The author's point. He's saying that, in his experience, preterists are busy spreading the points of preterism. I wouldn't argue with him about his experience?
Experience is a weak argument. Fanatics exist on all sides of an argument. There are Rapture-obsessed Dispensationialists who are so narrowly focused on the Rapture that it colors their every exegesis. (I grew up heavily influenced by such people.)
So, frankly, bollucks to his experience. I have mine too - it doesn't prove diddley-squat.
Natch. He probably knows about as many preterists and their personal evangelistic habits as you do.
As a seasoned veteran of the PCA, I can tell you that I’m not very impressed when folks bring up that tired argument, whether it be used against preterism, postmillennialism, strict subscriptionism, theonomy, even good, old-fashion Southern Presbyterianism. The speaker is more-often-than-not clueless.
Is that the best you can offer in criticism of preterism? Somebody's experience?!?
Funny how you would go to such great lengths to defend a statement by the author that has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural and doctrinal issues at stake. Rather than focusing on the issue of preterism in light of Scripture, you're bent on defending this guy's unquestionable "experience" regarding the behavior of preterists (even though his experience is easily demonstrable as not being indicative of how many preterists actually behave).
Is this guilt-by-association argument really that important to you?