Careful, or the R-M might slap you hand.
Since the author equivocates on the definition of "preterism" that he himself offers, the question is against whom does the charge apply?
Certainly not the "partial preterist" by his own statement, "Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead".
And he makes it clear that it is only the "full preterist" variety that is not orthodox.
So the question becomes, "where's the beef?"
BTW, this is a very poor article for the president of a bible college to be authoring. Clearly the PCA does not have its best and brightest out front on this matter. But why should they, since preterism in the orthodox variety is not an issue for the PCA. Sounds more like a hobby horse for this fellow.
Specious statements such as, "I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel ..." is just plain silly, until the author has polled the entire universe of preterists and objectively documented their convictions in this area.
Not only silly, but off by 180 degrees since most orthodox (partial) preterists are postmillennial and believe that the Great Commission must and will be fulfilled by the God-ordained spread of the Gospel and all the confidence and glory with which it comes.
He clearly said, “I have yet to meet....”
Reading, reading,.....
"I have yet to meet a [Calvinist] whose focus is on church ministry or the spreading of the Gospel...."
I've heard that before too. It's bogus argumentation in that context, and it's bogus here.
I have no dog in this fight, being more amillennial than postmillennial. Even so, this article bothers me.
I also remain unimpressed by angelfire.com websites. When I was a high school kid, I had an angelfire.com website. I sure didn't know what I was talking about either.