On December 5th, Joel McDurmon published an article entitled “The Coat-tails of a Heretic.”  This was a response to my blog-post called “Joel McDurmon’s Sleight-of-Hand Trick.”  One of the reasons I wrote this piece was to counter misinformation which claims that American Vision is standing behind the theology of the Reformers. I reminded McDurmon that, quite contrary to his asertions, he is appropriating a Futurist soteriological concept which his own eschatology renders impossible.  Why, then, would McDurmon borrow from the theology of the Reformers?  Apparently because heresy always looks better dressed up in old and venerable garb. 

   While the Christian community would condemn any public profession claiming that Jesus Christ returned in A.D. 70, they would be less apt to criticize a statement from the Westminister Catechism, as reputable as that document is.  For this reason, therefore, I titled my article, “Joel McDurmon’s Sleight of Hand Trick.”  Because while ensconcing himself behind the bastions of historicity, McDurmon conceals the fact that he is wearing the colors of the adversary.  Who is the adversary?  The adversary is none other than Hyper-Preterism.

  Now, it is quite telling that when McDurmon first wrote his three-part article, “Replacing Replacement Theology,” he went so far as to criticize those who espouse a future hope for Israel.  Yet those he critiques are the very ones who use the term “Replacement Theology” to describe the theology American Vision endorses.     

   McDurmon, however, instead of interacting with our definitions, sought to re-define the term.  When I accused him of holding Replacement Theology, I gave a definition as I and others see it.  Instead of dealing with this definition, though, McDurmon slipped in his own terminology, and wrote that Replacement Theology teaches: “ that the Church has so replaced Israel that modern Jews are cast aside by God as unwanted, unwelcome, and unsalvable.”

  Now, I don’t think there are any Dispensationalist who would agree with McDurmon’s definition.  In using this false definition of what others believe, McDurmon fails to meet his opponents on their own ground.  By evading discussion of the accepted meaning of the term, he appeared to be concealing something.  Wherefore I accused him of pulling a “sleight-of-hand trick.”  Of course, I am not asking Joel to accept my definition of Replacement Theology.  However, I would expect him to at least consider how the leaders of Dispensationalism define the term. 

    Speaking of Replacement Theology, Dr. Thomas Ice writes: “ What is replacement theology? Replacement theology is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as the instrument through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God. Some replacement theologians may believe that individual Jews will be converted and enter into the church (something that we all believe), but they do not believe that God will literally fulfill the dozens of Old Testament promises to a converted national Israel in the future.”

   Mark that it is precisely this concept which has long been reflected by American Vision.  In clarifying what Replacement Theology is, Ice has given a given explicit definition of what Gary DeMar and his colleagues (Ken Gentry, Gary North, etc.) all believe.  Therefore, in failing to deal hands-on with the definitions of those who employ the terminology, McDurmon fails to do the opposing party any justice.  This is why his three-part article functions as little more than a smoke-screen to conceal the real issue.  Fact is, both McDurmon and DeMar endorse views which fit Dr. Ice’s description of “Replacement Theology.”

  As for the Scripture citations, McDurmon challenges me to show how Romans 11: 26-27 and Isaiah 59: 20-21 have anything to do with Christ’s second advent.  He accuses me of “imposing Dispensational theology into the Scriptures.”  Actually, I am not imposing anything.   These texts relate to the second advent, because they refer to the Jewish national conversion; which Scripture tells us will take place at Christ’s return.  Even the preceding context of the Isaiah passage supports this view.  See Isaiah 59: 16-19.   Also see Zechariah 12: 8-14; Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15.

    Of course, McDurmon could protest that these verses do not speak of the second advent at all.  But that is really an issue of interpretation.  I, for one, disagree with McDurmon’s take on Luke 21: 24.  I understand that verse as parallel with Zechariah 14: 2, the context of which contains clear references to Christ’s second coming, and the consequent destruction of the Gentile/goyim enemies.  Zech. 14: 3-5.

   It must be admitted, even by McDurmon, that Zechariah describes a scenario quite different from that which happened in A.D. 70.  Compare with Zechariah 12: 8-14, and the reader will see what I mean about the Jewish national conversion.  Then reference that with Matthew 24: 30 and Revelation 1: 7.   Now McDurmon knows why I interpret Romans 11: 26-27 and Isaiah 59: 20-21 as pertaining to the second advent of Christ. 

   But the author then finds fault with me for accusing Gary DeMar of placing Christ’s second advent in A.D. 70.  As he claims that Gary DeMar never uses the phrase “second advent” to describe Christ’s “coming” in A.D. 70, McDurmon demands an apology from me for mis-representing his teacher’s view. 

   My answer is, I am fully willing to apologize, if McDurmon would clarify his definition of the term “parousia,” and prove that it is not synonymous with Christ’s second coming. ”Parousia” occurs twenty-four times in the New Testament, its first appearance being in Matthew 24: 3.  As this term is used elsewhere as an unmistakeable reference to the second advent (1 Cor. 15: 23; 1 Thess. 2: 19; 3: 13; 4: 15; 5: 23; 2 Thess. 2: 1, 8, 9; 1 John 2: 28), it should be easy for McDurmon to see why I’ve accused American Vision of relegating Christ’s second advent to the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70.

   But there is another reason.  Gary DeMar believes that the judgment of all nations predicted by Christ in Matthew 25: 31-46 was fulfilled in A.D. 70.  This interpretation is far from orthodox, and is actually one of the distinctive doctrines of Hyper-Preterism.  The view that Matthew 25 is past-fulfillment, is not a legacy of historic Christianity.   In fact, the doctrine wasn’t proposed until the early part of the 19th century; and its first proponents were American Universalists whose theology necessitated the belief that the judgments of God were exhausted in A.D. 70.  Thus, in embracing one of the key doctrines of Hyper-Preterism, Gary DeMar certainly leaves himself open to allegations of placing the second advent in A.D. 70.

   But the facts become more startling, when we learn that DeMar has knowingly endorsed Hyper-Preterist materials in the past, and has even promoted a book called “Beyond Creation Science,” which claims that the creation account of Genesis is purely allegorical in nature, that the flood was local, and that the “animals” taken into Noah’s ark were really human beings.  The refusal on DeMar’s part to warn his listeners that Tim Martin (author of the book) is actually a Hyper-Preterist, leaves one to wonder whether or not DeMar is actively colluding with heretics.  Because of DeMar’s failure to identify Hyper-Preterism a heresy, it is certainly within one’s rights to accuse American Vision of condoning the view that the second advent occurred in A.D. 70.

   But, lest I should seem to be acting unfairly, I beg to hear McDurmon’s position on the theology of Hyper-Preterism.  Does Mr. McDurmon believe that Hyper-Preterism is a heresy?  It is a simple question I am asking.  However, I am not sure that he’ll answer me on this.  Nevertheless, I am fully willing to discuss it with him any time he likes.  It is not my wish to misrrepresent anyone.  I am simply trying to get to the bottom of the facts.

    As for the “public debate,” to which McDurmon apparently assents, I sent him a personal email the other day, but have not yet received a reply.  At the present time, the ball is in McDurmon’s court.  Whether I ever hear from him again, is entirely up to him.  But until the orthodox community starts getting some honest answers about the kind of theology that American Vision really endoreses, I will continue to stand my guns and identify the organization as a main proponent of Hyper-Preterism, not to mention Replacement Theology.