Lesson in Logic: Michael Sullivan's Preterism Charts

Absurdly Backed by Sam Frost

Back in June, I wrote a short blog¹ explaining why I can’t recommend former hyper-preterist Sam Frost for confronting hyper-preterism. Simply put, he contradicts himself. One moment, he says hyper-preterists can’t be “Reformed,” and the next, he calls one “Reformed.”² He shifts his message depending on the audience, much like a bad politician. (Or does that make one a good politician?)

Sam responded but didn’t address the contradictions—instead, he made things worse by fabricating things about me.

One such example is when he wrote, “Never forget, Jason is an ‘orthodox 70 Ader.’ 70 AD.  Jesus and Jerusalem and Titus; Great Tribulation.  Last Days.  The Beast and Harlot.  All Jerusalem and done and fulfilled.  Jesus just hasn’t raised the dead, yet (well, spiritually he has; from spiritual death).  70 AD.  Spiritual.  You do the math.”³

The truth is, most of what Sam said is false. And, unsurprisingly, he doesn’t quote me once. I haven’t fully decided if the “Great Tribulation” was limited to the first century, though I lean that way. I’ve made it clear in multiple public sermons on 1 Peter that I believe the “last days” stretch from Paul’s generation to the end of history. I’ve never commented on the harlot. In February 2012, I wrote a blog post on our site called “The Mark of the Beast,”⁴ arguing that the mark metaphorically represents allegiance to the messianic state—relevant both in the first century and for all generations since. Sam knew this was my position (he even commented on the post), and I’ve never changed my stance. I also don’t believe the only thing left is for Jesus to raise the dead, nor have I ever supported the idea of a “spiritual” resurrection from “spiritual death” in 70 AD.

Sam made all this up to look like the insider and “expert” on preterism to his Facebook audience. But he didnt’ stop there.

In the next paragraph, speaking of orthodox preterists, he wrote, “…my argument is that they have no biblical basis for their claims in spite of their claims that they do.  This is where I would sic Mike Sullivan on them with his charts which virtually show how putting all of these ‘orthodox preterists’ together (excuse me…’some’ of these orthodox preterist who ‘go to far’ together) would, logically, at least bring one to consider or hear out a hyper preterist, like Sullivan.  You can ignore Sullivan all you like, but he won’t go away.  Castigate and ridicule him all you want – but look at the work and those charts.  Look at them closely.  Ponder them.  He’s put a ton of work there.  And, I have to really put a gigantic boot on my ego to say this, because I ridiculed Mike in the past. I didn’t want to see it.  Ridicule (Jason’s method) is easier.  Engaging is harder. I engage.  Personally.  It gets messy.  Oh well.”⁵

The only true parts are that I’ve ridiculed hyper-preterist Michael Sullivan—rightly so—and that he refuses to go away. Michael claims that all Reformed seminaries are afraid to show these charts to their students because they supposedly confirm hyper-preterism as the true Reformed view, which is absurd and deserves ridicule. But Sam is twisting things by suggesting ridicule is all I’ve done. I’ve also engaged with Michael’s charts, but Sam refuses to acknowledge that—just like he won’t admit he fabricated the "All Jerusalem and done and fulfilled" bit, even while boasting about his own so-called engagement.

This brings us to the core issue of this post: Mike’s charts are logically flawed and the fact that Sam takes these charts seriously only reinforces my point about him—Sam’s “expert finger” can’t be trusted when it comes to “all things Hyper and ‘partial’ Preterism...”⁶

I’ve previously explained Mike’s fallacies, but it’s buried in a long post with a bunch of other things. Since I’ve been asked to highlight it separately, here it is.

Let’s start by examining one of the main charts in question. Let’s “Look at [it] closely. Ponder [it],” shall we?

The Chart

Analysis

As you can see, there are three sections to this image. I’ll call them the header, the columns, and the footer.

The Header

Right off the bat, we have problems.

First, I want to point out how Mike categorizes all the perspectives that aren't SG (Sovereign Grace) Full Preterism as “Futurism,” although he labels the views of Terry, DeMar, and Gentry as “Partial Preterism” in the columns and footer. So, which is it? Futurism and Preterism are not the same. You might see this as a minor detail, but hyper-preterists often play these word games to confuse people and minimize the distinctions between various orthodox views. By grouping these different perspectives under the term "Futurism," the header implies that they are all essentially alike, suggesting that dismissing one type of futurism—like amillennialism or postmillennialism—is as straightforward as dismissing another, such as premillennialism. For example, when I mentioned to hyper-preterist Don Preston that the fulfillment of the land inheritance will ultimately occur when believers “inherit the earth” in the coming age, he brushed it off as “dispensationalism.” Since we all agree that dispensationalism is incorrect, he concluded that my statement about the inheritance must also be incorrect. It seems straightforward, but it's not. Inheriting the earth is not exclusive to dispensationalism, but Preston wants you to think it is in order to avoid engaging.

Sam, who seemingly hasn’t abandoned some of these old heretical tactics, plays the same game with postmillennial preterists. If you search his Facebook profile, you’ll find several instances where he labels Gary DeMar as a “full fledged hyper preterist” or “full preterist,” and he’s correct in doing so. However, when Sam aims to criticize postmillennial preterism, he promotes a “little gem” from hyper-preterist Tim Martin that claims Gary DeMar is teaching a “brand new form of Partial Preterism.” Again, all this accomplishes is confuse people and diminish the nuanced differences between perspectives, making it easier to dismiss or critique them without engaging in a substantive discussion.

Dig up just about any study bible or popular commentary on the book of Revelation, and you won’t find such slop. Instead, you’ll find something similar to what is found in the Reformation Study Bible:

Four basic approaches have been taken to the question how the visions of Revelation relate to the unfolding history of the church between Christ’s first and second comings and beyond to the general resurrection, last judgment, and new heavens and earth. Interpreters disagree concerning the period of time in which the visions of 6:1–18:24 are fulfilled and the chronological relationships of the visions to one another and to the events or eras they represent.

Preterism says fulfillment of most of these visions occurred, from our perspective, in the past specifically in the fall of Jerusalem (if Revelation was written in a.d. 67–68), the fall of the Roman Empire, or both. Preterist interpreters appeal to assertions that the matters portrayed in the visions will occur “soon” because “the time is near” (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10).

Futurism holds that the visions of chs. 6–18 will occur in a period of final crisis just before the second coming, noting that chs. 19–22 foretell the second coming of Christ with its accompanying events: general resurrection, last judgment, replacement of the first heavens and earth by a new heavens and earth. According to futurism, the traumas portrayed in the preceding chapters lead up to the history-consummating events of chs. 19–22.

Historicism asserts that 6:1–18:24 offers a basically chronological outline of the course of church history from the first century (6:1) until the second coming (19:11), with the sequence of the visions and sevenfold cycles of visions correlating directly to the order of the events or eras they symbolize.

Idealism says the visions of Revelation represent trends and forces, often spiritual and thus invisible, that are engaged in the ongoing warfare of the kingdom of God with the devil’s kingdom of darkness, warfare that continues between the victory won by Christ in His suffering and exaltation and His glorious bodily return. The visions depict not specific events but ongoing and repeated principles and patterns in this spiritual war. The principles are operative throughout the church age and may have repeated embodiments, and the visions provide complimentary perspectives on the same church age rather than a chronologically successive calendar of events (see Literary Features above).⁷

This terminology has been common for as long as I can remember. There’s no reason to distort it with labels like Mike’s “partial preterism futurism” or Sam’s “Hyper Postmillennial Partial Preterism” unless you have an agenda.

The second issue I notice in the header—once again involving word games—is Mike’s use of the phrase “Reformed and always reforming.”

Ever since Mike co-authored House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology with David Green, Edward Hassertt, and Sam Frost, he has been eager to argue that hyper-preterism is the logical, harmonized outcome of Reformed eschatology. On one hand, he wants to align himself with Reformed theology and gain recognition within that framework—he wants a seat at the table. However, it’s telling that he refers to his position as “Sovereign Grace Full Preterism” rather than simply calling it “Reformed.” Why not? Perhaps he realizes, at some level, that his views don’t genuinely qualify as Reformed. Just consider how he describes his relationship to Reformed theology in one of his core defenses of “Sovereign Grace Full Preterism”:

Many assume just because someone believes in the doctrines of grace (5 points of Calvinism – as I do), he or she must be “Reformed.”  This is simply misguided.  One can affirm the sovereign and free grace of God (monergism) and NC theology, while at the same time rejecting the legalism that comes from Reformed theology on such issues as keeping the Sabbath/Lord’s Day etc…  We will be addressing such issues as when all of the jots and tittles of the OC law were fulfilled, the Sabbath and the arrival of the mature state of the NC – in a way “Reformed” theology has not been able to exegetically address.⁸

I agree with Sullivan on one point: he’s not Reformed, despite Sam Frost’s recent claim that he is. But if that’s the case, why does he continue to use the phrase “Reformed and always reforming”? The answer seems clear: he’s borrowing the language and credibility of the Reformed tradition to validate his position while discarding essential elements of it. Sullivan embraces doctrines like monergism and the sovereignty of grace (even that is debatable) but rejects foundational practices, such as Sabbath observance, that are central to Reformed theology. His use of the phrase “Reformed and always reforming” isn’t about faithful reform—it’s an attempt to gain legitimacy while redefining Reformed tradition to fit his hyper-preterist views.

Mike’s misuse of the phrase “Reformed and always reforming” twists it into nonsense. Being “Reformed” carries real meaning—it refers to a particular theological tradition grounded in numerous doctrines. It reflects a commitment to specific confessional standards, such as the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity. However, Mike uses the slogan as a justification for reshaping Reformed theology into something unrecognizable.

The original intent behind “always reforming” (or semper reformanda) is not an invitation to endlessly alter core doctrines or reject foundational practices. Rather, it’s a call to remain faithful to Scripture, correcting errors when necessary, while staying within the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy. Mike, however, uses the phrase as a license to dismantle key aspects of the tradition—such as the Sabbath/Lord’s Day observance, progressive sanctification, glorification, the return of Christ, and the resurrection—while promoting hyper-preterist views that directly contradict the heart of Reformed eschatology. These denials go beyond being un-Reformed; they aren’t even considered within the bounds of historic Christianity.

By doing so, he undermines the integrity of the Reformed tradition. If you reform to the point that your theology no longer reflects the essential marks of being Reformed, then the phrase “Reformed and always reforming” becomes a hollow excuse for reinventing the tradition to suit personal agendas. Mike’s version of “reforming” stretches the term beyond recognition, making the slogan incoherent. Instead of reforming within the tradition, he abandons it, while still trying to borrow its credibility.

These men are snakes. They are deceitful. They are exactly the type of men Peter warned about in 2 Peter 2.1-3:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.

And be wary of men like Sam Frost, who play right into this deception. There’s something deeply troubling about a so-called Reformed “scholar” who sees all of this yet still insists on affirming a hyper-preterist as “Reformed” just to take pot shots at Reformed men who align with postmillennialism and/or orthodox preterism.

The Columns

Since the core argument of the chart is found in the footer, and the columns simply show how different figures have interpreted certain passages, I won’t go into much detail here. However, it’s important to note that Gary DeMar is not a “partial preterist.” While he may have been when this chart was created (though even that is debatable), it’s clear that he no longer holds that position.

Also, notice that there are no references to a future second coming (“SC”) in Milton Terry’s column. Based on the chart’s data, Terry clearly doesn’t belong in the “futurist” camp. In fact, the chart shows that his views align almost entirely with full preterism, with no indication that he affirmed a future second coming. So why is he included? This is just a desperate and disingenuous attempt to present Terry as a “partial preterist” in order to create a bridge to hyper-preterism. Whether Terry was a “full preterist” or not is beside the point. The issue is that, according to the chart, his views align with full preterism, yet he’s categorized under “futurism.” This only highlights how desperate Mike is to force these connections.

The Footer

Finally, let’s “look closely” and “ponder” the argument in the footer. Are there any flaws in it, or is there truly something to “see,” as Sam Frost insists?

The header introduces the argument with a biased setup, implying that the differences between these positions are minor and ultimately harmonize into a full preterist conclusion. The data in the columns oversimplifies these views, glossing over critical contradictions between them. And then finally, the syllogism found in the footer tries to drive the point home by framing full preterism as the logical outcome of these competing perspectives within futurism.

The major premise, derived from the last column's data, summarizes “Classic Amillennialism & Historic Premillennialism” as asserting that “the Bible teaches there is only one Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the dead event to occur at the end of the age (classic Amillennial and Historic Premillennial views)."⁹

The minor premise, based on columns 3-5, summarizes “Partial Preterism” by stating “BUT Christ came spiritually in His contemporary ‘this generation’ (AD 30 - AD 70) and thus ‘soon’ to close the Old Covenant age in AD 70 - at which time there was a spiritual judgment and resurrection of the living and dead (Partial Preterism).”

The conclusion that Mike (and Sam) believe logically follows from these two premises, as reflected in the second column, is the “Sovereign Grace Full Preterist” view. This view states that “therefore, the Bible teaches there was only one Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the dead event and it was fulfilled spiritually at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70.”

Mike summarizes this perspective by stating, “As one can see, the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist view is a synthesis or organic development (‘Reformed and always reforming’) of these two Reformed views of eschatology.”¹⁰

Now stop for just a second and think about what Mike (and Sam) are saying. Mike has presented a syllogism, which is a logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two premises that are asserted or assumed to be true.

As I mentioned earlier, I have already addressed a number of problems with this argument that neither Mike nor Sam have responded to. My observations were included in another post along with various other points, which gave Sam the excuse to dismiss them as a mere “personal” vendetta. However, I must reiterate the key question: does Mike’s conclusion logically follow from the premises? While Sam may continue to rant and lie about my beliefs, even attributing false motives such as jealousy, the fundamental question remains, and neither he nor Mike has addressed it.

This is a question that anyone with even a basic understanding of logic can address. You don't need to be a hyper-preterist, an amillennialist, or even a Christian to engage with it. Deductive logic operates according to specific rules, and the argument presented by Mike and endorsed by Sam can be evaluated based on whether or not they have adhered to those rules. Logic is impartial and universal; it applies to everyone, regardless of their beliefs. Thus, the crux of the matter lies in the soundness of their reasoning, not in their theological positions. Ultimately, if their argument does not follow the established principles of deductive logic, it cannot be considered valid, regardless of their intentions or perspectives.

Does the conclusion logically follow from the premises?

The answer is a resounding no! There are numerous fatal flaws here.

In syllogistic reasoning, the relationship between the terms in the premises and the conclusion is crucial for the validity of an argument. The sharing of terms between the premises and conclusion and the absence of a middle term from the conclusion contribute to the progression of an inference. The terms "major premise" and "minor premise," as used by Mike—though not understood—derive their names from the presence of the "major" and "minor" terms within them. The major premise includes the major term, which serves as the predicate of the conclusion, while the minor premise contains the minor term, which functions as the subject of the conclusion. The middle term, which appears in both premises but not in the conclusion, serves as the bridge connecting the major and minor terms.

A classic syllogism follows this structure:

1. Major Premise: All A are B (where B is the major term).

2. Minor Premise: All C are A (where C is the minor term).

3. Conclusion: Therefore, all C are B.

The connection through the middle term is essential because it links the major and minor premises, allowing for the inference that if C belongs to A and A belongs to B, then C must also belong to B. This chain of reasoning creates a logical connection between the two premises and leads to the conclusion. Moreover, by not including the middle term in the conclusion, the argument avoids circular reasoning; instead, the conclusion directly connects the minor and major terms based on their relationship established by the middle term. This absence clarifies that the conclusion is a new statement derived from the premises rather than a mere repetition of them.

Take a look again at Mike’s argument.

1. Major Premise: "The Bible teaches there is only one Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection of the dead event to occur at the end of the age."

2. Minor Premise: "BUT Christ came spiritually in His contemporary 'this generation' (AD 30 - AD 70) and thus 'soon' to close the Old Covenant age in AD 70—at which time there was a spiritual judgment and resurrection of the living and dead."

3. Conclusion: "Therefore, the Bible teaches there was only one Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection of the dead event, and it was fulfilled spiritually at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70."

The major premise asserts that a singular, physical event occurs at the end of the age, while the minor premise claims that a spiritual coming and judgment took place within a specific historical context. However, these two premises lack a shared term that would logically connect them. Instead of presenting two premises that share a middle term to facilitate a progression of inference, the conclusion simply restates both premises without any logical development. As a result, the argument becomes circular; it begs the question by assuming what it seeks to prove without establishing any logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Furthermore, it is not even possible for the argument to share any proper terms—whether major, minor, or middle—because the key terms in the premises mean different things within their respective contexts.

In the Major Premise, the phrases "Second Coming," "judgment," and "resurrection of the dead" refer to a singular, final eschatological event traditionally understood to occur at the end of history (“end of the age”). This event marks the closure of the age and ushers in the New Creation. Here, the coming is visible and physical, the judgment involves all people in the flesh, the resurrection of the dead is both physical and bodily, and the New Creation involves a restoration of the earth. In contrast, the Minor Premise reinterprets these same terms to describe a “spiritual” event within a specific historical context—specifically, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This reinterpretation portrays the event as the fulfillment of a promised end that has no connection at all to the “end” defined in the Major Premise.

Because the terms are redefined between the two premises, they cannot function as consistent terms for the purpose of logical inference. In a proper syllogism, the middle term (which would appear in both premises but not in the conclusion) must have the same meaning to link the major and minor premises logically. However, in this argument, even though the same words ("came/coming," "judgment," "resurrection") appear, they do not share the same meaning across both premises. As a result, there is no consistent middle term to bridge the premises, which makes the inference invalid.

This semantic shift between the premises results in an equivocation fallacy, where the argument subtly alters the meanings of key terms between the premises to arrive at a conclusion. Consequently, the conclusion merely restates the initial assumptions, presenting them with a superficial semblance of logical form while failing to provide any genuine progression from the premises to the conclusion. Instead of demonstrating how the event described in the Major Premise aligns with the historical events of AD 70 mentioned in the Minor Premise, the argument presupposes this alignment without establishing any substantial connection between the two. Furthermore, this lack of connection is unavoidable because the two premises define the key terms in fundamentally different ways! As a result, the argument not only fails to meet the criteria for valid inference but also begs the question by assuming what it seeks to prove without offering supporting evidence or coherent reasoning.

If that went over your head a little, let me offer a classic example of equivocation to illustrate the issue. You’ll quickly see the problem:

1. Major Premise: A feather is light.

2. Minor Premise: What is light cannot be dark.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

"Light" is the middle term here because it appears in both premises but not in the conclusion. Again, the function of the middle term is to link the major and minor premises logically, enabling the progression to the conclusion. However, the argument commits the fallacy of equivocation because the term "light" shifts in meaning. In the major premise, "light" refers to weight. In the minor premise, "light" refers to brightness.

Since the two uses of "light" do not have the same meaning, the middle term fails to establish a valid logical connection between the premises, rendering the conclusion invalid.

Mike’s argument not only fails to present a proper middle term but also shifts the meanings of all key terms between the major and minor premises. In the major premise, these terms suggest a singular, future, and physical event that signifies the end of history. In contrast, the minor premise reinterprets them to refer to a spiritualized, past event associated with the conclusion of the Old Covenant age.

This shift in meaning creates an illusion of logical coherence, similar to the feather analogy, yet the argument ultimately falls apart because the terms do not retain the same meaning across the premises. This equivocation prevents the premises from logically supporting the conclusion, rendering the argument invalid. In fact, Mike’s argument is even less structured than the feather analogy. It resembles a faulty syllogism like this:

1. Major Premise: A feather is light.

2. Minor Premise: What is light cannot be dark.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, a feather is light, and what is light cannot be dark.

In this case, rather than providing a meaningful inference, the conclusion merely restates the premises without offering any real logical progression, all the while equivocating on the term “light.”

If you “look closely” and “ponder” the argument, you’ll notice that the very first word in the minor premise hints at an equivocation—apparently unknowingly on Mike’s part. The minor premise begins with the word “but” immediately after the major premise is presented. The use of “but” signals a contrast or opposition between the two premises, even though they use similar terms. If the premises oppose one another, how can they logically “synthesize” to support the conclusion? They can’t.

According to the principle of non-contradiction, two contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time. If the major and minor premises offer fundamentally conflicting views, they cannot produce a valid conclusion that depends on both premises being correct.

The major premise claims that the Bible teaches one future, physical Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection of the dead event that will mark the end of history. However, the minor premise counters this by asserting that Christ's coming was spiritual and already took place within "this generation" (AD 30–70), closing the Old Covenant age. This creates a direct contradiction: the major premise points to a future physical fulfillment, while the minor premise claims it has already occurred spiritually in the past. The two premises, therefore, cannot logically work together to support the conclusion.

In other words, Mike (and Sam) want you to believe the absurd notion that two contradictory propositions can both be true simultaneously.

If Mike (and Sam) were genuinely honest with themselves and us, they would acknowledge that Mike doesn’t actually accept the truth of the first premise as articulated by “classic Amillennial and Historic Premillennial views.” This premise directly contradicts the principles of “full preterism,” which he advocates. Instead of genuinely engaging with the major premise, Mike effectively dismisses it while equivocating on key terms, which allows him to obscure the contradictions inherent in his argument.

By using the same terminology in a manner that shifts its meaning between the premises, he attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes, leading them to believe there is a logical connection when there is none. Rather than reconciling these “conflicting” views, he simply cherry picks what he likes, reiterating the minor premise without addressing its inconsistency with the major premise.

Sam was aware of this at one time. In his 2012 book, Why I Left Full Preterism, he stated: [bold mine]

However, as I have shown in this book, the costs for becoming a full preterist are far greater than I first imagined. Anthropology, Christology, Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Eschatology are all affected in major ways—overahauled even- so that by the time these things were worked out, I realized I was no longer even remotely operating within a classical Christian setting, much less a Reformed one! I had to redefine several foundational aspects within these subjects in order for full preterism to remain afloat. It was, for me, a question of how much. I had given up the resurrection of the body, the end of history, and a final judgment. I had removed progressive sanctification. I spiritualized the fulfillment so that God’s creation never comes into the fullness of redemption (reinterpreting passages like Romans 8:18 ff.). I was on the verge of leaving the idea of ‘organized church’, settling for ‘Bible studies’ instead. I flirted with Universalism, Open Theism, and Process Theology. I rejected the continuing enfleshment of Jesus Christ ‘in heaven.’ How far was I going to continue to compromise the Christian encyclopedia and yet still call myself a Reformed Christian?

Now? Michael Sullivan continues to equivocate and construct flawed syllogisms, while Sam believes he’s onto something—primarily to take potshots at postmillennialists and “partial preterists.” Meanwhile, he completely overlooks that Sullivan’s arguments also rely on “Classical Amillennialism” and non-preterist views, as stated in the major premise. You'll never see Sam promote Mike's chart and say, “See that? Classic Amillennialism leads to full preterism,” even though that is precisely how Mike employs the major premise. I doubt you'll ever see Sam address any of this: the false claim to be “Reformed and always reforming,” the equivocation, the deceptive acceptance of the Major Premise as true, the lack of a middle term, and the question begging. Can Sam take just one row and explain how two views (Classic Amillennialism and Partial Preterism) that conflict on a particular verse can be magically synthesized to logically lead to a conclusion that directly contradicts at least one of those views, all without equivocation?

He seems to find it easier to fabricate claims about those who dare to criticize him than to address the logical flaws in Sullivan's argument, all to maintain the self-promoted reputation he has built as an “expert” in all things preterism.

1. Jason Bradfield, “Why I Don’t Recommend Sam Frost,” Reformation Blog, accessed October 24, 2024, https://www.reformation.blog/p/why-i-dont-recommend-sam-frost.

2. “123: Former Full Preterist Sam Frost Speaks Out (DTE #11),” YouTube video, 42:11, posted by Do Theology, April 9, 2024, https://youtu.be/6YesbtFjou8?si=A8hZhhZ8CgXjJTiy&t=2531

3. Sam Frost, “Why Jason Bradfield Is Just Plain Wrong,” Vigil Blog, June 4, 2024, https://vigil.blog/2024/06/04/why-jason-bradfield-is-just-plain-wrong/.

4. “The Mark of the Beast,” archived webpage, Reign of Christ, February 18, 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/20120218012253/http://thereignofchrist.com/the-mark-of-the-beast/.

5. Frost, “Why Jason Bradfield Is Just Plain Wrong.”

6. I’m using Sam’s wording from an October 1st Facebook post, where he endorses Tim Martin’s claim that Gary DeMar is a “partial-preterist,” despite knowing full well that DeMar is actually a full-preterist (or hyper-preterist) and has called him such many times.

7. Sproul, R. C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015.

8. Michael Sullivan, “A Sovereign Grace Full Preterist Confession of Faith & Commentary,” accessed October 24, 2024, https://fullpreterism.com/a-sovereign-grace-full-preterist-confession-of-faith/.

9. We’re going to ignore the fact that Mike is wrong about Historic Premillennialism. Historic Premillennialism seperates the resurrection of believers from the resurrection of unbelievers by a thousand years.

10. Michael Sullivan, “A Sovereign Grace Full Preterist Confession of Faith & Commentary.”