Preterism Creeping Into Churches: Part 1

Why Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland Say It Matters

Some conversations start serious. This one starts with jokes about sponsorships, missing hats, and fingerless gloves. But the laughter doesn’t last long, because Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland believe the church is facing a real problem: preterism and replacement theology are spreading, and the ripple effects aren’t staying inside church walls.

They connect theology to the way Christians think about Israel, foreign policy, and even the Great Commission. Their warning is simple: when Christians stop reading the Bible as written, they don’t just lose clarity on prophecy, they often drift into political ideas that push America away from Israel and away from global gospel mission.

A light start that turns into a serious warning

The episode opens with New Year’s Eve banter and sponsor humor, including the now-famous one-word “prophecy” for the year.

“Word.” (with the kind of timing that makes the joke land)

A couple of quick moments set the tone:

• Hats are the sponsor, but no hat is being worn.
• Fingerless gloves get a shoutout as a “parting gift from chemo.”

The friendly start matters because the topic gets weighty fast. Smith and Rowland argue that bad theology doesn’t stay contained. It spreads through churches, then into political instincts, then into national choices. In their view, that pipeline is already active.

Why Tucker Carlson’s theology kicked off the discussion

A major driver behind this episode is a recent debate the hosts referenced from the day before, an article criticizing Tucker Carlson’s theology. They summarize their earlier conclusion with a blunt claim: libertarianism embraces replacement theology. They treat that pairing as more than coincidence.

In their view, replacement theology is not a harmless interpretive preference. They describe it as widespread, underestimated, and politically dangerous, because it can create a mindset that turns against Israel over time.

They point to an exchange from a Turning Point USA setting (AmericaFest and a Phoenix gathering were both mentioned). A student reportedly said:

"I'm a Christian and I just don't understand how that the American government can support Israel when they were responsible for killing Jesus."

For Smith and Rowland, that statement isn’t just ignorance. It’s a snapshot of what happens when people absorb church teaching that reframes Israel’s role in Scripture, then mix it with political isolationism and a shallow grasp of the Bible’s storyline.

The church trend they say is growing: preterism and replacement theology

The hosts describe a trend they’ve been tracking for years: churches adopting an end-times framework they see as “against Scripture,” reshaping doctrine into replacement theology. They even mention independent Baptist churches preaching replacement theology and say, sharply, that if a church is going to redefine foundational Baptist distinctives, it should remove “Baptist” from the sign.

That line isn’t just a jab. It signals how serious they believe the moment is. Their core concern is that preterism and replacement theology don’t merely adjust timelines, they reassign meanings. And once Israel is treated as irrelevant to prophecy or covenant promise, they believe it becomes easier for Christians to justify political abandonment of Israel.

Clear definitions: libertarianism, preterism, and why the terms matter

Smith pauses the conversation to define terms for listeners. That choice is important, because these debates often collapse into labels people use differently.

What they mean by libertarianism

Rowland describes libertarianism broadly, and he admits there are some libertarian-leaning instincts he can relate to. Still, the definition he uses in this episode centers on isolationism.

In his words, it’s an ideology that claims “America first,” but means something closer to “America only.” Under that framework, the United States should avoid meaningful foreign policy involvement, including aid or alliance with Israel.

He also claims many libertarians support a two-state solution, argue that Palestinians “deserve Jerusalem,” and treat the land as having nothing sacred about it. Then he points out the contradiction he sees: if someone is “America only,” why speak so confidently about how Israel should be carved up?

Their argument is not that every person who uses the word “libertarian” holds every one of these positions. It’s that the ideology, taken to its end, pushes people to disengage from Israel and disengage from global responsibility.

What they mean by preterism

Rowland defines preterism as coming from a Latin root meaning “past,” or “already fulfilled.” In this framework, biblical prophecies about the regathering of Israel, the second coming of Christ, and end-times events are treated as already fulfilled.

They describe full preterism in stark terms. They say full preterists can claim:

• Jesus has already returned.
• There is no rapture.
• There is no future resurrection of the dead.
• We are already living in a spiritualized “new heavens and new earth.”

They also describe partial preterism, which holds that some prophecies are fulfilled and some remain future, but still tends toward postmillennial assumptions. In the version they describe, the church “ushers in” the kingdom age, then Jesus returns at the end.

Rowland summarizes the conflict plainly: preterism denies premillennialism and denies dispensational distinctives. Because of that, he argues it “has to” connect back to replacement theology.

Why they link postmillennialism, amillennialism, and replacement theology

Rowland makes a point he repeats in different ways: it’s difficult to be postmillennial, and even difficult to be amillennial in many expressions, without sliding into a replacement framework.

Then he ties it to politics. If Israel has no prophetic future and no covenant distinction, it becomes easier to say, “Let Israel fend for themselves.” In their telling, libertarian isolationism finds theological permission when the church stops treating Israel as Israel.

Political division, and why they call theology the real fuel

Smith frames modern party divisions in a way that mirrors their concern about drift.

He describes the Democratic Party as split between liberalism and progressivism, with progressivism presented as a path toward communism. He references Zohran Mamdani winning the New York mayoral race, describing him as a progressive and “self-proclaiming communist.”

Then he describes the Republican side as split between conservatism and libertarianism. Some label libertarianism “far right,” but Rowland pushes back and says anyone who denies Israel’s place slides left in effect, because it aligns with progressive hostility toward Israel.

They also mention the modern habit of throwing around the word “nationalism,” sometimes tied to Hitler, and they reference Donald Trump as still remaining a friend to Israel “so far.”

Their larger claim is this: political ideology doesn’t form in a vacuum. They argue libertarianism is being fed by theological systems that remove Israel from the center of prophecy and treat Scripture’s future promises as already completed.

The article that shaped the episode: “Preterism is Creeping into America’s Churches”

The hosts shift to an article they read on the show: “Preterism is Creeping into America’s Churches,” from Prophecy Newswatch, written by Dan Price (identified as being from Harbingers Daily).

Rowland quips that preterism hasn’t just “crept,” it’s already made a mess.

They read the opening lines, which describe longing for Christ’s return, grief over cultural decay, and the heart’s cry: “Come back, Jesus.” Then comes the hook: some people believe Jesus already returned.

From there, the article frames the disagreement as a matter of hermeneutics, how you interpret the Bible. The author states that a literal, historical-grammatical approach (even in prophecy) leads naturally to a futurist reading.

Rowland agrees, and adds a sobering observation: the real fight underneath their entire discussion is one question, “Do you believe the Bible as written?” He says many people, if honest, would answer no.

Why they defend literal interpretation, and how they explain dispensationalism

Smith takes a moment to explain dispensationalism in plain terms, using an everyday analogy.

You don’t start math class with trigonometry. You start with 1 + 1 = 2. Truth builds on truth. Learning has an order. He calls that “dispensational” in the simple sense of progressive unfolding.

Then he applies it to Scripture: God dispensed truth over time. It’s progressive revelation. And if you “annihilate” the Old Testament, you have no basis for the New Testament.

Rowland ties this to prophecy and to how God teaches spiritual realities through visible realities. He echoes the idea that God made “things you can see” to help you understand “things you can’t see,” referencing the kind of argument found in Romans 1.

In their view, Israel is one of those visible anchors. When replacement theology “does away” with Israel as a people with a future, it doesn’t just change a doctrine. It removes a God-given teaching tool that points to spiritual realities.

They acknowledge symbolism exists in Scripture. Still, they insist the baseline is literal meaning first, with allegory grounded in something real. In Smith’s line: you can’t build literal truth out of pure allegory. You need literal truth as the base.

The prophecy example they stress: Israel’s regathering wasn’t Babylon

Rowland calls it “foolish” to claim the regathering prophecies were fulfilled by the return from Babylonian captivity. He points out the Old Testament repeatedly speaks of Israel being regathered from “all countries,” not from one empire.

He then makes a historical point: the only time Israel was scattered into all countries was after AD 70. That begins the long dispersion that lasted nearly 2,000 years.

From there, he points to modern regathering as evidence that these prophecies are not merely ancient history. He mentions that, in the same week as the episode, Israel’s foreign minister issued a call to Jews worldwide to return, summarizing it as: “Come home.” (Rowland noted he could not recall the foreign minister’s name.)

He also references Ezekiel 36 as a “preamble” to the vision of the Valley of Dry Bones. His point is straightforward: the text itself pushes readers toward a future, physical fulfillment, not only a spiritualized one.

Replacement theology, anti-Semitism, and the danger of picking only the blessings

Smith raises one of his sharpest objections to replacement theology with a simple challenge. If the church wants to take Israel’s promises, it must also take Israel’s judgments.

You can’t take only the blessings.

He says it with humor, but the critique is direct: if someone wants to “play like” they’re Israel to claim Israel’s blessings, they should also accept Israel’s curses. Then he adds another warning: if you’re going to pick a nation to imitate, Israel is not the one you want, because Israel’s covenant blessings and judgments are conditional.

In contrast, he says the church lives under grace and mercy. He doesn’t want Israel’s “day of wrath,” and he sees it as spiritually reckless to claim Israel’s identity while ignoring the cost Israel has carried in Scripture and history.

They also connect this to anti-Semitism. Smith describes anti-Semitism as a personal judgment against Israel, and he argues it clashes with the purposes of God. God will judge Israel, he says, and God is “picky” about others keeping their hands off.

A blunt question they won’t ignore: can someone hold these views and be saved?

Smith asks a question out loud that many hosts would avoid: how can someone be a libertarian, believe replacement theology, and still be saved?

Rowland treats it as a legitimate question, not a final verdict on individuals. He says these systems often run on human intellectualism and human reasoning more than submission to God’s authority. In his view, replacement theology and libertarian isolationism often reach their conclusions by treating Scripture like a flexible, mystical text that requires an “expert” to redefine it.

He says he doesn’t know how someone can say the Bible is the Word of God and also hold to replacement theology. He puts preterism in the same category, because it dismisses large portions of prophecy by calling them already finished.

Nick Fuentes, Catholicism, and the appeal of ceremony without submission

The conversation shifts to public figures and religious identity.

They mention Nick Fuentes as strongly anti-Semitic, claiming a Christian identity, and tying himself to Catholicism and apostolic succession. Rowland says this looks more ceremonial than relational, a label used as cover for politics.

Smith then comments on why young people may be drawn to Catholicism right now. He cites a Fox News report that framed one of the defining moments of 2025 as the new pope and an increase of young people flocking to the Catholic Church. Smith’s theory is that tradition can feel like security. Do these steps, follow these rules, and you’ll be okay.

Rowland frames that as a works-based comfort, and contrasts it with salvation by grace through faith.

They also address how public profanity, especially using God’s name in vain, confuses the Christian witness. Smith mentions hearing Megyn Kelly do it and wishes she wouldn’t. He says it doesn’t decide salvation, but it does create confusion, especially when someone uses constant profanity and then turns around and claims Christianity.

Their critique circles back: ceremony without holiness, confession without repentance, and sacramental systems treated like a license to sin can dull the conscience. In their view, it echoes the mindset behind replacement theology and preterist readings, because both can reduce Scripture’s warnings and flatten the need for personal submission to Christ.

Why they say preterism “cuts out” huge parts of the Bible

Rowland calls preterism the easiest way to remove large sections of Scripture without physically ripping pages out.

Just say, “It already happened,” and the text stops pressing on the present and the future.

Smith and Rowland describe it as stealthy. Rowland summarizes the effect with a wide sweep: from Genesis 12 to Acts 2, the storyline of Israel, covenant, and promise gets sidelined. And at the extreme end, full preterism denies the resurrection, the return of Christ, and the future hope that anchors Christian perseverance.

That’s why they treat it as more than a niche debate among prophecy teachers. They believe it reshapes everything.

America, Israel, and the Great Commission under “America only” thinking

Near the end, Rowland states what he believes America’s founding purposes were:

1. To preach the gospel.
2. To be a friend and ally to Israel.

He calls the nation’s birth “supernatural” in that sense. And he says both purposes are now under attack from replacement and preterist frameworks that teach Israel no longer matters.

Smith adds a final connection: libertarian “America only” thinking clashes with the one basic mission Jesus gave the church, the Great Commission. Jesus sent His followers into “all the world,” beginning in Jerusalem, then outward.

In their framing, a political ideology that rejects foreign concern can quietly become a theological rebellion against Christ’s command to take the gospel beyond national borders.

They close by saying this topic is not going away soon. The church needs endurance to keep speaking clearly about it, without getting worn out and distracted.

For more from the show, they point listeners to the Kingdom Prophetic Society website and the Smith and Rowland Show Daily Unplugged podcast page.

Conclusion: why this debate lands in everyday Christian life

Smith and Rowland’s message is consistent: preterism and replacement theology don’t stay academic, they shape how Christians read the Bible, view Israel, and think about national responsibility. They argue that when prophecy is pushed into the past, believers lose urgency, clarity, and a plain reading of Scripture. And when Israel is replaced, it becomes easier to justify hostility or indifference toward the Jewish people. Their challenge is simple and hard to ignore: believe the Bible as written, and let it set the terms for doctrine, not politics.