Gary DeMar still burying the real issue
Filed Under (dee dee's posts, hyperpreterism) by dee dee on 09-08-2008
Tagged Under : Gary DeMar
I can’t say I am surprised. Just taking a quick break from my break to state that Gary’s current tap-dancing hasn’t gone un-noticed.
Dizzle opens up Evernote and adds his recent antics to the things to blog and/or podcast about.
I tried to respond to Gary there, but it is his blog and his prerogative about who to let post. He has made it clear that no matter how I word a post, he will not let it through while letting hyperpreterists pimp their cause. Well nothing new there for Gary. Personally I would think he would rather address anything I say in a forum that he controls rather than other turf, but that’s fine. I prefer to answer orthodox people where they make the statements, but that option is closed to me, so it gets made an issue of over here. That is Gary’s choice. I almost can’t wait to come back.
More details upon my return.
Toodles.




In case DeMar doesn’t post my comment on his blog, here is an exchange. Gary’s comments first — in response to I & a man named Russ asking Gary to distinguish himself & his work from hyperpreterism:
[Gary DeMar's comments -- (source)]
[Roderick Edwards' response]
Thanks for your reply Gary, If I may be allowed a few observations. You had Tim Martin on your radio show, a KNOWN hyperpreterist who was there to promote a “hyperpreterized” version of the creation account. Not once during the radio show did you point out that what Martin was advocating was hyperpreterism as opposed to “historic preterism”. This isn’t right. As for your comparisons to the hyperpreterists using Ken Gentry’s work — not ONE hyperpreterists thinks Ken Gentry is a “closet hyperpreterist”. They all know very well Gentry’s position (especially since he is a contributing author of “When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyperpreterism”). But you on the other hand, what do hyperpreterists say about you? Here is a recent comment by a hyperpreterist:
Gary, do you agree with this? Do you think a person of your influence has the responsibility to make it clear what you think about hyperpreterism? I’m not asking you to be a “heretic hunter” (I don’t think you are able to define heresy without alienating most of your readers) Nor do I need you to carry our water, BUT I would like to see a man of your caliber come clean on this issue once & for all.
Thanks ahead of time if you allow this honest comment to be posted.
–Roderick
I am watching Gary’s blog with hilarity. He has just given the hyperpreterists another forum to spread their heresy. I predict he will give up on the blog format soon, he is too easily challenged and shown who his supporters are.
Roderick you are lucky any of your comments make it. Gary has decided I am She Who Cannot Be Named.
Well, I guess that is good. I hit the mark apparently. The hyperpreterist rah rah crowd should embarass him, but I am afraid his conscience is too seared to care.
However, I do note that he came VERY CLOSE to calling dispensationalism heresy. I wonder what John MacArthur would think about that. I don’t have a way to contact him, but I sure hope someone does. He outright says hyperpreterism is NOT heresy while slyly insinuating that dispensationalism is. I wonder how the rest of his orthodox supporters would feel about that.
He is on the verge of being marginalized just as much as Gary North but for other reasons. But the Tyler Good Ole Boys Crowd won’t say a peep now.
Gary’s response is useless. A real disappointment. It has nothing to do with people using his material. It has nothing to do with “people are asking me to denounce x, y, & z…”
These answers are about as good as “I never inhaled…” It is all sidestepping the issue. The issue, Gary, do you believe that someone who denies the bodily resurrection and the bodily coming of Jesus Christ is a heretic? If not, why not? This has nothing to do with whether or not you think critiques are doing their job. If I thought my material was leading people in JW, Mormonism, etc., or even if my material was just being used for that purpose, then I would point out why I do not hold that position and why any use of my material in that direction is a misuse.
As is, Gary Demar, as pointed out, wants to make a name for himself and he probably has a few donors that would stop if he spoke out FOR or AGAINST, so he decides to straddle, so he can make a few bucks.
Wow I just want back to that blog and it is the who’s who of hyperpreterists. Gary should be really proud of the fruit of his eschatology ministry. Not!
One of these days someone important, not nobodies like Roderick and myself, is going to call him to task.
I wonder if the Christian Research Institute is putting a disclaimer on their recommendation of Last Days Madness. They should. Hank knows me, only in a tiny way, but he would recognize and remember me. I hope I get the chance to see him again and put this bug in his ear. I am sure he would find it very interesting. Too bad John MacArthur isn’t so muddled himself about the difference between preterism and hyperpreterism - I pray he gets that straightened out and takes Gary to task. I am sure Gary will not be able to brush off those men so easily as he does to mere serfs.
Yes I am easing back into my regular routine. I should be back like normal next week.
I’m back from a week long business trip to Miami — looks like a have lot to catch up on.