the burial and resurrection to my narrative if you like, it still does not change the point of the article regarding HyPs fundamentally different storyline, which as of yet remains completely unaddressed. ]

I would also suggest that the Biblical narrative is not one in which a literary climax is the end in and of itself; the critical points of the narrative are plural and rather strongly interdependent: the cross means nothing without the resurrection while the resurrection means nothing without the cross. In a similar way the destruction of the temple is strongly connected with the death and resurrection of Jesus and would mean little without them. Likewise, a standing temple with operating sacrifices would contradict the atoning sacrifice of Christ and would likely be an offensive sight in the eyes of God. [Let me get this straight: if the Jews build a temple and start operating sacrifices today, then the cross will be contradicted? This is utter nonsense for today, and it is utter nonsense for AD 30-70.] This is why the author of Hebrews clearly wrote, “the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time.” [This is a mistaken explanation of this passage, which is about the wilderness tabernacle, not Herod's temple. Paul is making the point that access had already been given in Christ and accordingly the separation had no standing. Paul is actually saying exactly the opposite of Virgil' claim.] Again, it is the centrality of Christ's death and resurrection which necessitate the destruction of the Temple; from the perspective of the narrator, God, all those events are critically connected in that they give us a complete picture of God's desired end and renewal for this world. Therefore God's plan and narrative extends beyond the mere first-century end pictured by Todd, and it is just as real today, to all of us; today humanity becomes the protagonist and the partner with God in the new creation. Preterism is successful in delivering that story to a contemporary audience. Todd's futurism is not. [I am not a futurist, as vv knows]

One last point to be made, which is particularly offensive, is that Todd Dennis would also have us believe that theologically getting the timing of all these events wrong constitutes heresy of the highest degree! [it would certainly be dishonoring to the highest degree to say that the cross was insufficient for removal of our separation from God, but that the temple had to fall first, would it not? the outrage is misplaced.] How illusory! Not only that, he fails to explain why getting the timing wrong is such a horrible heresy. [Jesus said "it is finsihed" and full preterists say "it is not"] Preterists still subscribe to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, they profess Him as their savior and profess the faith required for salvation [A salvation which HyP teaches didn't come for another 40 years after the cross, making their narrative fundamentally different from Chritianity's.]. So even if Dennis is correct about us getting this timing of the covenants wrong, why is getting the timing right trumping faith in Christ? [I am not sure what this means, unless it is back to the "damned heretics" idea Virgil has me saying, but which I never said.] Because Dennis says so? Because it contradicts the majority that gets to say “it is so?” And what is the result of getting all this timing wrong? Is Dennis is in fact implying that getting some theology wrong in itself minimizing the importance of the cross? [Diminishing the utter accomplishment and immediate efficacy of the cross is not just "some theology". It is the basis for the entire Christian message. Some will say that the sacrifice of Christ wasn't even his main message, but that the coming of the kingdom was... proving the diminishement of the cross.] That is an astoundingly contradictory position to hold; either the work of the cross is such a huge theological event that cannot be trumped by any sin or human event [That is exactly correct. It seems that there is perhaps a lack of recognition of the significance of the cross going on, to where AD70 with all its armies and falling stones seems remotely significant in its presence], or it is not, in which case Preterists getting a few verses wrong are just hell-bound and wished-well by people like Dennis anyways. [I never said that and have no intention of casting away the people, as I have the sad, sorry, cross diminishing doctrines of hyper preterism.]

To conclude this, I must say that I am very disappointed in the path Todd Dennis has chosen to take. What makes this whole thing even more sad is that Todd’s own journey seems to be leading him to some conclusions which I find interesting if not compelling, however Todd’s sour and outright destructive attitude hardly motivates anyone to even give a consideration to what he has to day. [In other words "..so don't pay attention to or examine what the former full preterist is saying..." By the way, the fundamental issue of entrance into the Most Holy Place was never mentioned at all! Seeing as how that was the entire thrust of my article, I take this as a refusal or inability to answer the point that entrance was given well before AD70.. look it up! Hebrews 10:19-21.]

Worse yet, it is a well-known fact that for over a year now Todd Dennis and Scott Thompson have been teaming up in creating a number of supposed “anti-preterist” blogs and web sites [Not true at all. this is my only blog. The other former full preterist do their own thing. I am no more responsible for their work than Virgil is for the Preterist Universalists he talks to. An attempt at "guilt by association" in order to seek a disqualification of my criticisms - which were never addressed!] which are aimed at promoting and distributing personal attacks against anyone and everyone who is a “Preterist” and smearing people like Don Preston, William Bell and other men of God who have been ministering and serving the Church for virtually their whole lives. [I quoted these men in their own words in complete fairness. This hardly qualifies as a smear or personal attack. Note also that I gave them the courtesy of being able to stand on their own words, which is much more than Virgil has done for me. He put words in my mouth, and accepted as fact when others did as well. Let the reader decide.]

Todd claims that he is praying that we listen to his criticism and reconsider it on merits alone; this is a bit difficult to do when he is casually tossing around the word “heretics” and when he is teaming up with people creating websites specifically directed at ruining lives and promoting personal attacks. [I have never called anyone a 'heretic' but have indeed said that certain doctrinal teachings were 'gross heresy'. There is a difference between exposing a bad doctrine and smearing an individual Besides, I've never seen a full preterist upbraid another for calling Dispensationalism a heresy. This is more than a double standard.]

That is not how you get people to listen to what you have to say Todd; especially not by telling them that you'll deal them a "death blow." [And yes, the repudiated smear yet again. I'm sure this hearsay will be faithfully trotted out every time i have something critical to say about the doctrines of hyper preterism. Such are the tactics of full preterism. The reader has been warned.]

Well, that is it for now. I'll keep posting these as time allows. I trust the reader to be able to judge for themselves whether or not there are actual biblical points being made in response to my criticisms, or it all efforts are focused on attacking my credibility (as has been attempted, without fail, on every other former full preterist who speaks out). As always, I am happy to charitably discuss any issue. Please feel free to write to me at todd @ preteristarchive.com or see me on Paltalk or at AD70.net.