Gary DeMar & Church Authority

Critiquing the critics of Gary DeMar

Recently, controversy has erupted over Gary DeMar’s move from a strained partial-preterism into hyper-preterism. The move was natural. Gary’s preterism has always relied on exegetical commitments and frameworks used by hyper-preterists. It was only a matter of time before the move was formally realized.

Since his move, many in the Reformed world have been outraged. Disapproving comments have come from Doug Wilson, Ken Gentry, and Jason Bradfield. They claim DeMar has moved beyond orthodoxy.

As one standing outside this theological school, I admit I do not have a dog in this fight. However, I can’t help but feel their criticisms are largely hypocritical. They, along with Gary, hold to Sola Scriptura. Because of this, they acknowledge that all other sources of doctrine are capable of error and must be tested against Scripture. The problem is that Gary does appeal to Scripture to ground his heretical views. He has a consistent exegetical method, his arguments make logical sense, and he can make a good case that partial-preterism is inconsistent compared to hyper-preterism.

This poses a problem because eventually debating exegesis isn’t enough. At some point, you’ll be blue in the face, having exhausted all arguments, and still be at a standstill. I speak from experience. Thus, when argumentation fails, Gary’s critics appeal to extra-biblical sources, like the Creeds. Doug Wilson even says, “I don’t believe the Apostles’ Creed is inspired, not at all. But I do believe it is infallible . . . because the truth is infallible.” [1] By this, however, he does not mean that the Church has authority to define infallible truth in Creeds and Councils, but only that the Creed accords with Scripture and is therefore true in all it claims.

This begs the question though: who defines what accords with Scripture? For Doug, it seems that it would be Scripture itself. It certainly isn’t the Church, because in the same article Wilson states, “I accept the authority of the ecumenical councils, with my enthusiasm rolling to a stop shortly before Second Nicea. And the reason I don’t accept Second Nicea is because the Second Commandment trumps Second Nicea. Praying to pictures and statues is not a hard violation to identify.” [2]

Herein lies the hypocrisy. Wilson and others want to correct Gary’s twisting of Scripture by appealing to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed. They point out that these Creeds accord with Scriptural truth. But Gary, using the very standard employed by Wilson, points out that his fidelity to Scripture supersedes commitment to fallible Creeds and Councils. Makes sense in this framework, right? If these presumed fallible Creeds conflict with the infallible word of God, the fallible Creeds need to be rejected.

To be clear, I give three cheers for Wilson’s commitment to the truth of the Creeds. However, the hypocrisy in this critique of Gary is that they use the same claim to Scriptural authority to reject other ecumenical decisions of the Church when those decisions do not align with their interpretive lens.

As noted earlier, Wilson rejects Nicaea II because the Second Commandment trumps the Council. In other words: Scripture > Councils. He says, “Praying to pictures and statues is not a hard violation to identify.” [3] Yet to the ecumenical Church, if venerating icons is an error, it was not a simple one to identify as Wilson claims. Moreover, the bishops at Nicaea II were not ignorant of the Second Commandment. They simply understood its meaning differently than Wilson and the Reformed world. They saw no contradiction between the veneration of images and the Second Commandment. None whatsoever.

Hopefully my readers can see the issue emerging: Wilson argues that hyper-preterists depart from the truth of Scripture, appealing to the Creeds in support of this claim. DeMar maintains that Scriptural fidelity is more important than Creedal adherence, and when push comes to shove, Wilson and his fellow critics agree with Gary in practice. They reject the Church’s official pronouncements in exchange for so-called “biblical fidelity.” Gary and his critics are the same.

As long as one believes that Scripture needs no formal, infallible interpretive voice but can be understood on its own, Gary DeMar is being consistent, and his critics are the inconsistent ones. However, if one acknowledges that Christ instituted the Church not as a replacement of Scriptural authority but as its guardian and infallible interpreter, Gary DeMar stands as a heretic and can rightly (and formally) be condemned.

Some may object, pointing out that as an Anglican, I too “pick and choose” which Creeds and Councils to follow. Why stop at seven? Why not accept all the councils of Rome? The reason is simple. For a Council to be Ecumenical, it must be received formally, or at least in practice, by the whole Church. Rome’s councils, after the Great Schism, were never received by any other apostolic Church. This renders them local councils. This doesn’t mean they are all false. I agree with a number of teachings found in them. But they lack the binding authority of the first seven councils, which were received by the vast majority of Christendom. Even apostolic bodies lacking formal acceptance, like the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, accept many of their theological principles in practice. For example, I have never attended an Oriental Orthodox Divine Liturgy without iconography being present and venerated. They never formally accepted Nicaea II, but its theology is present in their churches. Ecumenical approval has always been recognized as the voice of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

To make my point clearer: appealing to Scripture while rejecting the Church’s authority whenever it seems to override its plain meaning does not uphold truth but undermines it, making Scripture a slave to individual reason. Such is the case with Gary DeMar. By contrast, those who recognize the limits of individual interpretation and join themselves to the Church, where the promise of being led into truth abides, will be able to defend Scripture with true faithfulness.

And so, in closing, I pray Gary will repent of his grave heresy, and that those criticizing him will repent of their hypocrisy. And may we all, by the grace of God, more fully submit ourselves to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, wherein truth dwells and shall never fail.

---

Notes:

[1] Douglas Wilson, “Presupp and Preterism,” Blog & Mablog (Theology That Bites Back), August 27, 2025, accessed September 1, 2025, https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/presupp-and-preterism.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

---

Bibliography:

Wilson, Douglas. “Presupp and Preterism.” Blog & Mablog (Theology That Bites Back), August 27, 2025. Accessed September 1, 2025. https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/presupp-and-preterism.html.