Gary DeMar Wants You to be a Full Preterist

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 without any distinction that anything is different between his supposed Partial-Preterism and the Full Preterist hosts.  But of all the things, it is DeMar's view of the Christian eschatological situation that has bred so many Full Preterists...and rightly so for the Full Preterists who follow DeMar's views.

DEMAR THINKS CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IS GARBLED MESS

The premise by Partial-Preterists like DeMar that drives a person straight into Full Preterism is best cited by one of DeMar's own comments:

"... 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

Now, think about that for a moment. If Christian eschatology has really been a "garbled mess", then Full Preterists by ALL MEANS should be at the table to help straighten it out. After all, the present "scholars" such as DeMar are part and parcel of the "scholars" who for centuries have been teaching this supposed "garbled mess".  Why should ANYONE turn to these "scholars" who couldn't get it right? Who says that they got it right now?

The Anti-Prets Attempt to Bamboozle Criswell College

As readers may know and I am careful to constantly preface such articles, I have documented where the so-called "Anti-Preterists", lead by Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Theological Seminary are actually engaged not in fighting "hyperpreterism" but instead in redefining the playing field and replacing Full Preterism with their own version.  That is, their own form of Full Preterism without calling it that.

Talbot has been documented as saying as much when he said his personalized form he calls "Realized Preterism" is "akin" to what Full Preterist David Chilton was teaching (5 second audio: http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/default/files/realizedpreterism_is_hyperpreterism.mp3).  Further, Talbot's star pupil, Sam Frost who pretends he left the Full Preterist movement in 2010 has sent emails to Full Preterists telling them he hasn't left everything, yet he is vague about what he retains.  And to add to that, Frost recently told a group of Full Preterists on the CARM message board that he PERSONALLY is "working on" a more consistent form of preterism.  So, in short; these so-called "anti-prets" aren't actually trying to fight "hyperpreterism"; they are trying to usurp it with their own brand and in so doing labeling anyone that does not follow along as the real "hyperpreterists".

That being said, Joel McDurmon; another pupil of Talbot's who gave a dismal performance at debating Full Preterist Don Preston in the summer of 2012; McDurmon even admitting he did virtually no preparation for the debate, McDurmon is now badgering Criswell College for not allowing the "Talbotites" to define preterism.

McDurmon relates in an article that he contacted Criswell College to express his concern that they invited Full Preterist Don Preston to a conference on eschatology and for Preston to represent the preterist view.

What Motivates "Consistent Preterists"?

The 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

Partial Preterists Sell The Farm

Whenever you see a Partial-Preterist, such as Gary DeMar arguing with a Dispensationalist over eschatology; you will notice that the Partial-Preterist uses almost the exact (if not the exact) same proof-texts that a Full Preterist uses to "prove" hyperpreterism.  The Partial-Preterist will point out to the Dispensationalist that "near" means "near" and "soon" means "soon".  They will point out that the first-century Christians expected "the end" to come within their life times.

But when a Partial-Preterist dusts up with a Full Preterist, suddenly they say that the Full Preterist goes too far.  Who gets to decide how far is too far?

Do Gary DeMar's Books Lead to Full/Hyper-Preterism?

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).

Mike Loomis, operator of the full/hyper-preterist podcast network, once said about DeMar:

"Anyhow. John [Noe] has done a lot of great work that has helped many people understand fulfillment even though I may disagree with him. Much like Gary DeMar. I disagree with him...Nonetheless he makes more full preterist's than the rest of us combined."  - source

Hyperpret Bryan Lewis Explains Why "Realized Preterism" Won't Work

As readers may be aware, there has been a long time contention that Dr. Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Theological Seminary has been attempting to insert his own "Reformed" brand of "Preterism" into the movement.  With a movement that already has so many  labels for different kinds of "preterism" -- "Partial-Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Full Preterism, Hyper-Preterism" -- Talbot's new brand seemed likely to be a welcomed addition to the smorgasbord.  Talbot called his brand,  "Realized Preterism".  Although, official and public details about what his brand of preterism entailed has yet to be released, some Full/Hyper-Preterists received it as merely a stepping stone to eventual Full/Hyper-Preterism.

Mike Bennet, a Hyper-Preterist social-site admin and friend of Sam Frost once said about Realized Preterism:

"Here is what I see happening as a general path to FULL PRETERISM.
Arminian => Dispy => Reformed => Ammilenial => Partial Preterist => Preterist Idealist => Realized Preterist (soon to complete the path) => Full Preterist"  -- source

Nothing Is Heresy to Gary DeMar

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: