Ralph E. Bass' Video Commentaries on Revelation

Back to the Future - An Introduction Pt I
Back to the Future - An Introduction Pt II
Back to the Future - An Introduction Pt III
Back to the Future Rev 1:1-7
Back to the Future - Rev 1:8-20
A Thematic Outline of the Book of Revelation
Back to the Future - Rev 2
Back to the Future - Rev 3
Back to the Future - Rev 4
Back to the Future - Rev 5
Back to the Future - Rev 6
Back to the Future - Rev 7
Back to the Future - Rev 8
Back to the Future - Rev 9
Back to the Future - Rev 10
Back to the Future - Rev 11:1-14
Back to the Future - Rev 11:15-19
Back to the Future - Rev 12
Back to the Future - Rev 13
Back to the Future - Rev 14
Back to the Future - Rev 15
Back to the Future - Rev 16:1-11
Back to the Future - Rev 16:12-16
Back to the Future - Rev 16:17-21
Back to the Future - Rev 17:1-6
Back to the Future - Rev 17:6-18
Back to the Future - Rev 18
Back to the Future - Rev 19:1-10
Back to the Future - Rev 19:11-21
Back to the Future - Rev 20:1-6
Back to the Future - Rev 20:7-15
Back to the Future - Rev 21
Back to the Future - Rev 22

H. C. Heffren articles

The following articles are in pdf file by H. C. Heffren:

Who is the Antichrist?
Daniel's Prophecy
Mission of the Messiah

More here.

Stephen Sizer videos

Outspoken critic of Christian Zionism Stephen Sizer has his own video site here.

Orthodox Preterism vs Unorthodox Preterism

Mike Blume (unfortunately, a oneness proponent) made an excellent video on the "preterism vs hyperpreterism" debate. You'll see the difference between the two positions:

William Lane Craig Refutes the Rapture View

Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig is a well known apologist who has debated many atheists. What's interesting is he's a visiting professor at Talbot School of Theology which is a dispensational university. But it appears that Dr. Craig does not hold to a pretribulational rapture view (and he is NOT a preterist):

Gary DeMar and Hyperpreterism

In response to Dr. DeMar's allegedly friendliness toward hyperpreterism, he says:

The big debate among preterists is how far does preterism go? Is all prophecy fulfilled? Full preterists say yes. Partial preterists say no. In between there is a lot of work yet to be done on specific passages. The tendency of full preterists is to fit everything into an A.D. 70 matrix. They do this with 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 20. A similar approach is followed with a number of Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Ezek 38–39 and Zech 12). I am willing to listen to their arguments since preterism in its present form is only now coming to its own as we shake off the dust of dispensationalism that has so distorted our interpretation of prophecy. I am willing to cut those full preterists some slack who are attempting to do real exegetical work. Many partial preterists are not willing to do this. To my mind, this approach is counterproductive. Honest analysis of the Bible is required. I want to be challenged by the best arguments possible, whether they come from full preterists or dispensationalists. I refuse to adopt a position because I’ve been told to do so. To quote Posey from The Dirty Dozen, "I don’t like being pushed."

Although I have utmost respect for Dr. DeMar ( and recommend his works), I do find some of his statements on hyperpreterism troublesome. Even though he's not a hyperpreterist, he does not see it as heresy! Roderick Edwards states (Posted on 30 Aug 2009 at 11:50 am):

===========================
===========================

DeMar was asked by Sam Frost POINT BLANK if hyperpreterism is a heresy and he point blank said NO.

Below is an audio of Sam Frost calling into a radio show to ask DeMar if he thinks hyperpreterists are heretics.

Audio: http://www.preteristsite.com/mp3/demarwithfrost.mp3

TEXT:

SF: “Gary, Hi this is Samuel Frost. You’ve met me before. We’ve roomed together.”

GD: “Sure”

SF: “Uh, we spoke at what we would call full preterist conferences.”

GD: “Right”

SF: “And I don’t mean to, uh put you on the spot but I do want to ask, uh if the treatment from those in our Reformed camp as to those who are exploring the questions that you say uh full preterists are asking right questions. Uh, if in exploring the questions that might disagree with the creeds does that automatically make us heretics to be expelled and excommunicated out of our churches that we have so generously served in; and is there a larger issue uh that is involved in defeating dispensationalism as you expressed it me. That there is a much larger issue and of course the dialogue between partial preterism and full preterism must be uh uh uh looked into and certainly in light of the creeds, in light of the Christian tradition of which I respect. But is there a larger issue and are some willing to dismiss those who have adopted a full preterist position; that is the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead in AD70; are they to be immediately dismissed as heretics, excommunicated and put out of our churches because they are espousing something that is entirely anti-Evangelical — and that’s my question.”

GD: “Ok well, again for the audience I was hoping maybe we could get to this later in the show rather than up this front…”

SF: “Sorry to bring it up before.”

GD: “My position on this has been, that uh, I continue to dialogue with full preterists as you know. I’ve spoken at some full preterist conferences…”

SF: “Correct”

GD: “And I’ve uh at full preterist conferences I’ve I’ve emphasized more the worldview aspects of it. I’m not just a preterist but I believe that eschatology is one aspect of a full orbed Christian worldview and I have found that a lot of full preterists seem to want to be johnny-one-note. This is all…”

SF: “Which you would be correct there.”

GD: “All they want to talk about and often they get into a church and just like a Calvinist or anyone else might do this is all they want to say and I think that lends, lends to irritating people and [garbled] a church and so forth. And uh so, but on the questions that you and some others are are dealing with, PERSONALLY I DO NOT CONSIDER IT HERETICAL [min 3:01] because like some say you know well their, this is the Hymenaen…”

SF: “Right”

GD: “…heresy and of course you don’t deny the resurrection…”

SF: “Right, of course”

GD: “So I do understand that. I continue to dialogue with some full preterists. But as you know some full preterists are getting off into uh some goofy things, to my mind…”

SF: “Yeah uh, and regretfully so…”

GD: “And I want to stick with exeget, I always want to stick with exegetical arguments…”

SF: “Right, Right”

GD: “And I’m I’m because I think the larger battle is dispensationalism, that’s pretty much where I’ve kept my fight. I, I feel there are, you know — to get people out of dispensationalism it’s better to, you know, at least from a tactical perspective and so forth. I DON’T DEAL WITH THE FULL PRETERIST ARGUMENT. I’m simply trying to move people from, I’m just trying to get them to see the time texts and things related, you know to Matthew chapter 24 events and other prophetic texts; and move them, you know to that step first, and I think that’s a big enough job without having to deal with this other stuff; and I’ll leave it to you and others to do that sort of thing but no, I DO NOT CONSIDER ALL FULL PRETERISTS OF BEING HERETICS BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST THE CREEDS [min 4:14]. Uh, uh I would just like to see better exegetical work and I know that you’re attempting to do that but a lot of other guys just aren’t. I think what Don Pres…”

SF: “Right, it’s what,what what Lincoln Duncan calls the low-rent form of preterism.”

GD: [laughing] That Lincoln Duncan article, yeah I’m not just so sure [garbled]”

SF: ‘But I do appreciate the fact that I know you, uh are constrained by certain things, legitimately so. Um, but it, it has led to some, within particularly our camp, the Reformed camp to write off any and all forms of full preterism; and yes there are some goofy that are out there, that I myself chalk up with Charles Manson and Jim Jones as far as I’m concerned.”

GD: “Of course and we know there are dispensationalists who are equally…”

SF: “Of course.”

GD: “…goofy…”

Radio Host: “Yep!”

GD: “Um I mean this one guy just says these hurricanes are a result of uh, you know of uh America supporting Ariel Sharon in removing Jews from Gaza. Saying that’s that’s a result of all of this and anything that happens in the world today is because of what’s going on in Israel. Of course my whole point is if God can send a hurricane to New Orleans to destroy it why didn’t He just destroy the Palestinians in Gaza and keep the Jews there? I mean there’s but there are those kind of goofy, goofy things within any movement; I don’t care what it is. But I’m because of my Reformed training and my seminary training I’m forced to look at things exegetically. Uh, you know, that’s where, that’s where my methodology is and if anybody reads anything I, I do, they know I, I try to be as careful as I can in dealing with, with these arguments. And that’s what needs to be done in order to convince people from the dispensational camp.”

Radio Host: “Alright Sam, thanks for the call”

So, there you have it, in audio form AND transcription. Frost once again asks a question he claims he “doesn’t mean to bring up”, then he spends almost 3 minutes buttering up DeMar. DeMar finally answers, twice saying he doesn’t think “all forms of full preterism” are heretical, but only the “goofy” kind. Frost, as is DOCUMENTED once again throws some of his fellow full preterists under the bus by referring to them as “low-rent” and up there with “Charles Manson and Jim Jones”. — Just who are these people? Can Frost please name them by name for once?

Ultimately, DeMar legitimizes Frost and gives him what he so desperately sought when he called the radio show; validation.

Yes, indeed DeMar as he said himself, “doesn’t deal with the full preterist argument” but rather he continues to dialogue and support hyperpreterist websites, writers, speakers and even has mainly hyperpreterist participants on his own website forums.

P.S. I meant to add, did you notice the subtle change in how Frost presented the issue? At first he asked if people “exploring” full preterism should be rejected then later he changed it to people who have “adopted” the position. Two different questions

===========================
===========================