I'd like you to hear the case for Preterism.
If you know what "Preterism" is, you probably don't want to hear the case.
You've been told that "preterism" is a "heresy."
You've been told that people who are "preterists" have denied the orthodox Christian faith, and are not real Christians.
So how can I persuade you to let me try to persuade you to become a preterist?
Here's my best shot:
The Bible commands you to be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), who "searched the Scriptures daily" to find out what's true.
All I want you to do is to read some portions of Scripture. I believe this is the first stop to convincing you to become a preterist.
The Bible commands you to take advantage of a friend who can sharpen you (Proverbs 26:17).
Proverbs 18:17 -
The first to speak in court sounds right —
until the cross-examination begins.
Your slogan sounds good. Let me examine it with you.
Mainstream theologians and preachers say that preterism is so heretical that it denies the Christian faith, and anyone who is a preterist is not a Christian.,
If preterism is that bad, it should be obvious. If you don't know your Bible well enough to refute an idea which is totally outside the Christian faith, maybe you don't know your Bible well enough. Maybe your faith is not your own faith, but simply a mindless repetition of Pastor So-and-so's belief.
Here is the structure of my case:
Every orthodox Christian scholar is a preterist, at least partially. Everyone admits that at least some prophecies have already been fulfilled in the past. Most people simply are not aware of how many prophecies were speaking of the events in A.D. 70. So the first step is simply to review them.
It turns out that A.D. 70 is one of the most dominant and important themes in the New Testament. Almost every page has a reference to that event. Yet most church-goers have never even heard of the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That tells us that something is wrong with our theological education -- we know all about "the rapture" -- which has only a couple of possible proof-texts -- but we know nothing at all about one of the major topics in the New Testament.
Once you see how passionately the New Testament writers were focused on the imminent coming of Christ in vengeance against His murderers, it becomes more questionable whether the NT writers took time away from the subject of this imminent cataclysm to discuss events that would take place thousands of years in the future.
There are passages which must be interpreted preteristically. Everyone agrees with this. The question is whether there is a single passage in the NT which must be interpreted futuristically. A passage which no sane, logical, rational, or faithful person could read and suppose that the author had not changed subjects, and was still talking about the imminent cataclysm discussed on nearly every page of the New Testament.
Futurists tell us that preterism is so obviously heretical and so clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture that a person who holds to preterism is not even a Christian. But is there a single verse in the New Testament which is undeniably futurist? If you could travel back in time and talk to the writer of the verse you have in mind, would you be surprised if the writer told you, "No, I didn't write that about something that would happen thousands of years in the future; I wrote that about what's going to take place in 'This Generation.'"
Before he became a full preterist, David Chilton told me on the phone that he had reached the conclusion that nobody in the New Testament had written a single verse about any discontinuous even that would take place thousands of years after he wrote. In other words, not a single verse speaking about a "second coming" in our future. "But," Chilton said, "I still believe in a future second coming because Holy Mother the Church has taught that doctrine for 2,000 years." I think James B. Jordan comes pretty close to believing that same thing. The more you study the Bible, the more you approach that "limiting concept."
Jordan admits that he relies on a belief that the Holy Spirit has guided The Church to apprehend the theological necessity for a future second coming. Not that it's expressly taught in the Bible, but that it is necessary to answer certain unanswered questions that are left after the destruction of the old heavens and earth in AD 70.
But Martin Luther proved that "Holy Mother the Church" cannot be relied upon to safeguard one of the most important doctrines the whole Bible: Justification. Why should we assume that "The Church" got a lesser doctrine (eschatology) right?
Not only should we not assume this, but we have incontrovertible proof that the Institutional Church got it wrong on eschatology. They got it just plain wrong.
This argument is presented here: Full Preterism, The Bible, and Church Authority
The issue is whether you place ultimate authority in the Scriptures, or in Popes and Bishops.