Is Partial-Preterism A Problem?

I know that what I'm about to say here may be difficult to take, but please bear with me. I AM a former 15-year long hyperpreterist, out of that movement now for 3 years. All glory to God!

I also know it has become vogue for some people, even prominent teachers such as Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, and Hank Hanegraaff to call themselves "preterists", or "partial-preterists" as it relates to their eschatological views.

My question is, does partial-preterism cause a problem? After all, is it something new? Is it a new view on eschatology? Does it lead people to the heretical form of preterism called hyperpreterism?


Yes, all forms of "preterism" (as an "ism") trend toward hyperpreterism whether those people advocating those other forms of "preterism" see it or not. When I recently received an email from Kenneth Gentry advertising his books on Revelation and the "preterist view", I replied with this:

Thank you for sending me this email. I wonder if you would consider in future emailings, placing a disclaimer at the end of all eschatology related emails? Something perhaps like this:

WARNING:
The heretical movement called hyper-preterism often tries to associate itself and promote itself as advocating "preterist" concepts. Hyper-preterism does not advocate biblical or historical Christian concepts. Whether a person were to look at pre-Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, or Modern Evangelical -- all of these expressions of historic Christianity have affirmed the exact same eschatological basics that hyper-preterism urges its adherents to deny.

All material by Dr. Kenneth Gentry is 100% hyper-preterism free and none of the material should be construed as supportive of hyper-preterism in any manner. If you would like further information on this topic, contact Dr. Gentry at: Theologymail@xxx.xxx

I know you might be thinking such a disclaimer will only introduce people who would otherwise never have heard of hyper-preterism, but there is more danger of people using your material to dupe people into hyper-preterism -- believe me, the hyper-prets do it all the time. Men like Gary DeMar don't care when people use his material to promote hyper-pret, he even hangs out on their websites, has them on his radio show (and never tells his audience they are hypers -- source). Please don't be like DeMar. The hyper-prets admit that DeMar has brought more people into the hyper-pret movement then Don Preston and Max King combined.

Anyhow, please pray about this. Thanks
Roderick Edwards 

I left the 'Cause' against hyperpreterism because so many of the people in the 'Cause' were too entwined with hyperpreterism itself. A seminary professor who recently joined the 'Cause' and was quickly revered as the new leader of the 'Cause' (the 'Cause' never needed a "leader" before), is actually a 10+ year mentor to leading hyperpret Sam Frost and even had Frost edit "A Student's Hebrew Primer for XXXX Theological Seminary" while Frost was a full-blown hyperpreterist. Look, if that is how it is going to be, I want nothing to do with the so-called "Partial Preterists" or the "Orthodox Preterists". C.H. Spurgeon once said, "Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it." And folks, that is so true.

There is more damage being done to the Christian Faith by so-called "Partial Preterists" who will not deal with the fact they are breeding hyperpreterists then by the hyperpreterists themselves. I should know, I WAS a hyperpreterist for 15 years and let me tell you, we all understood that Gary DeMar was our main apologist, bringing more people into hyperpreterism then Sam Frost, Don Preston, and Max King combined. If we Christians aren't going to get serious and stand up to guys like DeMar and tell him to start being responsible, then why in the world should anyone even attempt to call hyperpreterism a heresy when so-called "orthodox" Christians are lending to the credence of hyperpreterism?

P.S. I asked, if what "partial-preterism" is advocating is new -- the answer is no. It has been the historic Christian view toward eschatology throughout the Church. But after 30-40 years of "Left-Behindism" what "partial-preterism" espouses sounds so foreign to our minds, it seems like a new "ism". I think it would be better if all the teachers espousing so-called partial-preterism would stop calling it "preterism" altogether and simply point out it is actually the historic Christian view. After all, who wants to be a "partial" anything? Human nature will cause a person to look into "full preterism", thus why I say "partial preterism" leads to full or hyperpreterism.