# American Vision



## love2read (Feb 26, 2004)

I am reading Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar (among some other books) and I must say I find it a very interesting book. Can some of you share me your thoughts?

Can anyone of you tell me something more about the books published by American Vision. Are they all worth reading as LDM is?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 26, 2004)

DeMar and American Vision are Reconstructionists. If you like CR material you'll like DeMar.


----------



## love2read (Feb 26, 2004)

Can you tell me more on reconstructionism and CR?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:1f06d3acec][i:1f06d3acec]Originally posted by love2read[/i:1f06d3acec]
Can you tell me more on reconstructionism and CR? [/quote:1f06d3acec]

Reconstructionism is also known as Theonomy. CR is short for Christian Reconstruction. Some of the more prominant proponents are Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Rousa (sp?) Roshdooney. Bahnsen is probably the most articulate in the CR camp.

You might want to do a search on the subject as there have been a number of threads on this topic.


----------



## dkicklig (Feb 26, 2004)

&quot;Last Days of Madness&quot; was the book that set me on the path of reformation. I was so disgusted with dispensational premillenialism, and this opened my eyes that there are other views of eschatology.

The are reconstructionists, but I have fond alot of there material to be very insightful even if you are not a CR.


----------



## Fernando (Feb 29, 2004)

*Gary DeMar and American Vision*

I very much appreciate the work AM and DeMar have done to combat dispensationalism. On the other hand, I think DeMar leans too far in the direction of extreme preterism (and I am a partial preterist myself). I recommend him with caution.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Feb 29, 2004)

DeMar's book was a breath of fresh air for me at Liberty U. I found preterism/postmillennialism to be a far better eschatological alternative to the pre-trib/premill dispensational nonsense I was being fed in my classes. But DeMar's book also set me in the path away from preterism because he was critical of Gentry's position that Matthew 24:36 was a transition text between the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and the future Second Coming. DeMar believes that all of Matthew 24 and 25 are both referring to A.D. 70 and Christ's subsequent reign on earth. I agree with him that this position is a weak one. I have since backed off on the preterist position and have adopted more of an already/not yet eschatology like that of Ridderbos and other Biblical Theologians. As to my eschatological optimism, I haven't decided for sure, except that it isn't as cut and dried as some Amills and Postmills would have us believe.


----------



## Fernando (Mar 1, 2004)

*DeMar*

It is things like his interpretation of Matthew 24-25 that I am concerned about. I think Gentry's exegesis is far stronger than DeMar's on this point, and I think DeMar's view tilts the board very much in the direction of hyper-preterism.


----------

