I try to be unbiased in this as I do not know much of Gary DeMar, other than a few quotes and what other have said about his (alleged) full preterism. For him to not come out and affirm by simply saying, “Yes, Jesus is coming again”, when that’s the simplest way to say it, I find that alarming.
"Two outta three ain't baaaaaaad.....:
Now don’t bee ssaaad…"Two outta three ain't baaaaaaad.....:
He did. He said it at least three times. I also try to listen to his podcast whenever he addresses this topic and he continues to refer to full preterists as "them" and partial preterists as "we." I think what people really don't like about him are two things:
Bingo. As I say every time we recite the Creed: we disagree much about eschatology, but every true Christian affirms that he will come again, from the right hand of the Father, to judge the living and the dead. Basic Christianity.
I've studied the issue a bit but, truthfully this baffles me. There's a difference? The only conclusion I can draw between them would be that perhaps the former is ambiguous about an end of the world coming, in addition to the 70 AD one, and/or that living like a Christian is a must...do enlighten us please.
Hyper = no one after 70 AD can be saved, resurrected, and/or sin; the Bible provides no guidance after this point.
We went over this last year: "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 believe he should have just said yes to these, but he's still a deacon in good standing at a PCA church. I find it very hard to believe that his elders have not discussed this with him in private and found him to be orthodox.
Who is in a better position to judge him? The Puritan Board or his own elders?
Bro - so often any of us can point to where someone does/says/teaches something terrible and the elders of the church don't do anything that results in it being rolled back. That's just the fact. The mere fact he has elders and still teaches this does not mean he's sound.
As someone who has followed him for 20 years, I think I am in a pretty good position.
I watched it as well, but he seemed to skirt the issue somewhat. I have no bias one way or the other, as I previously stated. But for him to not just come out and flatly say Jesus is coming again causes me some concern, warranted or not.
I watched it as well, but he seemed to skirt the issue somewhat. I have no bias one way or the other, as I previously stated. But for him to not just come out and flatly say Jesus is coming again causes me some concern, warranted or not.
I never heard of the Preterist stance that no one after AD 70 can be saved.
If there's a preterist stance that categorically rules out salvation post-70AD, I can see why it's so rare. On the other hand, I bet such a stance would generate fascinating exegesis of Rom. 9:3. "Wish granted!"
This suggestion that they're all heretics so they must believe exactly the same thing displays a lack of intellectual rigor. There are dozens of different questions here to which people give different answers. When it comes to those answers, there's actually more of a continuum between orthodox partial preterism and full preterism than there is between full preterism and hyper-preterism. If you're going to lump them all together like this and claim there's nothing to distinguish, you might as well do the same with pre-mils.
Did you read my post? I explicitly said that they don't all believe the same thing.
postmillennialworldview.com
Here is a good summary of the situation from about a year ago:
CONCERNS RE: GARY DEMAR
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,…
When I saw this thread I was hopeful that maybe this signals a return to orthodoxy for Demar.
Not sure if that's true.
Amen to this. We wouldn't tolerate this sort of hedging by a Neo-Orthodox or Liberal teacher, why would we tolerate it from someone with presumably orthodox views in other areas but who is wishy washy on something so critical?
So reading his comment in response to that, he is saying: anything about eschatology is uncertain, controversial, and requires study. Eschatology for him is any doctrine dealing with the last things. Each of those questions deal with the future: the doctrine of the last things. So he is saying that those topics are debatable, and he cannot answer them without further study, since they are part of the controversial topic of eschatology. Since he uses the word "ambiguity" and "inconsistency," he is saying that these doctrines may be part of the ambiguity and inconsistency that he has in mind, which further study will bring the appropriate clarity and nuance to determine in what sense and whether to affirm them.
