I have noted that FP fails on fallacious logic as well. Theologian and Philsopher Dr. Norman Geisler has pointed that out in his review the the so called "Bible Answer Man", i.e Hank Hannegraff and his book The Apocalypse Code. Note Geisler's comments:
“This fallacy [genetic fallacy] occurs in The Code when it dismisses the dispensational pretrib view because of its alleged source in John Nelson Darby (40–41) whom Hank calls a “disillusioned priest” from the 19th cent. By the same logic one could reject modern scientific inventions because some were derived from questionable sources like Tesla’s AC motor from a vision while reading a pantheistic poet and Kekule’s model of the benzine molecule from a vision of a snake bitting its tail!” (Geisler)
Often times the idea of a dispensation is ridiculed and scorned. Some fear this and tend to shy from professing to believe in the concepts of dispensations. To some it is a "spooky" word. Quite literally though it can refer to a segment or period of operation that the Scriptures record about God. For example, do we still do blood sacrifices or was Christ's sacrifice sufficient? (Ironically, some welcome Jews to their pulpits every year to fund the rebuilding of the Temple. God forbid.) Yes, the atonement of Christ was sufficient to save mankind and future blood sacrifices have no effect as God has revealed to us.
The term dispensation is theologically useful to express Biblical concepts. Dispensationalism then should preclude, at the least, the idea that God uses different means of administering His will and grace to His people. In various instances, and at several times, God has revealed His mind and will to man, or the way things should continue as He has expressed His Divine Will. At the Incarnation God expressed Himself profoundly in human nature and brought reconciliation and redemption to fallen man. He offered them salvation and hope through Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
The Second Coming of the Son of God, then, is a very key topic for the Full Preterist to consider. For example, the Full Preterist should consider these questions:
1. Is there a difference in a Christ that has already come and one that has not?
2. Is there a difference between a Christ who came spiritually and one who came physically?
3. Is there even a difference between a God who pours His wrath only on Jerusalem and one who pours it out upon the world?
4. Is the Christ who came in 70 AD the same that Futurists look for in the future?
To most Futurists the apocalyptic events of Armageddon, preceding the glorious Day of The Lord, the Millennium, during which the returned Christ will rule, are still future. In FP however we find fulfillment of all these things in the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These CHRISTO-CENTRIC events have DIFFERENT meanings and outcomes.
Another reason that I believe FP teaches a different Christ is our partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. Believer partake of communion (the bread and the wine) today or at least until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). In FP view this is totally unnecessary since Christ has already come. Jesus told the believers "as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
1. Review of Hank Hanegraff's The Apocalypse Code, by Norman L. Geisler. http://www.normangeisler.net/ReviewApocalypseCode.html