Introduction – The Authority of the Creeds?
Gary DeMar recently visited Moscow, Idaho, where he appeared on the CrossPolitic podcast to promote his new book on Greg Bahnsen and presuppositional apologetics. During the visit, the hosts confronted DeMar with a widely discussed three-question letter, signed by several individuals, seeking clarity on his views regarding a future physical bodily return of Christ and a future physical bodily resurrection of the Church at the so-called “end of time.” Following this intense discussion, DeMar interviewed Doug Wilson about his recent CNN appearance. Wilson had originally hoped to discuss presuppositionalism and full preterism with DeMar, but since that topic was not covered during their conversation, Wilson shared his thoughts in a subsequent article. This piece responds to Wilson’s article on the matter.
As usual, Wilson’s arguments against Full Preterism are incoherent and unconvincing. In this response, I will briefly critique his recent article, which seeks to undermine the imminent AD 70 fulfillment of Christ’s coming in glory to judge the living and the dead (see his article cited below).
Wilson begins by appealing to the authority of creeds and confessions, treating them as unassailable in matters of eschatology. His stance aligns with Kenneth Gentry’s view, which regards the creeds as “infallibly certain” on this point, leaving no room for reevaluation. This presupposition is not only circular but also echoes a Roman Catholic approach, elevating human tradition above Scripture and stifling biblical inquiry. Doug Wilson and Ken Gentry replace Rome’s claimed authority with that of Reformed creeds and confessions. Rome asserts we cannot read and interpret Scripture independently—say, under a tree with just me and my Bible—without first submitting to its authority as the supposed source and interpreter of God’s Word. Similarly, Wilson and Gentry suggest we cannot interpret Scripture freely without first accepting the “infallibly certain” authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and other creeds, which they claim have already provided the definitive interpretation for us when it comes to eschatology.
Such a position reeks of hypocrisy, particularly given the significant exegetical concessions partial preterists, including Wilson, have made to Full Preterism over the years on key texts and interpretations. While we commend these shifts, I will argue they fall short of fully embracing Scripture’s consistent implications.
For example, at what point did “orthodox” theology permit texts such as Daniel 12:1–4; Matthew 13:39-43; 16:27–28, 24:27–30, 25:31; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1–19, 21–22; Hebrews 1:10–12, 6:5 SLT, 10:37; 1 Peter 4:5–7, 17; 1 Corinthians 1:5–8, 10:11, 2 Thessalonians 1-2, among others, to be understood by partial preterism as fulfilled in AD 70? And how do these concessions align with the futurist framework of the creeds and confessions Wilson defends? These questions expose the inconsistency of partial preterism, which selectively adopts preterist interpretations while clinging to creedal futurism, creating a theological tension that demands resolution. Moreover, the Church continues to grow in recognizing the AD 70 fulfillment of imminent time texts (Preterism) but needing to employ the analogy of faith with such scriptures as Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17; 1 Corinthians 15; and Revelation 20:7–13. Wilson would have us believe these texts are isolated from those he and other partial preterists have conceded to AD 70, but this is simply not the case. Full Preterism’s strength lies in harmonizing these passages through rigorous exegesis, and the Church will increasingly embrace this position as it consistently “shows its exegetical work.”
We have reminded Wilson and Gentry that their reliance on creedal authority mirrors the circular reasoning of Roman Catholicism. Rome dismissed Martin Luther’s doctrine of forensic justification as too novel, arguing it deviated from the Church’s “infallibly certain” position and thus could not be studied or embraced. Similarly, Wilson and Gentry echo John Eck’s flawed arguments, offering little substantive engagement with Scripture beyond dogmatic assertions. They imply that one cannot interpret Scripture independently without accepting creedal authority, much like Rome’s claim that Protestants have no right to interpret Scripture without submitting to its authority—a concept the Reformation rejected. Even Wilson’s ally, James White, opposes this presupposition and circularity when debating Catholics. Yet, Wilson presupposes the creeds’ authority, suggesting full preterists must accept it before they can exegete or interpret Scripture [“under a tree”], effectively barring them from challenging the “infallibly certain” reformed creeds. Wilson seems convinced this stance is a profound insight that he was eager to share with Gary–but just never got the chance.
Here are some quotes from our chapter response to Wilson from our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, from Chapter Six, “A Creedal Objection to Wilson’s Creedalism”?
[BEGIN QUOTES] Wilson admits that the eschatological confession of the church “had not been adequately studied” when the Nicene Creed was framed (When Shall These Things Be?, page 272). He also admits that it is “quite true” that even to the present day, the church “hasn’t thoroughly debated eschatology yet” (256). Yet Wilson says that futurism is a “settled” truth (256).Wilson’s fear and opposition to a church debate on eschatology in light of God’s word is clearly irrational. It is comparable to the statist opposition to scriptural examinations of justification in the Reformation. The Reformers’ calls for debate concerning justification by faith were met with Papist scorn and fear, and ultimately with severe persecution.
Wilson refuses to entertain the idea that if it was proper for Calvin, as a matter of conscience, to challenge the long-standing creeds and authorities, it could be, if only in principle, proper for preterists to do the same. Though Wilson stands on the theological shoulders of those who have made such historic challenges, he stands against us with a closed Bible in one hand (offering no scriptural arguments for his creedalism), and the sword of the church militant in the other. Thankfully for us, Calvin did not disport himself in the same way.
Wilson acknowledges that the creeds are fallible, and he admits that “fallibility means that the capacity for error is there . . .” (264). But then the question arises, which Wilson never addresses: If the possibility for error is there, must it not then be legitimate to test the creeds to see if error actually is there or not? If so, by what standard would we do that? By Scripture of course, had Wilson not removed that possibility from us.
Wilson says that when the church confesses the truth that Jesus is Lord in one of her creeds, the confession has value and authority and “we are called to submit to the authority.” Wilson then adds, “The ground of this authority lies in the fact that what they confessed was scriptural and resonated with God’s revelation of himself in Scripture” (266). Yet when it comes to eschatological doctrines which, according to Wilson’s own admission, have not been adequately studied or debated (256, 272), Wilson does not allow for the testing of those doctrines, making his claim of authority based on scriptural truth utterly vacuous. . . .
Wilson quotes the Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton who said that “there are some things too old to patronize [i.e., dismiss with condescension]” (267). It is hard to imagine why this statement would be true, or how it advances Wilson’s argument. Was the Roman Catholic Church too old to patronize when Calvin spoke out? What is the magic year when something becomes too old to patronize? At what time are the church’s actions and doctrines no longer subject to the evaluation and testing of Scripture? Because Wilson, as a Reformed pastor, must agree that 1,500 years was not enough time, is it 1,700 years, 2,000 years, or just the year before someone disagreeing with Wilson’s eschatology comes forward with a challenge from Scripture? . . .
Wilson posits that a higher view of respect for authority is shown by the woman who submits to her husband knowing him to be mistaken than by the woman who submits to a husband she thinks is infallible (279-280). We absolutely agree. We respect the church and her creedal authority, and much more than Wilson, as he says above, because we know the creeds to be mistaken in the area of eschatology. . . .
At length Wilson observes, “We are not talking about differences of opinion with regard to the timing of certain end-time events. We are debating the nature of the universe and the place of man in it” (257). Amen, Doug. Do we live in a universe where Christ failed to provide the victory he promised for the kingdom of God? That is to say, do we live in a universe where the Apostles’ hope of Jesus’ Second Coming was so wrong that they thought it was imminent when it was literally thousands or millions of years in the future? Or do we live in a universe where God means what he says and keeps his promises? Yes, the nature of the universe is at stake indeed. [END QUOTES]
1. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) Acknowledges Its Own Fallibility
The WCF explicitly subordinates itself to the authority of Scripture, undermining Wilson’s appeal to creedal authority as definitive or as Gentry says, “infallibly certain.” Consider the following:
2. The Supreme Authority of Scripture
Chapter 1, Section 10 of the WCF states:
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
This establishes Scripture as the ultimate authority, superseding all human decrees, councils, or opinions, including the WCF itself.
3. The Fallibility of Creeds and Councils
Chapter 31, Section 4 further clarifies:
“All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
By affirming the fallibility of councils, which produce creeds and confessions, the WCF acknowledges that these documents are subordinate to Scripture and subject to correction. Wilson’s reliance on creedal authority over consistently applying his own hermeneutic of the imminent time texts being fulfilled in AD 70 ignores this clear principle, elevating human tradition above the Word of God.
4. Wilson’s Inconsistent Rejection of Creedal Authority – “Rules for thee and not for me”
Wilson admits in his article that he has rejected the so-called “authority” of other creeds when he believes their teachings contradict Scripture. He writes,
“They [the creeds] nevertheless have real authority, which I must recognize and submit to, unless I have plain statements from the Word which contradict the creed…” (see link below).
Yet, he denies Full Preterists the same right to challenge creeds based on biblical exegesis. This double standard reveals Wilson’s arrogance. He assumes his interpretations are inherently superior, while dismissing Full Preterist arguments as illegitimate without engaging their substance. Such hubris undermines his claim to uphold the supremacy of Scripture.
5. Wilson’s Misrepresentation of Gary DeMar’s Position?
Wilson references Gary DeMar’s appearance on a CrossPolitic podcast discussing the Nicene Creed and Reformed confessions, particularly the issue of Christ’s return in glory to judge the living and the dead. Wilson cites the Apostles’ Creed:
“From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead,”
and the Nicene Creed:
“He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.”
Yet, Wilson fails to acknowledge that DeMar addressed this very point on the podcast, offering a robust defense of a preterist interpretation of Matt. 16:27-28. Did Wilson even listen to the segment? His omission suggests either ignorance or deliberate avoidance, weakening his critique.
“Unless I have plain statements from the Word which contradict the creed…”
6. Wilson’s Selective Use of Scripture
Wilson lists a handful of Scriptures to support his view of Christ’s coming in glory to judge the living and the dead, but he conspicuously avoids texts that directly challenge his position. Below, I address the texts he cites and those he ignores, demonstrating his selective exegesis and inconsistency with his own partial preterist framework.
a. Matthew 16:27-28 / Matthew 24:30 (Omitted)
In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus promises to come in glory to judge each person according to their deeds within thelifetime of those standing before Him:
“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay eachperson according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste deathuntil they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Similarly, Matthew 24:30 describes Christ’s coming in glory:
“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and theywill see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
Privately, Wilson has conceded that both verses of Matthew 16:27-28 are most likely referring to Christ’s spiritual coming in glory in AD 70. Publicly Wilson admits Christ coming in glory in Matthew 24:30 was also fulfilled in AD 70judgment, aligning with Full Preterist exegesis. Yet, he refuses to acknowledge that this interpretation undermines the creedal assertion of a future coming of Christ in “glory” or in judgment, contradicting his public defense of creedal authority. He knows his editor Keith Mathison also sees Christ coming in “glory” in Matthew 25:31 as fulfilled in AD 70. His silence on these critical texts, which explicitly tie Christ’s coming in glory to the first-century generation, exposes his unwillingness to engage with Scripture that challenges his position:
| Matthew 16:27-28 | Matthew 24:30-31 |
Matthew 25:31 |
| 1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “For the Son of Man is going to come” (16:27) | 1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “The Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” (24:30) | 1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “When the Son of Man comes” (25:31) |
| 2) Christ comes with His angels: “With His angels” (16:27) | 2) Christ comes with His angels: “With His angels” (24:31) | 2) Christ comes with His angels: “With all His holy angels” (25:31) |
| 3) Christ comes in glory: “In the glory of His Father” (16:27) | 3) Christ comes in glory: “With power and great glory” (24:30) | 3) Christ comes in glory: “In His glory” (25:31) |
| 4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in lifetime of some: “He will repay each person according to what they have done… some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming” (16:27-28) | 4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in their “generation”: “The Son of Man… will send His angels to gather His elect… this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:30-34) | 4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in their “generation”: “The Son of Man… will separate the sheep from the goats,” rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked (25:31-46; cf. 24:34 for generational timing) |
| 5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “The Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (16:28) | 5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “Coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30). Saints inherit “redemption” and kingdom (Lk. 21:27-32). | 5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “The Son of Man… sits on His glorious throne” (25:31). Saints inherit “eternal life” and the kingdom (24:30-32; 25:31-46). |
b. Revelation 22:10-12 (Omitted)
Revelation 22:10-12 declares that the “appointed time” of the book’s events, including the judgment and resurrection (cf. Revelation 20:12-13; Daniel 12:2), is “near”:
“And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book [singular], for the appointed time [of the judgment and resurrection of the dead of Dan. 12:2-4 LXX] is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.’”
Wilson takes this passage as fulfilled in AD 70, consistent with the imminent language of “soon” and “the appointed time is near.” Yet, he avoids discussing it in his critique, likely because it connects the judgment of the living and the dead to the AD 70 timeframe, supporting Full Preterism and contradicting the creeds he defends. By omitting this clear statement of Christ’s imminent return and judgment, Wilson sidesteps a text that directly challenges his position.
John’s “appointed time” being “near” is the “appointed time” for the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:2-4 LXX that was not near when Daniel wrote but was when John did. So clearly Doug must avoid this passage as well.
c. 2 Timothy 4:1 (Omitted)
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT/SLT):
“I solemnly charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.”
Wilson sidesteps this text, which explicitly uses the Greek mello (“about to”) to describe an imminent judgment of “the living and the dead” (the language of the creeds) in AD 70. His avoidance is telling: acknowledging this text would force him to admit that Scripture places the judgment within the apostolic generation, not a distant future, directly challenging his Futurist hyper-creedal loyalty.
Due to Doug’s love of the creeds over the love of Scripture and the analogy of faith connected to the imminent time texts, he can’t harmonize the imminence he sees in the Matthew 24-25 with Paul’s eschatology in 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT:
|
Theme |
2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT) |
Matt. 24-25 / Lk. 21 |
| Imminence | “who is about to judge” (Greek: mello, indicating imminent action). The use of mello underscores the nearness of Christ’s judgment, written in the mid-60s AD, pointing to an event within the apostolic generation (circa AD 70). | “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). The parable of the fig tree (Matt. 24:32–33) signals that when the signs are seen, “he is near, at the very door,” tying the events to the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries (circa AD 70). |
| Second Coming | Refers to Christ’s “appearing” (Greek: epiphaneia), a term associated with His return in glory to establish His kingdom and execute judgment. | Describes the “Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30), a clear reference to the Second Coming, with the nearness emphasized in the fig tree parable (Matt. 24:32–33). |
| Judgment of the Living and the Dead | Christ “who is about to judge the living and the dead,” aligning with creedal language and pointing to a comprehensive judgment at His return, likely fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. | The “gathering of the elect” (Matt. 24:31; cf. Matt. 13:39-43) and the judgment imagery of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 24:51) imply a separation of the righteous and wicked, consistent with judging both the living and the dead at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. |
| Inheritance/Coming of the Kingdom | Tied to “His kingdom,” where Christ’s appearing ushers in the full establishment of His redemptive rule, fulfilling the promises of the new covenant age (post-AD 70). | The parable of the fig tree (Matt. 24:32–33) signals the nearness of these events, culminating in the gathering of the elect (Matt. 24:31) and the inheritance of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 24:32-33 / Luke 21:30-31; Matt. 25:34; ). |
d. 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 (Omitted)
Peter states that God was “ready to judge the living and the dead” because “the end of all things is near” and it was the “appointed time” for judgment (1 Peter 4:5-7, 17). Wilson’s colleague, Kenneth Gentry, concedes this text was fulfilled in AD 70, but refuses to explain how the living and the dead were judged at that time. Where is Wilson on this key text?!? His silence betrays his inability to reconcile this passage with his hyper-creedalism, which prioritizes tradition over Scripture’s clear timing.
And again, Peter’s “appointed time” for “the judgment” of the “living and dead” being “near” is likewise the “appointed time of the end” of the judgment and resurrection of Daniel so this text must also be avoided by Wilson (Dan. 12:2-4 LXX = 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17).
e. Revelation 11:18 (Omitted)
Revelation 11:18 links the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem (AD 67-70) with the “appointed time” for the judgment of the dead:
“The appointed time came for the dead to be judged.”
Wilson interprets the judgment of Jerusalem in Revelation 11 as fulfilled in AD 70, spanning the “3.5 years” between AD 67-70. Yet, in his commentary on Revelation he avoids mentioning that both Daniel and John connect this judgment to the resurrection and judgment of the dead (Daniel 12:2; Revelation 11:1-18). This omission is strategic and pathetic, as it undermines his appeal to a future judgment.
f. Acts 24:15 (Addressed, but Mishandled)
Wilson cites Acts 24:15, where Paul speaks of a resurrection of the just and unjust, but ignores the literal translations that use mello (“about to”):
Literal Standard Version: “Having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous.”
Other literal translations, such as the Berean Literal Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, and Smith’s Literal Translation, consistently render mello as “about to be,” reinforcing the imminent expectation of the resurrection in Paul’s time. Strikingly, Wilson’s co-author, Kenneth Gentry, argued in early editions of Before Jerusalem Fell that mello in Revelation (e.g., Revelation 1:19, 3:10) should be translated as “about to be,” citing the precision of literal translations to support an AD 70 fulfillment. Why, then, do partial preterists like Wilson and Gentry conveniently ignore the same literal translations of mello in Acts 24:15 (YLT) and 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT), which equally point to an imminent event? This inconsistency exposes their selective exegesis.
Moreover, Wilson fails to acknowledge that Paul’s teaching in Acts 24:15 draws directly from Daniel 12:2, which speaks of the resurrection of the just and unjust. Again, this is because he knows the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is connected to the Tribulation of v. 1 and the “3.5 years” and “shattering” of Jerusalem between AD 67-70. And again, this same OT passage is drawn upon in Revelation 11:1-18, where John ties the “appointed time” for the judgment of the dead to the “3.5 years” AD 67-70 destruction of Jerusalem.
If, as Gentry concedes, the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70, and Paul is citing Daniel 12:2 in Acts 24:15, then the literal translations’ use of mello (“about to be”) logically and exegetically demands that the resurrection in Acts 24:15 was also fulfilled in AD 70. Wilson’s refusal to engage this connection reveals a deliberate omission: he avoids the implications of Gentry’s concession, which surrenders Daniel 12:2 to an AD 70 fulfillment, undermining the creedal future judgment he defends. Yet Doug has no exegetical counter to the fact that the resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 is fulfilled at the time of the Tribulation Doug says was fulfilled between AD 67-70. Wilson’s selective exegesis crumbles under scrutiny, as he suppresses the full weight of Scripture and his own system’s internal contradictions.
g. Matthew 11:24 (Addressed, but Miscontextualized)
Wilson cites Matthew 11:24, referencing the judgment of Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom on the “day of judgment”:
“But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you [Capernaum].” (Matthew 11:24)
In this context, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are strictly cities in Galilee where Jesus performed His ministry (Matthew 11:20-24). Tyre and Sidon, Phoenician port cities, functioned as city-states with regional influence, sometimes representing their broader territories in biblical language (Matthew 11:21-22). Sodom, referenced as a historical city destroyed in Genesis 19, is called a “land” in Matthew 10:15 (“land of Sodom and Gomorrah”), carrying symbolic weight as a region judged for its sin. However, Wilson ignores the immediate context in Matthew 10:15-23, where Jesus connects this judgment to His coming in AD 70:
“Truly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town [which rejects the disciples’ preaching]. … You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” (Matthew 10:15, 23)
This “day of judgment” for the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and the city-states or symbolic regions of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, fulfills Daniel 7, 9:24-27, and 12:2-4, which describe the judgment and resurrection at the time of Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70. Contextually, this “day of judgment” takes place in AD 70 at the “coming” of Christ Wilson says was fulfilled in AD 70. It also aligns with the immediate context and discussion of John the Baptist’s preaching of an imminent (“about to be”) wrath against Israel (Matthew 3:7-12 SLT; cf. Malachi 3-4; Isaiah 40). By failing to address this context, Wilson obscures the clear connection between the judgment of these cities, regions, or nations and Christ’s coming in AD 70, weakening his argument and avoiding Scripture that supports Full Preterism.
h. Matthew 23:1-3 / Acts 23:1-3 (Addressed, but Misinterpreted)
Wilson oddly combines these passages, suggesting that because the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection, Jesus endorsed their teaching. This is a non-sequitur. The Pharisees also held unbiblical views of the kingdom, yet Jesus did not endorse those. In Matthew 23, Jesus explicitly promises judgment on the Pharisees (a judgment of the “living”) and vindication for the martyrs (from Abel onward – a judgment of the “dead”) within that generation (AD 30-70), aligning with the imminent judgment texts Wilson avoids. His appeal to these passages is irrelevant and distracts from the clear eschatological teaching of Matthew 23.
i. John 11:24-27 (Addressed, but Misinterpreted)
Wilson cites Martha’s belief in a resurrection on the “last day” (John 11:24), assuming it refers to the end of world history. However, he takes the “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 as fulfilled in AD 70, marking the end of the Old Covenant age. Why, then, does he not apply the same logic to the “last day” in John 11:24, which is also drawn from the context of the “appointed time of the end” of Daniel 12:2-13, fulfilled after the “3.5 years” of tribulation. Wilson’s inconsistent exegesis here is once again glaring.
Other Issues
- Matthew 24-25 and the Eschatological Wedding
Wilson denies a division at Matthew 24:36, interpreting most of Matthew 24-25 as fulfilled in AD 70, except for Matthew 25:31-46, which he claims refers to a future Second Coming. This creates a contradiction: he takes the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) as fulfilled in AD 70, yet this parable describes the same eschatological wedding or “meeting” as 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and the same “day and hour” as Matthew 24:36 (cf. Matthew 25:13). If Wilson concedes the “day and hour” is AD 70, his argument that the “last day” in John 11:24 is future collapses.
Moreover, Wilson and other partial preterists interpret the eschatological wedding in Matthew 8:10-12 and Revelation 19-21 as fulfilled in AD 70, marking the divorce of Old Covenant Israel and the marriage and feast of the New. This aligns with Isaiah 25:6-9, where the resurrection (swallowing up of death) occurs when Jerusalem becomes a “heap” (Isaiah 25:2), consistent with Revelation 11:1-18 and Daniel 12:1-7. Wilson’s failure to connect these texts further exposes his willful inconsistency.
| Feature | Matthew 24–25:1–13 (Parable of the Ten Virgins) | 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 |
Isaiah 25:6–9 |
| Event | Bridegroom’s arrival (parousia – Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39) for the wedding feast | Lord’s descent (parousia) with trumpet and gathering | Lord’s banquet on the mountain, swallowing up death |
| Key Term: “Meet” | Apantēsis (go out to meet the bridegroom, v. 1, 6) | Apantēsis (caught up to meet the Lord in the air, v. 17) | N/A (implied gathering for the feast) |
| Resurrection Connection | Implied spiritual resurrection via marriage feast (new covenant life) | Explicit resurrection of the dead and transformation of the living | Death swallowed up forever, veil removed from nations who come to Zion |
| Marriage Feast Imagery | Wedding feast with bridegroom, wise virgins enter | Implied union with Christ in the air | Eschatological banquet for all peoples |
| Timeframe | Within “this generation” (Matthew 24:34), AD 70 | “We who are alive and remain,” first-century expectation | Fulfilled in AD 70 with old covenant’s end, per full preterism |
| Theological Significance | Divorce from old covenant Israel, marriage to the Church | Believers’ eternal union with Christ | God’s victory over death, new covenant established |
2. Wilson’s Partial Preterist Colleagues Undermine His Position
Wilson’s arguments are further weakened by his partial preterist allies or co-authors, Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry, whose concessions align more closely with Full Preterism:
a. Keith Mathison / Gary DeMar
Mathison, Wilson’s editor in When Shall These Things Be?, admits that the “coming” of Christ in “glory” of Matthew 25:31 and 2 Thessalonians 1-2 was spiritually fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment, not a future event. This effectively concedes that the Second Coming “in glory” occurred in AD 70, undermining Wilson’s appeal to a future coming of Christ in “glory” to judge the dead per the creeds.
b. Kenneth Gentry / James Jordan
As pointed out earlier, Gentry and James Jordan concede that the resurrection of the just and unjust in Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled after the AD 67-70 tribulation. Jesus in fact did teach that His Second Coming and “gathering of the elect” (resurrection – same end of the age “gathering” of Matt. 13:39-43) would occur “immediately after” the Tribulation of “those days” (AD 67-70) (Matt. 24:229-31). Since Wilson cites Daniel 12:2 to support the creedal future judgment of the living and the dead, Gentry’s admission directly contradicts Wilson’s position, aligning instead with Full Preterism.
James Jordan now concedes that Christ’s coming and the “gathering of the elect” in Matthew 24:27, 30–31 occurred in AD 70, when the Old Testament saints were raised from Hades to inherit eternal life and dwell in God’s presence, aligning with his interpretation of Daniel 12:2.
These are considered reformed “orthodox” views.
c. Joel McDurmon / Peter Leithart
Partial preterist Joel McDurmon takes the “end of the age” in the parable of the wheat and tares–Matthew 13:39-43 as the old covenant age just as Doug does in Matthew 24:3. But this would mean that the judgment and resurrection of the dead of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Dan. 12:2-3 = Matt. 13:39-43).
So here is a visual of how one can see partial preterism leading to full preterism with Gentry taking Dan. 12 as spiritually fulfilled in AD 70, McDurmon taking the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 as AD 70, and Mathison taking the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 as fulfilled spiritually in AD 70:
|
Daniel 12 |
Matthew 13 |
Matthew 24–25 |
| 1) Increased knowledge of the Messiah and evangelism before the end (12:3–4) | 1) Evangelism and sowing of the gospel before the end of the Old Covenant age (sunteleia tou aionos), as depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares (13:24–30, 36–43) | 1) Evangelism before the end of the Old Covenant age (sunteleia tou aionos), with the gospel preached to all nations (24:3, 14) |
| 2) Unprecedented tribulation (12:1) | — | 2) Great Tribulation, unmatched in history (using common hyperbole), marking the end of the age (24:21, 29) |
| 3) Righteous rise to eternal life; wicked rise to eternal shame (12:2–3) | 3) Righteous wheat gathered into the barn to shine in the kingdom; tares reaped and burned in judgment (13:30, 40–43) | 3) Righteous sheep gathered and raised out of Hades by angels to inherit eternal life and the kingdom; goats face eternal punishment (24:30–31; 25:31–46) |
| 4) Fulfillment at the appointed time of the end, when the power of the holy people is shattered for three-and-a-half years (12:4, 7; cf. Dan. 9:26–27, LXX – Jerusalem and Second Temple desolated during AD 67–70) | 4) Fulfillment at the harvest, which is the end of the Old Covenant age, when the Son of Man sends His angels (13:39–40) | 4) Fulfillment in Jesus’ generation, immediately after the tribulation and the “times of the Gentiles” (AD 67–70), with Jerusalem and the Second Temple desolated (24:3–34; cf. Luke 21:20–24, 32) |
Doug struggled to convince Charismatic Dr. Michael Brown in their debate that the revelatory and sign gifts ceased in AD 70 at the “end of the old covenant age,” citing Matthew 24:3. Dr. Brown countered by referencing Matthew 13:39–43, arguing that Doug’s position would imply the resurrection was also fulfilled in AD 70, a point Doug did not address. However, in my debate with Dr. Brown, I maintained exegetical consistency regarding 1 Corinthians 13:8–12, demonstrating that “that which is perfect” refers to Christ’s imminent Second Coming. This event ushered in the Church’s glorification, enabling us to see His face in the new covenant age, or the new heavens and new earth, where the curse of spiritual death and separation is no more (1 Cor. 13:8–12; Rev. 21:4; 22:4–7).
d. Phillip Kayser / Mike Bull
Here is another partial preterist Pastor that signed the letter attacking DeMar who accepts that mello in Acts 24:15 YLT should be translated as “about to be” and does believe there was a resurrection in AD 70. He also believes that Christ’s parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:23 was fulfilled in AD 70. This is just another example of partial preterism doing its best to be consistent with the imminent time texts and trying to follow the analogy of faith without “getting the rod from mother church” (as James Jordan once said).
e. Milton Terry / David Chilton / Gary DeMar
Milton Terry, also a partial preterist, adhered to the analogy of faith principle and interpreted all three cloud-coming passages—Matthew 24:30, Acts 1:11, and Revelation 1:7—as fulfilled in AD 70. Kenneth Gentry, seemingly unbothered by Terry’s position, sold and profited from Terry’s books. This raises a critical question: within the “orthodox” partial preterist system, where is a text supporting a future bodily Second Coming, let alone one “in glory”? Terry’s consistent exegesis of these passages as AD 70 fulfillments further undermines Wilson’s appeal to a future creedal coming, exposing the scarcity of biblical support for such a position within partial preterism’s own framework.
During a lunch with David Chilton after his hospital stay, he told me, “Mike, you were right. The Bible teaches only one Second Coming of Christ, fulfilled in AD 70.” Gary DeMar appears to be reaching the same conclusion. Yet, Kenneth Gentry and Doug Wilson’s writings continue to lead their readers toward Full Preterism. Some of their most prominent writers and theologians, like Chilton, conclude that the singular Second Coming was fulfilled in AD 70. Still, Gentry and Wilson remain in denial, refusing to acknowledge that their concessions to the imminent time texts’ fulfillment in AD 70 inevitably point to Full Preterism.
3. 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22
Wilson’s partial preterist framework unravels under the weight of his own concessions and those of his allies, exposing a house divided against itself. Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry argue that 2 Peter 3 describes a future Second Coming and the end of world history, but Wilson interprets it as Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70, when the Old Covenant heavens and earth passed away. Yet, all three—Wilson, Mathison, and Gentry—concede that the New Jerusalem and New Heavens and Earth of Revelation 21:1-22:5 were established in AD 70. If the New Creation arrived in AD 70, as they admit, then the Church now sees God’s face, partakes of the Tree of Life, and experiences the removal of the Adamic curse (“there will be no more death,” Revelation 21:4). This is a fatal concession: if the New Creation was inaugurated in AD 70, the resurrection and judgment it entails (Revelation 20:12-13; 21:8) must have occurred then, decisively supporting Full Preterism. Game, set, match—Wilson knows it, yet he dodges the inescapable implications.
This incoherence is further exposed by partial preterists like Joel Webbon and Andrew Isker, who correctly identify the “heavens and earth” in Hebrews 1:10-12 and 12:26-28 as the Old Covenant creation, which was “rolled up,” “shaken,” and “soon vanished” in AD 70:
“And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.’” (Hebrews 1:10-12)
“‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ This phrase, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.” (Hebrews 12:26-28)
These passages align with Wilson’s view of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21:1, where the Old Covenant system passes away to make way for the unshakable New Covenant kingdom. However, partial preterism as a system is left clinging to a single verse—Revelation 20:11—to support an alleged future, physical dissolution of the cosmos at the alleged end of world history:
“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.” (Revelation 20:11)
If their entire case for a future “end of world history” “passing of heaven and earth” rests on one verse, while ignoring the analogy of faith that connects Revelation 20:11 to the AD 70 fulfillments in Hebrews 1:10-12, 12:26-28, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation 21:1, their hyper-creedal system is the problem, not Full Preterism.
|
Passage |
Partial Preterist Interpretation |
| Matthew 5:17–18 | Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70 |
| Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 | Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70 |
| Acts 2:20–21 | Old Covenant world passed in AD 70 |
| Romans 8:18–23 (YLT) | Creation of men groaning, liberation “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 (Lightfoot, DeMar) |
| 1 Corinthians 7:29–31 | Old Covenant world passed in AD 70 |
| 2 Peter 3 | Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70 |
| Hebrews 1:10–12; 12:26-28 | Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70 (Isker & Webbon) |
| 1 John 2:17–18 | Old Covenant world passed in AD 70 |
| Revelation 6:14–17 | Old Covenant world passed in AD 70 |
| Revelation 16:20 | Old Covenant world passed in AD 70 |
| Revelation 21:1 | Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70 |
| Revelation 20:11 | (Exception) Taken as literal end of physical universe to preserve futurist creeds?!? |
Worse still, Wilson’s Amillennial co-authors in When Shall These Things Be? confront him, Gentry, and Mathison with the same “orthodox” exegetical logic Full Preterists employ: if the imminent time texts of Revelation (e.g., “soon,” “near,” Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:10) point to AD 70, as Wilson admits, then the end-of-the-millennium events in Revelation 20:7-13—including the resurrection and judgment—must also be fulfilled in AD 70. They further argue with us that Revelation’s recapitulation structure ties the end-of-the-millennium events (Revelation 20:7-13) to the judgments in chapters 1–19 and the New Creation in 21–22, that Wilson, Gentry, and Mathison all admit were fulfilled in AD 70. Moreover, their Amillennial co-authors correctly identify the coming of Christ in Matthew 24–25 as a singular Second Coming event, not a bifurcated coming as Wilson claims. By rejecting this “orthodox” exegesis from his own allies, Wilson betrays an arbitrary commitment to creedal tradition over Scripture’s clear timing and structural unity, leaving his partial preterism in shambles.
Doug’s “orthodox” Amillennial opponents also affirm with us that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 is the same coming or parousia of Christ as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 while Doug and Mathison argue that the coming of Christ in “glory” in Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31 (Mathison) was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. Both of these orthodox positions of the Church cannot be true at the same time unless Full Preterism is true:
If A (Matthew 24) = B (1 Thessalonians 4-5)
| Theme | Matthew 24 |
1 Thessalonians 4-5 |
| Christ returns from heaven | 24:30 | 4:16 |
| With voice of Arch Angel | 24:31 | 4:16 |
| With trumpet of God | 24:31 | 4:16 |
| Caught/gathered together with/to Christ | 24:31 | 4:17 |
| “Meet” the Lord in the clouds | 24:30 & 25:6 | 4:17 |
| Exact time unknown | 24:36 | 5:1-2 |
| Christ comes as a thief | 24:43 | 5:2 |
| Unbelievers caught off guard | 24:37-39 | 5:3 |
| Time of birth pangs | 24:8 | 5:3 |
| Believers not deceived | 24:43 | 5:4-5 |
| Believers to be watchful | 24:42 | 5:6 |
| Exhorted to sobriety | 24:49 | 5:7 |
| Son/sunlight shining from east to west / Sons of the Day | 24:27, 36, & 38 | 5:4-8 |
B (1 Thessalonians 4) = C (1 Corinthians 15)
|
Theme |
1 Thessalonians 4 |
1 Corinthians 15 |
| The sleeping to be raised | 4:13-14 | 15:12-18 |
| The living to be caught/changed | 4:15-17 | 15:51-52 |
| Christ’s coming (Greek: Parousia) | 4:15 | 15:23 |
| At the sound of the trumpet | 4:16 | 15:52 |
| Encouraged to stand firm | 4:18 | 15:58 |
| Same contemporary “we” | 4:15-17 | 15:51-52 |
A (Matthew 24 & Parallels) = C (1 Corinthians 15)
|
Theme |
Matthew 24 & Parallels |
1 Corinthians 15 |
| Christ to come (Greek: Parousia) | 24:27 | 15:23 |
| His people to be gathered/changed | 24:31 | 15:52 |
| To come with the sound of a trumpet | 24:31 | 15:52 |
| To be “the end” (Greek: telos, the goal) | 24:3, 14 | 15:24 |
| Kingdom consummation (goal reached) | Luke 21:30-32 | 15:24 |
| All prophecy fulfilled at this point | Luke 21:22 | 15:54-55 |
| Victory over the Mosaic Law/temple | 24:1 | 15:55-56 |
| Same contemporary “you” or “we” | 24:2ff | 15:51-52 |
Two or More Things that are Equal to Another Thing are Also Equal to Each Other
|
Theme |
Matthew 24 | 1 Thess. 4 |
1 Corinthians 15 |
| At His coming | 24:27-31 | 4:16 | 15:23 |
| At the trumpet | 24:31 | 4:16 | 15:52 |
| Dead raised, all gathered | 24:31 | 4:16 | 15:35-44 |
| All living gathered | 24:31 | 4:17 (Living caught together to Him) | 15:51 (Status of living changed) |
Conclusion
Wilson’s retreat from a planned debate with me and his withdrawal from a fully funded documentary with myself and Don Preston v. a partial preterist partner of his choosing speak volumes. Partial preterism is losing ground to Full Preterism because its proponents, like Wilson, rely on inconsistent exegesis, arbitrary appeals to creedal “orthodoxy” / “authority,” censorship, and avoidance of direct challenges. Wilson’s selective handling of Scripture and his colleagues’ concessions reveal a house divided, as we argued in our book response, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology. He prioritizes hyper-creedal tradition over the authority of Scripture, suppressing the clear teaching of texts like Daniel 12:2-7; Matthew 16:27-28, 24:30, 25:31; Revelation 1:3–22:10-12; 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT; Acts 24:15 YLT; and 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17.
As for why Gary DeMar entertains Wilson’s company without being in a formal debate setting, I can only assume Gary’s patience and graciousness exceed my own. In my view, Wilson’s rejection of Scripture’s clear timing for the judgment and resurrection exposes him as a theological lightweight, clinging to tradition while dodging accountability. His refusal to engage in public debate or the documentary—especially after Darren Doane criticized Kenneth Gentry for similar arrogance and cowardice—reveals hypocrisy. Doane’s defense of Wilson’s withdrawal only compounds the inconsistency and cowardice. Wilson has made his bed in hyper-creedalism; let him sleep in it. But with the light and knowledge he possesses (that previous generations did not have), he cannot claim ignorance and therefore his accountability will be greater. Prove me wrong, Doug.
As the Church continues to grapple with these eschatological questions, Full Preterism offers a coherent framework that honors the imminent time statements of Scripture without the contradictions plaguing partial preterism. For those seeking deeper exploration, I recommend reviewing the exegetical parallels in our book, House Divided, or engaging with primary sources like the Westminster Confession itself, which explicitly calls for testing all human traditions against the supreme authority of God’s Word. The Reformation’s legacy demands no less—sola Scriptura must prevail over sola creda. If Wilson or his allies truly believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, let them step forward and defend their views in open forum. The truth, after all, has nothing to fear from examination.