The Ordinance Problem

Paul commands the church to keep taking the Lord's Supper "until He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).²⁹ That phrase only does what it's supposed to do — anchor an ongoing practice to a still-future point — if the coming it names is still ahead of whoever is currently practicing it. For every believer who has taken communion since AD 70, on full preterism's own dating, the thing the phrase points to has already happened. The command hasn't been revoked. The ordinance hasn't stopped. But the words the church still says over it point at nothing ahead of the person saying them.

Partial preterism doesn't inherit this problem, because the coming stays future for every generation that keeps the ordinance — which is exactly why every generation has kept saying the words and meaning them.

Seam Seven: It Was Never One Garment

Full preterism presents itself as a single position. It isn't. It splits into two competing architectures that share a date and disagree on almost everything the date is supposed to mean.

The Corporate Body View (CBV) — the position of the system's founder, Max King, and its leading popularizer, Don K. Preston³ — holds that "the resurrection" in 1 Corinthians 15 was never about individual people at all. The "body" that dies and rises is the corporate body of Israel, transitioning covenants across the forty years between the cross and AD 70. Individual death, individual resurrection, individual bodies — all reread as covenantal metaphor. In Preston's own hands, this extends to Christ's own risen body: not merely reinterpreted, but discarded, laid off at the ascension.

The Individual Body View (IBV) rejects this outright. IBV holds real, individual persons underwent real, individual bodily change — it just locates that change in AD 70 rather than the future. A twelve-point framework built to characterize what the system depends on to hold together was posted directly to a full preterist discussion group.⁴ Brad M. Baker — an IBV-R (Individual Body View–Rapture) adherent who publishes his own theology under his own name⁵ — answered it point by point, and rejected or substantially modified ten of the twelve. Only the bare AD-70 date survived contact between the two camps.

The scorecard, in full — not asserted, tested. Here's what happened when the twelve points actually met Baker's own answers, one by one:

#	The claim	Result
1	Death is spiritual, not physical (the foundational move)	Unchallenged
2	"Body of flesh" is a covenantal category, not biological	Rejected
3	Christ's own risen body was not literally His	Rejected
4	"Flesh and blood" is covenantal contrast, not biological	Rejected
5	The resurrection is corporate, not individual	Rejected — the actual dividing line
6	New heavens and new earth are symbolic, not cosmic	Modified — a third position, not a flat denial
7	Satan's judgment is fully closed, not ongoing	Unchallenged
8	Spiritual gifts and revelation ceased at AD 70	Rejected
9	Angels and resurrected humans collapse into one category	Rejected
10	A specific 20th-century anthropology is necessary to read Paul correctly	Rejected
11	Salvation is cosmic and corporate, not individual	Rejected
12	History has no more chapters	Rejected

Two survive. Ten don't. And the two that survive — 1 and 7 — are the only two that are just the bare date itself, with no theological architecture built on top of them yet. Everything that turns the date into a system is exactly what didn't hold up when someone inside the movement was actually asked.

Even that count is generous. This table reflects what one systematic answer produced. Widen the lens to everyone who commented on the same post, and even Point 1 — one of the two survivors — draws independent pushback from three more people who were never asked to answer all twelve, they just happened to object to that one on their own.⁶ The honest version of this scorecard doesn't strengthen the movement's case as more voices get counted. It weakens it further.

Two people can hold "full preterism is true" and agree on almost nothing else it's supposed to mean. That's not a minor internal disagreement. That's two garments being sold under one label.

And it isn't only two people. The same compiled archive already cited in Seam Four catalogues roughly forty separate points of doctrine on which the movement's own named leaders take flatly opposing positions, in their own published words, independent of the Baker scorecard entirely.⁵¹ A representative sample, not the whole list: Max King holds the resurrection occurred solely at AD 70; William Bell holds it was a gradual process running from AD 30 to AD 70 — two different shapes for the single event the whole system is named after.⁵⁴ Kurt Simmons, himself a full preterist, names a second split directly and calls it dangerous: some in the movement, following Sam Frost's line, read "death" cast into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:14 as imputed Adamic guilt; Max King reads the identical verse as the annulment of the Mosaic law. Simmons's own conclusion, from inside the movement: this specific disagreement is what actually drives full preterism toward Universalism, not the system as a whole — "the real culprits are false notions regarding the source and nature of mankind's condemnation."⁵⁵ A third: most of the movement's leading names — Preston, Stevens, Curtis, Mills — place Satan's supernatural power ending at AD 70; Dan Harden, in the same archive, locates it at the cross instead, arguing ordinary human sin accounts for all the evil anyone sees today without needing Satan blamed for any of it.⁵⁶

Three more splits, on three different core doctrines, found independently of the twelve-point scorecard, using only the movement's own words. A fourth sits one layer down from these: even when did the New Covenant age actually begin has no settled answer. William Bell dates it flatly to AD 70, the moment the Old Covenant fully ended. A separate voice in the same archive and Preston's own language both describe it as already begun at the cross, "not in full effect" until AD 70 — initiated at one point, completed at another, four decades apart.⁵⁷ Nobody here is caught contradicting himself outright the way Stevens was in Seam Four. But three different authors, asked when their own new age actually started, give three different shaped answers, and none of them treats it as a minor detail.

The pattern isn't an artifact of one Facebook exchange with one man. It's what happens whenever the actual content behind "AD 70" gets pinned down by anyone, on nearly any question, across the whole of the movement's own literature.