From the outset, whenever an ANF is cited the FP will argue these men were not inspired so therefore their opinions and what they teach does not matter. Don stated such an opinion repeatedly in FACEBOOK against Sam Frost an ex preterist,
Frost once taught the truth of Covenant Eschatology, but abandoned it, claiming that he had discovered major logical and scriptural flaws in the system. The problem was that Frost could not bring himself to jettison church history and the creeds. He chose the works of men over the Word of God[1]
In their hypocrisy, FP chooses the works of people like Don Preston over history and the creeds that have been established for 2000 years. They want you to believe THEY have come up with the truth the church has failed to grasp in the last two thousand years. Things like Jesus returned in AD 70.
FP also note the differences in doctrines and how the ANF all argued back and forth over many doctrines and theologies as if that was the case for the first two hundred years. There are two failures in this argument of the ANF being uninspired and so are to be ignored or discounted.
The first is that historical facts and things they were eyewitnesses too, does not require they are “inspired” to relay those historical facts. It takes no inspiration to note that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 as it was common knowledge, just as it was common knowledge who was Caesar and when he died. The same is true for the Apostles. When any 3 ECF declared John lived to about 98-100 AD, we must follow what Jesus said, “so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Mathew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1).We have no evidence from their writings that demonstrate apostasy[i] nor that they are wrong about historical facts when every fact can be collaborated by the testimony of other men who said the exact same thing.[2] Any one person can make a mistake and so that does not demand they are wrong in everything else or that the mistake was believed.
There is no reasonable case that can be presentedby any FP to argue that the Apostles all died before A.D 70 as Ed Stevens does, or that refutes the testimony of these Christian men that John, Barnabas, and others lived beyond AD 70 and were never raptured. It is indeed a sad case when effort is made to prove your case, you resort to saying these men who were living in the Roman Empire under severe persecution, were not telling the truth about how long John lived to, especially when there is no motive to lie about such a thing. The surest evidence we have is the testimony of Polycarp[3], who was faithful to the end declared to be a hearer of John and by tradition was a disciple of John. to claim it was bad information passed on and others believed it as if it was true. John being who he was and as influential as he was in the church, it is hard to imagine that the church didn’t remember him just some fifty years later. Abraham Lincoln lived over a hundred years ago and we have no problem remembering what he did and when he died. But see they don’t look to history for such evidence. They believe scriptures teach John was to die before the second coming. Yet turn to history like Josephus and his books to show the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 as a “Historical fact.”
Secondly, the ANF demonstrated in their writing what they believed doctrinally. We have their writing, so we know where they disagreed, and no one is saying that we should believe every word of what they teach. Yes, there were many differences doctrinally BUT, on the essentials, they agreed, there was no differences in what they believed is the Gospel. By mid-300’s they solidified those core doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and the 66 books of the New Testament, which demonstrates God was providentially involved. They codified these beliefs in a creed to abbreviate what they understood it meant to be a Christian, to give an answer for the hope that lives within them. To separate Christianity from the heresies of the day; Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Marcion, Docetism, and Nestorianism. To be consistent the FP must get rid of our New Testament and compose their own since it was gathered together by “uninspired men.”
It is safe to say that Preterist throw out the ANF because they simply all testified to a future Second Coming of Christ, post A.D. 70. Not because these men were not credible. To castigate them as not credible is an effort to mitigate their testimony is a complete sham. It is often repeated the writing of the ANF don’t count because they don’t need to learn from “uninspired men,” but again I find it completely hypocritical that uninspired men make videos and write books to teach their position but somehow, they are more authoritative than the men who lived through the events. This alone reveals the depravity of the position.
It should also be noted that if supreme evidence came forth for the late writing of the Revelation, as already commonly held, it would completely nullify all FP or PP claims once and for all. It would demonstrate nothing of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70 since the book was written some twenty-eight years later or so. It seems odd that an understanding of the infinite God’s word relies on a date.
Three essential timing issues are resolved based on the historical narrative at the onset of any discussion concerning eschatology but not without some controversy. The first issue resolved is that the events of AD 70 are a fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse which is based on the testimony of the ANF and other historians concerning the Jewish Wars. Secondly the dating of Revelation composition is justifiably the late date, and thirdly, the context of Revelation demonstrates the lack of fulfillment in any previous time period especially in AD 70.
What the ANF believed and taught concerning eschatological issues is clearly exhibited in what they wrote forming the fundamental beliefs propagated among the early churches. While many present-day scholars question the dating of Revelation composition[4] it was not seriously questioned at all by the ANF.
As to when Revelation was written, the current debate revolves around an early date for Neronic persecution between 64-68 AD or a later Domitian dating of 96-98 AD. The preponderance of the evidence rests upon a late date and the arguments presented against a Domitian dating are produced in the negative, with the notable absence of any such similar positive references for a Neronic date that can be found among the ANF.
Hitchcock and Robert Thomas, both present well fashioned and reasonable objections that contribute substantially sound analysis for the Domitianic date for Revelation composition. Yet fail in trying to harmonize the Olivet Discourse with the events of the Revelation narrative. The need for further study is articulated by Thomas Ice who admittedly recounts the growth seen among scholars toward a more preterist viewpoint.[5]
James McDonald in his work from 1869, Date of the Apocalypse assigns Revelation an early date based on his belief the context describes the destruction of Jerusalem.[6] Warren argues the same that based on the nature of fulfillment of prophecy it must come to pass “soon”, and so demands the book was written before AD 70 so that the events being described therein are of the destruction of Jerusalem.[7] By the time Russel came along in 1878 his book “The Parousia” is a continuation of the theme. Not to be outdone, Warren in 1886 repeated much of the same and Hampden -Cook followed up in 1894. In 1908 Hort advocated for an early date. Foy Wallace in 1966 again repeated many of the same arguments. Walvoord, Robinson, Chilton all espoused a similar view. Then again in 2005 Buttery states,
It is the view of this author that the signs given in the Olivet discourse dealt exclusively with events leading up to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, and that they correspond to the events described in the Book of Revelation.[8]
In 2006 Eberle and Trench wrote Victorious Eschatology with its latest version in 2022, putting forth a PP paradigm from a Pentecostal paradigm showing the growth and acceptance.
The partial Preterist view that sees the tragedies and destruction reported in Matthew 24 as all Ready fulfilled. We will study the book of Revelations and learn how all the enemies of Jesus are progressively being placed under his feet until the end when all the kingdoms of this earth become the Kingdom of our God throughout the coming pages we will see how the church rises in unity and power return of Jesus Christ.[9] (Postmillennialism)
This emphasizes the fact that these views continue to be propagated among scholars, unaware of the unintended consequences. From Revelation 1:9 it is acknowledged that John’s confession as to the circumstances surrounding his banishment to the Island of Patmos plays a significant role in the dating process. John reveals that he ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ, He was on the island of Patmos, when he received the vision so investigating as to when the ANF state that John was on the Island can be known and verified by two or three witnesses. The written evidence implies that John saw the vision while on the island, after leaving, or returning home, he composed the letter..[10] As to when in time this took place, the evidence is gleaned from those who wrote concerning John’s life in church history which most testify to that time being during the reign of Domitian.
Hitchcock takes note that the precarious position that the preterist posture has brought them to entirely hinges on the early date.[11] It does not seem likely that any eschatological paradigm should rise or fall based on the date of Revelation composition. The natural implication of course is that if Revelation was written after AD 70 then the events of Jerusalem destruction have nothing to do with the events foretold in the Revelation account.
[1]http://donkpreston.com/the-passing-of-the-law-of-moses-and-sam-frosts-increasing-desperation-1/
[2] FP argue that one person made the mistake of claiming John lived to 98-100 AD, and so everyone repeated the same with no substantiation for the claim.
[3]Polycarp life is well documented as to dying by Martyrdom by 120 A.D.
[4] See R. C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Max King, John Bray, Ed Stevens, and Walt Hibbard.
[5] Ice, Has Bible Prophecy, 2.
[6] James M. Mac Donald, D.D., “Date of the Apocalypse from Internal Evidence,” BSac Vol XXVI Jan 1869 Park, Edwards A. Taylor, (London: Samuel H. ED Warren Drapper Pub.) 461.
[7] Israel Warren, P. D.D. The Book of Revelation, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1886), 15.
[8] John M. II Buttery, The Book of Revelation A Brief Commentary and Study Guide. (Self-published, 2005): Pg 11.
[9] Harold R Eberle, Martin Trench, Victorious Eschatology, A Partial Preterist View, third ed. Yakima, WA, Worldcast Publishing, 2022, 75.
[10] This position is justified in Rev 1:9, where the verb γίνομαι indicates in a past tense that John was on the island but is no more at the time of his writing the book.
[11] Mark L. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/defense-domitianic-date-bookrevelation/docview/304957595/
[i] The ECF Apostasy?
Full Preterist, including Don Preston realizing the complete opposition the ECF present, they create the argument that the ECF having not recognized Jesus had returned is proof that they had fallen into apostasy, demonstrating a fundamental inconsistency in their ability to think through their own arguments. These same men they reject, were the ones who denied Jesus returned in A.D. 70 but were also the ones who harmonized the Trinity doctrine and the Incarnation doctrine. While many accept the Trinity doctrine, or technically that Jesus was God they are unable to theologically explain from scriptures with real clearness of how this theology is arrived at. Secondly the doctrine of Incarnation they accept as Jesus becoming a man, but they fail to accept Jesus became fully man and remains fully man with both natures. Preston argues that Jesus retained the knowledge of what it meant to be a man but is no longer a man in the sense of how man was created, which he argues that is how he can still be called “man” after his ascension. Which brings us to the third failure in their understanding theology. Man was created to be a “body – Spirit – and soul creation and that earth was created for the place for man and God to dwell face to face in relationship and to enjoy his creation that was made for us. In FP doctrine they have us in heaven for all of eternity “unclothed’ is a “spirit” body which means we have a “spiritual body” that’s not physical, not accepting that a “body”, since it houses a spiritual being, it becomes the tent that houses the spirit and therefore by nature the body of man is always physical.
Also, in their paradigm scriptures never talks about any events after A.D. 70, except the ongoing growth of the Kingdom of God. To say these men were in apostasy is to ignore their works and writing over a three-hundred-year time period, but that is exactly what Preston wants us to do. In the prior quote he said two things, to jettison church history and the creeds. He chose the works of men over the Word of God[i]. In COC culture from which Preston was raised (chapter ) their desire is to return to the first century church and all that follows after A.D. 70 is simply wrong, in their opinion, but the real irony is found in their rejection of the works of men over the Word of God[i], meaning Preston produces many books (works) and videos to teach his, “uninspired” message of what he thinks is the truth, while rejecting everything from the ECF who did the very same as he is now doing, producing works in opposition to heresy.