Gary is a full preterist. I say that for two reasons:
(1) Regardless of the labels he accepts or rejects, both he and Kim are clearly teaching that the eschaton is tied exclusively to Old Testament Israel and that the consummation occurred in AD 70. They detach eschatology from world history, creation, and the broader redemptive narrative, restricting it solely to Israel's transition from the Old Covenant to the New. This is directly in line with the teachings of Max King and is characteristic of full (or hyper) preterism.
(2) Kim and Gary themselves acknowledge that their teaching “belongs in the camp generally referred to as ‘full preterism’” (The Hope of Israel and the Nations, p. xviii). They also refer to partial preterism as “inconsistent preterism” and “arbitrarily-bifurcated preterism” (The Hope of Israel and the Nations, p. xvii).
I thought Gary was a partial preterist?
Hello Joe,
Gary is a full preterist. I say that for two reasons:
(1) Regardless of the labels he accepts or rejects, both he and Kim are clearly teaching that the eschaton is tied exclusively to Old Testament Israel and that the consummation occurred in AD 70. They detach eschatology from world history, creation, and the broader redemptive narrative, restricting it solely to Israel's transition from the Old Covenant to the New. This is directly in line with the teachings of Max King and is characteristic of full (or hyper) preterism.
(2) Kim and Gary themselves acknowledge that their teaching “belongs in the camp generally referred to as ‘full preterism’” (The Hope of Israel and the Nations, p. xviii). They also refer to partial preterism as “inconsistent preterism” and “arbitrarily-bifurcated preterism” (The Hope of Israel and the Nations, p. xvii).