Controverting the Incontrovertible

Controverting the Incontrovertible
A Brief Reply to "Defending the Indefensible," Gary DeMar's review of John MacArthur's recent book The Second Coming

Monday, September 27, 1999

first read Gary DeMar's "review" of John MacArthur's The Second Coming a few weeks ago and (since I edited MacArthur's book when it was in the manuscript stage) I was somewhat amused by DeMar's remarks. He is, to put it mildly, not happy with MacArthur's book.
It appears his pique is chiefly owing to the fact that John MacArthur had the unmitigated gall to write a book on Bible prophecy without addressing Gary DeMar in particular. DeMar is convinced his own work Last Days Madness (4th ed.) is incontrovertibly the definitive work on biblical eschatology, and he thinks one simply cannot "deal honestly with the issues" related to Bible prophecy without making Demar and his 4th edition the center of one's eschatalogical universe. DeMar complains that for years he has tried desperately "to engage big-name dispensationalists in a public debate on the topic of Bible prophecy." And MacArthur (whom DeMar evidently classes as a "big-name dispensationalist") had the unpardonable effrontery to ignore him. So now Gary is in quite a huff about it. He both starts and ends his review by complaining about how inexcusable it was for MacArthur to ignore his book, and a pouting tone therefore sets the mood for the whole review.
Well, too bad. Despite how DeMar characterizes MacArthur's book, the book was not, and was never intended to be, a polemic treatment of eschatological issues the way The Gospel According to Jesus was a polemic treatment of soteriological issues. (And the last paragraph of MacArthur's Introduction says so explicitly.) The Second Coming was simply MacArthur's exposition of the Olivet Discourse. Ninety percent of the book is just straightforward teaching drawn from the biblical text, adapted from MacArthur's sermons as they were first delivered to his own congregation. It is misleading to characterize the book as having a purpose that is primarily polemic.
In other words, DeMar misconstrues the whole thrust of the book when he claims MacArthur "attempt[ed] to tackle the issue of eschatology as it relates to preterism." He did not. He touched pretty lightly on preterism. At the very outset of the book, and once again about halfway through the book, MacArthur did spend several pages dealing with hyper-preterism (or "full preterism," as some of its advocates prefer). But to claim preterism was MacArthur's main target, and the raison d'etre for the book, is to dissemble. In fact, two of the main negative references to preterism that kindled DeMar's outrage were passing remarks contained in end-notes where MacArthur was simply making the (rather obvious) point that "the hermeneutical approach taken by preterists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-preterist error" (endnote 1, p. 224).
MacArthur treats hyper-preterism as an opposite but (at least) equal error to the hype and sensationalism of Hal Lindsey, the date-setters, et al.—which error MacArthur also deplores and devotes even more space to debunking than he gives to his critique of hyper-preterism. MacArthur aims at a balanced approach that rejects both extremes. DeMar is apparently so myopic that he can spot error only on one side of the spectrum. And that same dim vision blurs his reading of MacArthur. He evidently believed—or else wanted his readers to think—that MacArthur's main aim was debunking DeMar's position. (Or at the very least, DeMar thinks this should have been MacArthur's focus.) Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. DeMar, but I don't think MacArthur even noticed that you were spoiling for a fight with him.
Furthermore, although DeMar harrumphs a lot about the importance of careful scholarship, it is clear that he did not read MacArthur's book very attentively. He complains,

The book reads as if it were written in a hurry. For example, in one place he writes that preterists "ultimately depart from and nullify the strict literal sense of Matthew 24:34," while on the previous page he chides preterists for insisting that Matthew 24:34 should be interpreted with "wooden literalness."

The only thing here that was written too hurriedly is DeMar's "review." What Demar misconstrues as a contradiction is quite clearly nothing of the kind when examined in its context. MacArthur is simply pointing out the irony of the fact that preterists insist on a literal interpretation of v. 34, arguing on that basis that the "great tribulation," "the abomination of desolation," etc. (Matt. 24:4-29) were fulfilled in AD 70. Yet (except for the hyper-preterists), they see a yet-future fulfillment of the appearing of Christ and the gathering of the elect described in verses 30-31. MacArthur writes: "So in essence they ultimately depart from and nullify the strict literal sense of Matthew 24:34 anyway." (Notice the word "anyway," which DeMar conveniently omitted from the snippet he quoted.) In other words, MacArthur was pointing out that no one but a hyper-preterist really believes "all these things" in Matthew 24:3-31 were literally and completely fulfilled in that "generation" of people living in the time of Christ. So the partial preterist's appeal to the literal sense of Matthew 24:34 is not a very strong argument after all.

MacArthur's argument on that point is perfectly clear if one's reading involves more than a cursory glance. Perhaps DeMar's imaginary "contradiction" is simply another result of his foggy vision rather than a careless or hurried reading of the book. But if it is neither of those, then it is a deliberate misrepresentation of MacArthur.

Whether it's deliberate or just a result of Demar's sloppiness and failing eyesight, his review badly distorts and caricatures MacArthur's book rather than describing it accurately and fairly. Combine that fact with DeMar's smug certainty that he has already written the last word on biblical eschatology (until his 5th ed. comes out). Add his chip-on-the-shoulder stance, suggesting that no one else should even bother writing about any eschatological issues unless they first go toe to toe with him—and there you have the main reasons Gary DeMar deserves to be ignored.

NOTE: The above article was originally written for and submitted to an Internet e-mail theological forum, where someone had expressly asked for my response to DeMar's comments. I sent a copy to Mr. Demar when I posted it to the list.
On the very same day I wrote and posted those remarks, I received the following press release by fax from Mr. DeMar's organization:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Gary DeMar 1-800-628-9460

Faithful Quietly Abandon Popular "End-Times" Belief
Hundred percent failure rate hasn't appeared to daunt the modern prophets
While the majority of evangelical Christians are crying "The end is near!," many of the faithful, including some big names, are rethinking the concept and quietly abandoning the popular view. It is mostly a quiet exit at this point because there is still a price to pay for desertion.
Incredibly, this is a story the media has totally missed. It is a profound scoop and is more than a story about a theological change of mind. As the flow of deserters increases, the resulting change of mind will manifest a transformation in the way the Church addresses social and political issues. It will in fact force the Church to address issues it has thus far been able to ignore. This is a news story with long-term implications.
Since the turn of the century, the dispensational view of the end-times has dominated thinking in evangelical circles. This theological incursion into mainstream churches was led by the release of the Scofield Bible and has been consistently maintained by today's pundits such as Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, and Tim LaHaye. The unfortunate thing is that the majority of Believers still do not know that there are options to the popular view. But there are. One such emerging view is the preterist view, an historic view of the Church.
It is probable that the preterist view will gain dominance in the not-so-distant future. This view, which is significantly older than the dispensational view, states that the majority of "prophetic" Scriptures were fulfilled in and around AD 70 and are not awaiting a future fulfillment. Those who have been Christians for any length of time have witnessed a continuous stream of failed predictions.
This hundred percent failure rate hasn't appeared to daunt the modern prophets. they continue to church out the books, pump up the troops, and saturate the airwaves with promises of escape via the "Rapture." However, the key to understanding prophecy is timing and time is running out according to the current accepted time scenario. Ironically, the dispensational view is a self refuting belief system that will be soon nullified by the clock, the very instrument today's prophets have been counting on to exonerate them to critics. In the wake of the failed predictions, frustrated Believers are forced to ask: "Did God give us a clear message or not?"
Gary DeMar answers this question. His authoritative book Last Days Madness (4th edition) offers an option to the modern obsession of the church: an unhealthy focus on predicting the return of Christ. One powerful reason for the Church's social anemia is its persistent belief that the end is near. This belief has led to a lack of long-term social efforts during the extended wait for escape.
Gary DeMar has appeared on countless radio and television programs including MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and most national Christian networks. He's the author the others won't debate. It's safer for them to ignore him. Don't miss THE religious Scoop of the year.
Media review copies available on request. Call for an interview with Gary DeMar. Contact Gary at 1-800-628-9460 or e-mail him at [email protected]. [sic]

I followed up my reply to DeMar's review with another post to the original forum. Admitedly, my tone in the following message is on the caustic side, but the haughty attitude reflected in DeMar's press release, together with his assertion that his opponents were merely playing it "safe" by refusing to debate him, really irritated me—especially since I had just spent a couple of hours replying to a "book review" in which he had utterly misrepresented the book he was pretending to answer. I copied this message to DeMar as well:

Subj: More on DeMar Date: 27 Sep 99 From: Phil Johnson Ironically, another example of Gary DeMar's relentless, stomach- turning gasconade came to me today via fax from Demar himself. [Above] is a press release DeMar distributed today to various media outlets, including the secular news networks, etc. (I received a copy because we produce a radio broadcast.) I'll let it speak for itself, unless someone is really at a loss to see why I find it so thoroughly offensive. For now, I'll merely point out (yet again) DeMar's swaggering style; his cryptic remarks about "big names" who supposedly have secretly gone over to his view (what is this obsession he has with "big names," anyway?); his refusal to distinguish between the date-setting prediction-makers and premillennialism per se--not to mention an insatiable thirst for overstatement that makes the sensationalism of those he opposes almost pale by comparison. At best it seems grossly hypocritical for the same man who accused John MacArthur of unfairly associating hyper-preterism with preterism to release a statement like this, which deliberately tars all "dispensationalists" with criticism properly applied only to date-setting sensationalists. To whoever suggested that DeMar is a real heavyweight who deserves to be taken seriously, I must say that I'd have to see more to convince me of that than these over-hyped press releases and skewed book reviews filled to the brim with the incessant blowing of his own horn. As far as I am concerned, a person who would continually crank out such material ultimately has no more class or credibility than the wild-eyed "end-times pundits" DeMar himself holds in such contempt. At least THEY sometimes talk about something other than their own superiority. "THE religious Scoop of the year," indeed. Someone certainly DOES need to do some scooping over at American Vision. It's getting about chin-deep over there. Phillip R. Johnson ? ! /~\ http://www.romans45.org /~\ @ ..? OO-=? _( ^) (^ )_ (__ ~_\ http://www.romans45.org /_~ __) /=ooOo=oOoo=========================================ooOo=oOoo=\ | PO Box 4000 * Panorama City, CA 91412 * (661) 295-5777 | | sola fide * sola gratia * sola Scriptura * soli Deo gloria | \_____________________________________________________________/

Mr. DeMar, understandably, was displeased with both my evaluation of his review and my remarks about his press release. What follows is a record of the e-mail exchange that ensued:

From: Gary [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 5:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Phillip,
Thank you for your response (James 1:2-4). I began my article with commendation of MacArthur for his good work in other fields. Unfortunately, The Second Coming is not a good book.
You need to learn a few manners. This e-mail message and the one you just sent regarding the letter we sent to religion editors is mean-spirited and un-Christian. I wonder if pastor MacArthur knows this is the way you respond to other Christians. We at American Vision are shocked at your response. This is a current debate in the Christian community (see Ice and Gentry, The Great Tribulation). There is no reason to be nasty, sarcastic, and just plain ugly. I'm tempted to send your letter to Pastor MacArthur for a response. Is this the way he would want his good name represented? I doubt it.
When I saw his book on The Second Coming, I expected at least an honest and accurate appraisal of preterism. Remember, MacArthur broached the subject early in his book. If you're going to deal with a topic, then deal with it. MacArthur did not deal with it. What you claim is "straigthforward exposition" is simply repeated dispensational theology without substantive exegesis. The point of my article in mentioning my book--now in its fourth edition--was to make my readers aware of the fact that MacArthur is aware of the debate. He even mentions Ken Gentry, but nowhere does he deal with Ken's extensive argument of the early date of Revelation (see Before Jerusalem Fell). MacArthur mentions the Ligonier Conference that was held in February of this year with more than 4000 in attendance, but does not mention that R.C. Sproul has adopted the partial preterist position. What's going on here? Certainly Sproul is no lightweight.
Of course, as usual, there is no exegetical work on the crucial time texts. I notice that you do not deal with them in your e-mail message. What happened to "literal interpretation"? I think your explanation of what MacArthur meant by "wooden literalism" is off base. But I'll let that pass.
Just because I'm a nobody does not mean that work is uneffectual. Have you read the "fourth edition" of Last Days Madness? I'd be glad to send you a copy. My books come with a money-back guarantee.
I love it when people write that I should be ignored. It means that I've made my point effectively. Your e-mail messages will be a great help in furthering our advertising efforts for Last Days Madness.
Sincerely,
Gary DeMar

From: Phillip R. Johnson [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 10:10 AM To: Gary Subject: About my offending words Dear Dr. DeMar, Thanks for your note. It's unfortunate--but ironic--that you judged my remarks "mean-spirited and un-Christian." The tone I used was meant to mimic YOUR style, minus the bragging. Aside from the "tone," I'd be curious to know what you deemed "unchris- tian" about my remarks. In all honesty--and without intending to be mean-spirited or unkind--it does seem to me that your book review, your press releases, and even your Web site are shot through with a crass self-promotion and boasting style that looks, frankly, very much like sinful pride. We've opposed the modern notion that self- esteem should be regarded as a virtue. But even the most ardent proponents of self-esteemism don't indulge in the unrestrained braggadocio your writing so often employs. Putting a chip on your shoulder and daring people to knock it off is not a very good way to get "big-name" Christian leaders to engage in public debate with you. Your taunting style makes even the thought of reading your book distasteful to many, I'm sure. In other words, it seems to me that if anyone or anything has marginalized your work, it is Gary DeMar's own excessive rodomontade. You should humbly consider that before distributing press releases suggesting that other Christian leaders are simply afraid to debate you. But I don't think you're a "nobody," and I said nothing of the kind. If your work is seen as "uneffectual," it would be primarily in the sense I have noted above: your tone often conveys an arrogance that makes too much of your work distasteful to read. Therefore people tend to avoid it. I do own and have read bits of the 1994 1st ed. of _Last Days Madness_. My interest in the subject hasn't been sufficiently keen to motivate me to go out and buy the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions of your work yet. But perhaps when the 5th ed. comes out, I will upgrade. In the meantime, I am sorry my messages offended you. As I said in my earlier correspondence, I took umbrage at what you wrote, too. I look forward to that day when we can be in full agreement and unbroken fellowship around our Savior's throne without causing one another such offense. Feel free, if you are so inclined, to send copies of my correspondence to my boss. It may well be true that he would never use the tone I used with you (which, again, was only meant to mirror your style), but without a doubt he would agree with the substance of my remarks. Phillip R. Johnson ? ! /~\ http://www.romans45.org /~\ @ ..? OO-=? _( ^) (^ )_ (__ ~_\ http://www.romans45.org /_~ __) /=ooOo=oOoo=========================================ooOo=oOoo=\ | PO Box 4000 * Panorama City, CA 91412 * (661) 295-5777 | | sola fide * sola gratia * sola Scriptura * soli Deo gloria | \_____________________________________________________________/

From: Gary [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 7:35 AM To: Phillip R. Johnson Cc: Gary DeMar Subject: Re: About my offending words
Phillip,
I don't think so. Neither you nor Pastor MacArthur deal with the issues outlined in Last Days Madness or those raised in my article. Pastor MacArthur has a copy of Last Days Madness. A copy was ent to him last year by a bookstore owner in California. I don't care if he responds to LDM as long as he responds to the arguments raised in LDM. Since LDM is considered the standard work on the subject, people want to know why MacArthur ignored it. I cover all the bases. It's loaded with footnotes. It's clear and easy to read. It lays out a biblical and historical defense of preterism better than anyone else. This is not just my opinion; it's the opinion of tens of thousands of readers.
It's typical of those who who deal the issue at hand to cry "foul" over style. This seemingly is a good enough argument so they will not have to deal with substance. "We should ignore Gary DeMar because he's prideful and arrogant." I've been writing, debating, and speaking on this and other subjects for twenty years. While people have disagreed with me, they have never leveled such invectives at me as you have. Claiming you were only mirroring my style is nonsense since it's not my style. I and others in my office re-read the article and wondered if you were reading the same article.
Last Days Madness has gone through four editions for a very good reason: I keep it up to date by responding to the latest arguments by end-time prognosticators. If I do a fifth edition, Pastor MacArthur's book will be included as will several others I've received since its republication.
The Second Coming is a bad book. Saying this does not make me arrogant or prideful. It's an evaluation based on what the Bible actually says and what Pastor MacArthur fails to deal with. If you've only read "bits and pieces" of the first edition of LDM, then you shouldn't have written about this topic in the first place. You don't know what you're talking about. Dispensationalism cannot be supported by an appeal to the Bible. This is why "big-name dispensationalists" do not want to debate. They know the weaknesses of the position, and they don't want them pointed out to their followers. I'm not some crank.
My original message stands: You need to learn some manners.
Gary DeMar

From: Phillip R. Johnson [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 9:21 AM To: Gary Subject: RE: About my offending words Gary, You wrote, | It's typical of those who who [won't?] deal the issue at hand | to cry "foul" over style. . . . odd words from someone whose main objection to what I wrote was its tone. My objection to your review, on the other hand, had little to do with "style" and far more to do with the fact that you misread and/or misrepresented MacArthur and the purpose of his book. Read what I wrote again. The "style" issue I have raised with you has to do with your incessant self-promotion, and you seem bent on proving my point. You can't even write a personal e-mail to me without puffing your own book. | The Second Coming is a bad book. Saying this does not make me | arrogant or prideful. Your review of it is a bad review. And your arrogance is shown in the ways I have pointed out. I never said your saying the book is bad makes you arrogant. You are a master at dodging the issues while accusing others of doing just that. I notice you did not respond to the one question I put directly to you: Have you ever written a critique of "full preterism, and if so, where may I find it? | If you've only read "bits and pieces" of the first edition of | LDM, then you shouldn't have written about this topic in the | first place. Well, in the first place, _I_ didn't write about this topic. I wrote about your review (which I _have_ read) of MacArthur's book (which I have _certainly_ read more carefully than you), and I'll stand by all the reasons I said it was a bad review. And it's laughable for you to wag the finger at me about reading only bits and pieces of your book, when you obviously gave MacArthur's book little more than a careless once-over. At least I didn't write a "review" of your book. | My original message stands: You need to learn some manners. But you still haven't said what you found unmannered or "unchristian" about what I wrote. Before I sign up for finishing school, I'd like to know what areas I need to major on. I gather it is not inherently rude to disagree with _any_ postmill reconstructionist, because most of you guys can't agree with each other. What makes it particularly rude to disagree with Gary DeMar? In any case, think you need thicker skin if you're going to stick with the taunting tone in your writing and your press releases. Phillip R. Johnson ? ! /~\ http://www.romans45.org /~\ @ ..? OO-=? _( ^) (^ )_ (__ ~_\ http://www.romans45.org /_~ __) /=ooOo=oOoo=========================================ooOo=oOoo=\ | PO Box 4000 * Panorama City, CA 91412 * (661) 295-5777 | | sola fide * sola gratia * sola Scriptura * soli Deo gloria | \_____________________________________________________________/

From: Gary [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 10:38 AM To: Phillip R. Johnson Subject: Re: About my offending words
Phillip,
The issues are clearly stated in my review of MacArthur's book. The Second Coming is a rehash of old-line dispensationalism--it claims to interpret the Bible literally except when it comes to the crucial time texts. An author cannot raise the preterist issue and fail to deal with the essentials of the position and those who write on it. My article is very clear on this point as is my book. Stick with the issue.
When I do radio interviews, invariably someone will call and ask why the host does not have a representative from the dispensational point of view on. Someone else will call and ask if Gary DeMar is willing to debate someone like Hal Lindsey or John MacArthur. What should I say? "I'm a nobody and John MacArthur does not debate nobodies like me." So I say, "I'll debate John MacArthur or Hal Lindsey any time and any place, but they won't do it. They know they cannot defend their position and they don't want anyone to know it because they have too much to loose." You can keep claiming that I'm arrogant and a self-promoter, but none of this changes the facts: Dispensationalism is false and can not be supported by an appeal to the Bible or history. The integrity of the Bible is at stake. I'm willing to take a public stand for my position. Others are content to hide behind their books.
I've tried to have one-on-one meetings with the big-name dispensationalists just so we could understand one another. No debate, just talk. I went through a good friend (a professor) at Dallas Theological Seminary to have a meeting with Hal Lindsey. The response? "Bad news! Lindsey is not interested in talking about it. His basic word is write a book in response." Of course, I'm a nobody. Why should he talk with me? Christian courtesy since he wrote numerous falsehoods about me and what I believe. No debate, just talk. So I wrote my book and people jumped on me for not first trying to contact Hal Lindsey. Been there, done that. About ten years ago I had written a response to Dave Hunt's The Seduction of Christianity called the Reduction of Christianity. I was rebuked for not first going to Dave Hunt. What they and you don't know is that I did go to Dave Hunt. I sent him a draft of the book so he could correct any misrepresentation. He declined and told me to publish the book. We would debate later. And we did. Even though Dave and I do not agree on much, he does not hide behind his books. Do you want to read more stories? I have a file cabinet full of them.
You seem to be hung up on my "self-promotion." Of course I think my book is the best book on the subject. It is. If there is a better book, then point it out to me. Since you haven't read LDM or any of the other 15 books I've written on numerous subjects, you can't make this evaluation. I try to write the best book on every topic on which I write. Many people have told me LDM is the best book on the subject. Why write a book if it isn't? What does my book have to offer if there is a better one out there? In the final analysis, any writer on prophetic issues is going to have to deal with LDM. On the dating of Revelation, they're going to have to deal with Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell.
Stick to the issue at hand: MacArthur does an inadequate job in dealing with the time texts. You can't make "near" and "soon" mean "any moment." "This generation" can only refer to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. There's no way around it. MacArthur does not deal adequately with this issue. I do. I go overboard in quoting numerous sources. I let my readers know what I and others who do not agree with me believe. I'm not afraid to present opposing positions and footnoting the material so the reader can check it out for himself.
On the subject at hand, the full preterist issue is a red herring. LDM is about last days madness. It's a critique of (mostly) dispensationalism. Ken Gentry, James B. Jordan, and R.C. Sproul have dealt with full preterism. When people call me about full preterism, I give them my opinion and explain why I am not a full preterist and then refer them to the works of these men. This is my method for numerous topics that I have not addressed in print. I don't spend a great deal of time on the dating of Revelation in LDM because Ken Gentry has done a masterful job in Before Jerusalem Fell. LDM is already a thick book. If you look at the fourth edition, you will see that I took some things out that were in previous editions because I did not feel they fit topically. You will also note that I do not deal with the millennial issue in LDM. While it is extremely important to eschatological matters, it's not the subject of my book. Maybe in a future book.
You need to become informed on this topic before you fly off the handle again and hurt yourself.
Gary DeMar

From: Phillip R. Johnson [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 31, 1999 8:13 AM To: Gary Subject: Red Herrings and evasive replies Dear Gary, As I pointed out in my original reply to your review, your evaluation of MacArthur's book reveals that you did not carefully read the book in the first place. You still haven't responded to the substance of my original complaint. I showed, for example, how the supposed "contradiction" you manufactured is no contradiction at all. You have yet to address the point cogently or retract your false accusation; yet you lecture me about "stick[ing] with the issue." Hal Lindsey and Dave Hunt are irrelevant to all of this. (Evidently you're more skilled at employing red herrings than you are in spotting them.) MacArthur's book _critiqued_ Lindsey and said nothing whatsoever about Hunt. Hyper-preterism, however, is _not_ a red herring. Nor should you suggest it is. You once championed David Chilton's extreme preterism--surely a factor in his apostasy--so your subsequent silence on the issue is especially troubling. Hyper-preterist heretics, apparently with your approval, have posted your material all over the Web in defense of their cause. Since your name and your writings figure so prominently in their dissemination of rank heresy, it would seem to me that answering their error ought to be as much a priority for you as critiquing a book written by someone whose chief transgression seems to have been that he ignored you. Since you're hard up for people to debate, why not pick a fight with Ward Fenly, Walt Hibbard, or someone else who uses your name to promote hyper-preterism? Phillip R. Johnson ? ! /~\ http://www.romans45.org /~\ @ ..? OO-=? _( ^) (^ )_ (__ ~_\ http://www.romans45.org /_~ __) /=ooOo=oOoo=========================================ooOo=oOoo=\ | PO Box 4000 * Panorama City, CA 91412 * (661) 295-5777 | | sola fide * sola gratia * sola Scriptura * soli Deo gloria | \_____________________________________________________________/

In the months after I first responded to DeMar's review, numerous people suggested (presumably at Mr. DeMar's urging) that I ought to debate him publicly. I finally decided instead to post the above material in order to save the time it would take to reply to all those queries individually.
Bottom line: In the first place, I don't see enough substance in Mr. DeMar's "review" to warrant an ongoing debate. In the second place, he needs to correct the misrepresentations I have already pointed out to him. In the third place, I don't particularly want to help advance his self-hype juggernaut more than I already have by posting this material at my Web site.