This short response is in response to this statement by Mr. Curtis Sibbet;
Back to Alan. He plays quotes till this one. Maybe he couldn't find one that said exactly this so he decided to say it rather than play Alan's actual words. He claims Alan has said that no one can understand the gospel without the light of full preterism. I have a feeling this would also be a straw man. If he said it, I think I would understand him to mean, have a full understanding, or the best understanding. Not, have no understanding at all. As Phil said Alan was arrogant, it would also be arrogant to believe he knows what Alan meant by that statement without a full quote from him on the subject. Now that he has established his straw man he knocks it down with the charge of heresy, even though he doesn't use the word.