P. Andrew Sandlin
Apr. 15, 2002

Dear ____ :

Thank you so much for your contact with our executive administrator, Susan Burns, and your article, while I've scanned.

I'm not a preterist (partial or total). Neither was Rushdoony. My view on "The Last Days" is summarized at: http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/issues/2001dec/sandlin1.php

I have discussed the issue with ____ . He assures me that he is not a full preterist. He and I spoke at the ____ Conference last August. I sat in the front row when he said quite clearly that 1 Thes. 4 refers to a future Second Advent (future to us today).

I do not hold that the end of the Old Covenant coincided with the destruction of Jerusalem. I believe that the Old and New Covenants refer to existential situations, not epochs or eras — the New Covenant (or at least its contents) existed in the OT, and the Old Covenant persists (sadly) yet today.

I agree with you that there seems to be a hermeneutical ambiguity among some partial preterists as to which passages refer to A. D. 70 and which refer to the future Second Advent. Is there a slippery slope from partial to total preterism? I don't know that there must be (Gentry is a partialist but adamant against "total"). I only know that it has been a slippery slope for some.

Yours in the Lamb,

P. Andrew Sandlin
Chalcedon