With a heavy heart this private letter to Gary DeMar has been approved for public posting by its signatories: Andrew Sandlin, Ken Gentry, Doug Wilson, Jeffery Ventrella, Phillip Kayser, John Frame, Ardel Caneday, Jeff Durbin, James White, Brian Mattson, Keith Sherlin, Jason Bradfield, Sam Frost, and Uriesou Brito
Please be in prayer for Gary, that he would return to orthodoxy on these important redemptive-eschatological issues. Here is the letter we sent twice to Gary in private:
Gary DeMar:
We are your brothers in the Lord, long-time friends, supporters, co-laborers in his Word, and co-promoters and defenders of the Christian worldview. We have contacted you privately twice in the last few months regarding our concerns, with the following:
We are writing to you once again with an earnest plea regarding your doctrinal transitioning that we are witnessing. Gary, we seriously and deeply hope that you will receive this as from deeply-burdened hearts and that you will respond to us as to those who love you in the Lord and have appreciated your public ministry.
As you know from our previous correspondence, we are deeply concerned over the eschatological direction you seem to be taking of late. Andrew Sandlin heard you speak at a conference in Texas about a year ago. At that time he was surprised that you would not acknowledge whether you believe in a future final judgment and a future physical resurrection of the dead. When asked, you also stated that you would not call full preterists “heretics.”
Due to certain statements you made publicly on Facebook recently, Ken Gentry asked you if you would affirm three simple, basic doctrinal positions. These questions have intentionally been kept limited and simple in order to avoid entangling interaction with the many variations within and permutations of Full Preterism (aka Consistent Preterism; aka Covenant Preterism; aka Hyperpreterism). Furthermore, they have also been confined to doctrines clearly declared in the American Vision Statement of Faith (https://americanvision.org/about/statement-of-faith/).
Those simple yes-or-no questions are now simplified and clarified even more:
Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ?
Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?
To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts, it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview.
As blunt as it might sound, it is to strike at crucial aspects in the very heart of the Christian faith.
This private letter of inquiry has been agreed upon by the signatories listed below. Please, Gary, receive this not as an attack upon you, but as a humble concern for your doctrinal orthodoxy and the integrity of American Vision. Please set the matter straight regarding these three fundamental issues so that we can lay this matter to rest.
We love you and are continuing to pray for you,
In the love of Christ the Lord,
Andrew Sandlin, Ken Gentry, Doug Wilson, Jeffery Ventrella, Phillip Kayser, John Frame, Ardel Caneday, Jeff Durbin, James White, Brian Mattson, Keith Sherlin, Jason Bradfield, Sam Frost, and Uriesou Brito
That is the end of the letter. Here is Gary’s response regarding interaction regarding the letter with his good friend, Andrew Sandlin (President, Center for Cultural Leadership): 
End of Sandlin article; Gentry addition below
The screen capture below shows Gary’s mockery of those who hold to the historic, universal, Christian church’s view of a future physical resurrection body. It clearly shows his adoption of the spiritual nature of the resurrection at the point of each individual believer’s death. It also demonstrates his confusion in mixing up a metaphorical coming of Christ with a literal, bodily coming of Christ. God comes metaphorically against Egypt in the Isaiah 19:1; Jesus comes metaphorically against Jerusalem in Matthew 24:30. These are quite different from his literal, bodily Second Coming at the end of history.
He also apparently does not realize creeds do not tell us everything the Bible teaches. They are summaries; otherwise they would be as long as the Bible itself. Thus, they do not mention metaphorical comings of God and Christ — since they are not literal comings.
And he is not aware of verses speaking of disembodied spirits going to heaven when we die. But Paul says “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). Nor is he aware that “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7).
Postmillennial Worldview 
I didn’t know about this letter until Gary did a podcast on it. From what I recall he categorically affirmed he believes #3 in that podcast.
Actually he said he believes the world will end. But in other contexts he said that he believes the world could end by a meteror strike or nuclear war. He was not talking about prophecy regarding God’s ending of history with a Final Judgment.
Why is full preterism heretical?
Is postmillennialism consistent with partial or full preterism?
I am not ready to declare it a “soul-damning” heresy (and it is not up to ME to declare such) that condemns one to eternal hell. But it is heretical based on its denial of certain fundamentals of the faith that are rooted in Scripture and formalized in the ecumenical creeds of the historic, universal, Christian faith. It cannot affirm the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed because it denies (among many other things!) that Christ is returning in the future in a physical body (the Second Advent), that we will receive a physical body at the future resurrection, and that there will be a Final Judgment that concludes history.
The reason creeds were established was to define and defend the historic Christian faith against various perversions within and challenges from without. See my chapter in Keith Mathison’s “When Shall These Things Be?”
https://www.kennethgentry.com/when-shall-these-things-be-a-reformed-response-to-hyperpreterism-preterism/
Yes, I and many current-day postmillennialists are preterists (aka partial-preterists). But we see preterism as a hermeneutic tool for explaining certain time-delimited passages. We do not see it as a whole systematic theology. Hyperpreterists (by whatever label they choose) see all theology through the lense of AD 70, even where time limiters are not present or any other disambiguating terms are found.
So the beef with Gary is that he appears to be gravitating towards full P which is considered heretical (maybe). Though he still maintains postmill position (secondary issue at best). Sorry, I don’t see why everyone is upset. I myself am reformed (Baptist, 1646 London statement) and postmill (recent) after being mentored decades ago by DTS people, dispensationalists, Arminians, and antinomian all of which I consider much more problematic.
I didn’t know about this letter until Gary did a podcast on it. From what I recall he categorically affirmed he believes #3 in that podcast.///
Huh? Did you “miss” this?
Question 3 from the online letter to Gary DeMar:
Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?
“I don’t know (I rarely say this) and I really don’t care. Whatever God decides to do with the end of history that’s fine with me.”
Apparently he is also denying that he is “postmillennial.” Everyone is upset with Gary’s denial of the physical resurrection of the body, the future physical second coming of Christ, and the future end of history at the final judgment which introduces the consummate order. These are three fundamentals of the faith.
That’s your problem. If you don’t think full preterism is heresy then everything Gary says isn’t a problem for you. However, in so saying you are in direct conflict with 2000 years of church and theological history.
Yes, after I posted that I read the article you posted and certainly understand the beef now. Greg Bahnsen would be very upset with Uncle Gary right about now if he indeed is denying the postmill position after so much work on it.
Thank you Gary for dealing with the text. All these critics should try that instead of attacking you.
Actually our letter was simply asking him three questions in order to see where he stands on the issues. Several of us are close personal friends. Read the letter again: we were cordially asking simple questions. The reason we are asking is because he originally held totally opposite (and orthodox!) views on these questions.
For instance, here is what he stated in the 1994 edition of “Last Days Madness.” Notice how confident he was and how orthodox he was. Something has radically changed that concerned his friends and associates:
“Jesus coming in 70 AD was a coming in judgment upon and apostate nation. When Jesus returns bodily–a still future event–He will have “abolished all rule and authority and power,” having put “all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death” (1 Corinthians 15:24-26). We await this glorious coming.”
Last Day Madness (1994), p.318
“The chapter (1 Cor. 15) deals with the resurrection not the Rapture: first, the resurrection of Jesus; second the resurrection of Christians. Without the resurrection of Jesus there will be no resurrection of Christians. The resurrection of believers comes just before the end: “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power (15:23-24). The “resurrection of the dead” occurs after the period of the kingdom (there must be something to deliver up) and just before “the end.”
Ibid, p. 192
”As has been demonstrated in the previous chapters, the events rehearsed in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) are signs leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These chapters have nothing to do with when Jesus will return at the final judgment. There are no observable signs leading up to His bodily return!
”So then, when will Jesus return? The only “sign” the Bible gives us is the fullness of the kingdom, “when He has abolished all rule and authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25). We know that Jesus is presently reigning over the Universe from heaven. Heaven is His throne and earth His footstool (Isaiah 66:1). He will continue to reign in this manner until all his enemies are put under his feet (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:35). When this is accomplished, Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. It will be at the time when “the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).”
Ibid, p. 151
They are not simple questions. Many of you who signed the letter disagree on various texts. Some do not see a divided Olivet discourse. I will just name one and why people are confused and asking questions. Jeff Durbin’s sermon, “The New Covenant Heavens and Earth”. He teaches that Revelation 21 has been fulfilled, the old heavens and earth have passed away and the new heavens and earth have arrived. He teaches the new Jerusalem has come down out of heaven to the earth. Since Revelation 21 comes after Revelation 20 it seems Jeff has a problem unless He teaches that they are not chronologic. Of course Jeff would answer the 3 questions the way that maintains his orthodoxy but honestly I don’t know how He can get there scripturally while teaching what He does. Olivet discourse not divided, We are in the New Heavens and Earth, The New Jerusalem has come down, The Old Heavens and Earth have passed away, etc. I simply think We should have an abundance of grace to our brothers in Christ while we discuss these difficult issues. And Gary is certainly our brother in Christ. God bless and thank you for responding.
These are VERY simple questions. They are Yes-or-No questions. You either believe one or more of the three questions or you don’t. It is that simple. The questions do not ask WHY you believe them. They did not ask for the exegetical foundations of the questions. They simply asked WHAT do you believe — on the three issues.
There are differences on various texts. The issue is not lock-step agreement on ALL eschatological issues. It is a confirmation of the public, universal, historic Christian faith in the fundamentals. The core fundamentals have been declared in the ecumenical (not ecclesiastical!) creeds. The creeds were the summary results of exegetical analysis of the core of Christian theology, which was being defended against heretical incursions and external assaults on the Christian faith. All signers affirmed their commitment to a future bodily return of Christ, a future physical resurrection of the dead, and a future final judgment.
The more podcasts Gary does talking about why he is not answering these 3 questions, the bigger hole he seems to keep digging in my opinion. Sure seems like he isn’t answering because he doesn’t affirm them.
I do have questions for the folks signing at this Unorthodox Eschatology site though. Why would you put your name on something with such debatable scripture passages? I personally could not in good conscience sign that statement due to the scripture passages being cited.
You didn’t say which verses were problematic for you. But in light of this it is a good idea for you not to sign it! Especially if you don’t believe the doctrines declared therein.
The issue is that some people who signed the letter are teaching things that are not in line with the creeds while claiming to believe the creeds. Perhaps that is okay with you, but I believe they need to explain how they exegetically can affirm the creeds. As I pointed out previously if Revelation 21 is a current reality, has been fulfilled, I do not see how they in good conscience they can give a yes to the 3 questions. I simple want all of you to honestly discuss these issues. I have been studying this for over 40 years and respect and appreciate the work many of you have done. But the questions Gary is asking have not been answered. Perhaps Jeff Durbin can explain the apparent contradictions that his sermon that I mentioned leads to. I am trying to see what the scriptures teach. An appeal to man made creeds is not sufficient. The sermon Jeff gave could have been given by a FP and then He claims He is not a FP. He needs to explain this. Do in part to a rise in a postmillennial worldview these questions are not going to go away. There will be a growing interest in the FP or covenantal eschatological view if these questions are not addressed.
Thanks again for your time
You apparently do not understan the Now/Not Yet principle of biblical interpretation. Some redemptive issues that we enjoy NOW are to be enjoyed more greatly in their ultimate fulfillment, which is NOT YET. For instance, we are now spiritually resurrected (John 5:24) NOW, but are NOT YET physically resurrected (John 5:28-29). Thus, we enjoy a spiritual resurrection, but not a physical resurrection. But since man is a two-part being (body and soul, Gen. 2:7; Matt. 10:28), he must receive his full salvation in BOTH soul body. The same interpretive principle is true of the new creation: we spiritually enjoy it as a seminal reality NOW (2 Cor. 5:17), but in the future (NOT YET) we will enjoy it physical, therefore in its fullness (2 Pet. 3:10ff). On and on we can go with various elements of our salvation. Currently we have tasted the powers of the age to come, though we haven’t received its fullness yet (Heb. 6:5).
Similarly, in Rev 21-22 the new heavens and new earth has begun NOW, but is NOT YET in its final, full form.
By the way not ALL THINGS are taught in the creeds. Just some of the foundational issues (especially in response to early corruptions of and challenges to the Christian faith). The ecumenical creeds draw the outlines around the Christian faith; they do not detail the whole Christian faith (the Bible does that). Thus, premill, amills, postmills are all covered by the ecumencial creeds because they hold to the foundational issues (a future physical return of Christ, a future physical resurrection of hte dead, and a future final judgment of all men).
I am well aware of the now/not yet. The verses you give do not necessarily support your view that the not yet is still future, only that it was future at the time they were written. I will assume you are aware that many no not think 2 Peter 3:10 is about the end off the physical cosmos, rather it is about the end of the elementary principles of the Old Covenant Age. John Owen, some who signed the letter, etc. I am familiar with your work and appreciate your contribution to these topics. My point is not to debate you on these topics, I respect your opinion. I also respect other men’s opinion. I simply no not agree that we should try to silence people by an appeal to the creeds and trying to destroy their reputation and livelihood. If we are going to silence them it must be by what the scriptures teach. Gary is trying to see what they teach. He has not said that He has it all figured out. He is calling for more study and discussion of these issues. I have been studying these issues for over 40 years and still have questions. But it is discouraging when people do not debate the text and simple say it can’t be, the creeds have spoken. Watch some of Sam Frost’s debates. Let us not be quick to label Gary a Heretic, He is a faithful brother who believes we are saved by grace through faith in our Lord and Savior. He believes in the inherency of the scriptures, we have many false teachers in the church, Gary is not one of those. I appreciate you have taken the time to reply, but I do not expect you to continue to do so. I know you are a busy man. I am not trying to convince you, I want an honest open discussion of these important issues because I am trying to see what God’s Word teaches. I know we disagree that silencing the discussion is the right approach. You seem to think it is and I disagree.
I am so thankful for people like Gary Demar and Kim Burgess who are made able by the grace and power of God to keep asking the difficult questions so many others find too challenging to address using sola scriptura.
Please join me in prayer that God will use this for good for a church gone off the track decades ago, whether by the Zionist or Jesuit influences or some other deceptions or false assumptions built on the doctrines of men. Pray that truth will be revealed from God’s written word, and that all of God’s people will be made humble enough to follow where Truth leads. Thanks be to God for his written word, our foundation of faith in a godless world.
The fact that someone as smart and as dedicated to biblical theology as Gary is questioning certain church doctrines via scripture hardly means that he’s ‘lost the plot’ or had some sort of mental breakdown or has just gone plain rogue.
Gary is simply asking difficult biblical questions that many people who signed that demeaning and childish letter cannot answer themselves in a straight and consistent fashion.
Does no one here believe Gary has some sort of case regarding some of the points of biblical eschatology he is bringing up?
I never seem to get straight answers from partial preterists regarding…
Which specific parts of Revelation were fulfilled in AD70 and which are still future.
Which specific scriptures teach that the world will physically end and time and history along with it.
In my view I believe Gary is just being consistent with his biblical exegesis and not fearing where those answers might take him. They may take him to full preterism or they may not but I for one am glad that he has the courage to keep asking.
I must echo Bruce’s comments above. I find all this quite frustrating and a tad distasteful to be honest.
Bruce makes some excellent and salient points which Mr. Gentry you have not answered sufficiently. And are you seriously saying that the new heavens and the new earth has actually ‘begun’ but is ‘not yet’ in its ‘final full form’? Where does it say that in the Bible? Either we are in the new heavens and the new earth or we are not. Either Revelation 21:1-8 has been fulfilled or it is still in the future.
Gary’s obviously touching a few raw nerves here and has a few partial preterists worried. I mean Gary is no fool and not someone who could be easily hoodwinked into believing a heresy. All he’s trying to do is deal seriously with scripture. I listened to his 5 podcast responses to the letter you guys sent him and he raises some very good points which I have yet heard addressed from scripture by partial preterists.
Gary says he has held his current views for 25 years. Why then can he not answer three simple “yes or no” questions. If he has held these views and been investigating them for that long, he ought to be able quickly to respond.
I am definitely praying. But I am praying that Gary will recommit to the historic orthodox Christian faith regarding eschatology (which is tied directly to our redemption). He has been teaching for 40 years, but says he has held the same views for the last 25 years. I prefer his earlier first 15 years of teaching. I agree with him that there is a “Last Days Madness.”
I have not called Gary himself a “heretic.” This is why you cannot quote any statement where I said such. I do so that in his last few years he has begun holding to some heretical doctrines. That does not mean he is a “heretic” who has denied the faith. But playing with heresy is a dangerous thing. Especially for teachers of the faith. “Do not become teachers in large numbers, my brothers, since you know that we who are teachers will incur a stricter judgment” (Jms. 3:1). For there is the very real danger of wresting the Scriptures to one’s own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
Gary is not “touching a few raw nerves.” He is playing with fire in denying the future bodily return of Christ, the future physical resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment. These are core principles of the Christian faith — principles that he used to hold, as you can see from his earlier works.
Thank you Mr. Gentry for your replies they are appreciated…
And again I completely agree with Bruce’s last post above.
As far as I am aware Gary has not denied the future bodily return of Christ, the future physical resurrection of the dead and the final judgement…he has simply not affirmed them in the manner you want him to…not the same thing at all.
And if I was honest with myself I’m not sure I could readily affirm those 3 things either. I certainly couldn’t deny them. At the end of the day I am not totally sure. Scripture throws up some hard questions regarding those 3 ‘core principles of the Christian faith’ as you call them. I’m still struggling with these issues after being a Christian myself for 30 years
Let’s not forget…the ‘Church’ was wrong about justification for 1,500 years was it not?
I wish you were correct, but I am afraid you are mistaken (actually I believe you are confused by Gary’s obfuscation and dancing around the issues). For instance, he now holds to a spiritual resurrection, rather than a physical resurrection of the body. Go back and read the article to which you are responding. At the end of it I have just now placed a screen capture as an addendum that proves the point. This is the reason he will not answer the three questions which ARE very simple. Any orthodox Christian can answer these questions without hesitation. I am praying for that he will come back to the orthodox fold.
Gary used to clearly and forcefully declare orthodox eschatology. Now he attempts to side-step the issues by refusing to answer directly. Consider his earlier views. See if he will affirm them or affirm American Vision’s Statement of Faith. Note the following quotes from Gary:
“Jesus coming in 70 AD was a coming in judgment upon and apostate nation. When Jesus returns bodily–a still future event–He will have “abolished all rule and authority and power,” having put “all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death” (1 Corinthians 15:24-26). We await this glorious coming.”
Last Day Madness (1994), p.318
“The chapter (1 Cor. 15) deals with the resurrection not the Rapture: first, the resurrection of Jesus; second the resurrection of Christians. Without the resurrection of Jesus there will be no resurrection of Christians. The resurrection of believers comes just before the end: “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power (15:23-24). The “resurrection of the dead” occurs after the period of the kingdom (there must be something to deliver up) and just before “the end.”
Ibid, p. 192
”As has been demonstrated in the previous chapters, the events rehearsed in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) are signs leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These chapters have nothing to do with when Jesus will return at the final judgment. There are no observable signs leading up to His bodily return!
”So then, when will Jesus return? The only “sign” the Bible gives us is the fullness of the kingdom, “when He has abolished all rule and authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25). We know that Jesus is presently reigning over the Universe from heaven. Heaven is His throne and earth His footstool (Isaiah 66:1). He will continue to reign in this manner until all his enemies are put under his feet (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:35). When this is accomplished, Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. It will be at the time when “the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).”
Comings of Christ in providential judgement or mercy in history are adumbrations of His final coming physically at the Eschaton. They are not the Second Advent itself.
Any coming of Christ in history and privudence in either judgement or blessing are just adumbrations of His physical appearance at the Eschaton.
Gary is “Gone with the Wind” being blown about by every wind of doctrine.
I am a major fan of Gary DeMar! When God converted me away from dispensational premillennial notions in the 1980’s, I had many, many questions. The decency and kindness of Gary DeMar was very helpful, far more than any other pastor or theologian!
Yes, I liked the earlier Gary DeMar as well. He was a close personal friend and co-laborer in orthodoxy for so long. I am still holding out hope that he will turn back to orthodoxy.
From the earliest days of American Vision, I supported and advocated for Gary DeMar. But it became apparent over time where he was headed. And in the last two years, he showed that he had rejected core elements of orthodox eschatology (future Second Coming, future bodily resurrection, future final judgment). That is not in dispute for anyone who has looked at the evidence he himself has supplied.
Believe it or not, I keep hoping he will come back into orthodoxy.
We all do. It is tragic to see.
This is the first entry since May 29 so it’s been a while. Mr. Gentry, or anyone for that matter, I hope you are still checking in from time to time as I have a question for you. I too, am a partial preterist and believe all will be raised on the last day, John 6:40. But I am stumped a bit by the comment in Hebrews where the author says Jesus “will appear a second time.” The context seems clear this is about 70 AD, and it is called the second coming. Therefore, on the final day is that then not a third coming? It seems that way, but I don’t have the courage to call it that as I like to think of myself as orthodox on these matters. I simply don’t know what to think on this point which is amazing considering my wife says I have an opinion about everything! Not a slam by the way, she has put up with me 30-years, if we were Catholic the church would made her a saint by now.
This text refers further back than just to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Note that he mentions “the foundation of the world” (Heb. 9:26). History is divided in two by Christ and thus “the last days” began when Christ came in the first century. When he returns on the last day at the second advent, it will not be like in the first advent, in that he will not be giving his life to bear away our sins (for he has already done that in principle).
Thank you for replying. Just to be sure, are you saying then from Christ to the end of history are the last days? It was my understanding as partial preterists that we believed the last days was specifically 30-70 AD concerning Israel and the dissolving of the Old Covenant system which the author of Hebrews refers to as fading away? Then post 70 was the kingdom era that goes until the return of Christ. Your insight appreciated.
I hold to the standard (non-dispensational) view that “the last days” began in the first century but continue until “the last day” when the resurrection will occur at the end of history (John 6:40ff; 1 Cor. 15:24-25).
thank you for your time. JB
Ken,
If one believes from their heart in the absolute divinity/deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on behalf of the elect, justification by faith alone, the inspiration of the scriptures, and yet affirms a past non-physical general resurrection of the dead and that while Christ rose physically as a sign, shed His physical body at His ascension, can such a person be saved?
While they may be saved, they should not be teaching in the body of Christ. James 3:1: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.”
Hyper-preterism is bad enough in itself. Bute I have watched hyper-preterism over the years and found it to be a slippery slope. Some have fallen into Unitarianism (Wanda Shirk, etc.). Notice also the direction that Max King went. I am seeing in Don Preston’s writings that in order to make his system work he is having to alter other aspects of his theological system.
It also can cause serious attitudinal problems. Lone exegetes for Jesus too often sneeringly look down on historic orthodox Christianity and develop a one track mind.
While those promoting differing views on the millennium may be saved, should those whose views may be in error be teaching in the body of Christ knowing that as such they will incur a stricter judgment? And, who shall it be to determine which views are in error and which teachers should not be teaching their view in the body of Christ?
I appreciate that observation that any non-conformist theology can be a slippery slope. While you and I both appreciate Luther’s non-conformist stance, we also realize that it gave birth to a sense of Protestant individualism, which is a two-edged sword, in that, on the one hand it allows for the Holy Spirit to bear witness with the believer’s spirit in interpreting the scriptures, but at the same time, also gave room for rogue theologians to veer off essential doctrines. That is, it’s not just preterism that gives rise to all sorts of dangers. One need only examine church history to see the wide array of Arian or Pelagian doctrines. I think it might be unfair to pin such veering on preterism. But you have said that a person can be saved while denying a future physical resurrection, nevertheless, affirming the resurrection, whether it’s past or future. That is, if there is no resurrection (Christ or His people), we are still in our sins. I personally believe no one can be saved denying the resurrection (Christ, or His people). But the nature is a different story.
I honestly do not know where DeMar currently stands. I’m actually with Sandelin, in that I think DeMar’s wording is murky at best and no one knows where he stands. I personally think he sees that complete fulfillment is exegetically correct, but he’s got a lot to lose.
I also emphatically disagree with King’s ultimate conclusions, but that is not necessarily rooted in preterism. Max King was Church of Christ, and he carried Pelagianism into his eschatology just like Preston, Bell and the others. I have never thought their stance on soteriology was even remotely biblical. But again, that’s a CoC denominational/Pelagian issue, not an eschatological issue.
On the other hand, I grew up in a Plymouth Brethren/dispensational environment, then turned dispensational Calvinist in 89, but I could never adopt the post-millennial partial preterist position because of the clear association of the Beast and False Prophet with the end of the millennial period, and of course the plethora of time statements (both Old and New Testaments) associating the resurrection with the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 (e.g. Daniel 12:1-2; Acts 24:14-15). If anything, my view of the absolute sovereignty of God led me to finally see that partial preterists such as yourself and other postmillennialists were correct in their assessment of the time statements. They just haven’t gone far enough.
One of the disturbing things I see among postmillennial partial preterists is their almost complete aversion to public debates with full preterists. While I do understand avoiding debates with Pelagians on such an issue (there are far greater issues which can make eschatological debate wearisome/fruitless because of other central/foundational issues about the character and nature of God), why not be willing to debate a person with similar convictions regarding theology proper and the divinity of Christ?
Actually the problem with hyperpreterism is not its “non-conformity,” but its heretical dismissal of key element of the historic orthodox Christian faith.
DeMar’s friends who wrote him the letter of concern believe that he is being intentionally vague and confusing regarding his new positions on eschatology and redemption.
I agree that a problem with much of early hyperpreterism is related to is arising within the church of Christ and its pelagianism. Such a serious misunderstanding of salvation cannot help but have implications elsewhere.
Regarding debating hyperpreterists, I have several reasons for not taking the bait.
1. According to a friend of mine, they have posted on one website prayer for my death. Why should I give them a portion of my life? Is that any way to conduct theological debate (outside of Islam, that is)?
2. They tend to be rude, argumentative, and simplistic in interacting with others. When I spoke at the 1999 Ligonier Conference on Eschatology, hyperpretists showed up, handing out tracts, and accosting unsuspecting conferees. Ligonier finally had to ask them to quit and to leave.
3. They have difficulty understanding historic orthodox positions, such as their misconstruing what I am saying in my chapter in Mathison’s book. And this despite my writing that chapter very carefully with a view to showing them the historical problem with their views.
4. They seem to have only one mission in life: to argue HyperPreterism. I have to make a living! In fact, I have several big projects I am currently working on: (a) A massive expansion of my “Olivet Discourse Made Easy,” the editing of a new book on the eschatological writings of Geerhardus Vos, and a new book on the Two-Age doctrine of redemptive history. These, I believe, are very important works. I don’t want to be side-tracked by debating malcontents.
5. They have a Pharasaic mission, such as Christ warned against: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.” Why give them an opportunity for a new convert?
6. I would have to read more of their writings which is a ponderous and frustrating task. They write poorly and have badly presented self-published works that can be difficult to follow.
See these articles on my website:
In a properly organized church there should be officers committed to the task of assuring the orthodoxy of their members (cf. Heb. 13:17). The orthodoxy of which I speak does not involve millennial views (pre-, post-, a-). And never has. It involves the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith as held by the the historic, corporate, public, universal, Christian church and embodied in their the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic ecumenical creeds.