I have far more in common with hyperpreterists than with dispensationalists, and I don’t doubt that anyone on any side in this debate is sincere. I don’t think hyperpreterism is a ‘damnable heresy’ at all, just a destructive one. So is dispensationalism. Both minimise our hope, but for different reasons.

It’s not about teams. I joined SGP initially to answer some criticism by Mike. I do think the hyperpreterists are correct when it comes to a resurrection in AD70 (we may differ on the details.) The imminent passages are just that. But when it comes to the future, we couldn’t be further apart.

I made it clear to Mike at SGP that I don’t get involved in the personal stuff. It is all about ideas and debate is wonderful if it avoids ridicule and personal attacks.

I believe Brian has been mistaken in rejecting preterism altogether, but I respect his views and the resource he has created. I think his questions are valid ones and I hope to deal with them from the framework presented in Totus Christus, which I believe shows without a shadow of a doubt that a postmillennial preterism is the inescapable outcome of the structure of the Old Testament.

My experience of full preterists is that, for the most part, and as far as I can tell, they are sincere believers trying to understand the scriptures like all other believers. It is clear that you are opposed to full preterism, but do you consider it to be “damnable heresy”? If you do, I wonder why you joined Sovereign Grace Preterism, and posted stuff there in a friendly tone and as if the folks there were on the same “team” as you. Are full preterists our enemies? Should we “fight” their “heresy”, or merely oppose their incorrect teaching as brothers, as we would, say, with Baptists?