Many people think Gary DeMar is not a "full preterist" because he says he is not. While that may seem the best and safest way to handle the issue, it is not because it assumes that Gary understands what a "full preterist" is. Gary and Kim Burgess are the last people one should ask about proper definitions, and they just demonstrated why, yet again, in their latest podcast episode.
Embedded above are 7 minutes of Gary and Kim discussing "capital-D Dispensationalism and lowercase dispensationalism." If you rather not waste your time, here's the summary:
Capital-D Dispensationalists are those who intentionally affirm the dispensational framework.
Lowercase dispensationalists are the rest of us who deny the dispensational framework but end up being dispensationalists because we look forward to a future consummation that involves the material world.
Friends, this is straight out of the hyper-preterist playbook. Any Christian who at any time argues for a material fulfillment for any eschatological prophecy is considered, by hyper-preterists, to be carnally minded and dispensational, whether they embrace dispensationalism or not.
Consider the following words from hyper-preterist Don Preston:
In my (July 2012) debate with Joel McDurmon (Director of Research) of American Vision, McDurmon made several arguments about the Abrahamic Covenant promises and how they must be fulfilled literally and physically in the future. The gist of his argument was this: God promised the land to Abraham personally, not just to his descendants, but to him as an individual. Abraham, per Acts 7:5 never received the land promise. Therefore, Abraham must be resurrected from the dirt, physically, and receive the literal land promise, which is not confined to the borders delineated in Genesis 15, but, encompasses the "world" (kosmos, Romans 4:13). I made the comment during the debate that McDurmon's comments were a thinly veiled remake of the dispensational doctrine. McDurmon objected to this, and, several other Dominionists have taken great exception to this charge. They have in fact labeled the charge as a falsehood. They claim that there is no resemblance between what they are teaching and the dispensational paradigm. Let me be very clear, however. What Joel McDurmon, Frost, Bradfield, Talbot are espousing is, without any doubt whatsoever, nothing but dispensationalism wrapped up in different robes.
This redefinition of terms is the same silly and deceptive game that Gary DeMar is now playing. That Gary refuses to call himself a "full preterist" proves nothing. Listen to what he's teaching. Listen to what he denies. He and Kim Burgess have published multiple podcast episodes arguing for Max King's corporate body view of the resurrection. That is hyper preterism, folks, whether you want to call it that or not. And affirming a future material consummation is not dispensationalism. It is called Christianity.
Lowercase dispensationalists