CARM: Why the anti-pret battle is lost

Well, let's try this again. The first time I attempted to post on this topic, a vicious and slanderous anti-pret came out of the woodwork and posted such lies that the moderator closed the thread. So here is a do over. This post is a significant contribution since it relates some of the otherwise untold history surrounding Preterism. Please moderator, attempt to keep vicious, hateful people from spoiling it.
As always, I will provide links to back up what I am presenting. Any "bickering" comes from people who DON'T present verifiable references as I do here, but that they only come here to make such a loud noise that they hope you moderators will just shut the whole thing down so no one will see it. Don't let them ruin the FACTS.

The so-called "anti-preterist" movement, or perhaps more accurately; the "anti-hyperpreterist" movement has been chiefly led by a woman going by the pseudonym, "Dee Dee Warren". Warren claims her impetus for starting the movement was her run in with hyperpreterist Don Preston (ref). But any sustained reading of Warren's material shows that she is self-consumed and thus a poor apologist against hyperpreterism. What is worse, is that in the last few years, Warren has demonstratively compromised with those who serendipitously (or perhaps purposely) promote hyperpreterism while they claim to be opposing it. For example, a self-made seminary president has become the driving factor within the anti-pret movement. This seminary president (whom I'm forbidden by CARM to name by name) has actually said:

"Some aspects of his [David Chilton's] views that would be probably more akin to what I'm actually teaching as well in Realized Preterism" (15 second audio)

First, Chilton converted to "Full/Hyperpreterism" and remained there even unto his death. Secondly, what in the world is "Realized Preterism" if it is not -- as this seminary president said -- "akin to" Chilton's form of preterism, which was without a doubt Full/Hyperpreterism. Yet this seminary president directly drives the focus of the anti-pret movement. He said so himself with this statement:

"I am good at what I do, both in preaching and in apologetics, and even better in debating. But I am not so good that I will change them [hyperprets]. You are trying to engage about 100 to 400 people. I have a better strategy, I am going to engage every Reformed and Evangelical Pastor in this country as to what Hyperpreterism is and what they need to understand. That part of my plan is almost over. What I do next? Let’s wait and see." (ref)

Anyone working with this seminary president is thus part of "his plan".

Next, Warren has teamed up with Samuel Frost and Jason Bradfield. These men are hyperpreterists claimed recanted in late 2010. However, Frost has since said:

"My eschatology has been modified by my study in FP, to be sure. There are some good insights here and there that I have not left (like my millennial position)" (ref)

What things has Frost "not left" of Full/Hyperpreterism besides his millennial views? Who says his opposition to Full/Hyperpreterism isn't merely an opposition to its current leadership. It seems more that Frost simply wants to be the one to shape Full/Hyperpreterism and since he couldn't do so from within, he is now trying (along with his mentor and seminary president), to develop an "akin" form of Full/Hyperpreterism that they can control and shape.

Lastly, Gary DeMar of Americanvision.org has long been associated by those within and against Full/Hyperpreterism as being the person who single-handedly created more Full/Hyperpreterists than anyone else (ref). Yet now DeMar has teamed up with Frost to supposedly combat Full/Hyperpreterism.

Remember, DeMar actually point blank told Frost that he didn't think Full/Hyperpreterism was a heresy. (listen to audio of him actually saying it) Further, DeMar posted on Facebook this following statement in regards to Full/Hyperpreterism:

"... 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." (ref)

If DeMar actually believes eschatology has been a "garbled mess" then sure, why shouldn't we consider Full/Hyperpreterism might be right. Of course, MOST Christians DON'T agree with DeMar's assessment. Most Christians believe that the Church has consistently held to a basic and united eschatology (which is nothing like Full/Hyperpreterism) since before and the day after AD70 until now. DeMar is once again feeding the Full/Hyperpret premise.

This is why the so-called "anti-pret" movement is lost. It is so compromised and full of people who actually promote Full/Hyperpreterism, that to think the anti-pret movement is helping to dismantle Full/Hyperpreterism is laughable. I'd urge anyone who is against Full/Hyperpreterism to avoid any of the folks associated with the so-called anti-pret movement. It is like helping Obama and thinking by doing so you are helping to push back against Islam.

via forums.carm.org