# Anyone familiar with Gary DeMar?



## shackleton (Jul 9, 2008)

In reading other books on prophecy I saw his name thrown around and while at the local seminary getting some books from their library I saw his book, "Last Days Madness," which seems to be similar to Gentry's books so I decided to pick it up, have read about 70 pages, liked it and so now was wondering something about him and his views.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2008)

You should be able to find out most anything you'd want to know at this link

American Vision

And, in my opinion, _Last Days Madness_ gets two thumbs up.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 9, 2008)

DeMar specializes his studies in 1. America's Christian history, 2. Eschatology. There are other things he advocates, but these are the main two. 

I don't buy from him any more because he pushes James B. Jordan's works as "brilliant biblical insight".

He has some good stuff, but will some times make assertions with confidence (particularly when relying on Jordan) that are not entirely accurate.

Cheers,

Adam






shackleton said:


> In reading other books on prophecy I saw his name thrown around and while at the local seminary getting some books from their library I saw his book, "Last Days Madness," which seems to be similar to Gentry's books so I decided to pick it up, have read about 70 pages, liked it and so now was wondering something about him and his views.


----------



## sastark (Jul 9, 2008)

I heard him speak in California a couple of years ago. He knows his stuff. I don't agree with his eschatology 100% (he being a preterist, and I a historicist), but other than that I haven't found anything wrong with him. He's studies in the Christian history of the United States are top notch!


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 9, 2008)

Seth,

He's speaking at a worldview conference in the Santa Cruz area the first week in August:

West-Coast Christian Worldview Conference

It's for highschool and college students, but my wife and I may go for a few days.

Cheers,

Adam





sastark said:


> I heard him speak in California a couple of years ago. He knows his stuff. I don't agree with his eschatology 100% (he being a preterist, and I a historicist), but other than that I haven't found anything wrong with him. He's studies in the Christian history of the United States are top notch!


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 9, 2008)

I like his writings a whole bunch but I agree his support of Jordan is a bit of a turn off.

The other complaint you will hear is that he will not say where he stands on the topic of 'hyper-preterism'. I sense that he is not of the hyper variety but he has a bunch of friends and readers who are hyper and he doesn't want to offend them.

I hope I'm right and that he isn't a closet hyper.

His books are written on a popular level and are very accessible. He originally wrote books about God and Government but he found that the dispensational hermeneutic was distorting many people's view of the role of government. He starting writing on preterist eschatology to help correct a bad hermeneutic.


----------



## sastark (Jul 9, 2008)

I hope you enjoy it. When I heard him speak, it was at a Christian Highschool in the Sacramento area. They (the school) sponsored the conference at which he spoke. Let us know how it goes after you hear him.



Christusregnat said:


> Seth,
> 
> He's speaking at a worldview conference in the Santa Cruz area the first week in August:
> 
> ...


----------



## Ivan (Jul 9, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> I hope I'm right and that he isn't a closet hyper.



Wow! With that sentence I imagined him bouncing off the walls inside a closet. Weird.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 9, 2008)

sastark said:


> I hope you enjoy it. When I heard him speak, it was at a Christian Highschool in the Sacramento area. They (the school) sponsored the conference at which he spoke. Let us know how it goes after you hear him.



No, Seth, you missed the point! You're supposed to volunteer to drive up for the conference! 

Oh, was the school in Roseville? Cornerstone?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## sastark (Jul 9, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you enjoy it. When I heard him speak, it was at a Christian Highschool in the Sacramento area. They (the school) sponsored the conference at which he spoke. Let us know how it goes after you hear him.
> ...



Yes! You know Cornerstone? I know several of the teachers there.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2008)

I just heard him speak a couple of weeks ago. You can hear those sessions here: 2008 Reformed Family Bible Conference. I should have included this in my earlier post.

Also, I really don't think he is a hyper preterist, else he would not have been invited to speak at the conference. If he is, he's definitely deep in the closet.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 9, 2008)

Dee Dee Warren thinks he's hyper. Save "What do you think of Dee Dee Warren" for another thread.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Dee Dee Warren thinks he's hyper. Save "What do you think of Dee Dee Warren" for another thread.





Hey, that's a slick looking site. How's the content? [quick answer please - I'll move along peacefully- ]


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 9, 2008)

It's a great site for learning about preterism. It's not reformed.


----------



## skellam (Jul 9, 2008)

I read his book Last Days Madness and I found his exposition of the Olivet Discourse very helpful. I also heard him speak at the Greenville Seminary Theology Conference on Christian Worldview (I find his presentation style engaging). The title of his talk was "Penguins, Dog Vomit, and Human Sexuality" A lecture with that title would have to be interesting.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 10, 2008)

He's a political pragmatist also. Other than that I have no problems with the guy. I learn a lot of stuff from him. But like I said, he is a political pragmatist. He is into choosing the lesser of two evils which will be McCain come November. He hasn't said it outright but he loudly insinuated it, when one guy wrote to him and told him that he will vote for Obama to teach the Repubs a lesson.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 10, 2008)

He wrote the foreword for the new 1599 Geneva, no?


----------



## Stephen (Jul 10, 2008)

Gary DeMar is a PCA minister, who is a reconstructionist and theonomist. He is very solid, and writes some excellent material on the Christian view of culture. Some would not agree with everything he teaches, but I really like his work. He is not sympathetic to the FV and would deny its teachings. He has done much work with the late D. James Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries. He is still doing some work with CRM even though D James Kennedy is dead.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 10, 2008)

Stephen,

Thanks for the info on the FV; I wasn't sure where he stood. What about his promotion of James Jordan? Is it just that James is a G.O.B. or something?

Adam





Stephen said:


> Gary DeMar is a PCA minister, who is a reconstructionist and theonomist. He is very solid, and writes some excellent material on the Christian view of culture. Some would not agree with everything he teaches, but I really like his work. He is not sympathetic to the FV and would deny its teachings. He has done much work with the late D. James Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries. He is still doing some work with CRM even though D James Kennedy is dead.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 10, 2008)

sastark said:


> Yes! You know Cornerstone? I know several of the teachers there.



Seth,

Yes, I know Tim French, and my wife was a childhood friend with Rebecca Johnson. I know _of_ Uttinger, and I go to the annual Reformation Bible Conference that the RCUS in Sacramento holds. Oh! And I went to church with a gentleman named Barry Sandlinger for about two weeks before we moved from Seattle back to the Bay Area.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Stephen (Jul 10, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for the info on the FV; I wasn't sure where he stood. What about his promotion of James Jordan? Is it just that James is a G.O.B. or something?
> 
> ...



James Jordan has defected into the FV heresy, but DeMar would not affirm those particulars views. I do not know what he promotes from Jordan's teachings, but I do not think we should condemn DeMar because he happens to agree with Jordan on a position. If so we would have to be suspicious of every one.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 10, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Dee Dee Warren thinks he's hyper. Save "What do you think of Dee Dee Warren" for another thread.





Gary DeMar is not anymore of a hyper Preterist than Sproul, Sr.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 10, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> He's a political pragmatist also. Other than that I have no problems with the guy. I learn a lot of stuff from him. But like I said, he is a political pragmatist. He is into choosing the lesser of two evils which will be McCain come November. He hasn't said it outright but he loudly insinuated it, when one guy wrote to him and told him that he will vote for Obama to teach the Repubs a lesson.




I would doubt that DeMar would choose McCain because he is the lesser of two evils, but this could be said of most evangelicals including many on this site.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 10, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> He wrote the foreword for the new 1599 Geneva, no?



Yes, he was on the project for the republication of the 1599 Geneva.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 10, 2008)

Stephen,

I directly confronted DeMar about supporting Jordan on 1. Doctrinal issues, and 2. Personal character (slander the entire PCA G.A., for instance). I didn't hear back. Here's the most recent Jordan work American Vision has been supporting:

Reading The Bible (Again) For The First Time (6 Audio CDs)

I don't think Jordan has defected as much as contributed to / helped cause the FV.

Cheers,

Adam




Stephen said:


> James Jordan has defected into the FV heresy, but DeMar would not affirm those particulars views. I do not know what he promotes from Jordan's teachings, but I do not think we should condemn DeMar because he happens to agree with Jordan on a position. If so we would have to be suspicious of every one.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 10, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Stephen,
> 
> I directly confronted DeMar about supporting Jordan on 1. Doctrinal issues, and 2. Personal character (slander the entire PCA G.A., for instance). I didn't hear back. Here's the most recent Jordan work American Vision has been supporting:
> 
> ...




Thanks, I will check out this information.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 10, 2008)

While I regard DeMar as very solid on his eschatology, I do have a big problem with his adoration of the Founding Fathers. I think he selective chooses what writings of them he wants to use in order to support his "Christian America" viewpoint. Disturbingly, he glosses over and even summarily dismisses any quotes or writings which tend to support the fact that they had a strong leaning toward enlightenment/unitarian beliefs. He bends over backwards trying to find strong sentiment in the US Constitution for Christian beliefs, but almost looks foolish in doing so. Even a superficial analysis of the Constitution language and sentiment shows it to be far different from that of the 17th century Puritan colonial charters. When faced with this obvious 100 year shift in tone, DeMar either changes the subject or throws up straw man or red herring arguments. He also, like many other evangelicals, has very poor arguments regarding the obvious language of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

As such, he for some strange reason is like Rushdoony in choosing to swallow the camel but ignore the gnat - in other words, he has no problem with full fledged theonomic law but rejects National Confessionalism. Very strange, but I do think I know what his motive is in rejecting NC.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 10, 2008)

R Harris said:


> Even a superficial analysis of the Constitution language and sentiment shows it to be far different from that of the 17th century Puritan colonial charters. When faced with this obvious 100 year shift in tone, DeMar either changes the subject or throws up straw man or red herring arguments. He also, like many other evangelicals, has very poor arguments regarding the obvious language of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
> 
> As such, he for some strange reason is like Rushdoony in choosing to swallow the camel but ignore the gnat - in other words, he has no problem with full fledged theonomic law but rejects National Confessionalism. Very strange, but I do think I know what his motive is in rejecting NC.



Mr. Harris,

Good points! The colonial charters were excellent, but the Constitution does represent a departure / "sanitization" of the Christianity of the puritans. Although acting as Christians, they were not talking like Christians. Later generations seized on this, and began to act like atheists, and found nothing to rebuke them in the Constitution. This completed at a federal level, it was then brought down to the state and local level.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 10, 2008)

Stephen said:


> I would doubt that DeMar would choose McCain because he is the lesser of two evils, but this could be said of *most evangelicals including many on this site.*



Are you talkin' 'bout me? You talkin' 'bout me? 

You must differentiate the casual phrase "lesser of two evils" from the philosophical position. But, yes, you are probably correct that few evangelicals are enchanted with Mr. McCain. The conservative ones do not think he is conservative enough and the progressives believe him to be a war monger. 

Interestingly, , for some of us aging baby boomers who grew up in the civil rights/Vietnam era, the idea of an African-American president is just so "cool" that even contrary to our present politics and political philosophy, many of us are enthralled by the historic nature of Sen. Obama's presumptive nomination and the Kennedyesque personna of the man. I don't agree with hardly a thing he stands for (or did before he tacted right in the last three weeks), but find him immensely appealing.


----------



## Leslie (Jul 11, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> > He's a political pragmatist also. Other than that I have no problems with the guy. I learn a lot of stuff from him. But like I said, he is a political pragmatist. He is into choosing the lesser of two evils which will be McCain come November. He hasn't said it outright but he loudly insinuated it, when one guy wrote to him and told him that he will vote for Obama to teach the Repubs a lesson.
> ...



 What other options are there, come November, than choosing between the lesser of two evils? Not vote? Throw away one's vote by choosing a candidate that can never make it? If the latter, who will be on the ballot, someone who reflects godly values? Move this to another thread if admin thinks appropriate.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 11, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> I don't agree with hardly a thing he stands for (or did before he tacted right in the last three weeks), but find him immensely appealing.



I find golden retrievers appealing but that doesn't mean I'd vote for one.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 12, 2008)

The man supports slaughtering innocent babies, and will appoint justices who will NOT overturn Roe v. Wade, and he's immensely appealing? What about a half Jew ruling over Germany, and wiping out Jews? Would that have been appealing?

He wants sodomy to be sanctioned by the state as a "constitutional right." Still sound appealing? Appalling is more like it.

Granted, I'm Gen X, but coming out of the dark into the light has made the dark disgusting rather than appealing.

Adam





DMcFadden said:


> Interestingly, , for some of us aging baby boomers who grew up in the civil rights/Vietnam era, the idea of an African-American president is just so "cool" that even contrary to our present politics and political philosophy, many of us are enthralled by the historic nature of Sen. Obama's presumptive nomination and the Kennedyesque personna of the man. I don't agree with hardly a thing he stands for (or did before he tacted right in the last three weeks), but find him immensely appealing.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2008)

Pretty much why I am voting for John Calvin this year.


----------

