The foundation of Christ's teachings

I don't normally spend too much time reading creationist literature from creation scientists, because I prefer to believe that God made it happen somehew, but I came across an editorial from a guy called Don Batten http://creation.com/revival-what-is-missing

This is a cut and paste of his main points:

Throughout history, revival occurred with the faithful preaching of righteousness, sin, and judgment. Central to all biblical preaching is sin and judgment. Why? Because the sinner needs to know he is in trouble before he is likely to have any interest in being saved. Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon was titled, ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God.’ Wesley, Whitefield, Finney and Moody all emphasized that their listeners had broken God’s Law, were guilty before the Righteous Judge of heaven and earth, and deserving of His wrath. These great revivalists knew that the Good News of God’s forgiveness in Jesus Christ would not make much sense unless people understood the ‘Bad News,’ the full impact of their lost condition in Adam, and would cry out to God for mercy.
In Finney’s day, over 90% of those counseled for salvation persevered. Today it is apparently less than 5%. Why?
In today’s evolutionized world, unlike the world of the revivalists, most no longer believe in Creation and the Fall, as recorded in Genesis. So there is no longer any basis for understanding the meaning of sin, namely rebellion against our Creator. So sin has been variously re-defined—loss of self-esteem, or left-over aggression from our animal ancestors. So, when evangelists try preaching about sin, instead of having people call to God for mercy, they get a confused, even hostile response.
So evangelists have tended to minimize talk of sin and judgment, offering instead happiness here and now, rather than rescue from eternal damnation.

His point on the preaching of happiness in the here and now, rather than being rescued from eternal damnation is a good one. Churches have lost their power, in my opinion, because they ignore the basic tenets of biblical truth. Even Paul recognised what the foundations of Christ's teaching were:

Hebrews 6: 1-3: Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Paul knew that among the foundations of Christ's teaching was repentance from sin, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement. Most of the churches I have been too in my life have ditched these teachings and have placed too much focus on doing good or how to look like Christians in a secular society. Sunday mornings can feel like a gathering of socialists trying to bring equality, acceptance and tolerance into their world. These socialist ideals are important, but they are not the foundation of Christ's teaching and without it, the gospel is not getting preached. You have to go to Church for many Sunday's to hear anything about the Gospel of salvation (sin, repentance and eternal judgment). Without the gospel, we are all damned, no matter now socialistic we are.

Micah v's Preterism

Preterists believe that all Bible prophecy, especially the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 , as well as Daniel and Revelation were all fulfilled with the covenantal wrath God poured out on Jerusalem in AD70. Preterists believe that Jesus, along with his kingdom, have already come and the resurrection is a spiritual one.

Dispensationalists (or futurists) believe that the Olivet discourse covers an extended period of time and that most of Revelation is still yet to be fulfilled. Both sides, in their own way, offer good defences of their eschatology.

However, I have observed two things:

1.The Preterists view of all Bible prophecy being fulfilled in the first century relies heavily on the writing of the  priestly Jew Josephus, who was employed by the Roman Empire. He witnessed the fall of Jerusalem and presumably recorded it faithfully. He wasn't inspired by the Spirit, he just wrote what he saw.

2. Dispensationalists do use the Old Testament to back up their eschatology.

Rational Dispensationalists claim Jesus' discourse covered the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (Matthew 24: 1-35), as well as future events of the last days (Matthew 24: 36-51). Preterists question who would talk like that? Why would Jesus jump forward to a time when his listeners would be well and truly dead. Wouldn't he tell them that verse 36 onwards won't apply to them.

But, I have an observation from Micah 5:1-2. Verse one (which is highlighted in red) apparently talks about the imminent invasion of Judah by Assyria in 701B.C. Verse two (in blue) jumps to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, seven centuries later:
Micah 5: 1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins [c] are from of old, from ancient times. [d] " 3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. 4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. 5 And he will be their peace.

To the readers of today the time jump is obvious. If one of God's prophets can make the time jump in a discourse, why can't Jesus do the same thing? If you try and be consistent with the preterist view, the people who Micah was talking to would have expected a ruler out of Bethlehem to stop the Assyrians right there and then. Surely, the preterists would be stating that Micah should have told them that their ruler will be struck with a rod, and by the way in 700 years from now, long after you are dead, a ruler will come from Bethlehem. In my mind, when the preterists say that the Olivet Discourse covers one event and one period of time, there is biblical precedence of jumping across times in one discourse.

I think preterists mistakenly treat God like he is linear and his actions reflect this.
I think that dual prophecy exists in the Bible. For example, in the Olivet discourse in Luke 17 Jesus speaks about Jerusalem being trodden down until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. If we accept time jumping and the possibility of dual prophecy, there is no reason why Jesus couldn't have been referring to present day Israel and that eventually the Jews would be fully restored in Jerusalem.
Although I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this, it seems to me that the Book of Revelation isn't necessarily the only prophetic book we should be looking to. The Old Testament is packed with prophetic statements that we haven't witnessed yet. For example:
Micah 4: In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it...He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.'
 
If Jesus did arrive in 70AD there aint no streaming to his mountain that I can see. I only see Jews and Muslims trading insults on His mountain today. We're still training for war as well. The Old Testament indicates in a number of places that Jesus will physically return to earth to rule.