Menu Home



By:  Michael J. Sullivan

It is important to document the historical progression within the Full Preterist (FP) and Postmillennial Partial Preterist (PP) exchanges and therefore I wanted to cover on my site and my journey between the two – DeMar’s  “unethical” banning of me from American Vision and what the facts really are.  I will go over the questions/challenges I posted under Joel McDurmon’s articles on Matthew 13; Revelation 20:11-21:1 and DeMar’s articles that they and their supporters refused to deal with.  I will also cover how I was treated by Gary’s “conservative preterist” “supporters” – I was called a “jerk,” my eschatology allegedly causing me to not be considered or called a Christian thus a damnable “heretic,” and as a result Christ would allegedly one day cut off my head etc…  These kind of comments were actually signed “grace and peace” oddly enough.  The irony and hypocrisy of Gary not performing moderation upon these individuals, but moderating/banning me for something I didn’t even write was utterly amazing!  But since Gary was getting exposed and embarrassed, he had to come up with something.  And since Sam wouldn’t apologize for cursing me, he unfortunately made a public comment that McDurmon agreed to keep private – so I will unfortunately need to address this as well.     

The History and Texts Partial Preterists Have Surrendered to Full Preterists and “The Historic Faith of the Church” “Argument” – DeMar’s Denial!

Daniel 12:1-3, 7/Matthew 13:39-43, 49

I believe the main reason I was banned is because I pointed out how it has taken Gary DeMar and American Vision over 20 years to surrender to our questions/challenges on the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-3, 7, 13 as taking place at the end of the Old Covenant (OC) in AD 70, and more importantly my pointing out AV’s inability to address the implications of this admission as developed in the NT.  It of course is no small point when you have Gary North writing, “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church,” and then his own son-in-law and Gary DeMar’s right hand man at AV Joel McDurmon turns around and tells us that indeed the parable of the wheat and tares was fulfilled at the close of the OC age in AD 70 — along with other PP such as James Jordan and Peter Leithart.  This is a huge embarrassment to them and completely shatters their creedal PP system as I will demonstrate. 

The reason this is significant, as I have said earlier, is that they cannot deal with how Jesus and the rest of the NT develops the judgment and resurrection of the dead — which Daniel predicted would come at the “time of the end” in AD 70 – NOT at “the end of time.”             

Orthodox commentators from a wide variety will tell you that the “clearest” OT text which  allegedly teaches a fleshly resurrection at the end of time is Daniel 12:2 – the very text PP have recently surrendered to us stating that it happened spiritually at the end of Israel’s OC age in AD 70.  Per North, they have “broken with the historic faith of the church.”  That’s problem #1.  Problem #2 (and what they are not dealing with and banning me for) is HOW  “the historic faith of the church” understands the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel’s prophetic material found in Daniel 7, 9 and 12 as developed by Jesus and the NT writers. 

Daniel 12:1-3, 7, 13/John 5:28-29

Again “orthodoxy” and “the historic faith of the church” connects the judgment and resurrection of everlasting life and condemnation of Daniel 12 to the judgment and resurrection of “everlasting life” in (John 5:28-29).  They will clearly tell you that the ONLY place in the OT that the term “everlasting life” is used is found here in (Dan. 12:2).  American Vision and Joel McDurmon still want to be orthodox and claim they believe Jesus here is teaching a literal bodily resurrection of the flesh at the end of time in John 5:28-29. But what they say they believe (to appease their creedal supporters) and what they can or cannot prove on an exegetical level are two completely different issues indeed! 

I addressed under the comments section of one of McDurmon’s articles that he needed to deal with the PP admission by Gentry that the eschatological “hour is coming” of John 4 was fulfilled in AD 70 and therefore, the burden of proof was upon him and other PP’s to demonstrate how Jesus’ eschatological “not yet” “The hour is coming” of John 5:28-29 is ANOTHER eschatological “not yet” period and of course he didn’t respond.  Perhaps this added to what the “historic faith of the Christian church” teaches concerning the connection of Dan. 12:2/John 5:28-29 caused Joel in his debate with Preston to admit, “John 5:28-29 could be applied/fulfilled by AD 70.”  Again this is another key admission that is not “the historic faith of the church.”  In fact Joel went on to tell us that 1 Cor. 15 and Rev. 20 could have a fulfillment in AD 70 as well but they haven’t been literally fully fulfilled yet.  One can’t have it both ways – and I will deal with this new embarrassing “scholarly” development towards the end of the article.         

Daniel 7:9-27/Daniel 9:24-27/Daniel 12:1-3, 7, 13/Matt. 25:31-46/Acts 24:15YLT/WEY/Rev. 20:5-13 AND “The Historic Faith of the Church”

Matthew 25:31-46/Revelation 20:5-13

I have to ask and challenge Mr. North publically by asking him if he too thinks Gary DeMar has “broken with the historic faith of the Church” in his admission that the coming of the Son of Man in BOTH Matthew 24-25:31ff is NOT the actual Second Coming of Jesus?!?  Of course this is not a creedal confession whatsoever – along with denying that the coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation is not the actual Second Coming event! 

Since DeMar is on record as telling everyone and Dispensationalist Tommy Ice that he now agrees with the scholarship which teaches John’s version of the Olivet discourse (ie. Matt. 24-25) is found in the book of Revelation, and that we need to “engage with scholarship,” I asked/challenged DeMar IF, WHY and HOW he would connect his preterist interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46 with his futurists view of Revelation 20:5-13 and he of course wouldn’t touch the question/challenge and folded.

On the issue of Revelation 20:5-13 being fulfilled by AD 70, I presented material to prove my case and neither DeMar or McDurmon could or would address the material. 

McDurmon tried to prop up and make a distinction between the two passing/fleeings of creation in Rev. 20:11 and Rev. 21:1 – one future and one in AD 70 because of two different Greek words being used.  I pointed out that Joel dishonestly skipped over Pheugo in Revelation 16:20 when he wrote the following: 

“Revelation 20:11 says earth and heaven “fled away” (ESV) from the face of the enthroned One. The verb here is ephugen (from pheugo). It means “run away” in the Monty Python sense: “retreat” or “flee” in the sense of seeking safety from an imminent threat. We get our word “fugitive” from pheugo.

Pheugo is a common word used some 279 times throughout the New Testament and Old Testament LXX, but almost always has the distinct meaning of running away out of fear or self-protection. For example, Genesis 39:12, 13 and 15 (LXX) use the word to describe Joseph fleeing from Potiphar’s wife who had him by the garment. The Exodus is described with this word (Ex. 14:5). So is David fleeing Saul who wants to murder him (1 Sam. 19:18), Ahaziah fleeing Jehu (2 Ki. 9:27), God’s enemies in general (Ps. 68:1; Prov. 28:1), Jonah fleeing God’s presence (Jon. 1:3), Baby Jesus’ family fleeing Herod (Matt. 2:13), persecuted disciples leaving town (Matt. 10:23; 24:16), fearful disciples scattering after Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt. 26:56). The list is long, and the word is consistent in this meaning.

Revelation 21:1, on the other hand, says “the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.” The verb here is apelthan (an aorist of aperchomai).”[1]

I also appealed to G.K. Beale connecting the passages as the same event!  After all Frost wants us to follow his “scholarship” right?!? 

I also pointed out how Joel McDurmon used Matthew 24 parallels with 2 Peter 3 to demonstrate an AD 70 fulfillment of the passing of creations in Matt. 24:29, 35 = the elements passing in 2 Peter 3.  I wanted to know why this parallel hermeneutic of Matthew 25:31-46 with that of Revelation 20:5-13 was not followed? 

1)  Matthew 25:31=Revelation 20:11 — Christ/God on the Throne to Judge.
2)  Matthew 24:29, 35=Revelation 20:11 — Heaven and Earth pass/flee. 
3)  Matthew 25:31/Matthew 16:27=Revelation 20:12 — “all men” “each person” “all Nations” “the rest of the dead” “small and great “according to what they have done.” 
4)  Matthew 25:41-46=Revelation 20:10, 14-15 — Wicked along with the Devil thrown into Lake of Fire for eternal punishment.   

Joel emailed me telling me how thrilled he was to have all of my posts/questions/challenges removed from AV and his articles.  I’m sure he was!   

Daniel 7:9-27/Daniel 12:1-3, 7, 13/Revelation 20:5-15

Since AV is now supporting and promoting known panderer (even within the PP movement) Sam Frost, I wanted to know what Gary and Joel thought of his view that the 1,000 years millennium was between AD 30 – AD 70.  Why would it be proper for Frost to combine PP authors and Amillennial authors to arrive at his PP/FP position on the millennium, but we couldn’t use the same historical/hermeneutic in approaching Revelation 20:5-13?!?  These issues of course were not addressed and now doubt was an embarrassing exposure of their techniques and practices.    

I also challenged their PP theologians and comments that “John picks up where Daniel leaves off.”  You know one is told to seal up the vision because its fulfillment is “far off” and the other is told not to seal it up because the time of fulfillment was “at hand.”  Since Beale was referred to by Frost, I was curious as to how his comments that Daniel’s prophetic material is the most influential part to the book of Revelation (more than any other source) plays into all of this in Rev. 20:5-13.  Again no comment was given by these men. 

I pointed out reformed sources that agreed with me that the time texts at the beginning of Revelation and the end serve as “bookends” and address the fulfillment of the entire book, not just chapters 1-19, 21-22.  I appealed to reformed sources that teach the material in Revelation 20 is a recapitulation of the judgment of the dead already depicted in the earlier chapters – which AV says was fulfilled in AD 70.  Again no comment was given.   

Daniel 12:2/Acts 24:15YLT/WEY 

I pointed out how Gentry has blocked and moderated FP on his site from addressing these texts as well – in exposing Gentry’s superficial comments of them.  The ONLY thing that has been produced so far is that mello probably shouldn’t be translated as “about to” in (Acts 24:15).  But nothing in addressing that virtually all of “the historic faith of the church” has connected these texts.  After all Daniel 12:2 is the ONLY OT text which teaches a resurrection of both believers and unbelievers!  And after all Paul in the book of Acts and elsewhere is very clear that he got his doctrine from and taught no other things than that which could be found in the law and prophets.  And since PP is progressively surrendering texts to us left and right and have come up with a two judgment and resurrection of the dead doctrine to fit their two coming/parousias position, the question begs to be answered as to why the resurrection of Acts 24:15 is not the AD 70 one?!?  No comments.       

Daniel 9:24-27/Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:22

DeMar was once again trying to “clarify” things for Tommy Ice and set him straight, but NEVER clarifies any of the above mentioned issues for us and the rest of his readers – just pure arrogance and irony.   

On the issue of the 70 weeks Gary was proposing that this was a literal 490 year period allegedly ending in the earthly ministry of Christ and that there were no gaps.  I pointed out that the “end” of the seventy weeks ends with the abominations and desolations taking place upon Jerusalem and her Temple and that this is where Jesus places its fulfillment (Dan. 9:24-27/Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:20-22).  So I wanted to know how DeMar’s literal 490 years worked out to AD 70.  And since DeMar was also taking Daniel’s 3.5 years and John’s in the book of Revelation as literally being between AD 66 – AD 70, I challenged him that the events of the 70 weeks and this 3.5 period was brought back up in Daniel 12:1-7 and therefore wanted to know if Daniels judgment and resurrection of the dead “time, times and half a time” was the same judgment in Rev. 20:5-13 (especially with all of the other evidence I provided linking the two)?  DeMar made a one sentence comment regarding a text I didn’t even mention.  Sad.     

Exposing Gary’s “confusion” on Romans 8:18-23YLT/WEY/AV

I quoted Gary in his Last Days Madness  book where he claims there was a “glory” that was “about to be revealed” in Romans 8 – but he claims he doesn’t know what it is.  Folks this is terrible and the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in my life!  Clearly and contextually this is the glorification of the Church and when the creation is liberated from its groanings and decay – along with the time that the “redemption of the body” takes place!  How does Gary taking mello here as “about to” fit in with his Preterist interpretations of “all Israel” being saved and raised to life in (Romans 11:1-27) or “the day” of (Romans 13:11-12) having taken place in AD 70?  Gary no doubt doesn’t want anyone pressing him on these texts either and exposing his problems and inconsistencies.  I get it!  No comments.

Exposing American Vision is coming up with new doctrine on the “already not yet”

Closely associated with Gary’s confusion on what the glory was that was “about to be revealed” in (Rom. 8:18-23), is how American Vision is now trying to answer these questions.  Their approach is to create two eschatons – one for Israel in AD 70 and one for the Church at the end of time (see next point below), and or simply surrender such texts as Daniel 12:1-7/John 5:28-29/Romans 8:18-23/Rev. 20 as “could be applied/fulfilled by AD 70” but awaits a “fuller fulfillment” at the end of time.  We are told by Sam Frost that this in line with what such scholars as G.K. Beale are teaching, and yet I have called his bluff and he has produced NO qouotes to support that these crucial texts “could be applied/fulfilled by AD 70.”  If Beale would like to be a stepping stone to Full Preterism like American Vision is, that would be great, but I don’t see this. 

Gary’s Partial Preterism and Dispensational Parallels/Problems

And to be honest, I think this is what really bothered DeMar and AV.  Remember, they are always trying to convince their readers and even some gullible FP that Dispensationalism is the “real enemy.”  Really, after listening to McDurmon in his debate with Preston try and mitigate the time texts and claim the land promise given to Abraham hasn’t been fulfilled – that’s more than a hard sell indeed!  But be that as it may, here were other parallels I made between DeMar’s “broken system” and that of Tommy Ice’s Dispensationalism: 

1)       Both have a two comings theory that is unbiblical.


2)      Both comings have a two eschatons/hopes/salvations etc… connected to them:

a.       One for Israel

b.      One for the Church.

3)     Even Partial Preterists gave a thumbs up to Richard Pratt’s chapter in When Shall These Things Be? whom created a postponement theory for an imminent kingdom/Second Coming in the NT because that generation didn’t have enough faith.  If that isn’t classic Dispensational postponement theory, I don’t know what is!  Or McDurmon in his debate with Preston claiming Israel got the land promises, Abraham was even raised to eternal life in AD 70, BUT he is still needing to be raised back into the literal land for those land promises to him to be fulfilled.  Wow.   
If DeMar and North are honest, they will admit that there is no less of a “break-up” of the Dispensational two comings/eschaton system and theory than there is with their own!  Selah.  Oddly Frost’s rebuttal to my observations on the AV site were that I allegedly have some things in common with Dispensationalism too.  Really?  I can’t think of any two systems farther apart in both the time and nature of fulfillment!  Our agreement is more in line with the classic Amillennial view which teaches that there is ONE Second Coming/”THE Parousia” in the NT – which is inseparably connected to the judgment and resurrection of the dead. They place it all in the future, and we place it when the NT teaches it would be fulfilled. 

Pointing out that Premillennial Dispensationalism and Postmillennialism is “heretical” and on par with “Jewish myths” according to the reformed creeds

I pointed out how the early creeds condemn both Premillennailism and Postmillennialism’s views of a kingdom on earth to be “heretical” and on par with “Jewish myths” (which I cited by the way). 
This is when some of AV’s “supporters” who wouldn’t deal with any of my exegetical or historical points began gnashing their teeth and getting out the pitchforks with Gary DeMar and McDurmon LOOKING DESPERATELY FOR ANY EXCUSE TO ABLIGE THEM.  So on that note…

Why Gary Says I Was “Banned” From American Vision

Gary DeMar wrote:


“Received the following from an emailer:


“I really wish Mike Sullivan would stop spamming links and endless dissertations of his theology. He is abusing AV and using it as his own personal playground. He calls orthodox preterists and postmillennialists “heretics,” and in no way are his views orthodox or even mainstream. I have talked with others and they agree that you should ban him. He’s abused his freedom of speech.”


I don’t like to ban anyone, but if I keep getting complaints, I will. It’s not an issue of censorship since AV is not the government. Mike can post his views elsewhere.


I don’t have to wonder how I would be taken if I went to dispensational sites and did what Mike does on this site. It’s annoying and wins few converts.


By the way, “desolations are determined” in the 70th week: “your house is being left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:38). They don’t occur in the 70th week.”


[My response under the thread of the 70 weeks but note the comment at the end in bold w/ a *]




1) The 70 weeks deals with Daniel’s people and their city (9:24). It’s end comes with the destruction of the city and temple – yes or no? Is not the “end” that comes to destroy the city and Temple in which there are “desolations” what marks “the end that is decreed” for the 70 weeks (9:26-27)?


a. It’s end mark is picked back up in (Dan. 12:7) – “It will be for a time, times, and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”


1. AV’s published materials take the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3, 13 as taking place at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43, 49).


2. Jesus refers to Dan. 12:2 in John 5:28-29. The ONLY OT passage that specifically addresses the term “everlasting life” (let alone in a resurrection context) is (Daniel 12:2).


3. The Apostle Paul following Jesus’ interpretation of the text (when it would be fulfilled) says this judgment and or resurrection was “about to” take place (Acts 17:31/Acts 24:15YLT/WEY; Rom. 8:18-23YLT/WEY).


a. Again, commentators are correct to connect Dan. 12:2 with Acts 24:15 because this is the ONLY place in the OT where there is a resurrection for both groups. And the Apostle Paul teaches he gets his doctrine and teaching from the law and the prophets.


2) Jesus identifies the end of Daniel’s decree against the city and temple as happening by AD 70 Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:2-22.


a. Joel McDurmon sought to refute FPism by claiming that “all” doesn’t always mean “all” (Luke 21:22). Of course no one disputes this! The problem you and McDurmon have, is that in the CONTEXT of this “all” in the OD that we are dealing with is Christ’s ACTUAL Second Coming and end of the 70 weeks decreed through Daniel. Therefore, the “all” is addressing the Second Coming and judgment of the dead (and by implication the resurrection of the dead at this time Dan. 12:2-3, 13).


b. Your “novel” and “unorthodox” position that Matt. 24-25/Luke 21/Revelation is not discussing or addressing the actual Second Coming of Christ and your invention of a NT two comings theory of “THE parousia” — one for Israel’s eschaton and one for the Church, is no less an end times fiction than what Ice and Dispensationalism have come up with to prop up their broken system.


* Now if you and your mystery emailers and their private “talks” won’t and can’t deal with these issues (which they haven’t in other forums “by the way”) I understand. But make no mistake about this – my comments here are contextual to your articles to Mr. Ice.




I’m sure we both know who these mystery emailers are. Have I violated any rule here? Is it my theology or pointing out questions and inconsistencies that you or your mystery emailers don’t want to deal with that is the real problem? Is there a length limit or amount of posts under each article one can or cannot post? Is posting links a violation? Let me know what the rules are and if I have violated them – then I will gladly abide by them.


[DeMar Responds]:


“I resent the accusation that these are “mystery” emailers. Do you think I have time to make up email messages or would do such an unethical thing? You are turning off other readers. It’s that simple. When I get emails from people (just got another one today) that are irritated with the long comments, they tend not to return. I suggest that you take a break. It’s not censorship. I’m not the government. If not, you will be gone like yesterday’s news. You’ll still be able to present your case on your own dime.”


Well, as anyone can clearly see I wasn’t accusing Gary of “unethically” “making up the email” message he quoted.  I clearly knew it was coming from his supporters that couldn’t and wouldn’t address my questions/challenges and were extremely hateful in their comments towards me on his site, or they were coming from other sites (Dee Dee’s or Sam’s ROTalbot’s).  I clearly stated I suspected some hateful and exegetically challenged PP’s from other sites trying to give me the boot. 

So the facts are that Gary is the one who “unethically” banned me and in order to do it, he is the one guilty of “making up” something I didn’t even say.  Wow.  And also I clearly stated if he would just let me know what the limits of the posts (how long or how many) I would be more than glad to abide by them.  At the very worst, they could have put me on “moderated” status and blocked what they thought was too long or allegedly not on the topic of the articles etc…  But McDurmon and DeMar were itching to get ALL of my challenging posts removed.  I find it odd that Sam Frost asked the moderator of the preteristcosmos yahoo list (David Green) to have all of his posts removed because he was losing his debates/interactions with us on his Gordon Clark “logic” that God allegedly can’t know a forever increasing kingdom;” and I kicked off and  banned for asking and making exegetical points on DeMar’s!  By the way, does Van Till/DeMar know what Van Till thought of Gordan Clark’s and thus Clark/Frost’s “logic” which claimed God couldn’t know an infinite series and how Van Till responded to such nonsense?!?    

My Face Book Exchanges With McDurmon & His Comments To Frost

I of course did not want to get into this and approached and confronted McDurmon and DeMar privately about it first, but since there was no apology coming forth I will now address it.  I will publicly defend myself against those that violate their own confidential agreements and or against those claiming that I am not telling the truth or being forthright about something.  If the private correspondence proves otherwise and will clear my name – I will refer to it.  In all of my years of doing this, I have only had to do this 3 times – one of them was with Mr. Frost.     

Between July 30, 2009 and May of 2011 I had some Face Book messaging correspondence with Mr. McDurmon.  Joel approached me and said that he didn’t want our correspondence to be made public and I of course agreed and assumed such would be the case anyways.  I tried to get Joel to discuss a lot of the exegetical issues which I have addressed here and elsewhere on my site, but Joel didn’t want to engage much.  Then after there was an agreement to debate Preston, Joel asked me if I was going to the conference and if so if I wanted to go to a bar with him and drink a little – since Preston and some of his crew didn’t do such.  I told him I didn’t have a problem with having a drink or two with him BUT I told him that I didn’t think it would be wise  if I were in a bar and he also invited Sam Frost.  Why?  Well I gave him the reasons and they were these:

1)      Sam was known for being a drunkard and not knowing and practicing the balance between making ones heart “merry” (buzz) and getting “drunk.”

2)      Sam even when being sober was known to provoke me to anger and cursing me etc…

I told Joel it would be too much of a temptation for me to “put him through a wall” if I was in an environment with him where he couldn’t and wouldn’t be able to control his drinking and his mouth – so I said it wouldn’t be a good idea if he and I were there together.  Just Biblical stuff here – avoid fools, drunkards, those that would provoke you, avoid temptation etc…

Well, Sam was once again losing on pretcosmos when it came to him arbitrarily not considering us Christians but he was “reformed” and could marry a Roman Catholic and call the Pope, “A dear Christian brother.”  I noted how conflicted the Talbot camp was on their doctrinal judgments of who or who should not be considered Christians.  Sam’s response was to send me an email from his phone calling me an “asshole.”  The ROTalbot site or Dee Dee’s was claiming that they never conduct themselves in a less than Christian way in their interactions with Full Preterists.  Anyone reading their site for less than 15 minutes can see that is false!  But, since  Michael Bennett and others were claiming to be harassed similarly by Frost, I posted this and asked if this was Christian behavior?  Sam responded claiming that he was not in sin and didn’t owe me an apology because he “felt” and was “thinking” this so it was okay to write and act on it.  No folks I’m not making that up – he really tried to justify it. In fact, I have never met a more hateful and unchristian-like group in all my life than those associated with both of those sites.

But not only did Sam try and justify his behavior, but he then boasted (publicly) of McDurmon telling him that I wanted to or was going to “put him through a wall.” Of course he did not provide the CONTEXT of that statement for the public.  Then when you listen to Sam’s interview with McDurmon Joel insinuates that FP at the conference crank called him at 4 in the morning and that there weren’t any other issues that happened because some others didn’t attend.  Of course insinuating that I would act violently against Sam had he been there. 

The truth is, that I have to ask the Lord for grace when it comes to dealing with men like Sam.  But when it came to my correspondence with McDurmon and not wanting to go to a bar with Sam – a known drunk and one already having a history in cursings and provoking me and others – I did the biblical thing and withdrew from the invitation. 

I warned McDurmon upfront when it came to Sam – the guy is hateful, bitter and his “arguments” against FPism are false/deceptive, illogical and un-exegetical.  But Joel got his ego in the way and wanted to debate Preston allowing Sam to tutor him and this is where it led – the debate and concessions speak for themselves.       

Unfortunately Mr. McDurmon violating his own agreement and making jokes about this, is his  “Christian” way of handling all of it. 

I have also contacted Gary privately with these offenses and realities which are:

1)  Gary banning me for an “accusation” I didn’t make.  
2)  His staff falsely accusing me without providing the CONTEXT of my statement.
3)  And that context being – I have heard from others that Sam continues to drink — even while going back to PPism and continues to tell people “FU!” or “FO” and hangup — or send email messages designed to provoke them and or filled with cursings etc…  And Sam somehow seeks to JUSTIFY this!  Would anyone go to a bar and have a few drinks with a guy like this?!?
4)  Gary’s and McDurmon’s deceptive and arbitrary exegesis are only symptoms of a hard heart which is obviously only getting harder.  

I saw this happen with David Chilton.  When I read in his commenatry on Revelation and noted of Matthew 24:43 that he didn’t divide Matthew 24-25 into two comings, I asked why he didn’t develop this and presented him with what I was seeing in Matt. 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5 and he just smiled.  We had brief written correpondence after this and I pressed him on that smile he gave — that communicated to me that he knew there was only ONE parousia in the NT and that it had to have happen in AD 70.  He wrote back the most hateful letter I had ever gotten — claiming I was a “heretic” and that my view would never go anywhere and that the farthest it would go would be making it in a footnote in one of his books.  Oh and how the Church militant was going to crush me etc…  I wrote back telling him that I would be praying that the Lord do whatever it took to get ahold of him and deal with his denial, man pleasing/man fearing and bitter heart.  Not too long after that, Chilton was in the Sacramento hospital two blocks from my house.  I got the church together and we sang worships songs in his room.  He remembered our correspondence and wanted to take me out to dinner — and apologized and did say he knew the FP view of one coming of Christ in AD 70 was the truth.  Was this God’s way of answering my prayer?  I nor anyone can be 100% certain.  Pride does come before a fall – and I see many at American Vision following the same path of exegetical denial/dishonesty and hateful bitterness expressed to Full Preterists whom are pointing these issues out – that Chilton at one time followed.  I have confronted Gary for the last time, and so now it is time to turn it completely over to the Lord — may He get their (Gary DeMar, Gary North, Joel McDurmon — and since Sam wants to be one of them him too) attention in any way He seems fit – and turn their hearts that He may be glorified in them.  If they are Christians I believe the Lord will chasten them.  May He vindicate me because He loves me – as David prayed.  May they continue to fall into the very pits they dig for Full Preterists – for all to see!  Selah and Amen.               

Censorship & Persecution

DeMar not only had to “unethically” “make up” an offense or something I didn’t even say in order to ban me, he claims he is not “censoring” me because he and AV are not the government.  Of course they are not, but in Postmillennial Reconstructionist theory/fiction, the two blend together one day in which there will be a “paradise” of lions gradually wanting to eat straw with the ox and Baptists and all other non-“reformed” “heretics” will be zealously and joyously stoned to death.  I guess that is why my exegetical comments/questions/challenges got taken off but the “reformed” Postmillennial “supporter” wanting me off claiming I wasn’t a Christian, a [damnable] heretic, and that Christ would one day decapitate me and hold my bloody head in his hands — was FINE TO KEEP ON THE SITE — yeah, no need for moderation there?!? 

As I read the NT I see the Pharisees desperate to save face and gain credibility with the public against the irrefutable preaching and teaching of Jesus and the NT writers concerning an imminent spiritual “you will not be able to say see here, or see there” kingdom/resurrection and coming of the Lord.  I enjoy walking in that tradition.  DeMar can keep the other NT tradition and methodology – of making null and void the Scriptures in order to uphold creedal traditions that are not the teachings of Christ and the NT writers.                  

[1] Joel McDurmon, The “passing” away of heaven and earth in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1