Gary Demar & Preterism

Status
Not open for further replies.

DanSSwing

Puritan Board Freshman
Gary Demar just offered this response, "Very good. This is why I keep telling people I'm not a Full Preterist," to the post below on a Facebook forum, Postmillennialism: The Eschatology of Hope. (Unfortunately, there wasn't any context for the post below, other than that it was a response to a full preterist somewhere else. Reportedly Demar will also address recent accusations that he has gone Full Preterist in a Podcast on the American Vision You Tube channel on Monday, March 6.


What you argue for in your post is not full Preterism it is Postmillennialism.
Preterism as a hermeneutical tool is fine. Preterism as a final theology leaves you in a world of “nothing more” as a logical conclusion. Yes, all is fulfilled. But as your post says, No, history is not finished. But FP says history is not finished but, No, there is no prophetic word describing what “more” lies in our future. FP is the theology of the end, there is no word for what is birthed.
Here I’ll give you some examples of the logic of this FP position:
You believe there is an “increase of his kingdom and peace” that did that end in AD 70?
Of course, you think it began. Your theology is reformed. So you believe that in history there is more to come? Of course you and Bill Evans and Daryll Bryant think there is more to come but your Full Preterism says “no, it’s all fulfilled, final, done in AD 70.” If there is more to come what prophecy is left unfulfilled that predicts a future “more”? Well you think Scripture prophetically governs the future … don’t you? But the logic of FP says, “No the scriptural prophetic word ends with the end of the old covenant.”
You think there is a world to bring into Christ’s kingdom? Of course you do what reformed Christian doesn’t?
Full Preterism says, “No, the full dominion of Christ’s kingdom took place in AD 70 nothing lies in the future to be ‘fulfilled’.”Scripture prophecy ends with the end of the old covenant age.
FP says:
All of dominion of the earth is accomplished.
All of Japheth came into Shem’s tent.
All of Israel is regrafted into Christ the vine that will be regrafted.
AD 70 is the “end” when you take a hermeneutical tool and make it the sum total of your theology.
I know you don’t like this conclusion. But it is the logical one when you reject any prophetic word describing a future on the other side of the “end” of the Old Covenant.
What is “begun”? FP don’t know. The prophecies only take us to the end,
they are fulfilled.
Over.
Nothing more to say.
That’s full Preterism as a theology.
I know that’s not the logic you like. It is, however, the logic of “no prophetic word past the close or end of the age.”
Preterism as a hermeneutical tool leaves room to say, “The prophecies fulfill and end the old Covenant while giving birth to and defining the new future of the New Covenant, known as Christ’s kingdom.”
But if you say that you are saying there is more than what ended? There is a kingdom that is “come” in AD 70 and is … at this point you must stop. There is no “kingdom coming in its fullness encompassing the earth” that would be a future prophecy, but you want that kingdom to fill the earth. And let’s be honest, there are still a few nooks and crannies holding out against the kingdom, yes? But Full Preterism says “No! No unfinished or unfulfilled word past AD70.” What you got is all you get. No future word.
If you want a kingdom that has come, and is “coming” then you must admit there is a prophetic unfinished word in Scripture. And
Here’s the thing, there is a theological position that proclaims it called post millennialism in which Preterism is a tool not the binding limit of the word of God.
There is more that Scripture prophecies? As you said //His Kingdom shall not end? // Wait, that’s a prophetic word about the future from Scripture, a future after AD70.
Then not every prophecy ends in AD 70, every prophecy begins there. The old age ends there the prophetic word of God begins there.
The prophetic word ending the old covenant is the same word defining the telos of the new covenant. These prophecies are not fulfilled by AD 70 they are exemplified by it and fulfilled finally when death is finally in history put back under his feet. History is defined by that prophecy of the end and every act moves us closer fulfilling that word as we go.
Isn’t that what your post is trying to say? You don’t disagree with me or post mill, you disagree with the straight jacket logic of FP.
 
So who posted it?
Gentry posted on his postmillennial worldview website an open letter signed by several pastors warning Demar not to head over the edge. Perhaps the context but again, who is the post directed towards? The post and/or you isn't clear enough.
 
So who posted it?
Gentry posted on his postmillennial worldview website an open letter signed by several pastors warning Demar not to head over the edge. Perhaps the context but again, who is the post directed towards? The post and/or you isn't clear enough.
The original post was by Joseph Foreman, but it was a new thread made in a vacuum, so the context is indeed confusing. Gary Demar just happened to reply to it and appears to agree with the sentiments expressed in it, which I find promising, especially considering the Gentry letter that you mentioned.
 
Demar still didn't answer the three questions. Even hesitating to answer these questions means you shouldn't be a teacher. Giving the wrong answer to them marks you out as a false teacher.

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?
 
Demar still didn't answer the three questions. Even hesitating to answer these questions means you shouldn't be a teacher. Giving the wrong answer to them marks you out as a false teacher.

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?
Meh. What denomination is he in?
 
Last I heard he attends Midway Presbyterian Church in Cobb County, GA. But there's been some churn at the church and my information is a few years out of date.
Perhaps he *attends* there, but Midway is a large church, so don't impute his views to anyone on the staff or session!
 
Demar still didn't answer the three questions. Even hesitating to answer these questions means you shouldn't be a teacher. Giving the wrong answer to them marks you out as a false teacher.

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?
As someone who agrees with all three propositions, I have not yet heard Demar teach contrary to any of them. It seems to me that a good teacher would decline to answer the questions until he is confident in giving the most accurate, comprehensive response possible and he's still working through that. I'd also rather someone strive to be faithful to the Bible than to the creeds. When he finally makes a comprehensive response, let's make sure we're judging it primarily by Scripture itself.
 
As someone who agrees with all three propositions, I have not yet heard Demar teach contrary to any of them. It seems to me that a good teacher would decline to answer the questions until he is confident in giving the most accurate, comprehensive response possible and he's still working through that. I'd also rather someone strive to be faithful to the Bible than to the creeds. When he finally makes a comprehensive response, let's make sure we're judging it primarily by Scripture itself.

We have seven year olds at our church answer these questions. There is no reason to decline affirming the bodily return of Christ.
 
Full preterists: only the Bible matters. Not church history or creeds.
Me: Wait until the find out about the canonization process.

*No, I am not saying the church created the canon, but neither did the canon fall from heaven at 70 AD.
 
Demar just released his first Podcast response (three minutes ago, so I haven't listened yet):
Haven't listened either.
I think he may be following J. Stuart Russell to a T. In his work the Parousia, he neither affirms or denies a future coming maintaining that the NT isn't answering far off questions.
 
Good podcast. He explained why he doesn't want to give a yes-or-no answer by saying we ought to focus more on what the Bible actually teaches, and it looks like he'll get into that more in upcoming podcasts. Though he essentially did answer yes to the third question in passing, saying the first two questions are more interesting.
 
Good podcast. He explained why he doesn't want to give a yes-or-no answer by saying we ought to focus more on what the Bible actually teaches, and it looks like he'll get into that more in upcoming podcasts. Though he essentially did answer yes to the third question in passing, saying the first two questions are more interesting.
Seems odd he cannot answer yes to the first two questions if he is not a full preterist.
 
Seems odd he cannot answer yes to the first two questions if he is not a full preterist.
He started off by saying that if he answers yes-no to these, he's afraid he'll set a precedent and people will start demanding him answer even more yes-no questions. I think he plans to address the questions from the Bible in upcoming podcasts, but not in a yes-no manner.

He has also categorically denied being a full preterist.
 
He started off by saying that if he answers yes-no to these, he's afraid he'll set a precedent and people will start demanding him answer even more yes-no questions. I think he plans to address the questions from the Bible in upcoming podcasts, but not in a yes-no manner.

He has also categorically denied being a full preterist.

He hesitates to affirm a central tenet of the Christian faith. Let that sink in.

The denial of being a full preterist doesn't mean anything. Full preterists play language games.
 
And don't let full preterists get away with "Just answer me from Scripture." That's a smoke screen for a number of reasons. The moment you read a passage like 1 Cor. 15, they say "70 AD."

Moreover, even if the church didn't make the canon, they collated the documents. Full preterists pretend that never happened.
 
I just wrote a Full Preterist Catechism:
1. What is the most important event in human history?
A. Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

2. Will Jesus return bodily to end history?
A. No.

3. Has Jesus already returned?
A. Yes, in 70 AD.

4. Are we now in the eternal state?
A. Yes, because of 70 AD.

5. Does this mean that sin and death win in history?
A. Yes.

6. Should we take the Lord's Supper, since we are told to take it until Jesus comes?
A. No. Jesus came in 70 AD.

7. Does this mean we teach the doctrine of Hymeneaus and Alexander?
A. No, for Paul wrote before 70 AD.
 
he's afraid he'll set a precedent and people will start demanding him answer even more yes-no questions.

He is a public bible teacher. It is literally his job to answer these questions. He sounds like he is too scared to answer questions that every single Christian confesses every Lord's Day for the past 2,000 years.
 
He is a public bible teacher. It is literally his job to answer these questions. He sounds like he is too scared to answer questions that every single Christian confesses every Lord's Day for the past 2,000 years.
Not really a fan of this public bible teacher thing. If people want to follow a teacher who is not a teacher in his denomination, things will go awry. When there is no accountability then no point asking for accountability.
 
Not really a fan of this public bible teacher thing. If people want to follow a teacher who is not a teacher in his denomination, things will go awry. When there is no accountability then no point asking for accountability.
I agree with the statement, but are we certain there isn't someone in the PCA (his presbytery?) that he is accountable to? Just want to make sure we are calling balls and strikes.
 
I agree with the statement, but are we certain there isn't someone in the PCA (his presbytery?) that he is accountable to? Just want to make sure we are calling balls and strikes.
fair enough. but if American Vision is under the oversight of the PCA then that is something new I have learnt.
 
He is a public bible teacher. It is literally his job to answer these questions. He sounds like he is too scared to answer questions that every single Christian confesses every Lord's Day for the past 2,000 years.
Perhaps, too scared to chase away his hyper preterist friends.
He started off by saying that if he answers yes-no to these, he's afraid he'll set a precedent and people will start demanding him answer even more yes-no questions. I think he plans to address the questions from the Bible in upcoming podcasts, but not in a yes-no manner.

He has also categorically denied being a full preterist.
If he won't affirm that Christ will bodily return and bodily raise the dead at the some point in the future, however distant, then I'd be curious to hear what he is. It's either full preterism or the Bart Erhman Dale Allison, "Jesus was wrong"ism. I can't think of anything else that is orthodox and they shouldn't involve qualifiers.
Perhaps he realizes that PP still has it's problems and not everything is solved but, why side with the FP rather than the futurists? It's jumping from the frying pan into the fire, possibly hellfire. I don't get it.
 
Good podcast. He explained why he doesn't want to give a yes-or-no answer by saying we ought to focus more on what the Bible actually teaches, and it looks like he'll get into that more in upcoming podcasts. Though he essentially did answer yes to the third question in passing, saying the first two questions are more interesting.
Now this is strange. In Podcast #2, he seemed to answer no to "the third question" but the third question he was discussing did not seem to correspond to this: "Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?" He basically said that he does not believe in the end of death in this sense: he believes in eternal hell (in accordance with the WCF). So even the people asking the question could not answer YES and remain consistent with the WCF. Based on his previous recent remarks though, I suspect he does believe in the end of physical death on earth, so earth history would end at that point. I guess we'll have to wait for future podcasts to learn if my suspicion is correct.
 
Now this is strange. In Podcast #2, he seemed to answer no to "the third question" but the third question he was discussing did not seem to correspond to this: "Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?" He basically said that he does not believe in the end of death in this sense: he believes in eternal hell (in accordance with the WCF). So even the people asking the question could not answer YES and remain consistent with the WCF. Based on his previous recent remarks though, I suspect he does believe in the end of physical death on earth, so earth history would end at that point. I guess we'll have to wait for future podcasts to learn if my suspicion is correct.
My guess is that he believes in the end of physical death in the sense of the heat death of the universe. But within history, on his gloss, sin and death win.
 
In my experience, avoiding clear and concise responses to crucial doctrinal questions is troublesome. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top