No one can deny that Full Preterism is the organic development (“Reformed and always reforming”) of the reformed orthodox church as it pertains to the time and nature of fulfillment for the judgment and resurrection of Dan. 12:1-4, 7, 13/Matt. 13:39-43 to take place. These texts would be fulfilled at the end of the “last days” or “end of the age” period:
1) Classic Amillenialism – The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 IS the resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43/24:31—25:31ff.; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 20:5-15 and takes place at Christ’s ONE “the parousia” at the end of the “last days” or “end of the age” period.
2) Postmillennial Partial Preterism – The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 took place at the end of the NT’s “last days” period – at the end of the OC age at Christ’s “the parousia.” At which time…:
a. “John in Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off” (James Jordan on Dan. 12:2, 13/Revelation 20) and Daniel’s soul was raised out from among the dead ones of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades and stood in God’s presence having inherited “eternal life.”
b. This was a covenantal resurrection for OC Israel and the NC Church in AD 70.
c. This was a corporate resurrection for the Church which took place in AD 70.
* Not only this, but PP have actually ripped off (stolen) some FP arguments from various texts to arrive at this – without giving FPism the credit – lol.
Talbot-Sam doesn’t want to say the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 because the consensus of the scholars teaches this is a physical resurrection which will take place at the end of “the last days” or “end of the age” period. All the while Talbot-Sam denies the overwhelming consensus among the scholars that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is to take place at the end of the age — THAT HE [Talbot-Sam] says was the OC age in AD 70 Matt. 13:39-43! Way to avoid that key passage in your little article on Daniel 12:2 Sam.
Talbot-Gentry is on the other side of the coin that Talbot-Sam is on. He accepts the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 took place spiritually in AD 70, but apparently didn’t want to suffer the condemnation of Gary North on this text and “break from the historic faith of the church” and the scholarly consensus that Matt. 13:39-43 is allegedly dealing with “the end of history” and not the end of the OC age in AD 70.
Talbot-McDurmon comes along and wants to be more consistent than Talbot-Sam and Talbot-Gentry and correctly claims that Dan. 12:2-3 and Matt. 13:39-43 are addressing the same event and were fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (and is even willing to surrender the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15 to the FP). But after conceding these points, he becomes delusional (along with other disciples of Dr. Talbot) and wants to act and pretend as if he has won the debate against Full Preterism. Amazing irony!
Since the almighty ivory tower great “Dr.” Talbot of Whitefield Seminary has been or is the professor of these three men, we must ask: WHEN will the great “Doctor” ever walk down and bless us all with his presence and fix these contradictory views his students are promoting on Dan. 12:2-3/Matt. 13:39-43 as they pertain to the “scholarly consensus” of the Church? Don’t hold your breath – Lol.