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. Those simple yes-or-no questions are now simplified and clarified even more:
1. Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ?
2. Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
3. 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,
Jason Bradfield, Uri Brito, Ardel Caneday, Jeff Durbin, John Frame, Sam Frost, Ken Gentry, Phillip Kayser, Brian Mattson, Andrew Sandlin, Keith Sherlin, Jeffery Ventrella, James White, Doug Wilson
Thanks for reading CultureChange! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Beautifully written appeal to a beloved brother. May the Spirit make it efficacious.
I affirm your appeal to our dear brother inChrist and hope and pray for his clarification of these serious allegations, as his ministry has been a great help to many of us former premil and amil saints and now rejoice as postmillers in part because of your ministry. May the Lords light of truth shine brightly on your ministry, and Christ be glorified.
Thank you for sharing this. May the Lord use it to bring clarity and renewed confidence in our brother whom we love and whose work we have valued and appreciated.
Here's a link to the FIRST of several podcasts about the "Three Questions Letter" controversy that has been made public for all the world to see. I will be recording a SECOND podcast on 3/7 to be posted soon after. Depending on how far I get in the SECOND podcast, there will most likely be a THIRD. What I can guarantee is some very interesting information on a topic that needs to be discussed and studied. If you are interested in learning more about this topic, I encourage you to tune in. I understand if your mind is already made up. That's OK. I'm not going to condemn you for it, and I can assure you that you'll never get a letter from me! https://americanvision.org/posts/what-does-the-bible-teach/
Thank you for your encouragement, Pearl.
Now, who will write a letter to Wilson and Sandlin for supporting Federal Vision pleading with them to repent? Who will write a letter to Brito, White, Kayser, Mattson and Durbin for supporting Alienism? Who will write a letter to Ventrella for supporting the allowance of all the gods into the public square?
Right message ... wrong messengers.
The false piety of this letter is absolute 💩!
Here are a few relevant resources which may be helpful:
Book: Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (available in pdf!)
- [AmericanVision.org review] …In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics…
NOTE: Gary affirms that Jesus will return in final judgment in accordance with 1 Cor. 15:24-25 (pdf p.159).
Book: The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future
- [Amazon review] The easiest way to deal with false doctrine is to affirm its absolute opposite. Unfortunately, this opposite affirmation is often no less erroneous than the false doctrine against which it reacts-sometimes, it is worse. Most conservative Christians in the twentieth century have been obsessed with "the last days." An absolute opposite answer has recently emerged in the form of what C. Jonathin Seraiah terms "pantelism," the view that all final events had taken place by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70. With one fell swoop, this viewpoint eviscerates dispensationalism. Unfortunately, it also undermines orthodox Christianity.
This book by Seraiah shows that "consistent preterism" is far from consistent with the Biblical evidence and that the Second Coming of Christ is still in the future.
Video series: Is Full Preterism a Damnable Heresy?
- [sermons delivered by Pastor Brian Schwertley (parts 1-5)] Found myself mostly amen-ing while begging to differ on the interpretation that all “revealed from heaven” passages refer to the 2nd coming.
Notes: on “heaven and earth” as used in Matthew 5:17-20
- [compiled by a PCA RE (me) for men’s Bible study] Keenly aware that interpreting the passing away of "heaven and earth" as metaphorical is in disagreement with the likes of Bahnsen, Calvin, Henry et. al., in the spirit of semper reformanda, I exhort us to look at context, context, context, as the church continues to de-Scofieldize.
Blog post: Eschatology Between the Extremes
- [also by me] My hope is that this discussion will be an “iron sharpening iron” effort that presupposes the inerrancy of Scripture, to be plumbed for the glory of our Triune God who is reconciling all things to Himself, as He has come, is coming, and is to come in final glory! We recite the creeds corporately each and every Lord's day, affirming the bodily 2nd coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, conterminous with universal judgment and physical resurrection – truths which it seems to me should be zealously proclaimed by all Christians, not just based on Acts 1:11 and 1 Thess. 4:14-17, but also John 5:28-29; 1 John 3:2, et.al.
Even in conceding that the prophecy of the N.T. is primarily preterist, and many “coming” passages refer to the judgment coming in 70AD, is it scripturally reasonable to believe that Chorazin & Bethsaida were judged along with Tyre and Sidon in 70AD? Did the queen of the South rise up at the judgment with the men of Jesus’ generation in 70AD? Did each of us give an account of himself to God in 70AD?... or is that supposed to happen individually at death? Did “we all” stand before the judgment seat of God in 70AD? Has every knee already bowed…? etc., etc. To the testimony!
Welcome Gary into the full preterist camp...many more will be following you as they become aware of the fact ALL scriptures point to AD70.
Welcome Gary into the full preterism camp...some of these letter signers will be following when they realize all the scriptures point to AD70. God bless you and your stand.
Except WTS/Talbot's star pupil said you can find new things in the Bible no one else ever has. https://youtu.be/1huTEVaosSo Kind of invalidates all this effort against "heresies".
The following is from <u>Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? (Ministry Monographs for Modern Times)</u> by Jay E. Adams [Institute for Nouthetic Studies (July 1, 2004)]
Preterism vs. Preterism</b>
For some time writers like Ken Gentry, R.C. Sproul, and myself have taught a view of eschatology (doctrine of the last things) that – for want of a better term – has been labeled “Preterism.” The word comes from the Latin praeteritus (“to go by, pass”) which, in turn, is based upon praeter (“that which is beyond, past”). A Preterist, then, is one who deals with the past. The immediate concern of all Preterists is the prophetic materials found in the Bible. Much of what Futurists believe to be yet unfulfilled, the Preterist sees as already fulfilled in apostolic times. But recently, and old error has been revived that sharply divides the Preterists into two distinct groups – not to be confused. This error is now propagated by a spate of books, conferences and debates. It is a form of Preterism that denies that there are <i>any</i> prophecies yet to be fulfilled, including the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment.
“Ah!” you say. “That proves the preterist view in all of its forms, including yours, is wrong. If it could lead to such denials, then it cannot be correct and must be rejected.”
That, of course, is an unfair conclusion. It is like saying, “Fido is a black dog. Therefore, all dogs are black.” Indeed the accusation that all forms of Preterism are wrong because some Preterists are, only backfires on those who hold other prophetic viewpoints. Let me remind you that more cultists (including Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists) espouse premillennial views of the future than any other. That does not make all Premillennialists cultic! It would be quite improper to argue any such thing. The liberals, historically, adopted Postmillennial view points, but that doesn’t mean all Postmillennialists are liberals. Again, it would be wrong to make such a claim. To do so would be to call staunch conservative B.B. Warfield a liberal!
Like those – orthodox and unorthodox – who hold to other prophetic views, there are Preterists and there are Preterists. I prefer to distinguish between those who have been termed “Partial Preterits” and “Full Preterists” as “Orthodox Preterists” and “Unorthodox Preterists.” Just as there are cultic Premillennialists and liberal Postmillennialists, so too, there are those who hold to wrong forms of Preterism. This fact, by no means implies that all Preterists are unsound. As a matter of fact, in this book I shall attempt to expose and refute Unorthodox (or “heretical”) Preterism while setting forth something of the Orthodox Preterist teaching. I trust that whatever your views, you will see clearly that it is not right to lump together and tag the two forms of Preterism with the same label. And, it is my hope that you will come to understand and believe the teachings of Orthodox Preterism as biblical.
And here is my review as contributed to Amazon:
5.0 out of 5 stars Upholds the blessed hope of the church
Reviewed in the United States on November 7, 2014
Concise, exegetical treatment of Heteropreterist error that denies the resurrection of the (physical) body at the Second Coming as an event that will take place some time in the future, coincident with the general judgment of both the just and the unjust. This is done in only 66 pages, and from an orthodox preterist perspective which affirms that a number of passages which have often been applied to the future ought to be understood as referring to the Judgment Coming of 70 AD, and that all of the things that were predicted to come upon the generation alive in Christ's day, did come. Even so, this work reasons from the Scriptures that definitively relegating the fulfillment of ALL prophecy to the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem is absurdly wrong and dangerously false teaching, besides being repugnant to orthodox Christian sensibilities.
My only difference with respected author Jay Adams in this work is his futuristic, literal interpretation of the passage in 2 Peter 3 about the passing away of heaven and earth, which seems to me to refer figuratively to the passing away of old covenant Judaism. The interpretation of that particular passage remains debatable and imho is not a litmus test for orthodoxy. Nevertheless, this is an excellent work which otherwise zeroes in on the plain, indisputable teaching of the Bible which shows so-called "full preterism" to be patently heretical. Too bad it is out of print, as it might serve to help more readers avoid such an egregious pitfall.
2 people found this helpful
Condemning DeMar on the basis that he contradicts "the Christian faith."
Eck condemned Luther on the same basis.
Walter Plumbeck hit the nail on the head here. RIGHT MESSAGE, WRONG MESSENGERS
𝙎𝘼𝙈 𝙁𝙍𝙊𝙎𝙏 = Was a FP for many years & only recently left the movement. He has since been excommunicated by his pastor and had his mentor Kenneth Talbot write scathing rebukes of him. And Jason Bradfield, Frost's protege also had a major rebuke of him. But more than that, Frost was there in the 1990s when Gary DeMar was speaking at FP conferences, calling them "brothers", refusing to say it is heresy, and saying that "FPs are doing the hard work". When Frost left the movement he didn't say a word about this but instead tried to get in good with DeMar & Gentry, even having Gentry's publishing arm publish his "Why I Left Full Preterism" ego-memoir. Why now? Why didn't/doesn't he call out DeMar the moment Frost "left"? He knows how many "partial-prets" credit DeMar with leading them into FP. Frost cited the same "scholars" that supposedly got him into FP as he claims got him out of it. This is contradictory.
𝙅𝘼𝙎𝙊𝙉 𝘽𝙍𝘼𝘿𝙁𝙄𝙀𝙇𝘿 = Was a FP for many years & was a major attack dog in the movement. He was Frost's protege and did his most attacking whenever someone opposed "pastor" Frost (Frost thought of himself as a preterist pastor even though it was inconsistent with the preterist premise of the Chief Shepherd returning & rewarding the undershepherds for watching over the flock 'until the end comes') Jason got in good with Talbot and even weirdly started to try to look like Talbot, growing his beard and wearing the same clothes to match Talbot. (see the pics of them: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/.../the-tales-of-kenneth... ) Tabolt was a compromiser with FPs while he was alive. He hung out with Sam Frost, Jason Bradfield and even Larry Siegle while they were all still FPs. See: https://unpreterist.blogspot.com/search?q=talbot
𝙆𝙀𝙉𝙉𝙀𝙏𝙃 𝙂𝙀𝙉𝙏𝙍𝙔 = Um... Gentry ran to Talbot for cover after this... http://thegentryfiles.blogspot.com/
If you still think these men are the right messengers, I hope DeMar exposes them in a big way.
The Lord be with you, brother.
Thank you guys for this.
This response is just what any righteously-steered soul surely likes to see; brothers and sisters-in-Christ rallying to the call of duty when needs must. Wake up you drifters from Scriptures, for you are being led astray. Remember, we have to say these things to you now, lest we incur sin because of you. With love in and through Christ.