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

Some of you have heard or were in attendance during last week’s The Narrow Mind radio show by Pastor Gene Cook. If you have not heard of it, stop in Paltalk on Tuesday night, 9:00pm EST, for live simulcast with chat in the room. This particular night, Pastor Gene had Gary DeMar on as a guest. Gary by far is the most prolific preterist¹ writer out there and has written what is almost universally held to be the best primer on preterism Last Days Madness. Thus this is certainly a man that I have learned a lot from and in practically every other issue I think has it nailed except for this. He refuses to condemn hyperpreterism as heresy and theologically buddies up to them. Many have speculated why. I will not do so here. The hyperpreterists in conversation frequently allege that DeMar is a “closet hyperpreterist.” He has spoken at hyperpreterist conferences (he has said he no longer does that, thank God) and posts at hyperpreterist websites. Hyperpreterists use this as a lure that their view is just a bit more than his (well the chasm IS just one step off the cliff). Gary and I have had several email conversations on this issue, and I find him evasive and incoherent when confronted on this point. By his silence, as a teacher, I do believe he is culpable for some of the spread of this gangrenous teaching.

So what happened on the show goes somewhat as follows (meaning paraphrased as I am having difficulty downloading the audio file right now - and it is not needful for this to be word for word). Pastor Gene stated that at the end of the program that they would talk a bit about hyperpreterism but that they would stick to Matthew 24 in general at the beginning. I had emailed Pastor Gene before the show predicting that one of the first things that would happen would be that a hyperpreterist would call to get Gary to say that they were not heretical to give the impression of credibility to their mythology. And lo and behold what happened? One of the first callers was Samuel Frost whom Gary let lead him by the nose right to Gary’s foolhardy declaration:

I DON’T THINK FULL PRETERISM IS HERETICAL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DENY THE RESURRECTION.

Which is sheer BUNK. Such a statement is so way below Gary’s obvious intellect and logical skills it is mind-boggling.

Samuel’s call was not cut short. Although Gary did say that he was hoping to leave that subject until the end of the program, since it came up, he might as well address it. Well okay, since he said such an incoherent statement that is doctrinally dangerous, I called to, well, basically confront him to substantiate that statement. I asked Gary if he thought that a radical redefinition of a word or doctrine is not in fact a denial of the original meaning of the word or doctrine…. and I followed quickly by asking if he thought Mormons denied the Trinity.

What happened? Gary dodged the question and “shouted” me down declaring that he was only there to discuss Matthew 24, and if I wanted to talk about hyperpreterism I could do so on my own site, which I am now doing. I pointed out to Gary that he seemed okay talking about it with Samuel Frost, and if one makes a shocking assertion, one should be willing to defend it or not say it at all. Gary absolutely refused. And went on for a great part of the show to talk about things other than Matthew 24. So much for that excuse to not answer. He says that he is not really interested in those skirmishes but in the wider issue of worldview and how the dispensational worldview impoverishes Christianity. Does he actually think that believing that we are in the CONSUMMATION NOW is not a worldview issue? Let me just rattle off a few…. there is no satan any longer, so spiritual warfare is no longer needed. We no longer see in a glass darkly but have come to the perfect man. Death is destroyed and Christ has no enemies. This sounds more and more like Christian Science than Christianity. If that is really his goal, to deal with worldviews, then he has some seriously dealing with it to do with the theologically hollow position of NeoHymenaean preterism.

Well then, though I absolutely respect Gary in many other areas, he is absolutely and recklessly wrong - first in making that statement, and second for refusing to answer the challenge. That really saddens me to say, though I have in the past told Gary this in email so it is no surprise to him.

This ambiguity about Gary and hyperpreterism doesn’t originate with me, but in fact goes back in history to the fall-out with the Tyler crowd at the time of Chilton’s apostasy, and I believe only those persons who were actually involved can really know the issues with that.

I will have more to say about this show, more specifically about some of the odd behaviour in text, as the weeks go on. As far as this issue, I cannot say it better than Dan Trotter:

“I am now directing my argument to all orthodox folks of whatever eschatological persuasion, who believe that there will be a physical, resurrection of the wicked and the just at the end of time, but who unfortunately also believe that there is some kind of distinction between the original hymenaeans and the neo-hymenaeans of today, and that therefore we can coexist with the hyperpreterists in love, peace, and harmony, and can just accept their doctrinal deviancy as harmless error. In the following paragraph, I will restate the hyperpreterist argument concerning Hymenaeus and Philetus. All the things all we orthodox know to be true will be printed in normal case. But anything all we orthodox know to be false will be printed in red, in all caps. Please notice how the hyperpreterist argument relies on the red capitalized text.

This is how the hyperpreterist typically argues: “Paul condemned Hymenaeus and Philetus for stating erroneously that the resurrection had already taken place (2 Tim 2:18). Paul was writing just before A.D. 70. THE RESURRECTION TOOK PLACE IN A.D. 70. Therefore, Hymenaeus and Philetus were wrong when they claimed, in the sixties, that the resurrection had already taken place. However, we current day full preterists are not wrong when we say in the twenty-first century that the resurrection has already taken place, because IT HAS, IN FACT, ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. IT TOOK PLACE IN A.D. 70. ”

Now, all you orthodox Christians who think that heretical preterism is just harmless error, and should not be identified with the blasphemous doctrine taught by Hymenaeus and Philetus, look at the above paragraph. Look at what the heretical preterists have done. They have assumed to be true a false premise, namely that THE RESURRECTION TOOK PLACE IN A.D. 70. Their entire argument falls to the ground if the big red text isn’t true, and you and I know it isn’t true. The heretical preterists have begged the question. This is classic petitio principii. It is bogus logic. And we are going to let them use this sort of “reasoning” to insinuate themselves into our eschatological discussions?

I am still addressing all orthodox Christians who believe the resurrection to be at the end of time. If it is true that the resurrection is at the end of time, then Hymenaeus and Philetus were wrong when they said the resurrection had already taken place. But, then, so are the neo-hymenaeans wrong when they say the resurrection has already taken place, because the resurrection hasn’t taken place. And the neo-hymenaeans are wrong IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT THE ORIGINAL HYMENAEANS ARE WRONG!!!!! So, my question is this. Why in the world do you insist on giving the hyperpreterists a free pass? Why don’t you consider their doctrine in the same light that Paul considered the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus? Paul certainly contended for the truth. Will you? Are you listening, Gary DeMar?”

source [last emphasis mine though Dan made it stand out in a quote box]

[1] - Preterist means here what it has historically meant, not the “newer than dispensationalism” perversion that flatters itself with the historic label.