The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Partial Preterist

Having now read Dr. Englsma's article, I should warn eveyone that Dr. E. misses a major distinction, and his omission nullifies his entire argument. He is conflating two separate positions, Orthodox preterism, which has been recognized as orthodox since at least the Westminster Assembly and "consistent," "full" or "hyper" preterism which is relatively novel and a definite heresy.<br>The differences between the two positions are reasonably well summed up by Sandlin's letter (which Englsma thankfully quotes).<br>To charge as Englsma does that inconsistent preterism must lead to full blown preterism is an error in logic. It is the same error as assuming that holding to Cavinistic soteriology inevitably leads to Antinomianism.