A Review of Steve Gregg’s Why Not Full-Preterism? A Partial Preterist Response to a Novel Theological Innovation.
by Lazarus Conley
About a month ago I was told a new book would be coming out
in response to full preterism by Steve Gregg, a national talk show host of The Narrow Path, an author of several
books and lectures often around the world about the Bible, theology,
discipleship, etc. Just hearing that alone got me excited! I love seeing more
and more people coming out against the heresy of full preterism, reacting to
it, and refuting the vile heresy. In my days as a Protestant I actually have to
credit Steve Gregg because when I was a full preterist and was deeply into
studying eschatology I read and thoroughly enjoyed his book on Revelation
called Revelation: Four Views. I
still highly recommend this book to people of any denomination of faith
actually because Mr. Gregg goes through four different views of Revelation and
does a commentary on Revelation through each of those four viewpoints. He was
also instrumental in me learning about late-date preterism and idealist
commentaries as well. I was already planning to buy this book but I was even
more delighted and eager to buy it when I learned Sam Frost was doing the
forward (he wrote the forward for my book as well) and that I also was being
footnoted in this book! I admittedly was totally nerding out knowing that Steve
Gregg who I highly respect was going to have me in his book! I’m thankful to
God that my book is in some small way getting noticed and is doing its small
part to combat and annihilate the heresy of full preterism and I pray will lead
people out of it for the sake of their souls. I decided pretty quickly that
once it came out I would read it and write up a review so here is the result.
I enjoy how this book begins! Gregg
immediately points out that Max King’s full preterist positions are weak and
novel and that even the likes of heretics like John Nelson Darby (founder of
dispensationalism) and Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) are closer to
historic Christianity in terms of eschatology which is true.
He points out how until King not a single Christian teacher taught this novel
belief that Christ returned in 70 and all prophecy fulfilled. Gregg points out
his motives. He shares how Don K Preston and critics spread rumors after his
debate with Don in 2013 (which I have watched). I was not shocked at all by his
claims because personally, Preston has routinely lied and spread falsities
about myself and others whether it is directly or indirectly through his fan
base and followers (I often call them flying monkeys). Frost and I’ve
personally been subjected to this for at least a decade (Frost more). I found
it funny Gregg mentioned becoming a flat earth believer would ruin his
credibility because I know from having experienced it, that many full
preterists are also flat earth believers.
Chapter 1: Why Not Full-Preterism?
Gregg details the full preterist terms and their positions
fairly and accurately here. No misrepresentations at all. Any full preterists
claiming a misrepresentation is lying here. Gregg is kind when he claims many
full preterist are intelligent. I disagree with him on that. Gregg tells us the
brief history of full preterism and it is accurate. I completely agree with
Gregg in his criticism of the Churches of Christ. While “full preterism is not
the official position of the Churches of Christ… it is significant that its
founder, along with its current defenders (Edward Stevens and Don K Preston)
are all CoC preachers. This movement has always had the distinctive of
downplaying the authority of creeds and post-apostolic Christianity. It is,
perhaps, this predisposition that allowed preachers from this movement to be
the first to reject the beliefs of every Christian theologian prior to their
time – namely the doctrine of the future return of Christ.
It is absolutely true that full preterist are virtually ALL anti-creedal,
anti-confessional, and anti-historical so they do fit in with the CoC well. It
is hard to argue against that and hard not to see why they are so commonly
found there mostly. Full Preterists and Church of Christ do mostly agree on
these points. Gregg nails it when he shows that it cannot be credibly said that
all bible prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD. He gives a list that I will
summarize here but “there was no ‘appearing in glory’ of Christ in the Church
(Tit 2:13; Rom 8:18), the Church didn’t see Jesus “face to face” or come to
“know even as we are known” (1 Cor. 13.12), the Church didn’t become “like Him”
(1 John 3:2), the Christians…did not have their bodies glorified (Phil 3:21),
the Church did not mature (Eph. 4:13), and his list goes on.
Chapter 2: General Introduction to Full-Preterism
Gregg here points out how great the burden of proof is for
the full preterist. He rightfully points out that they have to prove all is
fulfilled and this involves every passage about the 2nd Coming,
resurrection of the dead, Final Judgment, and must also show us that Satan and
the demons no longer exist and that the present age (post-70AD) is one about
which the Scriptures say nothing. He asks and points out how many Full
Preterists struggle to find any meaning in life for themselves and others as
believers and asks if we should abandon the Eucharist and if we need to bother
evangelizing now, all legitimate questions that need to be answered by full
He points out how divided and divisive full preterist often are and how
incredible the level of division is since it has literally only been around
since 1970. All in all, Gregg gives a very strong introduction here and there
is no lie or misrepresentation given. Everything he has said here is accurate
about full preterism.
Chapter 3: The Parousia of Christ
Gregg notes in p. 29 that there is “an uncanny similarity
between Full Preterism and Dispensationalism”. This is because they are both
eschatologies made in the early 19th CE and because most full
preterist were dispensationalists at one point in their lives. He makes it
clear full preterism is a cult and uses all the same claims that cults so often
do. I greatly enjoyed how he points out that in every instance of the Greek
word “parousia” (presence in English) it cannot possibly be about 70 AD. He
makes a good case for how the full preterist, if they would argue in good faith,
would have to admit to a failed hermeneutic. Instead, they apply the language
to the same event and in every instance and they are found fallacious for doing
John 5, Acts 1:11, 1 Thess. 4, and various other verses
simply do not make much sense the way full preterist try to make the Final Day
of the Lord a spiritual event. These events listed and prophesied tell us real
material events will happen… Gregg points out the Final Day must be for ALL,
not some. “Absolutely no tangible or visible evidence can be presented,
indicating that, in 70 AD, Jesus Himself descended from heaven, the dead were
raised, and the living raptured, that mortal Christians became immortal, that
New Heavens and New Earth were brought into being, or that there was a final
judgment resulting in every person receiving exactly what their works
warranted. The full preterist has to take each of these features and
reinterpret them as invisible realities that didn’t really bring about much
observed or sensed change in the lives of the Christians, nor in the broader
circumstances of the world”.
He points out that Jehovah Witnesses also say Jesus came in 1944 and Seventh
Day Adventists (SDA’s) also did this too in 1844 and how eerily similar that
full preterist are to this with their claims.
I would also add how quite a few full preterists are former Jehovah Witnesses
like Daniel Pike and Holger Neubeaur for example and that Don K Preston was
constantly around Jehovah Witnesses in Oklahoma… William Bell as well. I loved
this quote from Gregg: “It is puzzling why anyone would choose to embrace a
system so fraught with so many difficulties, when a more
exegetically-responsible Partial Preterism exists as an alternative”.
Chapter 4: Those All-Important Time-Texts
Here Gregg begins to discuss the time-texts and brings up
that “since there is absolutely no historical or biblical record, nor any
tradition of the early church, of any of these things occurring, we must
conclude that, if they did happen, they seem to have very little impact on the
people of God. Apparently no one noticed. Why are we asked to believe that any
of this occurred in AD 70? It appears to be for one reason only – namely, what
full preterists refer to as time-texts”.
He gives the 101 Time Texts from David Green and then next examines them in his
Chapter 5: Time-Indicators Examined
I love this chapter. I love how he brings up Isaiah 13 which
says “near” and yet is prophesied 200 years before the event it speaks on. 200
years off but spoken of as “at hand” seems like it should be imminent but it
clearly was not. No one who heard the prophecy lived to see it fulfilled in
Isaiah’s time period. It is pretty clear that we cannot interpret some texts
like the full preterist wants. Gregg points out Haggai 2:6 does this too.
Points out the writer of Hebrews quotes it as well and that “this little while”
referenced is a literal 500+ year gap! Gregg continues on to make his point and
does it well showing that the way full preterists interpret words is absolutely
faulty. One thing I will note is that I did disagree with Gregg’s take on
Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27. However, it seems to me that it is an
acceptable partial preterist position.
I loved how he pointed out in p. 73 that Caiaphas could not
have seen AD 70 since he dies in 46 AD. He points out that he did not even see
the beginning of the Jewish War of 70 AD. Full preterist fail here at audience
relevance (which they constantly yap on and on about) and the importance of it.
Gregg points out in pp. 76-77 that John 21:22 does not help them at all either
and I think that was and is a brilliant observation. I’d only add that John is
also recorded to have died in the reign of Emperor Trajan in 100 AD. He had
literally 30 years apparently to tell people… anyone for that matter… that
Jesus had returned in 70 AD but clearly it was unimportant to him as the last
disciple of Christ to live to teach anyone this and he didn’t teach any Early
Church Fathers anything full preterist teach after 70 AD either…
Gregg points out in pp. 82-83 that Revelation 20’s 1000
years cannot be a 40 year period (30-70 AD) like the full preterist want. Gregg
correctly notes how every Christian and Jew in history have known the number
1000 to mean a long time and that the full preterist fights it because “it
would destroy the full preterist system and its prior-to-investigation
conclusions about biblical eschatology”.
Chapter 6: Audience Relevancy
Gregg touches on audience relevance here, something full
preterist harp people on 24/7. As Frost and I, and no Gregg have also noted,
the Greek word “mello” sometimes does indicate an event that is CERTAIN or
DESTINED to happen.
Full preterist have no case. In the end, Gregg shows us many instances where
the New Testament writers did not think the 2nd Coming and
subsequent events would happen in their lifetime. They just knew it is certain
and destined to happen. He discusses next 2 Thessalonians and refutes Don K
Preston point by point and I loved it because, while I use more or less the
same arguments to refute him that Gregg does, I love and relish seeing people refute
and rip Preston’s stupid arguments to bits. Gregg’s 3rd point
against Preston was amazing and around p. 114, he refutes Preston even more so
assassinating all of Preston’s lame, weak, pathetic, and heretical arguments.
Chapter 7: The Resurrection According to Scripture and
Great chapter! He points out Max King’s inconsistencies
He points out how all the full preterists “want Paul’s teachings to differ
radically from those of the Jews, regardless of his strong statements affirming
he held a view compatible with theirs”.
Problem is the traditional Jewish belief is the same as the historic Christian
one - that is Bodily Resurrection. He is correct that Ed Stevens thinks he is
the elect but Ed can’t prove why or how he is since he says it happened in 70
AD. I am glad he brought up what traditional Judaism believes on it because the
full preterist often preaches that they are teaching the “original truth” or as
Don Preston claims: “the Hebraic mindset of the 1st CE”. It always
turns out, when put under scrutiny, they have and are nothing remotely close to
teaching any of that. I loved when Gregg brought up all the quotes from the
Early Church! He shows how EVERY CHURCH FATHER believed the 2nd
Coming and Resurrection of the dead event were FUTURE! Gregg asks full
preterists “to explain how every Christian of the ancient church understood the
matter differently from J Stuart Russell, Max King, Don Preston, Ed Stevens,
We’ll wait I’m sure forever. I’ve asked Preston, Stevens, and more to explain
these questions and more and have been waiting since 2019 and believe I will
never get a satisfactory answer honestly from any of these people aside from
ridiculously constructed conspiracy theories that fall on every point they make
when put under scrutiny.
I love how Gregg points out in p. 139 how full preterists
aren’t the only ones who hold to wrong views like believing heaven is the
ultimate eternal destiny of Christians. Too many people erroneously believe
they die and then go to heaven and that is it – oftentimes, they think this is
the resurrection of the dead too. Heaven is not our permanent home.
Chapter 8: The Resurrection and Rapture According to Full
Here Gregg explains how full preterist see the resurrection
of the dead and the rapture. They believe it all happened in 70 AD. Gregg
explains very well the IBV and CBV views and does it respectfully. He covers Ed
Stevens (IBV) and Don/King’s (CBV) differences over “sin-death” too.
He disproves Preston so easily over the death of Adam not being just spiritual
death. The sin-death view is easily dismantled by Gregg. All idiots like
Preston, Neubauer, and Baisden do is try to reinvent everything and then
desperately attempt to try and force it all to be about 70 AD – and ultimately
they fail to do it.
Around p. 159, Gregg turns to Stevens on his IBV rapture
idea that every saint was raptured in 70 AD so all those left behind were
unaware any of this “rapture” happened. Stevens, at best, gives us a conspiracy
theory. Gregg brings up a lot of the same questions I have had for Stevens and
I hope he gets some answers honestly because I certainly haven’t since Stevens
seems to have actually ran away like a coward from me when I’ve tried to have
discourse with him over it.
I personally love Gregg’s take on St. Polycarp, St. Papias,
and St. Ignatius who were both born before 70 AD. Both disciples of Apostle
John as well, this seems super silly to me personally to accept that these men
were all clueless and apostates and liars (which Stevens would ultimately have
to claim to be even remotely plausible). St. John himself seems to be clueless
as well since he died in 100 AD without being raptured in 70 AD. I have to ask…
was he an apostate? Laughable! Gregg refutes IBV and CBV easily. “All pegs
cannot legitimately be made to fit a system with only round holes”.
Chapter 9: Key Disputed Passages on the Resurrection
Here Mr. Gregg “will look at the points of controversy in
three important witnesses: Jesus’ words about the Resurrection, Paul’s
Thessalonian correspondence, and 1 Cor. 15”.
He does all of this. Referring back to Chapter 7, he shows how the Jews of 2nd
Temple Period all but the Sadducees believed in a biological resurrection of
the dead. Jesus and Paul, and all the other Apostles taught it as did their
disciples, and so on. He uses the clear words of Christ in John 6, 11; Matt 17,
20; Mk 12; Lk 16; Paul’s many letters and speeches like Acts 24; 1 Cor. 15; 1
Thess. 4; and so on. I disagree with Gregg about calling these verses rapture
verses. All rapture verses dispensationalists use I would argue is about the
resurrection of the dead and are verses about that or the 2nd
He makes a great point that while you could say 70 AD is a
judgment for the wicked in Jerusalem, this definitively can never be a judgment
for “all nations” like Jesus says will happen on the Last Day in Matthew
25:31-32. I’d also add not every Jew who rejected Jesus as Messiah was in
Jerusalem in 70 AD. So really only some Jews were judged and not many Romans
were killed in comparison…
On the Thessalonian Correspondence, Gregg brings up 1 Thess.
4:15-18. “Full preterists think Paul’s pronouns – especially, ‘we who are alive
and remain until the coming of the Lord’ suggest he expected fulfillment in his
own lifetime. If he did, then he was mistaken, since neither the end of the
world, nor AD 70, occurred in Paul’s lifetime”.
Preston makes this argument all the time and Gregg easily refutes that
heretical con-man. He shows “Covenant Eschatology” is a made up farce that
someone like Preston pulled out of their ass.
Gregg shows what a lunacy it is to accept Preston’s beliefs
that “the Resurrection refers to a new degree of privilege for the people of
God, who corporately shed their Old Covenant status in favor of the New…”
It should not surprise the reader of Gregg’s to see him refute Preston so
easily since Preston is a terrible exegete and a lying con-man.
Gregg brings up Preston’s feeble attempts to swindle people
to his con with 2 Thess. 1:6-9 where he tries to convince people “that Paul is
using Old Testament language to speak to the end of the Old Covenant… [and]… is
describing Christ’s ‘coming’ in AD 70, not at the end of the world, and the
ones being judged are the Jewish persecutors of the Thessalonian Christians”.
He points out that Preston’s premises about Isaiah 2 are very questionable and
points out that Isaiah 2 is not and cannot be about 70 AD, and points out that
in Luke 23.30, Jesus does not cite Isaiah 2, which Preston claims and continues
to this day to claim and lie about, despite the many people who have pointed
out to him that he is wrong. Preston willfully continues to do this and lie and
deceive anyone he can. Gregg nails Preston on his errors and I can’t help but
to love it.
On Gregg’s 3rd point he brings up 1 Cor. 15 to
conclude this chapter. There is no legitimate way to read Paul’s letter here
and conclude the nonsensical views that are espoused by King or Preston. Ed
Stevens as well says the 1st CE saints exchanged their physical
bodies for different bodies… it is also nonsensical as Paul says that the
resurrection will be biological. I like how he points out that 1 Cor. 15 cannot
be fulfilled because every enemy of Christ has not been defeated. Gregg also
points out how Preston’s heretic theology makes the Cross irrelevant. Preston
the Old Covenant end in 70 AD when it ends at the Cross.
Loved this quote: “Paul was not awaiting AD 70 to free him from the demands of
the Torah. He was already ‘not under Torah’ (1 Cor. 9:20-21).”
Chapter 10: No Marriage in the Resurrection
I thought this chapter was fun. Gregg reminds us that “in
order to disprove the special claims of full preterism it only takes one verse
that will not fit the AD 70 paradigm”.
He brings up now the topic of marriage. Jesus does say that those who take part
in the Resurrection will no longer be married to a spouse and I like how he
points out that J.S. Russell came to this conclusion as well. Gregg asked
Preston in 2013 about Luke 20:35 and the idea that “the textual emphasis and
the focus is on the Old Covenant Levirate Marriage mandate, not marriage as a
universal concept” is so laughable to me and should be to everyone that hears
it. Gregg rightfully was perplexed and confused at such an absurd and retarded
position on Scripture at that debate. Five years later, he read Preston’s book
on marriage like I did and found it completely disappointing. I completely
agree that Preston’s book Marriage and
Giving in Marriage… in the New Creation?? “meanders quite a bit, making and
returning frequently to various points of dubious relevance to the announced
subject… [It] seemed to have been written mostly with the intention of making…
[Joel McDurmon]… look silly” which he failed as usual to do.
Gregg represents the book fairly and points out how absurd it is and in error.
Preston cannot con his way out of the implications of full preterism. The fool
can’t even answer them.
Preston does nothing but a misdirection the entire time. A
criticism I have of Gregg’s is that he is far too kind to Preston. I won’t be.
Trying to craft Luke 20:35 to be about 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem
is in fact something only a desperate con-man or mental patient would concoct
or construct. Charles Meek is another full preterist that Gregg points out who
tries and fails to answer the marriage question. As Gregg says: “No one who
honors and studies Scripture attentively is likely to mistake any of these for
objective attempts to explain the meaning of Christ’s words”.
I copied this here because I think what Gregg writes here is
so profound. “Apparently, when trying to promote an interpretation of a
passage, and when one’s partisan exegesis makes no sense, one can fool some
people simply by saying, ‘This is all covenantal stuff’. A discerning skeptic
will naturally respond, ‘In the total absence of any evidence within the text
itself, why am I expected to accept this bizarre and unsupported interpretation
– because you say so?’ The answer is, although full-preterists disparage creeds
in general, they nonetheless have their own creed containing one non-negotiable
tenet: ‘Everything has to be made to fit, no matter how unnaturally, or disingenuously,
into an AD 70 fulfillment’. Many of the advocates of Full-Preterism are clearly
smart people who show, in other instances, the capability of connecting logical
points and stringing together a valid scriptural argument. If they were merely
dull, we might grant them more grace when they advance a critically flawed
exegetical case. Given their intelligence, however, it is hard to avoid the
conclusion that in discussing this particular passage the full-preterist is
secretly thinking, ‘in the interest of promoting what I believe, on other
grounds, to be true it is excusable for me to construct a totally invalid
exegesis for this one troublesome text. If I speak fast and string together a
lot of passages and concepts of no actual relevance to the text under
consideration, I just may get safely past this embarrassing spot in the road
without getting caught. Then we can move forward to another text for which we
have more reasonable-sounding arguments’. Those who actually revere the Word of
God will naturally respond, ‘Not so fast. Whatever other strong-sounding
arguments may await our consideration on other texts, we cannot simply pretend
that your views have legitimately addressed this key verse – one of the most
determinative passages in the whole debate’. I do not like suspecting any of my
Christian friends of being deliberately disingenuous. Therefore, I hope I am
wrong about their thought processes. If their thoughts are other than I have
imagined, they have been at pains to conceal that fact. We have a duty to hold
Christ in greater reverence than would allow us to take sacred words He has
spoken and twist them beyond recognition into something ostensibly more harmonious
with our pet theological theories. The latter is the practice of cults and
their leaders. While there is much in the exegesis of full-preterists on other
passages that can command a measure of respect, it is a case like this one that
shakes our faith in their objectivity and the reverence which a Christian ought
to have for Christ’s teaching”.
Some full preterists will say he is slandering them if they read this but it
just isn’t accurate because as a former full preterist, I can say without a
doubt that this is EXACTLY what these people do. They lie, deceive, and are a
cult. Dissent, challenging them, and asking questions can and DOES get a full
preterist expelled from their little cult very often!
Now as far as marriage, as a former Full preterist, I may
have tried to answer Gregg in this manner if he had asked me this question:
[NOTE TO THE READER THAT WHAT I SAY HERE IS HERESY AND I REJECT IT]. I would
have perhaps tried to say that marriage is not ushered in at AD 70 (this is presuming
I use Preston’s CBV that has the O.C. ending in 70 and ushering the NC after
70) and is no more. Since sin-death is also no more (spiritual death-sin) I
would argue that there is no need for marriage as there is no sin anymore. To
marry today, one full preterist could hypothetically argue that it would be to
go back to the Old Covenant (and some cults like Oneida actually did this).
Obviously there are problems galore with all this but this was some of my
thoughts anyways. There’s no need for marriages in a full preterist mindset it
seems like, just as there is potentially no need for the Eucharist and other
Gregg shows so clearly that when read without a full
preterist agenda, Scripture doesn’t support Covenant Eschatology (CBV) and also
shows us that full preterist, who say they care so much about audience
relevance suddenly stop doing so with verses like Luke 20:35 and ultimately
bastardize the Scripture all for their 70 AD agenda.
Chapter 11: New Heavens and New Earth
Talking about the New Heavens and New Earth, Gregg states: “I
cannot find any reason to agree with the arguments leading to such a conclusion,
even after reading a 300-page book by Don Preston defending his thesis”.
I wholeheartedly concur with his conclusions. Reading any book by Don Preston
will prove there is no reason to agree with him in his conclusions. In this
chapter, Gregg begins talking about misconceptions that people make about
heaven and does a good job about it. We will see a New Heaven and a New Earth -
the two will be united in a sinless, perfect, and dynamic state of reality with
Christ and fellow saints. The full preterist however claims “that in biblical
times the expression ‘heaven and earth’ was commonly understood by the Jews to
be a reference to the Old Covenant, or perhaps, the Temple System”
and points out how utterly absurd this ideology is. I would add that I have
also asked full preterists many a times if the Old Covenant and Torah ceased
when Babylon destroyed the 1st Temple and have had absurd and have
seen this been mostly unanswered by them (no answer has ever been satisfactory).
I loved p. 244 when Gregg pointed out in his critique of Don Preston’s Elements book that “it is common in
Preston’s book to find him saying ‘we’ve already shown such-and-such a thing’,
when he should more correctly have said, ‘We’ve already ASSERTED such-and-such’.
In his book he demonstrates no such meaning of stocheia – he only affirms it”.
This is not a misrepresentation at all and is extremely accurate and anyone in
scholarly circles reading Preston would conclude the exact same thing.
Chapter 12: New Heavens and New Earth (continued)
Gregg continues from Chapter 11. I don’t know that I agree
with Gregg’s Partial Preterist take on 1 and 2 Peter entirely BUT nothing he
says here is heretical either as best as I can tell. We just come at eschatology
from different frameworks (Gregg is an early date partial preterist and I am a
late date partial preterist-idealist). Full preterist want to make Isaiah 60-66
and the New Heavens and New Earth all “spiritual” and metaphorical language and
put “covenant” on anything else they have a tough time explaining in Scripture.
I agree with Gregg that full preterist trying to connect Paul in Romans 8 to
Isaiah 65-66 is completely and totally absurd.
The “creation” or “creature” is NOT the Old Covenant as Preston falsely
I would also point out that when Preston makes claims like “most
commentators agree” that he is usually lying and deceiving his audience
intentionally. I have in fact fact-checked him multiple times and found Preston
to cherry-pick, quote-mine scholars out of context, and outright lie and
misrepresent the scholars and people he quotes and often claims or tries to
make it appear like all these people agree with his claims and assertions.
Pardon my French, but I call that nothing more than intentionally dishonest.
Gregg points out that 2 Peter cannot all be about 70 AD and
John’s Revelation 20 and 21 also cannot be made to make sense under the full
preterist assertions. Revelation 21 cannot be explained by full preterists and
make sense. Gregg points out that “to describe the Church after AD 7- as having
attained to a ‘perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of
Christ’ (Eph. 4:13) would be to display either an ignorance or a denial of the
facts of the Church’s history”.
Gregg concludes the chapter by asking many good questions I’d also like the
answers to from full preterists that I presume will never get answered.
Chapter 13: Intro to the Olivet Discourse
Gregg here goes through the Olivet Discourse and covers it
through a partial preterist lens. I would just argue that some of Matthew 24-25
is about 70 AD but some of it is also about the Final Day, none of which was in
Chapter 14: Commentary on the Olivet Discourse
Gregg here goes through the Olivet Discourse “verse-by-verse
survey and point-by-point analysis of the three parallel accounts in the
I agree with Gregg that Jesus “For several days had been predicting and
alluding to the impending doom of Jerusalem… His remarks are concerned only
with the fate of the temple and its stones to which his disciples had just
brought His attention”.
“Full preterists and many partial preterists, believe ‘your coming and the end
of the age represent a single event, which is synonymous with ‘these things’ in
What Jesus said of AD 70 came true obviously! This wasn’t the 2nd
Coming though. What he says will happen at the Final Judgment will also come
true in the future. Throughout the chapter, Gregg points out the full preterist
cannot possibly be correct in their interpretation, not even of Matthew 24-25.
I found almost nothing I disagree with Gregg on because it is all “orthodox”. I
might would critique that idea he put in that Jesus doesn’t even know when He
will come back but I will overlook it.
Chapter 15: Gathering Up The Fragments
Here Gregg covers other arguments that he has gotten from
full preterists. If you’ve ever had these said to you, you should read Gregg’s
chapter here. It’s helpful! On that 3rd argument he gave though, I
would add that I have never had Preston or any full preterist for that matter
ever coherently explain how Christ could resurrect the just and the unjust in
70 AD and also end sin-death (spiritual death). These two make absolutely no
sense since simultaneously you’d have to say sin is gone, but yet, there is
someone UNJUST being resurrected. How do the unjust get resurrected and
changed? They change in “covenant status” whatever the heck that is? How?
On Gregg dealing with the 9th argument, I’d add
that the full preterist like Max King and Don Preston both say spiritual death
is sin and IF Jesus died spiritually, they are saying Jesus sinned. King denies
Christ is God Incarnate and says He is just a man so I could see his framework
hypothetically working out (though Christ we should say declares He is God
Incarnate so King is obviously in error) whereas Don Preston’s framework can’t
work period because he accepts Jesus is God… so how can God Incarnate sin? He’s
I agree as well with Gregg that the 15th Argument
of Preston’s made zero sense but honestly when has Preston ever made sense or
been a coherent arguer?
On the 16th Argument, I also find Preston and his
fellow full preterist cohorts’ arguments ridiculous especially since Preston
consistently has declared Sam Frost and myself to be evil people and enemies of
truth. Clearly, Christ has not actually put us under his feet (presuming devil’s
advocate here that we are in fact the actual enemy LOL – I’d argue however that
Christ hasn’t put all enemies under His feet since Preston clearly still hasn’t
managed to shut the heck up yet). Preston’s arguments are idiotic.
Gregg concludes: “Full preterism doesn’t allow for a final
resolution between God and sin. No restoration. God endures evil for all eternity.
Full preterism is heresy. It is the opposite of what historical Christianity,
following the biblical teaching, has always affirmed”…
“Like many erroneous theological systems, full preterism begins by setting up a
restrictive paradigm into which every passage of Scripture must be forced,
however unnaturally. Yet, its advocates seem to require no exegetical
justification for the adoption of the paradigm itself… The ploy of the
innovator is to justify his limited range of possibilities by claiming the
Bible itself imposes that limit”…
“The rabbis expected a physical resurrection at the end of the current phase of
world history, to be followed by a renewed physical planet. Full preterists deny
such a hope and claim Paul didn’t teach it. It seems they need to ‘choose a
lane’. Did Paul preach the fulfillment of the Jewish hope or didn’t he?”
“Full-Preterists insist that all of the New Testament predictions
must have had a first century fulfillment because Paul said that they were ‘about
to’ (mello) occur, and that his phrase ‘we who are alive and remain’ refers
only to those of his own generation. We have shown…that these claims are
unwarranted. The words ‘must have’… make up the core of the full preterist
argument. It cannot be shown that anything like the things the Bible predicts
at the 2nd Coming of Christ really occurred in AD 70. This remains
true even if we were to reinterpret the Resurrection as referring to a
metaphorical or collective one and the New Heavens and the new Earth to speak
only of a covenantal transition. It also cannot be shown that all the nations
were gathered before the judgment throne of God and that every man received the
just reward of all he had done, whether good or bad. In fact, no such thing occurred
by any plausible definition. To the full preterist, these things simply ‘must
have’ happened. Why? Simply because they have decided that their artificial policy
of forcing everything into AD 70 must be accepted, though nothing in scripture demands
the adoption of such a framework. I must agree with former full preterist, Todd
Dennis, in his assessment… of the system ‘based entirely upon deductive
reasoning’. Deductive reasoning is a good policy, but requires beginning with a
valid premise. When one removes the artificial restriction created by fill
preterism which insists that all prophecy must be fulfilled no later than AD
70, there remains little of substance to its unique arguments. They certainly
are not exegetically warranted. Much less do the meet the enormous burden of
proof required to overthrow the unanimous exegetical conclusions of every
branch of the Christian faith over the past 2000 years. We have said that this
burden demands superior exegesis, and we have shown that, in that department,
the system completely fails to deliver”.
Agreed. As a former full preterist, I can say full preterism
is a bunch of bad-faith actors, con-artists after book sales like Preston, and
if they are genuine about this belief, they’re mostly misled, illiterate,
gullible, or just plain ignorant and dull.
To conclude this review, I recommend Steve Gregg’s book to
people to read if they are on the fence or dealing with a full preterist
arguing with them about eschatology. If I ever re-write my book I plan on using
many of Gregg’s arguments actually because he makes great ones. I fully endorse
this book and intend on sharing it with anyone who asks for resources on how to
deal with full preterism. He does not lie or misrepresent their positions. He
is even kind to them and fair in his assessments and fair in his refutations
against their disgusting heresies. I pray anyone that is in this demonic
doctrine that bastardizes Christianity leaves it. I pray anyone listening to
the likes of Max King, Don Preston, or Edward Stevens wakes up and realizes
these men do nothing but bastardize the Christian faith with their doctrines.
Thank you for reading.
Steve. (2022). Why Not
Full-Preterism? Xulon Press. Xiv.