"First" and "Second" refer to BODILY comings . Heb. 9:26-28 designates this clearly. Otherwise, how is the judgment coming in 70AD "for salvation"?... Christians indeed escaped to Pella then, but this passage is referencing salvation FROM SIN effectuated for all who ever lived and all who will live and all who are alive when He comes again per Acts 1:11.
I have great respect for you and your heart for the Gospel, but this article is simply out of line. Dr. DeMar’s extensive podcast response to your 3 questions and to the assertions on the new anti-hyperpreterism website were meant to show that the issue is not as crystal clear as meets the eye, and it was a call for conversation.
Dr. DeMar systematically demonstrated that the signers of your letter and the signers of the HP website differ even amongst themselves on their interpretations of whether certain passages refer to AD 70 or to the final coming of Jesus at the end of history.
Dr. DeMar did not ever say he was in favor of hyperpreterism. He simply said he’d like to have an open dialogue with you and the other signers about these issues WITHOUT slinging the “heresy” word at each other. Your post here is precisely what Dr. DeMar was hoping to avoid.
Whatever happened to talking things out instead of resorting to public shaming? Just because he didn’t answer your letter in your timeframe doesn’t give you the right to sling the “H” word at him, especially with y’all being such longtime friends.
I’ve never met either of you, but I’ve heard both of you speak, so my heart is for both of you as fellow believers. I hope and pray you will consider taking this post down and instead scheduling time with Dr. DeMar to hammer this out face to face like Godly Christian men.
I absolutely agree. I do believe people can be harsh in these situations. I don’t get this need for labeling someone like Gary, a true man of God, a heretic.
You have your head in the sand my friend. DeMar, with all his denials aside, is a full preterist if anyone is. EVERY VERSE used to defend the future boidly second coming, the bodily resurrection, and the final judgment, he has exegeted as being fulfilled in AD 70. He has none left to "discuss" with anyone. All of this has been documented and presented to him by me and many others over the last two years. As always, all he does is malign and blow us off and eventually block all access to him and his sites. Gary and American Vision designated 2022 "The Year of James Jordan" and have pushed his books, lectures, etc. Apparently, Gary is totally unaware that Jordan in 1999 at a conference gave a leture titlted:
Not only is Gary DeMar in violation of the doctrinal position of his own church (he is a PCA member, too), but he is in violation of he American Vision's doctrinal statement posted on its website.
Gary doesn't need a "discussion" on these matters that have been settled doctrine for some 2000 years, he needs to repent and return to orthodoxy.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I appreciate your heart for biblical orthodoxy. I encourage you to listen, perhaps again, to Gary’s five hours worth of response to this issue.
Gary’s goal was not to show that everything points to AD 70. His goal was to show that there is disagreement by those that signed the “three questions” letter, and by those who signed the statement on the hyperpreterism website on each key verse. Because of this, it’s not as simple as it seems.
Essentially, Gary’s point is this: if you took a spreadsheet and listed all the signers, all the key verses, and how each signer applies each verse (AD 70 or future second coming), you would not find the universal agreement on ANY of the verses. You could throw the different creeds and confessions on the list, and the same would hold true.
Because of this, Gary would like to have a discussion to hammer these things out, to see why there is disagreement, and if it’s possible, to come to agreement based on what the Bible actually says.
I think this is a much healthier approach than saying “discussion over, Gary’s a heretic!” Let’s talk this out, brother!! For the sake of the Kingdom.
With all due respect, I don’t see why pointing out disagreements among the signers is irrelevant and a smokescreen. I think to ignore those facts is itself a smokescreen. Let’s just be honest about the disagreements and see why they exist through the means of conversation.
If you’re examining a theological position, and you have a handful of related Scripture passages to reference, and then you realize that the top minds in the church do not universally agree on the application of ANY of the passages, what do you do?
1. You don’t immediately throw out the position.
2. You don’t dismiss the disagreements as irrelevant.
3. You don’t call your opposers heretics.
4. You do give weight to what the church has decided in the past.
5. You do try to gather together as many of the top theological minds as possible to discuss the passages and why each one came to their particular exegetical conclusion.
6. You do recognize that only Scripture is inerrant, and that creeds and confessions can err.
7. You do therefore allow for the “possibility” that the final conclusion “might” differ from the established creeds and confessions.
Gary has NOT come out as a full preterist. To continue with that mantra is unhelpful. His exegesis did not support full preterism. It merely proved that there were diametrically opposed viewpoints on the key passages among the signers.
Gary has NOT repudiated the church fathers, the creeds, or the confessions, other than to admit that they have the ability to err. (Should we not all affirm that as believers?)
Gary is calling us to re-examine the SCRIPTURES together since those do not err.
“Let God be true though every one were a liar.” Romans 3:4
Gary has NOT come out as a full preterist. To continue with that mantra is unhelpful. His exegesis did not support full preterism.///
ALL HIS EXEGESIS supports FP and only FP. And you and he can deny that all you want to but anyone examining it will see that clearly. And add to that the fact that he does not affirm the future, bodily Second Coming, the future bodily resurrection of the dead, and the future final judgment and end of temporal history and the case is closed.
I think this is a much healthier approach than saying “discussion over, Gary’s a heretic!” Let’s talk this out, brother!! For the sake of the Kingdom.////
I don't have to listen again. I heard all five hours quite clearly. It is irrlevant that the signers disagree on the exegesis of certain passages among themselves. That's another DeMar smokescreen. DeMar's exegesis of ALL THE RELEVANT PASSAGES regarding the future Second Coming, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment and the conclusion of history are ALL full preterist in nature. Gary is not puzzled about whether he should or should not affirm the "Three Questions." He CAN'T AFFIRM THEM because none of is exegesis allows him to.
Gary is well aware of he orthodox commentators down through the ages who have exegeted these texts that affirm three core doctrines of the faith. He doesn't need to "discuss them" with the authors of the letter because he holds the creeds and the orthodox commentators are wrong. There was time, which I have documented, when Gary agreed with those commentators and creeds, but now rejects them in favor of heretical preterism. That which all of orthodox Christianity has affirmed for 2000 years Gary rejects. Like his full preterist brethren, he now thinks the creeds need to be revised to reflect their superior exegesis. According to them, its the orthodox who need to repent, not them.
And for the "sake of the kingdom" it is much healther to point out heresy and heretics to the faithful than to coddle both by encouraging "future discussions." Gary is right, the orthodox are not going to be persuaded to adobpt heretical preterism no matter how many "discussions'" are conducted.
If Gary has held his current position for twenty-five years, why in the world can he not answer three simple, basic questions regarding biblical eschatology? Or perhaps more importantly, WHY won't he answer these questions?
Thanks for your ministry and your stand for the Gospel. I invite you to read my earlier responses to Matthew A. Doyle regarding your question here. You’ve known and been friends with Gary DeMar longer than most people in the world, so I hope you guys can have some direct, extended conversation on these issues without throwing the H word around on social media.
On a side note, is there an audio version of Before Jerusalem Fell? I’d love to get all that knowledge in my head while I’m driving. :-)
As time has passed, the answer becomes more and more obvious. He doesn't answer them becasue he doesn't believe them and thus will not affirm them. He's just not honest enough to come out and say that.
This is so frustrating! His writings have been a catalyst for me and understanding eschatology, moving away from neive Dispensationalism. I'm thankful there are other brothers standing firm.
It is very sad. I have been a long time supporter of Gary and American Vision. Gary knows that and his vitriol directed to me for exposing his heresy comes in spite of that. It all started by asking Gary basic questions, which he either stone-walled, ignored, or blew off. He has deleted me from any access to him, accused me publicly of stirring the pot, and even that I dragged Ken Gentry into the matter to bail me out.
I heard Gary lecture on eschatology sometime in the nineties and came away sensing he was a closet full preterist masquerading as a partial…..David Engelsma from the PRC had him pegged right all along…..Full Preterism is full Heresy… its about time somebody called him out on it…..this gangrene heresy started in the Church of Christ with Max King thankfully Church of Christ theologians refuted this heresy and stuffed it out of their congregations…hopefully the same thing can be done in Reformed circles especially Pesbyterians
I'm not a postmillennial, though I looked into that view once. I was put off because all the people I read (mostly on social media, tbh) sounded like they didn't really believe Jesus was ever coming back, nor should Christians look forward to His return. That caused me to end my inquiry into the postmillennial view. So I'm glad to know there are postmillennials who do not hold that view.
Why are you misquoting the scripture, if anyone can read the Greek of Hebrews 9:26-28 it does not say that. verse 27 is talking about the Priest hood that dies off and comes to its end once Christ has come. Verse 28 is saying that He, Jesus, is coming out of the second, that is the second veil, not a second time! How do you read Greek? This is embarrassing for people to be teachers and they can't even understand a passage. The priest went once into the temple and the people awaited for Him to come out and if he didn't, then the sacrifice was not accepted by God. That is the authors point here. οὕτως ὁ Χριστός ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν. Even in "parousia" is the Christ's true essence "ousia" declared, and that is not physical. He is God coming in clouds.
I would like to know what scriptures are used for a "future bodily return" of Christ. It appears to me that ALL the scriptures related to His coming point to AD70.
Reid: I and about a dozen friends and associates of Gary contacted him for several months in private (asking him the questions in the private letter ). Andrew Sandlin called him by phone; Gary called Doug Wilson (a signer) by phone. We could not get him to answer the three simple questions --- even though he has been saying he has held his current position for 25 years. He is a public figure who is publicly confusing people. We are continuing to pray for him. We are deeply saddened. We have not declared him a "heretic," though we say he is promoting some heretical teachings. Heretical doctrines are a slippery slope, however. When people deem themselves the salvation of historic Christian after 2000 years, trouble is brewing (see Joseph Smith; Charles Taze Russell). No, I don't have a digital version of BJF. I do have a DVD wherein I summarize the arguments: https://www.kennethgentry.com/before-jerusalem-fell-dvd-lecture/
I hear you my brother; I kind of enjoy study & discussion and used to be more polemic about it, but now I try to embrace the (Augustine?) quote: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity. Btw you sent me scurrying for the dictionary with "adiaphora"... our fun & learning never ends (said Barney the dinosaur as I recall :-).
Also see the chapter in William G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology (1886) which sets forth the biblical doctrine of <u>The Intermediate or Disembodied State</u>:
Appreciate this, especially as someone unfamiliar with the players involved and has been guilty of naïveté on more than one occasion.
"First" and "Second" refer to BODILY comings . Heb. 9:26-28 designates this clearly. Otherwise, how is the judgment coming in 70AD "for salvation"?... Christians indeed escaped to Pella then, but this passage is referencing salvation FROM SIN effectuated for all who ever lived and all who will live and all who are alive when He comes again per Acts 1:11.
Thank you, Andrew.
Dr. Sandlin,
I have great respect for you and your heart for the Gospel, but this article is simply out of line. Dr. DeMar’s extensive podcast response to your 3 questions and to the assertions on the new anti-hyperpreterism website were meant to show that the issue is not as crystal clear as meets the eye, and it was a call for conversation.
Dr. DeMar systematically demonstrated that the signers of your letter and the signers of the HP website differ even amongst themselves on their interpretations of whether certain passages refer to AD 70 or to the final coming of Jesus at the end of history.
Dr. DeMar did not ever say he was in favor of hyperpreterism. He simply said he’d like to have an open dialogue with you and the other signers about these issues WITHOUT slinging the “heresy” word at each other. Your post here is precisely what Dr. DeMar was hoping to avoid.
Whatever happened to talking things out instead of resorting to public shaming? Just because he didn’t answer your letter in your timeframe doesn’t give you the right to sling the “H” word at him, especially with y’all being such longtime friends.
I’ve never met either of you, but I’ve heard both of you speak, so my heart is for both of you as fellow believers. I hope and pray you will consider taking this post down and instead scheduling time with Dr. DeMar to hammer this out face to face like Godly Christian men.
In Christ,
Reid Swanson
PCA Layman
I absolutely agree. I do believe people can be harsh in these situations. I don’t get this need for labeling someone like Gary, a true man of God, a heretic.
You have your head in the sand my friend. DeMar, with all his denials aside, is a full preterist if anyone is. EVERY VERSE used to defend the future boidly second coming, the bodily resurrection, and the final judgment, he has exegeted as being fulfilled in AD 70. He has none left to "discuss" with anyone. All of this has been documented and presented to him by me and many others over the last two years. As always, all he does is malign and blow us off and eventually block all access to him and his sites. Gary and American Vision designated 2022 "The Year of James Jordan" and have pushed his books, lectures, etc. Apparently, Gary is totally unaware that Jordan in 1999 at a conference gave a leture titlted:
"The Heresy of Hyper-Preterism."
https://soundcloud.com/user-812874628/episode-629-the-heresy-of-hyperpreterism-with-james-jordan?fbclid=IwAR12aAOC-kQcGulPnrHtDUvwZWbT6iW3vON8u8bAFVfxTL0x5DB2zwszF7E
Not only is Gary DeMar in violation of the doctrinal position of his own church (he is a PCA member, too), but he is in violation of he American Vision's doctrinal statement posted on its website.
Gary doesn't need a "discussion" on these matters that have been settled doctrine for some 2000 years, he needs to repent and return to orthodoxy.
Hi Matthew,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I appreciate your heart for biblical orthodoxy. I encourage you to listen, perhaps again, to Gary’s five hours worth of response to this issue.
Gary’s goal was not to show that everything points to AD 70. His goal was to show that there is disagreement by those that signed the “three questions” letter, and by those who signed the statement on the hyperpreterism website on each key verse. Because of this, it’s not as simple as it seems.
Essentially, Gary’s point is this: if you took a spreadsheet and listed all the signers, all the key verses, and how each signer applies each verse (AD 70 or future second coming), you would not find the universal agreement on ANY of the verses. You could throw the different creeds and confessions on the list, and the same would hold true.
Because of this, Gary would like to have a discussion to hammer these things out, to see why there is disagreement, and if it’s possible, to come to agreement based on what the Bible actually says.
I think this is a much healthier approach than saying “discussion over, Gary’s a heretic!” Let’s talk this out, brother!! For the sake of the Kingdom.
With all due respect, I don’t see why pointing out disagreements among the signers is irrelevant and a smokescreen. I think to ignore those facts is itself a smokescreen. Let’s just be honest about the disagreements and see why they exist through the means of conversation.
If you’re examining a theological position, and you have a handful of related Scripture passages to reference, and then you realize that the top minds in the church do not universally agree on the application of ANY of the passages, what do you do?
1. You don’t immediately throw out the position.
2. You don’t dismiss the disagreements as irrelevant.
3. You don’t call your opposers heretics.
4. You do give weight to what the church has decided in the past.
5. You do try to gather together as many of the top theological minds as possible to discuss the passages and why each one came to their particular exegetical conclusion.
6. You do recognize that only Scripture is inerrant, and that creeds and confessions can err.
7. You do therefore allow for the “possibility” that the final conclusion “might” differ from the established creeds and confessions.
Gary has NOT come out as a full preterist. To continue with that mantra is unhelpful. His exegesis did not support full preterism. It merely proved that there were diametrically opposed viewpoints on the key passages among the signers.
Gary has NOT repudiated the church fathers, the creeds, or the confessions, other than to admit that they have the ability to err. (Should we not all affirm that as believers?)
Gary is calling us to re-examine the SCRIPTURES together since those do not err.
“Let God be true though every one were a liar.” Romans 3:4
Let’s talk about this as brothers.
Gary has NOT come out as a full preterist. To continue with that mantra is unhelpful. His exegesis did not support full preterism.///
ALL HIS EXEGESIS supports FP and only FP. And you and he can deny that all you want to but anyone examining it will see that clearly. And add to that the fact that he does not affirm the future, bodily Second Coming, the future bodily resurrection of the dead, and the future final judgment and end of temporal history and the case is closed.
I think this is a much healthier approach than saying “discussion over, Gary’s a heretic!” Let’s talk this out, brother!! For the sake of the Kingdom.////
I don't have to listen again. I heard all five hours quite clearly. It is irrlevant that the signers disagree on the exegesis of certain passages among themselves. That's another DeMar smokescreen. DeMar's exegesis of ALL THE RELEVANT PASSAGES regarding the future Second Coming, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment and the conclusion of history are ALL full preterist in nature. Gary is not puzzled about whether he should or should not affirm the "Three Questions." He CAN'T AFFIRM THEM because none of is exegesis allows him to.
Gary is well aware of he orthodox commentators down through the ages who have exegeted these texts that affirm three core doctrines of the faith. He doesn't need to "discuss them" with the authors of the letter because he holds the creeds and the orthodox commentators are wrong. There was time, which I have documented, when Gary agreed with those commentators and creeds, but now rejects them in favor of heretical preterism. That which all of orthodox Christianity has affirmed for 2000 years Gary rejects. Like his full preterist brethren, he now thinks the creeds need to be revised to reflect their superior exegesis. According to them, its the orthodox who need to repent, not them.
And for the "sake of the kingdom" it is much healther to point out heresy and heretics to the faithful than to coddle both by encouraging "future discussions." Gary is right, the orthodox are not going to be persuaded to adobpt heretical preterism no matter how many "discussions'" are conducted.
If Gary has held his current position for twenty-five years, why in the world can he not answer three simple, basic questions regarding biblical eschatology? Or perhaps more importantly, WHY won't he answer these questions?
Hey Dr. Gentry,
Thanks for your ministry and your stand for the Gospel. I invite you to read my earlier responses to Matthew A. Doyle regarding your question here. You’ve known and been friends with Gary DeMar longer than most people in the world, so I hope you guys can have some direct, extended conversation on these issues without throwing the H word around on social media.
On a side note, is there an audio version of Before Jerusalem Fell? I’d love to get all that knowledge in my head while I’m driving. :-)
Blessings!
As time has passed, the answer becomes more and more obvious. He doesn't answer them becasue he doesn't believe them and thus will not affirm them. He's just not honest enough to come out and say that.
So if I believe I am going to get my resurrection body when I die that makes me a Heretic?
This is so frustrating! His writings have been a catalyst for me and understanding eschatology, moving away from neive Dispensationalism. I'm thankful there are other brothers standing firm.
It is very sad. I have been a long time supporter of Gary and American Vision. Gary knows that and his vitriol directed to me for exposing his heresy comes in spite of that. It all started by asking Gary basic questions, which he either stone-walled, ignored, or blew off. He has deleted me from any access to him, accused me publicly of stirring the pot, and even that I dragged Ken Gentry into the matter to bail me out.
Isn’t he post mill currently?
I heard Gary lecture on eschatology sometime in the nineties and came away sensing he was a closet full preterist masquerading as a partial…..David Engelsma from the PRC had him pegged right all along…..Full Preterism is full Heresy… its about time somebody called him out on it…..this gangrene heresy started in the Church of Christ with Max King thankfully Church of Christ theologians refuted this heresy and stuffed it out of their congregations…hopefully the same thing can be done in Reformed circles especially Pesbyterians
I'm not a postmillennial, though I looked into that view once. I was put off because all the people I read (mostly on social media, tbh) sounded like they didn't really believe Jesus was ever coming back, nor should Christians look forward to His return. That caused me to end my inquiry into the postmillennial view. So I'm glad to know there are postmillennials who do not hold that view.
Why are you misquoting the scripture, if anyone can read the Greek of Hebrews 9:26-28 it does not say that. verse 27 is talking about the Priest hood that dies off and comes to its end once Christ has come. Verse 28 is saying that He, Jesus, is coming out of the second, that is the second veil, not a second time! How do you read Greek? This is embarrassing for people to be teachers and they can't even understand a passage. The priest went once into the temple and the people awaited for Him to come out and if he didn't, then the sacrifice was not accepted by God. That is the authors point here. οὕτως ὁ Χριστός ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν. Even in "parousia" is the Christ's true essence "ousia" declared, and that is not physical. He is God coming in clouds.
I would like to know what scriptures are used for a "future bodily return" of Christ. It appears to me that ALL the scriptures related to His coming point to AD70.
I stand with Gary. He's our Martin Luther. He'll lead many out of futurism and into the truth.
Full Preterism: The New Reformation
Reid: I and about a dozen friends and associates of Gary contacted him for several months in private (asking him the questions in the private letter ). Andrew Sandlin called him by phone; Gary called Doug Wilson (a signer) by phone. We could not get him to answer the three simple questions --- even though he has been saying he has held his current position for 25 years. He is a public figure who is publicly confusing people. We are continuing to pray for him. We are deeply saddened. We have not declared him a "heretic," though we say he is promoting some heretical teachings. Heretical doctrines are a slippery slope, however. When people deem themselves the salvation of historic Christian after 2000 years, trouble is brewing (see Joseph Smith; Charles Taze Russell). No, I don't have a digital version of BJF. I do have a DVD wherein I summarize the arguments: https://www.kennethgentry.com/before-jerusalem-fell-dvd-lecture/
I hear you my brother; I kind of enjoy study & discussion and used to be more polemic about it, but now I try to embrace the (Augustine?) quote: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity. Btw you sent me scurrying for the dictionary with "adiaphora"... our fun & learning never ends (said Barney the dinosaur as I recall :-).
Also see the chapter in William G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology (1886) which sets forth the biblical doctrine of <u>The Intermediate or Disembodied State</u>:
https://cyberspacelinkdock.com/PDFs/The-Intermediate-or-Disembodied-State.pdf