The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

It’s impossible to think of ‘disciplining’ DeMar. After all, to whom do you appeal? He’ll go on doing what he wants to do.. it’s human nature. Yes, I think he has a lot of ‘pull’ with the Hyper-Prets. Who knows if that isn’t his main audience. The sad thing is, he’s falsely advertising himself as a defender of orthodox Christianity. He’s like a big painted sing-post pointing straight toward the enemy camp.

Brian

Hi Brian, perhaps I worded that improperly. I mean is that he obviously considers my opinion a lone one or one not worthy of his attention - however, he does have connections with peers on his level who’s opinion and respect he cares about. Those are the ones I was speaking of.

Hehe, it won’t let me even edit my own comments. What I also don’t mean is that I am going to talk incessantly about Gary every minute or opportunity. But as the issue arises, it is still very much alive. And if he is going to voice opinions on things directly related to his primary field of stud, I am going t insist he defend them. If he makes some comment about JWs, well, that isn’t his primary field of study. But preterism is - and hyperpreterism is directly related and seeing how Gary is admired so much by very basic eschatological heretics, there is a problem. I teach a great deal of the very same things as Gary does, but I am no hero of the hyperpreterists. Why is that? It is certainly not something inherent in the position. The hyperpreterists also don’t trumpet Gentry except for his position on the dating of Revelation. They certainly don’t go around praising Chori Seraiah, Keith Mathison, Jay Adams - all preterists. Yet DeMar is their orthodox poster-boy. All to fight the evil dispensationalists.

Gary wants to claim if hyperpreterism is foundational heresy than dispensationalism is too. It seems to me then that Gary thinks every wrong theology is foundational heresy. It isn’t. That is why I use the word heresy only for very specific things. Other wrong ideas may be heterodox (wrong thinking) but there are a thought of wrong-thinking Christians out there. Not all wrong thinking is faith-fatal thinking. Brian, I am sure you believe my non-premill thinking to be wrong thinking and vice versa. But it doesn’t affect the very basic contours of the Gospel - hyperpreterism does. Even David Green admitted so.

I am surprised to see a man of this caliber making this kind of argument.

Hi Dee Dee,
As I see it, Gary’s trouble is that he’s teaming up with heretics to combat both sound & unsound views. There are some elements of Dispensationalism that are heretical; as for instance the negation of the Cross & the relegation of 90% of the N.T. canon to “The Jews.” I myself have combated these positions before. But when DeMar claims he is fighting Dispensationalism, he is only telling half the truth–and that’s where I have my problem. There are lots of orthodox doctrines which he’s also fighting, & he’s using Dispensationalism as a ‘catch-all’ phrase. This just strikes me as being incredibly dishonest. It’s like what someone did last year when he said I went by the “Philadelphia Confession of Faith.” He knew full well that that was derived from the 1689 London Confession, but he wanted to make my position seem as recent as possible. We shouldn’t have to beg people to play fairly with the evidence. Gary is obviously out to defend a political party. There are alot of theological errors, flaws, and heresies that ought to be addressed. But we must address them by clearly defining what they are: not by propagating catch-phrases and false terminology. As I see it his liaison with Hyper-Preterism is just aspect of the problem.

Peace & Health,

Brian

Yes that is true we must be clear in defining what views are - and the differences, on that we totally agree, because that has been my huge problem with DeMar, that he doesn’t take the appropriate opportunities to define what his position is vis a vis a heretical position that isn’t that far off from his own.

You and I differ a bit (I think) on whether or not it is appropriate to “battle” (can’t think of a better term) between acceptable views - you know I battle against futurism and your own premill views quite often as I expect you to do so against my own non-premill views.

It is just that there is a way of going about it. One cannot simply yell worldview and think that solves it. I was just as politically active as a dispesnationalist as I am now. There is more to it than just that. And we must acknowledge when people are teaching the Gospel.

I think I mentioned this to you before, but this will give you an idea of how I feel in that regard - I have almost exclusively attending dispensational futurist churches. I totally disagreed with their eschatology but they taught the Gospel and they taught the Bible. And as they taught the futurism parts, I could listen and discern.

I have never been to a church that taught an eschatology that I agreed with. That is a particular subject of interest to me, but my primary concern is whether the Gospel is being taught and whether the church is fulfilling its outreach mission to the community (the modern equivalent of caring for the widows and the orphans).

I think my view is correct (preterism) and supports the Gospel, but it isn’t the Gospel.

I know I have neglected in that past when critiquing a futurist to acknowledge that they do teach the Gospel - something I hope to remember to correct in the future. I tend to be a bit sarcastic with everything (hey look at how I get about computers!!) and sometimes the central importance of what really really matters might not come across to others.

I think Left Behind is a piece of tripe but I believe LaHaye teaches the Gospel.

Hi Dee Dee,

I think we agree on the validity of the Gospel & on the main elements of eschatology. And this all I can reasonably expect. Of course there is a big difference between Chiliasm & “Dispensationalism.” I have pointed this out many a time. Irenaeus certainly wasn’t a Dispensationalist–neither were Lactantius, Tertullian, Commodian, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, or (in recent years) Charles Spurgeon. I know I sound like a broken record, but I always chirp in with this because the distinction is a major one. You’d feel similar if someone kept classifying you as a Hyper Preterist. If that person knew the distinction and disregarded it, you’d think he was behaving in a dishonest matter–especially if he were putting himself forward as a “scholar.” It is not scholarship to play with the evidence. If DeMar wants to fight against ‘pre-trib’ raptures and animal sacrifices he has my full support. But when he starts lumping these with historic orthodox teachings, I’ve got to speak up. It’s not fair to people who are studying historic Christianity w/ a single eye trying to come to a consistent eschatology. I don’t have any thesis to defend. As a former A-Millennial partial preterist, I sacrificed a great deal of credibility by embracing the eschatology of the early church. I could have sat there for years and nolled all the evidence that came my way. That would have been easy. When I saw what the early church believed, I ovehauled everything. That isn’t so easy. I would expect scholars of whatever caliber to use the same impartiality as myself. Otherwise they are not worth their salt. We are not on this earth to defend our theories but to preach the pure Gospel. DeMar seems to me to show a lack of integrity–not only because of his alliance with H.P., but because of his tampering with the evidence. This is unacceptable behavior for a Christian.

BTW, Dee, I don’t expect to battle Preterism at all! I’ve already stated for the record that I believe the events of A.D. 70 have significance. I am just not a ’systematic’ preterist. I believe in antichrist, last days’ apostasy, and all that. What I really believe is the exact same Gospel that Paul & Peter and John & James preached–plus nothing, minus nothing. I call that orthodoxy in its strictest and most correct sense. But I don’t have a problem with those who relegate certain phases of fulfillment to the close of the Mosaic dispensation–so long as they realize that Mosaic fulfillment does not exhaust prophecy. You & others have a right to disagree with whatever ‘futurist’ teachings you feel are wrong. I cannot bridle anyone else’s lips, nor do I wish to do so. I feel at this point more than ever I can afford to be charitable toward the views of others, as long as they remain within the confines of sound orthodoxy.

Peace & Health,

Brian

>>Of course there is a big difference between Chiliasm & “Dispensationalism.” >>>

I point that out quite a bit myself because many a dispensationalist try to claim very early support for their view in toto by pointing out early premills. I know quite a few historic premills.

>>>I always chirp in with this because the distinction is a major one. You’d feel similar if someone kept classifying you as a Hyper Preterist.>>

The distinction is a major one and is important for Gary to point out since it is peculiarly dispensational things that he has a lot of issues with (such as a pre-occupation with Israel).

>>As a former A-Millennial partial preterist, I sacrificed a great deal of credibility by embracing the eschatology of the early church. >>

With me attending over my Christian life dispie futurist churches, I know how you feel. I have learned the discipline of not being divisive at church and knowing when to shut up though my husband does have to jab me at times.

>>BTW, Dee, I don’t expect to battle Preterism at all! I’ve already stated for the record that I believe the events of A.D. 70 have significance. I am just not a ’systematic’ preterist. I believe in antichrist, last days’ apostasy, and all that. >>>

Oh I understand. I do consider myself a systematic preterist and don’t hold to a future antichrist, last days’ apostasy - but interestingly, that is not because of my systematic preterist beliefs, because I think most orthodox preterists foolishly throw out the idea of recapitulation out the window, but because of my postmillennial views. As a systematic preterist (putting aside postmill for a minute) I could accept that there might be a future antichrist, apostasy etc. I wouldn’t say I definitely believe there would, but the Scriptural pattern of recapitulation makes it more than likely.

>>What I really believe is the exact same Gospel that Paul & Peter and John & James preached–plus nothing, minus nothing. I call that orthodoxy in its strictest and most correct sense. But I don’t have a problem with those who relegate certain phases of fulfillment to the close of the Mosaic dispensation–so long as they realize that Mosaic fulfillment does not exhaust prophecy. You & others have a right to disagree with whatever ‘futurist’ teachings you feel are wrong. I cannot bridle anyone else’s lips, nor do I wish to do so. I feel at this point more than ever I can afford to be charitable toward the views of others, as long as they remain within the confines of sound orthodoxy.>>

I used to argue about a whole lot more than I do now. The hypers like to pain me as a heresy-hunter just because it is their ox that is bearing gored - normally the accusation is that I am too tolerant. As long as the contours of the saving Gospel are preserved, I am “tolerant” of a great deal of difference - doesn’t mean I accept it, but there is too much division over things that aren’t essential to the Gospel and God’s ultimate plan of redemption.

Like that one whacky guy at TWeb who says he believe there was a physical resurrection in AD70 but there is going to be another one that includes everyone at the consummation. I told him that was stupid (my exact words) but he believes in the consummation and though I would think he was quite messed up, I don’t call it damnable heresy but definitely heterodox.

Hi Dee Dee,

This may actually surprise you, but there are very few ‘hardcore Dispensationalists” I’ve met. Most of them are what I’d call ‘nominal only.’ As an Independent Baptist I’ve moved among other ministers, and I’ve only a small number who hold such views as that the Sermon on the Mount is for “The Jews,” or that the Jews will be saved without faith in Christ. As a matter of fact, that problem is very prevalent among the Southern Baptists–not the Independents. As an IFB I never held views like the “pre-trib rapture” or salvation of Israel irespective of faith in Christ. Not that my colleagues didn’t. I just couldn’t find such teachings in the Bible.

But I require a great deal of patience from my brethren. My first sermon I preached that Cardinal Ratzinger was the antichrist! It’s funny about that ‘future antichrist view.’ Most classic A-Millennialists (and post-millennialists) teach that. From an a-mil/post-mil perspective we still have to look for the “Gog and Magog” invasion. That’s an endtime crisis. The Gog & Magog attack is a repeat of whatever occurred prior to the Millennium. See Augustine’s ‘City of God.’ What most people don’t realize is, whatever view of eschatology we hold will always include an endtime catastrophe. The only way to get around that is Hyper-Preterism. But I see what you’re saying. I’ve looked at the Preterist theory of antichrist, and I frankly cannot be persuaded that Nero fits the bill. In fact, a highly respected Preterist scholar (whose anonymity I promised to respect) has assured me that Nero wasn’t the antichrist! The antichrist has to be sitting in the temple of God when he is destroyed. Also he has to be the eighth ruler (Nero was the sixth) and has to be “taken alive” and cast into the lake of fire. Nero committed suicide two years before the temple was destroyed. This is where the early church fathers come in handy. There were a few like Commodian who taught that Nero would be raised from hell (as Antichrist) at the end of the current age, but that is about as far as it went. Perhaps that is true. At any rate, I agree that, like Antiochus Epiphanes, Nero was a type of the Antichrist. BTW, I would say the biggest candidate right now for “Mystery Babylon” is the emergent church.

Peace and Health,

Brian

Yeah my view certainly isn’t classic postmill. I am a neo-postmill along the lines of Gentry, and ironically, DeMar. Post-mill versus A-mill (there are some amills I know that believe very similarly to me) isn’t that big of an issue for me.

Yes there will be some kind of cataclysmic event, that is true. In fact, that one passage in Revelation is the biggest problem passage (we all have them) for Postmill in my view. I would understand a minor revolution, but this seems like a major one, and postmill teaches their just wouldn’t be that many non-converted people. I have a way I could explain this in a postmill view, but haven’t had much time to really meditate on it. I asked Gentry about it and found his answer unsatisfactory.

But my preterism doesn’t rule out any of those events, but it doesn’t require them, and doesn’t require them in a fulfillment form but a recapitulative typology form if at all.

Personally, I think the preterism I espouse is much closer to that of the older commentators than the more radical “partial preterism” of DeMar which I think can easily lead to hyperpreterism which is why he of all people have to go out of their way to make sure these differences are clear. I go out of my way to do so, and my form of preterism is much less susceptible to bridge over to hyperpreterism.

I think the more radical preterists and of course the hyperpreterists show a rigidity in application that the Bible and the early church did not show. By some of the “hermeneutical rules” we swear by today, the NT would be false.

I take it you like my NOT “friend of emergent” label I put on the sidebar

Dee Dee,

You’re right I’m definitely no ‘friend of emergent!’ You know, even as a Hyper-Preterist I had a hard time fitting many of the prophetic passages into a pre-A.D. 70 context. The “Gog and Magog” passage is a case in point. But I think a more generous eschatology would recognize prophecies of the Old & New Testament as being fulfilled in different stages. Even the Babylonian captivity ultimately points forward to our release from this ‘body of death’ in the resurrection. At any rate, I try not to be too dogmatic when discussing prophecy. My interpretation may be just one facet of a many-sided jewel which sheds luster in all directions.

Peace & Health,

Brian

I agree with the first post on this thread Rhett Kelley. I know this is an old thread but wanted to add that Gary is VERY concerned about his bread and butter audience many of whom are hyper preterists. Most preterism materials partial, hyper etc are not stocked in libraries (but youll find hal lindsey!) and many are out of print or not available on amazon. Demar store is the heart of his site and the spammy emails for buying stuff at it are a sign of that. He will not keep his full pterterist friends away because money is seductive and greed will blind you. Am I saying he is blind because he sees dollar bills? No what Im saying is you decide. Why would you not come out and oppose hyper preterism otherwise? What other reason is left? 2+2 always equals 4 and Ive found that most modern folks whether they are professing christians are very very aware of money and its always in the back of their minds. Dont undestimate its seductive force. I totally agree with Rhett Kelley.