NO WE WILL NOT BE BANNING "SATAN'S LITTLE SEASON", WE WILL BE REFUTING IT

SLS, much like IO, ends up introducing problems it claims to solve: Chronological inconsistency: It smuggles in a future expectation post AD70, which undermines the Preterist foundation that the judgment, resurrection, and kingdom were fulfilled at that time. Redefinition of "the end": If Satan has a "little season" after the millennium ends, that logically places "the end" (1 Cor. 15:24) after 70 AD, making Jesus' reign and the resurrection incomplete, contrary to Paul's clear teaching. Undermines victory: If Satan was released after the millennium for a little season, you're left with this weird idea that the church finally wins… only to have Satan run loose again. That doesn't square with the total and final defeat language we get in Revelation and other texts. It's also worth noting that SLS tends to be used as a safety valve for unresolved issues. People don't want to deal with the implications of a fully realized Preterism, so they invent a vague "little season" to punt the problem into some undefined post 70 period. Pair that with IO's flattening of the gospel into a genealogy chart, and you've got two paradigms that often lead people away from sound doctrine and into either confusion or total abandonment of the Scriptures. So yeah IO and SLS together is a vibe. Keep the text tight, the fulfillment full, and the timeline intact.