DeMar and Roderick the One Trick Pony Arguing

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, JWs and Mormons say the same thing about their beliefs. So do dispensationalists. Gentry is also said to be their “gateway,” and yet Ken is vocally anti-FP. You can’t have it both ways. If you read enough of what I’ve written on the subject, I do make a distinction between partial and full preterism. My response to John MacArthur’s book ‘The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age’ is a perfect example. I don’t have to do this all the time since there aren’t that many FPs out there, and my goal is to move people away from dispensationalism. Yes, I did have ONE FP on my podcast, but not to talk about eschatology. I’ve also had dispensationalists on as well. I didn’t call them out because of their dispensationalism. In Fact, I’ve had lots of people on who I don’t agree with across the board. You’re a lot like the FPs–a one-trick pony. Your obsession with FP is ruining what little ministry you may have. Likewise, FPs are mostly one-trick ponies, and as one-trick ponies, all they care about is FP. I’m not willing to engage the FP tar baby because I will be barraged by a handful of FPs to answer this objection and that objection. To what end? Let the FPs battle among themselves, and when they come up with a unified FP paradigm, then it will be time to respond. There are passages that I’m still dealing with. I’ll spend my time with those. If God has called you to be a FP heresy hunter, then go at it.”

Roderick

Posted October 14, 2010 at 1:13 am | Permalink

“Thanks for posting my comments Gary and for the response. I have moved closer to your reasoning on why you don’t engage hyperpreterists — they have no clear definition of their own movement (as demonstrated by Kerry), however, until recently the most basic definition was a person that advocated at least 4 things:

1. That Jesus already came once and for all in the 1st century.

2. That the collective resurrection of the believers is past (and often non-physical).

3. That the collective judgment of the wicked and righteous is past.

4. That there will be no end of sin or culmination of earthly human existence.

Now, if ANYTHING is to be considered a “heresy”, hyperpreterism fits the definition because whether we look at pre-RC, RC, Greek/Eastern Orth, Syrian, Protest/Reformed, Anabaptist, or Modern Evangelical; ALL of these expressions of historic Christianity have been UNITED on those 4 points over and against what hyperpreterism advocates. Even Arminians, Calvinists and Dispensationalist agree with this minimal eschatology, even if they vary with details.

So, I NOW appreciate your desire to wait it out a little longer. However, I could post quote after quote where hyperprets credit you with being their gateway. I’d just like to see you be a bit more vocal in discouraging them from that path. Lastly, as for being a “one-trick-pony” — Although that hardly fits my profile (look at my website: http://thekingdomcome.com) where I rarely discuss eschatology let alone hyperpreterism; but if in fact God called me to be a “one-trick-pony” against the heresy of hyperpreterism, it would be as much my role as it was Athanasius’ role to be a “one-trick-pony” against Arianism. Contra Mundum!  Thanks again Gary.