Answers in Revelation
Visits Since 4-14-2011
About AiR

Last Generation Version w/notes


When is the Rapture?


According to Jesus:
The Wheat & The Tares
The Olivet Discourse
The Upper Room Discourse

According to Peter:
Peter's First Sermon
Peter's Second Sermon
Peter's Epistles

According to Paul:
1 Cor. 15 & the Last Trumpet
1 Thess. 4 & the Rapture
1 Thess. 5 & Day of the Lord
2 Thess. 1 & Posttrib Rest
2 Thess. 2 Antichrist First
Titus 2:13 The Blessed Hope

According to John:
The Rapture in Revelation
Resurrection in Revelation

According to Early Christians:
Early Church Eschatology

Answers on Preparation

Early Warning System
Flight of the Watching Ones

Answers on Chronology

Millennial Week Eschatology

Answers for

Pretrib Revisionism
Origin of Pretrib
Double Talk
Not Appointed to Wrath
Jewish Wedding Customs
24 Elders & the Rapture
Rapture Terminology

Answers for

The Corruption of Eschatology
Kingdom Hope in Hebrews
Date of Revelation
Revelation 20
1 or 2 Resurrections? New!
New Jerusalem Amillennialism's Gnostic Roots
"Heavenly" in Eph & Heb
The Man of Sin
Kingdom Hope in Hebrews
The Date of Revelation
The Millennium in Revelation 20
1 or 2 Resurrections?
The "New Jerusalem"

Answers from

The "Sons of God"


Historic Premillennialism (Warner)

Amillennialism (Doughty)

Amillennialism (Fields)
Dispensationalism (Couch)
Preterism (Frost)

About the Author

Tim Warner

Tim Warner is a pastor - teacher at Oasis Christian Church in Tampa, Florida, and the founder of the Pristine Faith Restoration Society.

Donations are not tax deductible

AiR Mail

Join the AiR-Mail list for updates and limited circulation articles. Send an email with "Add to AiR-Mail List" in the subject line to:

Latest Book

Mystery of the Mazzaroth

A completely new theory on the original meaning of the zodiac.

Copyright © 1998-2011. All rights reserved. All material on this website is copyright protected. Copying any material (including graphics) to another site without written permission is forbidden. Permission is granted for electronic storing and printing of articles for Church use, group Bible studies, personal study, or to give to others. Audio and Power Point presentations may be stored electronically for use by churches, Bible study groups, or personal study, but may not be copied to other websites. Nothing on this website may be sold, or included in any product that is sold without written permission.

Permission is granted to freely distribute the Last Generation Version of the New Testament books in print and pdf file format, and to copy the pdf files to other websites.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version, Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Debates: Preterism vs. Futurism

Sam Frost is an author, and the former pastor of Christ Covenant Church, St. Petersburg, Florida. His position is “preterism” (the belief that Jesus’ second coming occurred invisibly in AD70, through the destruction of Jerusalem). Tim Warner is an author and editor of Answers in Revelation and pastor of Oasis Christian Church, Tampa, Florida. His position is “futurism” (the belief that Jesus’ second coming to earth will be visible, personal, in power and great glory, and is yet future).

I. The Tale of Two Jerusalems
Opening Argument Sam Frost – (08-02-03)
Rebuttal Tim Warner – (08-08-03)
Response Sam Frost – (08-10-03)
Closing Statement Tim Warner – (08-13-03)

II. The Resurrection
Opening Argument Tim Warner – (08-24-03)
Rebuttal Sam Frost – (09-05-03)
Response Tim Warner – (09-15-03)
Closing Statement Sam Frost – (09-26-03)

III. The Problem of Ezekiel’s Temple
Opening Argument Sam Frost – (01-08-04)
Rebuttal Tim Warner – (01-10-04)
Response Sam Frost – (01-12-04)
Closing Statement Tim Warner – (01-19-04)

IV. The Personal, Bodily, Second Coming of Christ
Opening Argument Tim Warner – (01-22-04)
Rebuttal Sam Frost – (01-26-04)
Response Tim Warner – (01-28-04)
Closing Statement Sam Frost – (01-30-04)

End of Debate Comments Related to Charges of Heresy

A Serious Warning for Amillennialists & Preterists
Who Deny Jesus’ Permanent Incarnation in Human Flesh

Samuel Frost flatly denied that Jesus Christ still possesses human flesh. He wrote:

The Son needs “flesh” in order to be a “whole person”? Heresy! Now, make no mistake, the Logos “became flesh.” No one denies this. The question is, did the DNA of that flesh define Jesus’ personality? He took on flesh so that he might suffer as a man, and that through his blood, might bring healing to man, since he was sinless. Jesus’ ascension brought God and Man together and reconciled them. But, to define “part” of Jesus as “his flesh” is simply ridiculous. … Jesus became fully Man, took on flesh and a human nature, that his human nature is not called a “person” and that Jesus remains fully human to this day without requiring him to have hairy arms and fingernails.” (Round IV, Closing Statement, Pg. 2)

Preterism’s false doctrine of denying the resurrection of the flesh necessarily forced Sam Frost to deny the permanence of Jesus’ incarnation. Yet, John said that this teaching was of “the spirit of Antichrist.”

1 John 4:1-3 NKJV
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
The Greek word rendered “has come” is a perfect participle. The perfect tense is used very sparingly in the Greek New Testament. Virtually all Greek grammars say that when it appears, it is done purposefully, and ought to be considered significant by the interpreter. For example, Wallace writes: “As Moulton points out, the perfect tense is ‘the most important, exegetically, of all the Greek tenses.’ The perfect is used less frequently than the present, aorist, future, or imperfect; when it is used, there is usually a deliberate choice on the part of the writer.” (GGBB, p. 573). To ignore the perfect tense is to ignore a very important concept that the writer wished to convey.

The Greek perfect tense indicates a past completed action with the results of that action continuing to the present. Wallace writes, “…the perfect tense is used for ‘indicating not the past action as such, but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.” (GGBB, p. 573) The perfect tense indicates the static state which is the direct result of that completed action. For example, if someone wanted to indicate that his house had burned down, and that it was still in that state, he would use the perfect tense in Greek. The completed action was the house burning down. But the continuous state is that it remains burnt down. (The house has not been rebuilt, nor has the rubble been cleared away). The full effects of the action of the verb on the house (the subject) still remain. If he only wished to indicate the fact that it burnt down, he would use the aorist tense (which says nothing about continuing results).

If John’s test for the spirit of antichrist was merely the fact that Jesus came in the flesh (incarnation), he would have used the aorist tense. His use of the perfect tense requires that the continuous state (Christ’s being in the flesh) resulting from the action (His coming in the flesh – incarnation) still existed when John made the statement, long after Jesus’ ascension.

To get the full import of the perfect tense, this verse would be translated as follows: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come, and remains in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come and remains in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”

It is also critical that the state implied in the perfect tense is the direct result of the action which the verb describes, and that it describes the current state of the subject (in this case Jesus Christ), not some other effect of His incarnation on others. Therefore, the flesh which Christ now possesses in heaven is the very flesh that came into existence in the incarnation. Yes, it is resurrected and glorified flesh, but the same body. It cannot be a completely different body of flesh. It must be the same flesh which was genetically descended from David.

In his second epistle, John used another similar statement which also requires that Christ retain His flesh body after the ascension.

2 John 7 NKJV
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The word “as” is not in the Greek text. Literally it reads, “…the ones not avowing Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” The word “coming” is a present participle. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson commented on this clause as follows: “‘Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.’ Present middle participle of erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied.” Vincent’s Word Studies agrees: “The verb is in the present participle, coming, which describes the manhood of Christ as still being manifested” when John wrote. Jammeson – Faucett – Brown Commentary adds: “I think the Greek present participle implies both the first and the second advent of Christ. He is often elsewhere called the Coming One (Greek), Mat. 11:3; Heb. 10:37. The denial of the reality of His manifestation in the flesh, at His first coming, and of His personal advent again, constitutes Antichrist.”

The biblical test for the spirit of antichrist is its denial of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in human flesh, and / or the continuous, permanent state of His existence in human flesh. That “the Word became flesh,” and that He continues permanently in that state, is the essential “doctrine of Christ.” Anything else is not “Christian,” but a slick counterfeit. Consistent preterism denies “the doctrine of Christ.” It is therefore not genuine “Christianity.”