Archive for gary demar
Why I Don’t Invest In Religious Utopias
Subsidiary to the issues surrounding Preterism is a doctrine in which it is held that the visible church will one day rule the world, prior to the return of Jesus Christ. This is, of course, a form of post-millennial theology, and so it’s nothing new. Some of the greatest Protestant teachers of all time have envisioned a golden age that will set sunshine on this blighted world before Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead.
Wedded to Preterism, however, this concept can be viewed as a powerful ideological weapon which, properly equipped, is seen fit to plow its way through all obstacles, in view of a set goal. That goal is nothing less than the acquisition of worldly dominion by the visible church.
Whether or not this belief is at least tentatively Roman Catholic in its agenda and worldview, is a matter up for discussion. If the answer is affirmative, then we have in the RCC a historical playing out of the dominion ideal which should make every Christian wary to put it into practice once more.
As I see it, there are several problems with such an ideology, which must prevent it from ever reaching fruition. The main obstacle concerns matters of Biblical eschatology, which impact saleability, thus negatively affecting practicability.
Few Christians are willing to believe that Jesus Christ “returned” in any manner in A.D. 70. And yet this is the teaching needed most of all to bolster the dominionist approach. To clear the board of annoying end-time prophecies which stand in the way of long-term goals and dreams, the great majority of eschatological passages must be shuttled back into a first-century fulfillment. But this results in mischievous marginalization of essential texts, some of which are soteriological in nature.
Because of its reductionist attitude, Preterism becomes distinctly “anti climactic” in its effect on Christian believers. This obviously hurts saleability. In order to hook Christians into accepting a Preterist scheme, the bait must be made at least semi-palatable. Preterists instinctively realize that they must popularize their view as much as possible; so they follow suit. But aside from gaining small circles of enthusiasts, their numbers bear no comparison with the growing tide of Christians who buy books on endtime prophecy. Dominionists only utilize a Preterist scheme, not because it is the best theological answer, but because it offers seemingly formidable objections to Dispensational theology. But because Preterism is not “good enough” for the majority, it is unfit to serve as an alternative to classical evangelical eschatology.
Then there is another issue that comes to mind. Even if the visible church, as conceived by Dominionists, were to gain control of the world institutions tomorrow, it would still have to deal with a large number of dissenting Christians. In fact, I doubt that in this world, dissenters will ever go away. The continued (and sometimes nagging) existence of those with opinions different from our own is something that most of us have learned to take for granted. We accept it as a matter of course.
But the very existence of an adverse party stands in the way of dominion. My thesis is that dominionists will never be able to gain (much less retain) any “control” without utilizing a measure of FORCE. But in unvarnished Italian, this is “abuso di potere.” Such an approach destroys any kind of Christian witness, transforming the church into a toothed-and-fanged monster which revels in the gore of martyred saints.
Dominionists don’t seem to realize — or perhaps they just forget – that Christendom has ALREADY PLAYED the “let’s take over the world” game. For centuries, Christianity was the official religion of Western and Eastern Europe. The state was under the control of the Papal authorities; and human affairs were decided according to politico-religious expediency.
And what did the church do when she had attained this long-dreamt-of power? Did she become a burning lamp to enlighten the nations? Or did she end up darkening the clear light of the Gospel? Did she meekly attempt to win back Christians whom she considered heretics? Or did she turn the dogs loose on those who maintained opinions different from her own? I think history records the answer.
In the early fifth century, Pope Leo the Great, otherwise an excellent theologian (by Catholic standards) was preaching to his parishioners that dissenters may and should be persecuted:
“Dearly beloved, I entreat and admonish you loyally to inform us, if any of you know where they [the Manichaeans] dwell, where they teach, whose houses they frequent, and in whose company they take rest: because it is of little avail to any one that through the Holy Ghost’s protection he is not caught by them himself, if he takes no action when he knows that others are being caught…
“Display then a holy zeal of religious vigilance, and let all the faithful rise in one body against these savage enemies of their souls. For the merciful God has delivered a certain portion of our noxious foes into our hands in order that by revelation of the danger the utmost caution might be aroused. Let not what has been done suffice, but let us persevere in searching them out…” (Sermon XVII, 5, 6).
Isn’t this the very party-line we hear neo-Catholic pugs deliver in their diurnal “rants?” Isn’t this the same agenda that dominionists would follow? While standing under Christ’s banner, Leo set precedence for the stake and the rack. And anyone with a smattering of European history knows that his policy was that endorsed and followed by Papal Rome for so many years. What makes modern-day dominionists think that they would behave any more charitably toward those of diverse opinion? It has already been slyly suggested by some, that should dominionists ever gain power, all heretics will be subjected to capital punishment. For my Dispensational friends who read this, that means me and you!
That men so educated as Gary North and Gary DeMar, could be so naive as to suppose that human nature won’t simply repeat itself under similar circumstances, reveals how intoxicating the dominion mindset can be to those who have swallowed its elixir. I repeat, organized Christendom has already put the dominion idea to the test, on a MACRO level, and failed. This should tell us that such dominion is no part of God’s plan for the present age.
Only by the personal, visible, glorious return of Jesus Christ will dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (see Dan. 7). Only at the sounding of the seventh trumpet will the kingdoms of this world become those of God and of His Son Jesus Christ (Rev. 11: 15). Only the putting forth of resurrection power will be able to lift the curse that hangs over humanity (Romans 8: 19).
Yeah, yeah, I know all these verses were fulfilled in A.D. 70 — right? But if that is the case, one must wonder why the church has never gained dominion. If an earthly pre-millennial dominion is God’s plan for this age, why hasn’t it ever been realized? The fact that human history shouts against such a notion, gives us one formidable reason why we should be cautious in setting our agenda in such a direction as diverts our eyes from heavenly to earthly things.
”If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, Who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3: 1-4).
Gary North: The Man Behind The Curtains
In studying the doctrines of Preterism, I’ve come more and more to realize that the ideology of the movement is largely fueled by the cultural agendas of certain of its leaders. Unless the reader understands right away that Preterism often begins with an agenda, he/she will not be able to properly understand what they believe, or why their interpretive views are considered necessary when measured against other systems.
There are, of course, many different forms of Preterism; and not all Preterists care much about the state of the world at large. Most are concerned with their private affairs, or with “winning an argument.” However, those most vocal in endorsing Preterism are the ones who are most active in their attempt to bring the nations into subjection to the visible church, through application of God’s old covenant law. Broadly speaking, these individuals are known as Reconstructionists.
It is a well-known fact that Dr. Gary North, president of the Institute For Christian Economics, is at the forefront of the Reconstructionist movement. But I’m also fairly certain that he is the “man behind the curtains” of most of the promotion of Preterist theology for the past two decades. Certain “hints” that he drops from time to time in his books lead me to believe that if it weren’t for Dr. North, the Preterist movement as it relates to the “orthodox” Christian community, would hardly be what it is now.
Dr. North credits himself as the co-founder (along with R.J. Rushdoony) of the Reconstructionist movement. He has written a large number of books which endorse “dominion theology.” This view teaches that the “kingdom of God” is, in its ideal form, a Christian civilization to be realized on earth. It holds that Christians should strive for the acquisition of temporal power until they gain control of all public institutions. According to Reconstructionists, when the rulers refuse to obey they become the target of Old Testament “imprecatory prayers.”
“If the rulers refuse to do what is righteous, and they become a threat to public peace and public good, then they are the legitimate targets of imprecatory prayers. We ask God to reform them or remove them. In other words, the prayers of the church are to offer rulers both rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks. [...] The worse the external situation is, the more wrathful the prayers should become” (Liberating Planet Earth, pg. 93-94).
To uphold his view, North and his colleagues import prophecies which relate to Israel’s kingdom age into the present period, appropriating Jewish blessings to the church. They also similarly import teachings which relate to the past dispensation of law into the present economy of grace — confusing God’s administrations, and distorting dispensational distinctions which exist among law, grace, judgment, and glory.
As North affirms that the church has received the kingdom inheritance of Israel, it is quite natural to find him an outspoken opponent of Dispensational theology. In his 1993 book entitled “Rapture Fever,” Dr. North boldly avows that one of the main functions of his ministry is to refute Dispensationalism.
“There is no doubt that the most vocal critics of dispensationalism have been the Christian reconstructionists. Our view of law and the future — theonomy and postmillennialism — is the antithesis of dispensationalism. Where dispensationalism flourishes, the vision and goals of Christian Reconstructionism cannot prosper. I therefore decided in the early 1980’s to devote whatever amount of money it would take to refute in print every aspect of dispensational theology” (pg. xxxii).
While I appreciate Dr. North’s candor, I have to say that from what I’ve read so far (and I’m still reading), I am not impressed with his theology — especially when it comes to exegesis. However, North claims he is a theological layman. Moreover, he makes several statements which reveal his “hidden hand” role in the development of Preterist theology. He is the “backer” of the REAL theologians whose business it is to argue against Dispensationalism.
Among Reconstructionists, Preterism has been chosen as the best means whereby to fight the enemy. To best attain their goals, several men have been put forward to take futurism to task. Names include David Chilton (once dubbed the “hottest theological property in the west“), Gary DeMar (Preterism’s chief pit-bull and apologist), James B. Jordan (grand wizard of the allegorical method), and Kenneth Gentry (darling of post-mil intellectuals). These are the men who write the books and articles to which scholars like Thomas Ice and Mark Hitchcock must respond. North provides the financial backing for most of their high-profile works.
To those interested in theology, the battle is usually worth watching — especially if you are a participant of one side or the other. This is where the action is: not on cultic forums where losers try to “show off” how smart they are; but in the arena of professional scholarship, where men must often put their money where their mouth is, and hang their reputations on the line until the joust is through.
Because Dr. Gary North is the “man behind the curtains” of the Preterist movement, I have decided to sit down and study his books. It will probably take me several months to get a good grasp on what he teaches. However, I think the readers of this blog will be interested in what we come up with. And if, after all is said and done, further instruction can be gleaned from even an opponent’s outlook, the time spent will be well worthwhile. I’ll also be covering the views of some of his colleagues, to see whether or not their teachings line up with Scripture, and to examine whether their agenda is really for the public good. This will be an ongoing project, and one that I think will be of interest to many.
Gary Is At It… Again
In an article published on January 13, 2008 at the American Vision website, Gary DeMar again goes off-the-wall in his attacks on orthodox eschatology, as he continues a mad quasi-secularist campaign against Dispensationalism. This time he is criticizing John MacArthur, who is currently doing a radio broadcast in defense of the Dispensational system of eschatology.
Since I have not heard MacArthur’s program, I’ll have to rely on Gary’s article for the facts of the matter. Not to mention Gary’s continued refusal to properly classify Hyper-Preterism as a heresy, now he actually goes so far as to validate it and its proponents, and is attacking those who have set out to combat this grave heresy (something Gary won’t do). For the record, MacArthur’s stance is not against “historic” or “orthodox” preterism, but against Hyper-Preterism. Which makes Gary’s antagonism all the more woeful.
Gary says that although MacArthur admits that partial preterism is orthodox, he nevertheless claims that “it is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by [partial] preterists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-preterist error.” To those involved in the Preterist movement, it’s obvious that such a statement would put both Preterists and Hyper-Preterists out of sympathy with MacArthur’s cause. That’s too bad. True to his nature, however, DeMar uses this as leverage for attack.
DeMar writes that MacArthur’s position against Hyper-Preterism is a mere “debater’s trick!” And that the connection he draws between Preterist hermeneutics and Hyper-Preterist theology is use of the “slippery slope” argument! In other words, he denies that MacArthur is waging a bona fide campaign against a heretical theology, but is tackling Hyper-Preterism because he wishes to evade discussing the merits of the more conservative doctrine of “partial preterism.”
DeMar writes the following: “The same argument could be used against a dispensationalist like MacArthur. It would go like this: ‘It is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by dispensationalists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-dispensational error.’ Hyper or ultra-dispensationalism is so classified based on when the church age begins, either Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, or Acts 28. Traditional dispensationalists don’t like being included with hyper-dispensationalists.”
Read Gary’s statement closely, for this is the line of thought he uses to criticize MacArthur’s defence of the faith. Gary is overlooking the fundamental difference in the debate regarding various forms of Dispensationalism, and that between Preterism and Hyper-Preterism.
The distinction between Dispensationalism and Ultra-Dispensationalism is not eschatogical at all, nor does it touch upon the doctrines of salvation. It merely involves the question of when the present Dispensation of Grace began (and not when the “age” ended). Classic Dispensationalists claim that it began on the Day of Pentecost, whereas Ultra-Dispensationalists hold that it commenced at a later time. The difference betwen the two theological schools involves neither soteriology nor eschatology, but the placement of Dispensational markers.
On the other hand, the difference between Preterism and Hyper-Preterism is one so major that it effects the very fabric of the Gospel! Both Preterists and Hyper-Preterists claim that the “parousia” mentioned by Christ in Matthew 24: 3 was fulfilled in A.D. 70. But since the term “parousia” is referenced in connection with the resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 23), some conclude that the resurrection also occurred in A.D. 70! Clearly the question involves much more than that of deciding when the present Dispensation began, as it entails the discussion of whether or not the resurrection is a past event. The answer will be found to impact the very doctrines of Christian salvation.
But Gary DeMar takes this comparison between Preterism and Hyper-Preterism and falsely equates it to a dispute between two schools of Dispensationalism: as if the controversies were one and the same. Nevertheless, as Shakespeare said: “Comparisons are slippery.”
DeMar’s analogy falls apart when one realizes that Dispensationalists and Ultra-Dispensationalists both believe in salvation by grace, a future second coming of Christ, a resurrection of the dead, a restoration of Israel, and a yet-to-be Millennium. Whereas Preterists and Hyper-Preterists differ as to whether the resurrection is physical (i.e., after the likeness of Christ’s own) or “covenantal.” The debate among Preterists is not a minor one, but one which ultimately decides whether someone is even a Christian. It is not to be compared to a debate on the timing of Dispensations. Those who say that the resurrection is a past event (and in doing so imply that it is non-bodily in nature) place themselves outside the bounds of Christianity.
But what does Gary say about this? Does he warn others that Hyper-Preterism is a lie? Of course not! He merely says that Hyper-Preterists hold a “non traditional” view of the resurrection. Notice he doesn’t say “non-orthodox,” but “non traditional“–playing upon the Protestant belief that “the Bible alone,” and not “traditions of men,” are to be regarded as sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Thus Gary, in appearing to champion an orthodox cause, leaves it open as to whether or not Hyper-Preterism is truly heresy. Nevertheless, he is quick to affirm that Ultra Dispensationalism is a heresy!
While this jaw-dropping behavior on Gary’s part is truly lamentable, the most reprehensible implication he makes is that MacArthur is arguing against Hyper-Preterism, not because he sees it as a menace to Christianity, but because he’s “afraid” to deal with Partial Preterism. What a cheap shot!
On the basis of what I’ve seen from Gary DeMar during the past year, I am really beginning to hope he defects to the other side and becomes a Hyper-Preterist. Someone who argues in such a fashion does not need to be posing as a Christian, but ought to be in the enemy camp waging warfare by their side, and under their banner. As 2009 gets underway, and Dispensationalism stocks the weapons it needs for the coming war, I fully expect Gary to align himself closer with the heretics he even now favors, even if that entails a departure from the “traditional” faith which stands so obviously in the way of his antichristian iconoclastic agenda.
The Cultic Behavior of Hyper-Preterists
If you’ve been entrenched in the Hyper-Preterist movement for any length of time, you’ll know how cultic and bizarre some of its proponents can be. But I’m not just talking about the leaders; they are bad enough. I’m primarily talking about the large number of fly-by-night enthusiasts that nobody hears much about.
Looking back on the past year, I can’t help but recall the large number of weird individuals I’ve dealt with, most of whom were Hyper-Preterists. From these dealings, I conclude that Hyper-Preterist doctrines result in a cultic mentality that is quite out of keeping with the Spirit of Christianity.
Let me give a few examples. Several months ago I was emailed by a guy named Larry Chasteen, who accused me of Asherah (phallic) worship for holding to a future resurrection of the dead and second coming of Christ. Naturally, I pointed out his errors (as well as his ridiculousness), but he continued bothering me to such a point that I had to eventually ignore him.
Then I received correspondence from another fellow named Walter Horton. He emailed me out of the blue wanting to argue about the necessity of eternal torment. Will God really throw people into the lake of fire at Christ’s second coming? My answer was, absolutely, He will. Horton politely suggested that there is no more eternal torment, but that all the souls of the dead are living on earth and enjoying felicity in Christ’s eternal kingdom.
Then there were a number of more or less anonymous posters, one of them named “Will,” who insisted that the Bible teaches a flat earth. When I and another commenter pointed out his errors, he continued to annoy me to no end, and was still leaving comments several weeks after the fact. This theory of a flat earth, which atheists commonly employ, is still being echoed by a nutter named “Mellontes” over at the CARM prophecy forum.
Speaking of CARM, there are several fly-by-nighters in commission at that spot who routinely flood the forum with Hyper-Preterist views. Names like Adhitthana, BigBus, EndTimesMan, PreteristMouse, and Noble, are names which recall to mind the cultic behavior of Hyper-Preterists. After conversing with such, I have learned one thing. There’s not a thing you or I can say to to convince them, for their mind is already made up. They’ve actually set out to convince everyone else.
In my dealings with such individuals, I’ve learned that one can prove basically anything out of the Bible that one wishes, so long as he/she has the ambition to prove a point. How much ambition do you have? If you’ve no problem staying up for 16 hours a day haunting the same forum, you’ve got more more than myself. Get your prize at the front-door.
Moving on, though, to bigger and better places, I can’t forget Gary DeMar’s blog, “Mashed Potatoes On The Anvil,” at which I was allowed brief posting privileges before being banned from the forum. After one of DeMar’s articles was posted (I forget which one), an overwhelming barrage of feedback flowed by Hyper-Preterists who cheerfully revised Christian theology to their heart’s desire while Gary looked on with paternal benevolence. One article generated over 140 comments!
One of these Hyper-Prets on Gary’s blog was a guy named “Ted” (a.k.a. Ed) from Canada, who believes that Jesus wasn’t raised in His own body. Another man named Brian Valentine asserted that the “thousand years” of Rev. 20 is actually two thousand! Therefore, saith he, how can the Pre-Millennial doctrine of a literal thousand years be correct? I suppose he expected me to suddenly drop my views of prophecy and embrace Hyper-Preterism. When I didn’t, he got all upset.
But as I review the past year’s dealings, memory brings to mind other names. At one point, the infamous J.L. Vaughn (of Martin & Vaughn fame) was leaving comments at my blog, one of which reads: “Christ’s physical death is properly called a sign. If Christ’s physical death was substitutionary, then the fact you will one day die demonstrates that you are still in your sin.”
This is just the kind of cultic mania I’m talking about. Does such a statement even deserve a response? I think not. But let us continue. For a few months there was a guy named “Gio” (also known as “Big G“) making the rounds on Hyper-Preterist forums, and spitting vinegar at Futurist eschatology. Don’t know what happened to him, for he’s since dropped off the radar.
Recently someone named “MG” was leaving threatening comments at this blog. Then another guy named “Will” (not sure if it’s the same one who teaches a flat earth) was accusing me of being an “Acts 28″ Dispensationalist, which I am not. Based on such misinformation, the guy actually had the nerve to call me a heretic. Imagine that!
But the list goes on and on and on. I can’t count the many times I’ve woken up in the morning only to read in my inbox a nasty comment from a Hyper-Pret which criticizes a particular article on my blog. The Hyper-Prets seem to be most vehement against anything by Thomas Ice. Why poor Tommy? That I’ll never be able to say.
All of this reveals, of course, the cultic mentality of Hyper-Preterists. They are not like you and me, but are most often monomaniacal in tendency; and as such they cannot resist haunting the internet in an attempt to spread their false doctrines in any way they can.
Therefore, what is left to be done but to cry out against the cult of Hyper-Preterism? Wherefore a portion of my efforts this year will be directed toward warning others of the Hyper-Preterist mentality, and in so doing keeping them out of the traps that have been laid by the important (and unimportant) proponents of the movement. Hyper-Preterists, welcome to 2009!
A Response To Joel McDurmon’s “Coat-tails of a Heretic”
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.
Gary DeMar’s Preterist Delusions: A Limited Geography (Part 2)
Of course, Gary DeMar admits that kosmos has a more extensive meaning than oikoumene. However, nowhere in his article does he admit that kosmos means the Adamic creation– that is, the entire physical globe. DeMar only says that it is a “word that can have a more global meaning.” This is by way of reluctant consent. Because of his preterist localization of the Great Commission, the Great Tribulation, and the second coming, DeMar is unable to claim universality for the word kosmos.
But a simple look at its usage in the New Testament Scriptures supports a universal meaning. Take John 1: 10: “He was in the world (kosmos), and the world (kosmos) was made by him, and the world (kosmos) knew Him not.” The world created by Christ is certainly the Adamic world, and not the world defined by the boundaries of the ancient Roman empire. Hear what Paul says: “God that made the world (kosmos), and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth (ge), dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17: 24). This surely implies universality. See also Matt. 13: 38; Luke 9: 25; John 4: 42; Romans 3: 6, 19; 5: 12-13; 1 Cor. 5: 10; 6: 2; 2 Cor. 5: 19; Gal. 6: 14; ; 1 Tim. 1: 15; 1 Peter 5: 9; 2 Peter 1: 4; 1 John 2: 2; 5: 19.
Enough evidences can be adduced from Scripture to prove that kosmos signifies the world as created by God, and is not limited by first-century geographical concepts. ON the other hand, oikoumene does have a more technical sense, signifiying the world as inhabited by men. Whether its meaning, however, may be consistently restricted to the first-century Roman empire, is rather questionable.
Citing Matthew 24: 14, DeMar alleges that Christ used oikoumene instead of kosmos, because He wished to show that the Great Commission would have a localized fulfillment within the time-frame of the first-century generation. Then to bolster his assertion, DeMar grabs hold of the typical audience-relevance argument, and writes: “Notice that also Jesus tells His disciples that the things outlined in Matthew 24 will happen to them. Jesus makes this point by His continual use of the second person plural ‘you.’ “
Now let us back up for a moment, and take a closer look at the word oikoumene. We’ll suppose that it means “the Roman empire of the first century.” But if DeMar should insist on a consistent usage, he’ll be forced to concede that Preterism contains grave flaws. For the geographical limits of oikoumene, while they fit his concept of the Great Commission, are in another sense not strict enough to support his localized view of the parousia.
In Acts 17: 31, for example, Paul tells the Athenians that the habitable world (oikoumene) is about to be judged. Then, in Luke 21: 26, we read that prior to Christ’s second advent in glory, “men’s hearts will fail them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the habitable world (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” Likewise, when speaking of the tribulation, John calls it an “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world (oikoumene), to try them that are dwelling on the earth (ge)” (Rev. 3: 10).
Here is where DeMar becomes snared by his own hermeneutics. For if oikoumene signifies the first-century Roman empire, within which confines the Great Commission was carried out, then the above texts would force us to admit, for the sake of consistency, that the tribulation preceding Christ’s second advent must cover the same geographical territory. At least it should be comparable in extent: else there is no such thing as a static definition of oikoumene. It is on this last score, however, that Preterism breaks down. Which is doubtless why DeMar, reluctant to have this brought out, reverts to his audience-relevance argument.
But even this argument proves nothing more than a surface evasion. For while Christ used the second person plural when addressing His audience, a consistent application of DeMar’s own method reveals the audience to be much broader than the four disciples to whom Christ spoke. To show what we mean, hearken to what Christ says: “They shall deliver YOU up to be afflicted, and shall kill YOU” (Matt. 24: 9). But speaking of later events He says, “When YOU, therefore, see the abomination of desolation,” etc.
Now it is clear that if Christ’s teachings were restricted to His immediate audience, as DeMar asserts, then Christ contradicted Himself. If they were to be killed first, how was it possible for them to see the abomination of desolation? It is obvious that Christ’s audience embraces a larger group of individuals. Addressing this group, Christ says that some will be killed, whereas others will live to see the abomination of desolation. Identifying the larger, transcendental audience is essential to a correct exegesis of the text. Instead of doing this, however, DeMar allows his preconceived view of “this generation” to determine the scope of Christ’s message. But this makes a consistent interpretation of oikoumene impossible.
Let’s lay the matter out. If Christ was speaking exclusively to a first-century audience, then there had to have been a first-century tribulation co-extensive with the territory covered by the Great Commission. For DeMar already fixed the meaning of oikoumene as pertaining to the geography of the Roman empire. But as he cannot give evidence of a tribulation that widespread, he drops further examination of the word, and brings in some collateral argument to boost his thesis.
Let us be honest with the text, however, and admit that DeMar’s definition of oikoumene proves the very opposite of his assertion. For its contextual usage in Luke 21: 26 and Rev. 3: 10 extends the Great Tribulation (an event immediately followed by Christ’s parousia) beyond the limits authorized by Preterist interpretation. DeMar’s eagerness to localize and restrict the parousia by arguing for a limited fulfillment of the Great Commission produces a parallel inconsistency which falsifies the very concept he sets out to prove. Like Frankenstein’s monster, it threatens to destroy its maker.
If oikoumene signifies the world as inhabited by men, then it may apply to a geographical area much larger than the Roman empire. Its extent may, in fact, cover the Adamic world. Therefore, when Christ says: “And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matt. 24: 14), it is not esential that we interpret His words in any first-century sense. Only the events themselves will determine when the Commission is fulfilled, and the end of the age is come.
Taking the phrase “all nations,” however, DeMar argues that the term often has a limited geographical application. He cites eleven examples from the Old Testament and the New, in which terms like “all the nations” and “all the earth” are used in localized, and not a universal, sense. However, DeMar apparently does not see that these are merely examples of synecdochical usage. Synecdoche (of the whole) is a literary device in which the whole is put for the part. An example may be found in Genesis 6: 12: “And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt: for all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.” Another instance is seen in Matthew 3: 5: “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.”
Nobody would be so rash as to assume that because Noah and his family were not included in the phrase “all flesh,” they therefore were not flesh. Nor would anyone assert that Judean residents who failed to go out to meet John Baptist were not residents of Judea. But this would be the logical result of accepting Gary DeMar’s thesis. On the other hand, if one identifies synecdochical usage when it occurs, the discrepencies vanish away. Synecdoche is a figure of speech which can be readily identified.
Contrary to DeMar’s assertions, the Bible preserves a very extensive notion of geography. Moses was chosen by God to be the world’s first historian, and as such he chroncled the dispersion of the Gentiles in language that leaves little room for allegations of geographical ignorance. Read Genesis 10: 1-5. That the Hebrews also had knowledge of lands far beyond the ken of the earliest cartographers, may be seen in passages like Jeremiah 25: 15-26, as also Isaiah 49: 12, where the prophet mentions China.
Of course, Preterists often adopt the rationalistic argument that the ancients thought the earth was flat, and that therefore we must read “flat earth” concepts into the Holy Scriptures. However, this outright denies the inspired authorship of the Bible. On the contrary, some of the ancients believed that the world was round. And this accounts for their speculations regarding the antipodes. (see Lactantius, Div. Inst. III. xxiv; Hippol. Ref. I. v). Where did they derive their knowledge? Quite possibly, from the Hebrew prophets and sages, to whom the oracles of God were committed.
In light of all the above facts, we find that Gary DeMar’s arguments of a “limited geography” are completely off-the-wall, as well as unwarranted by Scripture. Because of his Preterist presuppositions, he has little choice but to adopt such arguments. When the evidence is carefully weighed, however, we arrive at quite opposite conclusions. In fact, we are prepared to dogmatically assert that whenever the doctrines of Christian salvation are involved, trerms such as kosmos, ge, oikoumene, are to be understood in their Adamic and universal sense.
As sin is universal, so is the need for salvation. The revealed purpose of the Great Commission is to spread the message of Christ’s salvation to all nations under heaven. Far from being exhausted in the first century, we see this as being incomplete in our own day. Until this great commission has been exhaustively and comprehensively fulfilled, we are justified in claiming that “the end is not yet.” Until the witness is complete, Christ’s second coming remains a future event. And though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel than that which we have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1: 8).
Gary DeMar’s Preterist Delusions: A Limited Geography (Part 1)
In his article, “Limited Geography and Biblical Interpretation,” Preterist teacher Gary DeMar sets out to localize Jesus Christ’s second coming by “proving” that geographical terminology used in Scripture was based on a first-century understanding of the globe. DeMar writes: “The first rule of Biblical interpretation is understanding a text in terms of its original setting and audience, always asking the question, How would those who first picked up copies of the Gospels and epistles have understood what they were reading?“
DeMar then quotes from Lewis Berkhof’s “Principles of Biblical Interpretation,” in which the author claims that “the interpreter must place himself on the standpoint of the author” and that he (the interpreter) must guard against “transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century.”
This is the whole premise of DeMar’s argument. And we submit that his premise would be correct if the Scriptures were written by fallible men, and not by the immutable and all-knowing Holy Spirit. It is on this point, however, that DeMar’s reasoning breaks down. Like most rationalists, he supports his position by taking arms against the Divine inspiration of the Bible. But when a closer investigation is brought to bear upon the geographical terminology of the Bible, DeMar’s Preteristic assumptions crumble into nothing.
Obviously, the interpreter must place himself on the standpoint of the author. Who would deny it? But the real question is, who is the author of the Bible? If the Bible was written by men whose limited understanding of geography has been preserved in its pages, then we must assign to Scripture a measure of fallibility. But if the men who wrote Scripture merely acted as amanuenses, writing as the Spirit prompted them, then DeMar’s argument is motivated by a false premise. The apostle Peter put it correctly when he wrote: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1: 20-21).
I would imagine this falsifies the notion of a limited geography. For we believe that what holds true of prophecy also applies to statements of fact. That the Scripture was transcribed by men all will agree. But that it was written under Divine guidance, so as to make its record infallible, seems to be contested by DeMar. The dispute comes into play when the reader accepts his caveat not to read 21st century geographical knowledge into words such as kosmos, oikoumene, and ge. Well, we ask, why not? If the domain of God’s sovereignty is the same now as it was in the first century, what prohibits us? Is God’s knowledge of geography limited by human understanding? If so, then God cannot be omniscient. And therefore, He cannot be God. Who would carry it so far?
When investigating the geography of Scripture, we must determine who is the author employing such terminology. Because Preterists insist that Jesus Christ’s second advent was fulfilled in A.D. 70, they are forced to localize His coming to the region of Jerusalem. In equating His parousia with the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70, they are left without any other choice. Now the geographical terminology must be juggled to accord with their pre-conceived conclusion that Christ did in fact return in A.D. 70. Therefore, the authorship of the Holy Spirit is discredited, that an element of human fallibility may be read into the text.
But we ask, how far does this fallibility extend? Does it extend to all Scripture? Or is it exclusive to the New Testament? Suppose that the term ge (earth) always means “the land of Palestine,” as Preterists popularly contend. Well, the writers of the New Testament were Jews, and unto them were committed the oracles of God. Moses was chosen by God to chronicle the history of the world, from its very beginnings. In Gen. 1: 1, we read, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth (eretz).”
Here the usage of eretz is universal, and not localized. For if God created the land of Palestine alone, then we must assign the creation of the rest of the world to another and greater god. But what meant Moses when he wrote, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth (eretz), and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (eretz)” (Gen: 1: 26). If it obviously the Adamic creation he is speaking of, over which God exercises supreme dominion.
Now the Greek word ge bears precisely the same sense as the Hebrew eretz. But we ask: did Paul have less knowledge than Moses, when he told the idolaters of Lystra to “turn from these vanities unto the Living God, which made heaven, and earth (ge), and the sea, and all things that are therein” (Acts 14: 15)? Was Paul’s geography limited when he preached that God now commandeth “all men everywhere to repent because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the habitable world (oikoumene) in righteousness, by that Man Whom He hath ordained” (Acts 17: 30-31)?
And what meant Christ, when He taught His disciples to pray: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth (ge) as it is in heaven (Mat. 6: 10)? Was our Lord’s geography limited? Was He referring to the land of Palestine? Of course not. Christ used the word ge (earth) in a universal and Adamic sense; which can be easily verified. For example: “But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth (ge) to forgive sins… Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house” (Matt. 9: 6). See also Matt. 16: 19; 17: 25; Acts 13: 47; Heb. 11: 15; 1 John 5: 8, etc.
As for eretz, we agree that it is sometimes used in a localized sense. But it more often refers to the sphere over which God exercises moral sovereignty.
Psalm 33: 14: “From the place of His habitation, He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth (eretz).
Psalm 115: 16: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth (eretz) hath He given to the children of men.”
Compare with Psalm 2: 8; 72: 19; 96: 1; 138: 4; Isaiah 37: 16; 49: 6; 54: 4; Jeremiah 16: 19; Micah 4: 13; Zechariah 6: 5; 14: 9, etc.
Examining all of the cited passages (which are too numerous to quote in full), we find that God certainly has very extensive notions of geography. And this helps us to determine exactly what Christ signified when He gave the Great Commission. “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (ge). Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28: 18-20).
As a Preterist, Gary DeMar believes that the Great Commission was fulfilled by A.D. 70, and that the end of the age occurred with the destruction of the temple. We believe that this is a sad, sick error, and can easily prove it by asking DeMar what He thinks Christ meant when He said: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth“? If DeMar agrees that ge is used in a universal sense, then he must concede that the the discipling of all nations has reference to Christ’s sphere of authority, which is universal; and that the end of the age terminates not with the destruction of the Jewish temple, but with the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the whole world (kosmos).
In His unfolding of the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13: 24-30; 37-43) , Christ said: “The field is the world (kosmos)” and “the harvest if the end of the age.” Gary DeMar believes that the harvest occurred in A.D. 70. Therefore, he sees the end of the age as occurring at that time. But if this is the case, how are we to understanding the usage of kosmos? In a strictly localized sense, argues DeMar. But what did Christ mean when He said: “For God so loved the world (kosmos) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3: 16).
Did Christ signify that God only loved the Roman empire, and not poor benighted Amazonians who would be born at a future time? Again, when Christ said: “As long as I am in the world (kosmos), I am the light of the world (kosmos)” (John 9: 5); did Christ mean to say that He was the light of the first-century Roman world? Or did He mean the world as fallen in Adam? If the latter is true, then the end of the age cannot have occurred in A.D. 70, for the wheat and tares were not yet ripe to harvest. Christ is still sowing His wheat, and the devil his tares. Therefore, the Great Commission is still in force, and the end of the age is yet future.
