O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
It is no secret that the partial preterist world tries its best to marginalize consistent preterism. Gary DeMar has called the movement a "tar baby" with only about 100 people in it.
With that in mind, these two episodes of "Back to the Bible" with Woodrow Kroll, were quite surprising and may be harbingers of what is to come upon the partial preterist world.
Kroll is embarking on an 8 week journey through the book of Revelation.
During this episode (Sept. 5) he explores the "preterist" interpretation of Revelation. I was very surprised to hear Mr. Kroll actually give a decent (for a Christian Radio host) explanation of the preterist hermeneutic. It was clear that he did not completely understand our interpretation, but compared to some, he actually did a commendable job.
Here are some very interesting things that jumped out at me:
1) He made it a point to say that full preterist were not heretics, even though he thought they were wrong. This is a huge step in the right direction, and it is just another sign that the door is slowly opening for full-preterism to have a seat at the table as a legitimate option.
2) He equated the preterist interpretation of Revelation with "true" or "consistent" preterism! Later on, he basically said that there are "partial preterist" but they are incredibly inconsistent and he basically marginalized them. Throughout the entire show he dealt with the "preterist" paradigm in terms of full-preterism! He even made some comments that makes me think he is at least familiar with the Covenant Creation paradigm.
Which brings me to the next show...
In this show (Sept. 6) he is explaining his futurist beliefs about Revelation. He did spend a fair amount of time trying to refute the full-preterist position as well as explaining the myriad of "pre" this and that positions that one can hold. However, at about the 20 minute mark he made the most amazing statement. I will quote it below.
Here is the context: Speaking about 2 Peter 3:1-7 he basically said that he could see that as fulfilled in AD 70 as long as the full preterist admitted that it could still be future.
Now, I want to be honest here. A preterist could look at that passage and say, “It’s done. It’s all done. Everything it said in that passage occurred in A.D. 70”. I would agree. Everything that it said could have occurred in A.D. 70. I would also say, though, that everything it said in that passage could still be future. I will give you the potential it’s maybe past if you will give me the potential it’s maybe not past.
Now, here’s why I think it’s maybe not past. Peter prophesied that there would be people who would deliberately forget that the heavens and the earth (the term defined as “in the days of Noah”—the heavens and the earth; the term defined in Genesis 1:1) the heavens and the earth would remain consistent throughout all generations.
There are people who say that the old heavens represent the old covenant. The new heavens represent the new covenant. As the old heavens are passed away, so did the old covenant pass away? As the new heavens have come, so the new covenant has come. You see where I am going with all this. A preterist says just as we are living under the time of the new covenant we are living under the time of the new heavens. And there is nothing future; it’s all now. This is the kingdom of God. This is the new heaven promised in the Book of Revelation.
And I say to you, my preterist friends, I am really disappointed if this is the new heaven. You know, I thought for sure it would be better than this. I thought for sure I wouldn’t have to pay taxes when I got to heaven. I thought for sure I wouldn’t have to take the dog for a walk when I got there, and I thought for sure all my relatives would love me dearly.
If this is heaven, I am sorely disappointed.
Now, I will give you the fact that the potential is there that these verses all relate to something past. I just ask you to give me the fact that the potential is there they all relate to the future. (emphasis mine)
There you go. Kroll clearly sees that full-preterism requires Covenant Creation. He connects 2 Peter 3 with Genesis 1! Ironically he rejects it for the exact same reasons Joel McDurmon and Sam Frost reject full-preterism. They didn't get what they expected!
The main thing is to know that covenant eschatology & covenant creation is the only consistent hermeneutic from Genesis to Revelation. In the future, the partial preterist world will be the one marginalized and eventually the Dispies and Amill's will only feel the need to debate with full-preterist. That day is fast approaching!