For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of his Father with his angel; and then shall he reward every man according to his works. Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kinddom. Mthew 16:27-28

With all so respect, I thank you for permitting me to comment on this subject.
Ben

I think that Roderick ‘doth protest too much’ in his review, in that ‘covenantal’=Reformed, as most know; as a convert to Orthodoxy, I find much in Reformed theology that is far more patristic than, say, Modern Romanism, or Evangelicalism that is no longer Evangelical. But their deficient sacramentalism leaves me cold.

I, too, find the three end premises of full preterism to be heretical, against the Fathers and the Creeds, and therefore, heretical. Nevertheless, this field needs to be further studied. Thanks…

Now I notice that my pingback includes the new picture (think I better just do the head shot like you said), but my comment above still includes the old picture. What’s up with that?

I do realize this. I disagree with all 3 points I think its somewhat dangerous. I said so in my review. However, I don’t think they are necessarily heretical. If you read what they are claiming, it does not negate Biblical doctrine. I haven’t heard them say there is no hell, no heaven, no afterlife, salvation is here and now only or anything like that.

I’m sure your point by point review may be helpful. I was just giving an overview of the book.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

Hyperpreterism for those who don’t know, advocates 3 things:

1. Jesus came back once & for all around or at the year AD70.
2. The resurrection of the believers happened in or around AD70.
3. The judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in or around AD70.

Please read my chapter-by-chapter review of Martin’s 2nd edition of BSC:

http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=939

The above link takes you to an article Morris wrote defending the continued use of the King James Version. Also, you’ll notice his Defender’s Study Bible only comes in KJV and it contains notes and articles defending the typical KJV Only defense.

Oh, also, about George McReady Price’s geology, before Morris got his hands on it, it was previously used by William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes Monkey Trial, according to Wikipedia:

“Price’s work was cited at the Scopes Trial of 1925, yet although he frequently solicited feedback from geologists and other scientists, they consistently disparaged his work.[24] Price’s “new catastrophism” went largely unnoticed also among creationists until its revival with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, a work which quickly became a classic among fundamentalist Christians[2] and opened the field of creation science to go beyond critiques of geology into biology and cosmology as well. Soon after its publication, a movement was underway to have the subject taught in United States’ public schools.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

I was aware of the Wilkinson dependency among KJV Onlyists. It’s interesting that for both Henry Morris and Fuller, that they did not properly give credit (at least at first) to their respective SDA authors who preceded them. In Fuller’s case, he even edited out many sections which would not pass muster among his intended audience.

I wasn’t aware that Henry Morris was a KJV Onlyist, however. But I do recall his book being prized in my KJV Only college….

I’m with you I think on this issue. I’m open to a framework view, and to possibly a gap view in the sense of an older earth. But then I’m not so comfortable in thinking of death before the Fall and so I haven’t yet arrived at a position yet. I’m a default 6/24 creationist in the meantime, I guess.

Thanks for your thoughts, John.