Stephen Whitsett BA
Giving an orthodox apologetic answer for Preterism / Dispensationalism
Why not Preterism?
Based on two years experience of written debate and discussion with preterists, these observations are made.

There are generally four forms of Preterism Hyper, Full, Partial, and Historic all views expressed on this web site fall under one of these categories.

There are three general categories for preterists: 1) The educated 2. the uneducated 3: the follower

Education in general is disregarded as non essential and personal study is accepted as more faithful than what is taught in Seminaries and Universities, those with "Orthodox" education are claimed to be are spit out clones who are unable to think on their own but are only indoctrinated into one set of beliefs yet they have never stepped foot into a place of higher education. (The follower)

Preterist leaders are known for their numerous books ( and some kind of a "liberal" degree) who often cite non Preterist sources for their apologetic yet rarely cite other Preterists in support of their own positions and will cite non Preterist sources in support of their specific point while they reject the rest of what they say. The reason being is there is only a handful of so called "Preterist" scholars in whom a majority can even agree on.

At the same time when experts are cited in support of a futurist position the charge against this approach is criticized for a lack of independent thinking, yet the factions with in Preterism are so diverse that very few agree on the same points and then they level the charge of futurism as being the same but in reality Orthodox is maintained by a common united theology of common agreement that has been maintained for some centuries, supported and maintained by a united front .

Its common to misrepresent Early Church Fathers as being Preterist when in reality they held to a partial idea that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfills the prophecy of Christ, yet the common creed of all ECF is they ALL believed in a future return and in a bodily resurrection of the dead with out exception. At times they will quote "heretical" teachers and present them as if they were or as if they were accepted as "orthodox". And often can not make the distinction between historical facts from doctrinal positions in ECF.

Very few preterists have a traditional theological background or understanding outside of the Church of Christ experience. Most have never been trained in proper hermeneutics but tend to repeat the misplaced definitions of the rules used by "leaders", perpetuating the same mistakes.
In debate and discussion I have been accused of "paying to much attention to the details" and "making it more of it than what it should be" meaning the smallest of phrases are every bit as important as the context in which it is spoken. When "metaphors" are applied over a verse it should not change the meaning of the verse.

Preterist commonly make statements they declare are facts yet when examined are proven false. Kurt Simmons and many others claim God never showed up "physically" in the Old Testament yet Exodus 24 describes that Moses and the elders saw and sat down with "the God of Israel" and ate and drank and no one died.

In any critical debate of key passages, the argument circles around the "allegorical" meaning applied by the Preterist as if that is the intent of the author. While they claim exegesis often phrases are demanded to be a "figure of speech" so the allegorical application can be used as the rule for interpretation.