the following rant with yet another jab at Jason is found here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2013/10/life-after-full-preterism.html
While I was a full preterist I would argue that people who leave that perspective really have no place to go. I mean, if per full preterism it is the full revelation of God's Word; then what happens if you leave that revelation? Do you go back to something "partially revealed/fulfilled"? Do you conclude that since Christianity apparently got eschatology wrong for 2000 years, if full preterism is wrong; then Christianity itself is a sham and you become an atheist? I just couldn't see what life after full preterism looked like.
Some full preterists argue that to be consistent, a person MUST either be a full preterist or a Roman Catholic. This is almost the original Roman Catholic position in reverse where the a person would be considered a "heretic" unless they were Roman Catholic. Martin Luther challenged this idea when his professor Andreas Karlstadt proposed it. Luther asked how the entire Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church could be considered heretics considering they were even older than the Roman Catholic Church. Karlstadt had no answer and the rest is history even with Karlstadt becoming more radical than Luther.
So, what happens to people when they "leave full preterism"? Do they become more liberal? Do they become atheists? Roman Catholics? "Partial-Preterists"? The next stop after full preterism is varied, but many people once they have spent time passionately believing and espousing full preterism and then leave it are never really the same. How could they be, after all they were so certain they finally found the truth. How could they return to the "lie" or at least a half-truth of "futurism"?
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE TIME TEXTS
Perhaps the biggest question for former full preterists is what do they do with the time texts? It seems so clear that the Bible is teaching about a soon/at hand coming of Jesus so do we just forget about all that?
No, but the problem is that we have applied the false full preterist premise/narrative to the time texts. There is no denying the imminent tone of the time texts, however the question should be what does the Bible mean when it talks about Jesus' "coming". If you're keen, you will pick up on how many full preterists (and Left-Behinders) will use the words "coming" and "return" interchangeably. Therein is the problem. Jesus WAS about to/at hand/soon/shortly/within the disciples' generation "come" -- but that is NOT a return to earth.
Compare Dan 7:13-15 to Matt 26:64 and you will see what I'm talking about. Jesus was "coming" into glory and vindication as the Messiah. He was "about to come in/on/with" the clouds TO the Father/Ancient of Days/God. And this is exactly how the bulk of Christianity has understood the time texts...until the Dispensationalists came along and until the full or hyperpreterist over-reaction to Left Behind Dispensationalism.
CONCLUSION
While I've known and seen some former full preterists become functional atheists, even if they still claim to be "Christian" or I have seen them latch on to another "ism" such as Sam Frost and Jason Bradfield latching onto Talbotism; there really is no need to be tossed to and fro. Full Preterism was not the last stop in theology, as a matter of fact it was a serious and erroneous detour that was leading people into the ghetto of religion where the players make up their own rules (such as rules of interpretation), and where you are likely to be violently accosted by its adherents if you don't behave the way they expect you should.
Just get back to historic Christianity -- the Christianity BEFORE all the Dispensationalism Left Behindism with all its rapturous people floating through the air and its constant embarassing date setting. Get back to historic Christianity BEFORE all of Partial-Preterist incestuous good-ole boy clubs with their propping up of each other's inconsistent theology that actually leads people to hyperpreterism. Get back to historic Christianity BEFORE the radical individualism and over (ie hyper) reactionism of hyperpreterism where every person seems to have a "private interpretation" that is outside the scope of anything that has ever been considered Christianity.
I urge you reader, to take a minimal approach where your personal "creed" is the very minimum of all Christian creeds -- and creed simply means belief, or a statement of belief. Ask yourself what you believe on the minimal questions within Christianity? Questions such as:
The infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as represented by the overall translations.
The nature and effect of the Fall on humanity
Human Freewill vs God's Sovereignty
Jesus' nature (fully man and fully God)
The concept of the Trinity
The Kingdom's present state/effect
Get these things pinned down and see how your personal creed compares to the bulk of historic Christianity before latching on to other things. So many people are ready to "run on ahead" 2 John 1:9 before they even know what they're talking about. If your personal creed/beliefs are out of sync with historic Christianity, then you probably aren't "Christian" -- and no, I'm not talking about whether you are saved or not -- that's between you and God. If your beliefs are radically different than the bulk of Christianity, then you are no more "Christian" than a person born and living in America claiming to be an American while they are espousing open Communism. Communism is NOT an American belief anymore than hyperpreterism is a Christian belief.
So, there is life after full preterism if you don't latch onto some other ism or fall into atheism. Be a Christian!
