Roderick Edwards & Gary DeMar

Roderick Posted October 13, 2010 at 1:59 am | Permalink Although it is a welcomed thing to see Gary at least diminish HYPERpreterism to some degree, but isn’t it about time Gary address WHY so many hyperpreterists credit him for being their “gateway” into hyperpreterism. Sure, Gary might claim he can be held accountable for how people “misuse” his teachings, BUT if some minister’s teachings were said to be generating tons of new Mormon converts, wouldn’t it be responsible for the minister to address it and figure out why it is happening? Gary to date, not only doesn’t “write articles denouncing Full Preterism” but Gary supports hyperpreterists by having them on his radio show, allowing them to talk about “preterism” without ever making a distinction to his audience. Gary it is time to come clean. Gary DeMar Wrote: Posted October 13, 2010 at 10:53 am | Permalink “Roderick, I’ve listened to FPs for quite some time, and they tell me that it’s the Bible that was their “gateway.” In fact, J

 Set aside for a moment the entire debate as to whether or not Full Preterism is true or not. How did many people become FPists? Often through the interpretative works of men such as Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry. These men have written books that take a person right to the edge of FPism and then drop them off. Further, the works by these men (especially DeMar) don't usually make a clear distinction between the differences of so-called "Partial-Preterism" and FPism. As a matter of fact, most of the reasoning from the pens of these men; if held consistently, SHOULD lead a person to conclude FPism. Now, add to that men like Sam Frost, who had spent over 12 years, claiming to be a scholar; claiming to employ "logic" and "hermeneutics", and "exegesis" to conclude a FPist interpretation. Frost recently (2011) left the FPist movement but has done little to explain how he could have supposedly been so wrong. Sure, he is now "refuting" FPis

 he first thing the reader should notice is that I plan to stop calling people "hyperpreterists", but will begin to refer to this group as "Consistent Preterists".  Why? Well, the so-called "Partial-Preterists" or "historical Preterists" have made such a shamble of eschatology that I no longer think it fair that Consistent Preterists should be considered as being "beyond" or "hyper" preterism.  After all, popular partial-preterist author and speaker, Gary DeMar has said of Christian eschatology: "... I'm willing to listen to what others say on an issue, especially on eschatology since it's been a garbled mess for centuries. It's conceivable that so-called eschatological heretics are seeing something I'm not seeing. They're willing to take the risk. Many are not." -- source Well, if the premise of these partial-preterists and their so-called anti-preterists is that centuries of Christian eschatolog

 Well, I thought I was going to have my book on Preterism completed by now but a couple of things have slowed it down. I'm not really all that motivated to write it. I'm kind of burnt out on all things preterist. :-) Formatting -- I hate having to mess with formatting. I had considered paying someone to do that part of it but I recently hunkered down and figured out how to make it easier. However, I'm now back on track and hope to have it completed within January 2018. My hope is that the book will be a great reference for people who just want a matter-of-fact, non-polemic explanation. Odd since I've been branded the Trump of bombastic theological discourse. If anyone wants a specific topic covered, now is the time to send me a comment.   Also, I doubt I will have a forward or a list of glowing endorsements since I'm hated by everyone from Todd Dennis to Gary DeMar. Sure sure, they pretend to like/tolerate me but just go look at the amount of my content Dennis has

 An April 13,2009 — 54 minute audio discussion between Dr. Kenneth Gentry & Jerry Johnson (president of Nicenecouncil.com).  Gentry explains that hyperpreterism is a reaction to the error of “Left Behind” dispensationalism.  However, I believe Gentry aids hyperpreterism when he claims the AD70 event was a “metaphorical coming of Christ”.  Rather, it was the Landowner taking vengeance on behalf of the Son & to what the wicked vinedressers had done (Matthew 21:33-45).  To say Jesus came back in AD70 misses what Jesus was saying in those verses & as I said, only leads a person to either adopt hyperpreterism or point out that even so-called “partial-preterism” is just as heretical as hyperpreterism, since it would have Jesus coming 3 times. Also, near the end of the audio, Gentry refers to Gary DeMar as a good source to compare “biblical preterism” (as he calls it) to hyperpreterism.  Ummm… Dr. Gentry don’t you know DeMar is the wink-wink champion among the hyperpreterist movem

 Perhaps some people will think that eschatology doesn’t matter. After all, we are often told eschatology is too vague, too symbolic a thing to worry about. Let people teach whatever they will –God will sort it out in the end. Yet is this how the Bible tells us to interact with doctrine? As if it doesn’t really matter. Some of you know that PreteristBlog has some outstanding issues with Gary DeMar’s tacit support of hyperpreterism. We have tried to get DeMar to see that he is fostering & causing many people to adopt hyperpreterism & as you’ll see further in this article, even the hyperpreterists say this themselves. So, I would like to share an email I had recently written to a person that wondered it DeMar’s association with hyperpreterism mattered…since DeMar has done great work in other areas including defending a constitutional mindframe & for combating dispenationsalism. This article has been adapted from an email so the flow is more personal in nature & I will som

While I was a hyperpreterist there was always a certain anticipation in the movement that all we needed to really get hyperpreterism accepted was to find a “big name” to accept it. The reasoning was that if we could get a well-known person with lots of influence to accept hyperpreterism then not only would this give hyperpreterism the door into validity, but it would allow us to have a spokesperson, a posterchild, a hero for hyperpreterism. A few years ago when Hank Hanegraaf from CRI seemed to be leaning toward hyperpreterism, there was much excitement within hyperpreterism that he would be the hero. And for a long time now, Gary DeMar of American Vision has been considered a “closet” hyperpreterist though he verbally denies it, his actions & on-going resistance to actually call hyperpreterism a heresy has led most hyperpreterists to give up on DeMar being a public mouthpiece for the movement. DeMar does more “good” for hyperpreterism by having hyperpreterists on his radio show &

Gary DeMar has been repeatedly asked if "full preterism/hyperpreterism" is heresy. Every time, DeMar either gives a vague, not-committal answer or actually has come out and said, "No" he doesn't think it is heresy (as he did when hyperpret leader Sam Frost asked DeMar on the Narrow Mind radio show here: http://www.preteristsite.com/mp3/demarwithfrost.mp3 --transcript: "personally I do not consider it heretical because, you know like some say this is the Hymenaen heresy, and of course you don't deny the Resurrection" -- as if that is the only thing that causes it to be heretical). DeMar was again recently asked via email (by an atheist) if he thinks full/hyperpreterism is heresy and here is how DeMar replied: "Full preterists ask some important questions. I don’t always agree with their answers. I don’t like the heresy label. Especially on a topic where there is so much debate." So exactly WHAT IS HERESY to DeMar?? The reason DeMar doe

Many of a full/hyperpreterist has launched into that "movement" first via the "partial-preterism" of men like Gary DeMar and even Kenneth Gentry; often citing their books. The difference between Gentry and DeMar is that Gentry has made it clear in print and audio that he believes full/hyper-preterism not to merely be a "dangerous error", but to be heresy on par with heresies like Arianism or cults like Mormonism. DeMar, on the other hand has not only not called full/hyper-preterism a heresy, DeMar has actually spoken at full/hyper-preterist conferences without making any distinction. DeMar has joined numerous full/hyper-preterist message boards in support of it. DeMar allows his materials to be promoted and published on full/hyper-preterist websites. DeMar was once asked outright by now ex-full/hyper-preterist Sam Frost if DeMar thought it was heresy. DeMar answers that he doesn't think full preterism is heretical ( ref#1-mp3 , ref#2 , ref#3 ).

Gary DeMar of AmericanVision.com is well known not only for his work AGAINST Dispensationalism, but for his work in promoting Preterism. The problem is, DeMar is credited with creating more Full Preterists than any "leader" within the Full Preterist movement. When confronted about this, DeMar has said that he is not responsible for people taking his teaching to conclusions he does not intend. However, I wonder how that works if say a supposed Christian minister's arguments repeatedly lead people to Mormonism. Doesn't that minister have some obligation to at least clarify what he is saying and figure out why so many people are supposedly concluding something he did not intend? Further, DeMar has many glaring examples of not being just an innocent bystander whose work has been misunderstood. DeMar has spoken at Full Preterist conferences with no distinction that Full Preterism has any issues. DeMar has been/is a member on several Full Preterist forums where he posts