Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 119

December 17, 2014

JAMES WHITE’S AND 2 TIMOTHY 3 (4)

PMT 2014-151 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. White James Ken EDIT

This is my fourth article in my reply to Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. On his October 16 webcast, he challenged my analysis of 2 Timothy 3 in my PostmillennialismToday article titled: “Perilous Times.” Please see my preceding articles in this series by way of introduction. Unless you are weary. And if you are weary, try “a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest” (Prov 6:10), for this is biblical.

White countered my observation that 2 Tim 3 is written to Timothy and was speaking only of his own day. I pointed out in my original article that we should note the occasional nature of most of the NT epistles. That is, we must understand that they were written to deal with specific occasions within in the first century. I illustrated this by pointing to 1 Cor 5:1. But White rejects my paralleling 1 Cor 5:1 to Paul’s statement to Timothy. Nevertheless:

1 Cor 5 Is Not Irrelevant

In my original article I wrote: “Likewise, when Paul writes to the church at Corinth complaining that ‘it is actually reported that there is immorality among you’ (1Co 5:1), we should not lift it from its context as a universal principle applying to all churches. He is writing specifically to them.” Of course, this probably does happen from time-to-time in various churches. But as I state: “It’s not a matter of prophesying about the constant, long term, unyielding prospects for history.”

At minute-marker 36:10 in his webcast White complains: “The parallel to 1 Cor 5:1 doesn’t fit at all.” He argues that 1 Cor 5:1 is very specific, dealing with specific, identifiable issues. He notes that Paul could easily have given the particular man’s name at Corinth. He then states such is not the case in 2 Tim. 3. Rather, in his epistle to Timothy, White argues, Paul lists “general descriptions of the nature of godlessness.”

Thine Is the Kingdom

(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled

postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means

to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But as I point out in my previous article (PMT 2014-150), Paul’s letter to Timothy does in fact name particular individuals, showing he is referring to specific situations of sin in the first-century church (also see those first-century names below).

White Mis-frames the Question

White expresses surprise at what he sees as a remarkable implication of my observation regarding Paul’s first-century focus (at webcast minute marker 34:20ff): “That doesn’t happen anymore today? Of course, it happens today; it happens in every generation” “Is there ever going to be a time when men will not be lovers of themselves? lovers of money? boastful? arrogant? revilers?” Indeed, he says, “everyone knows that this is the case. And every generation of ministers has been able to grab hold of the promise that, yep, there are men of depraved mind.”

Special Note for December 2014 Readers

I am currently having a 50% off Christmas sale on my website.

See special Christmas 2014 sale at: www.KennethGentry.com

But this is precisely the question that needs to be answered in the eschatological debate: “Is there ever going to be a time when men will not be lovers of themselves? lovers of money? boastful? arrogant? revilers?” The question is most certainly not : Have we ever seen these moral conditions in history? I would even state the question more precisely: Does Paul indicate this will be the dominant situation throughout history to its very end? I do not believe he does so.

Critics must be careful of how they understand postmillennialism. Postmillennialists do not believe that all men will be converted at some time in the future, so that all such sins will be universally wiped out. We are not universalists. Nor do we believe even that at the height of the kingdom’s progress all Christians will be perfect. We are not perfectionists.

But we do believe that the vast majority of men will be converted and that global conditions will be greatly improved because of the wide-scale prevalence of the Christian faith. (John Calvin suggests that the ratio of Christians will be 6 to 1 in the future; he sees this as taught in Isa 19:18. [1]) And we believe that because of the progress of Christianity and the prevailing peace that will follow in its wake, Christians will tend to live more spiritual lives in that time as God’s Spirit is poured out in greater measure.

So we disagree that the conditions presented in 2 Tim 3 will always prevail on the scale Timothy faced them in the first century. And we do so on the basis of numerous other texts such as Psa 22:27; 72:8-9; Isa 2:2-4; 11:9; Hab 2:14; John 3:17; 12:31-32. [2] I focused on the 2 Tim 3 text because it is brought into the discussion as counter-evidence against postmillennialism; I was not looking at it as positive evidence for postmillennialism.

1Cor 5 and 2 Tim 3 are Similar

But it is not wrong-headed to bring in 1 Cor 5:1 the way I do. Both 2 Tim 3 and 1 Cor 5 are very much alike in two important respects:

(1) Both epistles demonstrate the occasional nature of the NT epistles. Paul is writing “to the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2). And he is writing “to Timothy, my beloved son” (2 Tim 1:2). He is actually writing to first-century people — whether their issues re-occur later in history or not. Hence, he frequently lists local issues and spiritual conditions in both epistles.

(2) Both epistles deal with moral issues facing the Pauline community in the first century. For instance, 1 Cor 5 confronts a specific moral issue involving a particular individual threatening great spiritual harm to the Corinthian church. And as White correctly argues, Paul could very well have named that individual. And 2 Timothy 3 also mentions moral concerns (2 Tim 3:2–7) which are afflicting the Ephesian church in which Timothy ministers (cf. 1 Tim 1:3). And Paul does name some of the false teachers he has in mind: Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), as well as Hymeneaus and Philaetus (2 Tim 2:17) — and Hymenaeus (again) and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20).

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And even more interestingly, in 2 Tim 3 Paul does not mention any overt persecution of the Christian faith in the future. In vv 2-8 we read of hedonistic actions by false teachers within the church rather than overt oppression from evil persecutors without. The text reads:

“Men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (2 Tim 3:2–4).

There will be “among them those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (3:6–7).

This is why Paul instructs Timothy himself: “Avoid such men as these” (2 Tim 3:6b). And why he encourages him in the first century: “they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all” (3:9).

White then goes on to argue regarding 2 Tim 3, that Paul is:

“giving guidance to the church that will be valid in every generation of the church. Are we actually going to suggest that 2 Tim. 3 is not to be seen as valid guidance for the church in every generation, including vv 16 and 17. That is what caught my attention with this…. That is not the kind of exegesis I would expect on any other subject.”

White overlooks a problem lurking in his statement. And he does not see this because he does not have a proper conception of postmillennialism. I believe he is correct when he states that Paul is giving guidance that will be valid in every generation. But I would point out that the guidance will be available. That does not mean the same problems will always be there. Or on that scale. But the guidance is available whenever needed.

Postmillennialism allows that this guidance can be put to good use on any occasions that may arise in the future of the kingdom. Again: not all sinners will be won to Christ and not all sin will be removed from Christians themselves.

In addition, White inadvertently confirms the proper understanding of the occasional nature of the NT epistles. And this allows my interpretation. At the very close of his session he answers a Twitter regarding what interpretive problems he has with dispensationalism. He responds: “Especially looking at the Book of Revelation without first asking the question that I ask of everything else and that is: What did it mean to the people to which it was first written? If it didn’t have any meaning to them, I’ve probably misinterpreted it.” This is precisely my argument in 2 Tim 3. So then, White and I do not disagree on all hermeneutical issues. But we do disagree as to when and how they apply. And I believe White is inconsistent in this regard.

I will have more to say in my next installment, unless members of the church oppose this truth and make further progress in their folly, and carry off the women.

Notes

1. John Calvin interprets Isa 19:18 as suggesting “that out of six cities five will be saved, and only one will perish.” Therefore, in his view the world will enjoy a six out of seven conversion rate. In Isa 19:19 he continues by stating: “Egypt will be renewed, because there true religion will flourish, the pure worship of God will be set up, and all superstitions will fall to the ground.” He adds: “indeed it usually happens that a nation truly converted to God, after having laid aside idols and superstitions, openly sets up signs of the true religion, that all may know what the worship of God is purely observed in it.” Still later he notes: “it is plain that the Prophet speaks of the kingdom of Christ, and that these things were not fulfilled before his coming. We must therefore take away the shadows and look at the reality of things, in order that by the altar we may understand a true and sincere calling on God.”

2. For instance, Psa 22:27 reads: “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.” Psa 72:8-9: “May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth. Let the nomads of the desert bow before him, And his enemies lick the dust.”

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 17, 2014 01:01

December 15, 2014

JAMES WHITE AND 2 TIMOTHY 3 (3)

PMT 2014-150 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third article in my reply to Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. On his October 16 webcast, he challenged my analysis of 2 Timothy 3. Please see my two preceding articles by way of introduction (PMT 2014-148 and PMT 2014-149).

Introduction

As I begin, I must summarily remind my reader of the two key concerns that appear in White’s discussion. He complains against me that: (1) Hermeneutically, I limit Paul’s concern in 2 Timothy 3 to the first century only. (2) Theologically, I cannot account for Paul’s normative statement in 2 Timothy 3:12 wherein he warns all Christians in all times to expect persecution.

In this article I will begin answering White’s first objection, i.e., that I erroneously reduce Paul’s statement in 2 Tim 3:1ff to Timothy’s day. This complaint arises in that I wrote: Paul “is dealing with a particular historical matter in the first century. He is speaking of things that Timothy will be facing and enduring (2Ti 3:10, 14). He is not prophesying about the constant, long-term, unyielding prospects for all of history.”

When White read my article he decided to respond to my presentation because: “It struck me as being an example of where the hermeneutic and exegesis just does not seem consistent with what you would normally expect to find” (11:33).

He Shall Have Dominion (paperback by Ken Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600 pages)

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Regarding his concern, I believe several problems encumber White’s analysis: (1) He misunderstands what I am saying. (2) He misunderstands what Paul is doing. (3) He overlooks potential postmillennial responses. (4) He makes the very hermeneutic mistake with which he charges me. Before I demonstrate these, I would first note:

My View Is Not Distinctive

My fundamental concern in the article White critiques, is that 2 Timothy 3:1 “seems to undercut the postmillennial optimism for the historical long run.” Thus, I am responding to that common objection. Despite the way White makes it sound, this first-century interpretation of Paul’s directives is not a distinctive view created by me. It has long been employed by noteworthy postmillennial exegetes. Let me cite just a few examples of men writing long before my 2014 article.

B. B. Warfield. In his 1886 article “Prophecies of St. Paul” (reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies, p. 500), Warfield comments on 2 Tim 3:1–13: “It would be manifestly illegitimate to understand these descriptions as necessarily covering the life of the whole dispensation on the earliest verge of which the prophet was standing…. Paul had the first stages of ‘the latter times’ in mind, and actually says nothing to imply either that the evil should long predominate over the good, or that the whole period should be marked by such disorders.”

James H. Snowden. In his 1919 publication The Coming of the Lord (p. 246), Snowden comments: “One of the favorite passages that are adduced to prove that the present world will grow worse and worse is Paul’s description of it in the third chapter of his Second Epistle to Timothy. . . . The whole passage clearly shows that Paul in speaking of ‘the last days’ was not thinking of future times but of the days then present. He and Timothy were living in the midst of these things, and he was warning Timothy against existing dangers and was not saying or implying anything about the future.”

Special Note for December 2014 Readers

I am currently having a 50% off Christmas sale on my website.

See special Christmas 2014 sale at: www.KennethGentry.com

Loraine Boettner. In Boettner’s 1957 book, The Millennium (p. 353), Boettner comments: “Perhaps the passage most often quoted by Premillennialists to prove that the word is growing worse and worse is II Timothy 3:1–5…. But having enumerated [various] evils, he admonishes Timothy: “From these also turn away….’ He clearly was describing conditions that were then present and warning against them as present temptations, not predicting a state of affairs that would prevail at the end of the age.”

Iain Murray. In his classic study, The Puritan Hope (1971, p. 80), Murray writes: “Probably the most frequently referred to passage in support of the view that the world will progressively darken is 2 Timothy, chapter 3, which commences, ‘This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.’ The popular citation of this text without a consideration of its precise import and context is an unhappy illustration of how debate on prophetic issues is too often conducted. The peril of which Paul speaks is the contagion liable to be received from the prevalence of such men as those described in the verses which follow. In particular, they are ‘evil men and seducers’ (v. 13), who were alive at the time when Paul wrote, hence the exhortation to Timothy in verse 5, ‘from such turn away.’ And while in their personal character they would go from bad to worse (v. 13), their public influence according to Paul was soon to pass…. ‘for their folly shall be manifest unto all men’” as verses 8 and 9 show. “Paul was thinking primarily of his own time!”

My View Is Not Exegetically Inconsistent

Again, White complains: “It struck me as being an example of where the hermeneutic and exegesis just does not seem consistent with what you would normally expect to find” (11:33). And regarding this point he argues that my view would limit the sin-list (“lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful,” etc.) in vv 2–5 to the first century. He adds that if this is so, I must limit every sin-list accordingly (e.g., Rom 1:28–32; Gal 5:19–21; etc.).

I must confess: this does not make sense to me. My argument that Paul is warning Timothy about sinful tendencies he is facing in the first-century church, does not imply that those sin tendencies can only occur then. But neither does the text state that we must always expect the world to be dominated by these sins in all times.

House Divided: Break-up of Dispensational Theology

(by Ken Gentry)

A rebuttal to dispensationalism’s view of eschatology and God’s Law

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Rather, my argument (and that of many others) simply recognizes that we have to read Paul’s instructions as they were written: he wrote to and for Timothy. “To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim 1:2). He states that he constantly remembers Timothy “in my prayers night and day, longing to see you” (vv 3–4). I am sure he remembers others in his prayers, but he is writing this letter to Timothy. Consequently, he will mention by name some of Timothy’s first-century relatives and opponents.

Paul is mindful of Timothy’s “sincere faith” which “first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice” (2 Tim 1:5). It certainly would be true that Paul would love all sincerely faithful ministers of the gospel, and all of their grandmothers and mothers — especially those grandmothers named Lois and those mothers named Eunice. But Paul is writing to Timothy and mentioning his grandmother and his mother. Not all grandmothers and mothers have a “sincere faith.”

He is writing to encourage Timothy not to be ashamed of the Lord or of Paul his mentor, urging him to “join with me in suffering for the gospel” (2 Tim 1:8). He instructs Timothy to “retain the standard of sound words which” he had learned (v 13) and to “guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you” (v 14). And he does this with great concern because of particular fist-century Christian defectors: “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes” (v 15).

Thus, he pleads with Timothy: “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:1–2). He also laments the teachings of “Hymenaeus and Philetus” (2:17), particular first-century apostates.

He teaches Timothy that “in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor” (2 Tim 2:20). Therefore, Timothy must be alert to weak Christians and apostate teachers within his first-century ministry. And then he reminds his faithful co-worker: “realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (3:1–5a).

But then he directs Timothy to specifically “avoid such men as these” (2 Tim 3:5b). He praises Timothy (not all ministers of the gospel): “now you followed my teaching, conduct,” etc. (3:10). And he encourages him to “continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of” (3:14), because — in Timothy’s specific case: “from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (3:15). Not all ministers in all times have known the Scriptures from their childhood, just as not all have grandmothers named Lois and mothers name Eunice. Paul is writing expressly to Timothy.

And this is why Paul brings in the universal truth of the inspiration of Scripture that makes “the man of God . . . adequate, equipped for every good work” (3:16–17). White believes that Paul’s mention of this universal truth of biblical inspiration requires that the whole passage express a universal expectation about the future of Christianity. That simply does not follow. This universal truth that Paul does mention is — because it is universal — applicable to his particular circumstances in the first century (and of course to issues in any other century).

Paul is encouraging Timothy to trust in the inspired Scriptures for his doctrine. Whereas false teachers by definition teach false doctrine. And Timothy is facing false teachers: “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim 4:3–5).

In fact, Paul reminds Timothy of the problem he himself faced from false teachers whom Timothy knew: “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Be on guard against him yourself, for he vigorously opposed our teaching” (2 Tim 4:14–15).

As the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (p. 661) notes regarding Timothy and Titus: “They were increasingly endangered by a judaizing-gnostic countermission (1 Tim 1:3–7, 19–20; 4:1–2; 6:20; 2 Tim 4:3–4; Tit 1:10–16) . . . that included church leaders and probably former co-workers (2 Tim 1:15–18; 2:16–17; 3:6–9; 4:10; Tit 3:9–14).” Thus, Paul writes to Titus: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you. . . . For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain” (Tit 1:5, 10–11).

The Dictionary of Paul (663) continues regarding the opposition: “the opponents represent the same type of opposition throughout the Pastorals …, that is, indeed, only a more developed form of the false teaching that plagued Paul’s and other apostolic missions virtually from the beginning. They originated as a ‘judaizing’ segment of the ritually strict Hebraioi, that is, ‘the circumcision party.”” On p. 665 it notes that “the teachings of the letters are largely contained in the (reworked and) transmitted traditions and their application. They concern (1) the errors of the false teachers and the proper response to them (1 Tim 1:3–20; 4:1–10; 6:30–10; Tit 1:10–2:1; 3:9–11; 2 Tim 2:14–4–5)….”

Again, Paul is writing this pastoral letter to Timothy. This is an occasional epistle: it is dealing with actual first-century occasions (events and persons). And as is the case with all occasional observations: where similar issues arise, the general principles embodied in his specific instruction will apply. But it does not require that these issues will always be everywhere present.

To be continued, I hope. (Notice my postmillennial expectation in hoping to continue. I must confess, though, that my first draft of this article lacked “hope,” since I accidentally wrote “I hop.” Though that could be cast in an optimistic light: if you like pancakes, preferring them over hopping around like a rabbit. But I digress. Plus it’s time for coffee. Somewhere.)

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 15, 2014 01:01

December 12, 2014

JAMES WHITE AND 2 TIMOTHY 3 (2)

PMT 2014-149 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. White and Pual

This is my second article given to considering the Alpha & Omega Ministries’ webcast by Dr. James White. In that webcast White critiqued my understanding of 2 Timothy 3. I posted a PMT article analyzing 2 Tim 3:1, which some see as undercutting the postmillennial position (PMT 2014-029). That verse warns: “Realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.”

Please see my preceding article for a proper orientation to my current PostmillennialismToday series. In this article I will make one final introductory note before beginning my actual response in the next article.

Introducing My Challenger

Dr. White is a Reformed theologian for whom I have great respect, and for which the contemporary evangelical church should be thankful. This is especially true among Reformed Christians. He is a tireless apologist for the conservative, evangelical Christian faith.

White is committed to amillennialism. And toward the end of his presentation, at minute-marker 41:35, he states: “I would say that amillennialism is the default Reformed position, at least historically.” He may well be correct. Today. Though he admits that this is not relevant to the exegetical discussion before us. And he is definitely correct on this point.

He opened his discussion by noting that he does not talk about eschatology often, except for the basics: the return of Christ, the resurrection, hell, and such. He said he avoided it for two reasons, but he only stated one. I think. This portion of his presentation was somewhat confusing.

His avoidance of eschatological discussion appears to be that he burned-out on the detailed, over-confident, gargantuan prophetic program of his dispensational younger years. I know the feeling. God has so many peoples! So many programs! So many dispensations! So many resurrections! So many judgments! So many prophecy experts! So many. . . well, you get the point: dispensationalist is one complicated theological construct.

Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism Debate (DVD by Gentry and Gaffin)

Formal, public debate between Dr. Richard Gaffin (Westminster Theological Seminary)

and Kenneth Gentry at the Van Til Conference in Maryland.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

White explained that he was raised a dispensationalist, and was an avid reader of Hal Lindsey, J. D. Pentecost, and others. Me, too! (I actually have a copy of The Late Great Planet Earth in the original Greek.) He noted that he became amillennial because of his interest in its more consistent interpretive methodology and its much simpler program involving a two-age structure of redemptive history, and including a “now-not-yet” unfolding of that history. Me, too. Except that these factors moved me in the opposite direction: to postmillennialism.

Then he expressed a particular frustration with the way prophecy discussion transpires in our contemporary environment. He lamented that some folks focus too much on eschatological programs, detailed specifics, and contemporary predictions. I agree here, as well. He noted that the NT certainly deals with eschatology, but that it avoids detailed chronologies such as have been created within dispensationalism. Once again, I agree with him. I told you that amillennialism and postmillennialism were similar!

Sharing His Frustration

This problem of excessive, meticulous detail, however, dominates the dispensational movement, not the postmillennial discussions. They are constantly fueling Rapture-expectations and Antichrist-identifications by using various means to promote their Secret Rapture-Great Tribulation-Antichrist-Armageddon-followed-by-Millennium message.

And dispensationalists do this constantly through the relentless production and tireless marketing of prophetic books; audio books; novels; novellas; graphic novels; mini-books; short stories; essays; magazines; editorials; articles; papers; fact sheets; charts; graphs; tables; diagrams; reports; reviews; plaques; bulletins; webcasts; blogsites; radio broadcasts; televangelist programs; cable shows; satellite transmissions; Israel travelogs; short-program videos; medium-program videos; long-program videos; movies; CDs; DVDs; sermons; conferences; seminars; Bible studies; Sunday school programs; In-Case-of-Rapture sticky memo pads; A-Little-Book-Which-Was-Open comic books; Locusts-Upon-the-Earth coloring books; The-Great-Supper-of-God cookbooks; Great-and-Marvelous-Are-Your-Works poetry collections; Sing-A-New-Song chorus books; Rapture-Verse-Memory-cards (both print and Braille versions — Navy signal-flag versions are being prepared and will soon be released); Ask-Me-About-the-Rapture bumper stickers; R-U-RDY license plates; individually cut, self-adhesive Mark-of-the-Beast stickers; Favorite-Revelation-Verses bookmarks; I’ll-Fly-Away Coffee Mugs; Left-Behind insulated travel mugs; A-Quart-of-Wheat-for-a-Denarius measuring cups; Write-in-a-Book-What-You-See writing pens and mechanical pencils; Merchants-of-the-Earth money clips; Sun-Shining-In-Its-Strength sun visors; He-Is-Coming-Soon ball caps (with plastic window cut-aways in the bill for upward viewing without neck strain); I-Am-Not-the-Beast-Because-I-Only-Have-One-Head headbands; Crashing-Pilotless-Plane posters; In-Case-of-Rapture greeting cards; Pictures-of-each-of-the-144,000-Jews pocket cards; Rapture-Countdown calendars; This-Time-It’s-For-Sure-Rapture Party Supplies; pre-printed Revelation-Message balloons; Heads-of-Lions-Tails-of-Locust tatoos; One-Way-Signal Praying Hands; Down-Up-Arrow Charms; Jesus-Is-Coming-Soon Stress Relievers (in the shape of a dove); Tim-LaHaye-Rolls-Royce key rings; Left Behind refrigerator magnets; Book-of-Life journals and jotters; Great-Tribulation playing cards; 1948-and-1967-Israel-Map puzzles; Write-on-a-Napkin-What-You-See imprinted dinner napkins; Marriage-Supper-of-the-Lamb engraved tableware; Whole-Text-of-Revelation printed table covers; fire-and-hail-resistant decorative denim Bible covers; Four-Living-Creatures 1/16 scale plastic model kits (with decals giving Revelation verse location); Battle-of-Armageddon action model figures (with removable heads); Caught-Up-Into-Heaven tote bags; Blessed-Is-He-Who-Reads stamps; Rapture-Promise cards (in sixteen different languages); Play Station Great-War-of-God video games (Gog-and-Magog versions are on the way); Hide-Bibles-in-the-Desert-for-Great-Tribulation-Jews board games; Favorite-Prophecies printed jelly beans; There-Was-a-Great-Earthquake 12 member cubic frame building supplies; Burning-Tree garden flags; Trample-Under-Foot door mats; All-the-Colors-in-the-Book-of-Revelation Christmas ornaments (available in Hanukkah versions); Four-Horsemen stuffed toys; Sent-and-Communicated mailbox covers; Color-of-Fire-and-Hyacinth-and-Brimstone stained glass frames; glue; WWJR (Who Would Jesus Rapture) bracelets; Armaggedon-Tomorrow? tee-shirts; 10-Horn-Beast-Hats; Antichrist Turbans; Caught-Up-to-God Rapture fashion wear; paper clips; The-Sky-Was-Split-Apart umbrellas; He-Carried-Me-Away-in-the-Spirit luggage and travel gear; Hide-Us-From-the-Wrath-of-the-Lamb scarves; Adorned-as-a-Husband neckties; Fire-from-Heaven cozy fleece blankets; She-Gave-Birth-to-a-Male-Child baby bibs; Kiss-the-Anticook Aprons; Clothed-in-a-Robe embroidered hoodies; Great-Tribulation hard hat stickers; American flag/Israeli flag lapel pins; Washed-in-the-Blood all-natural stain remover; I-Love-Netanyahu-and-You-Should-Too shirt buttons; Clothed-in-White-Linen coat badges; imprinted New-Name-Written-on-a-Stone faith stones; Fire-Breathing-Prophet breath mints; Hidden-Manna crunchy cereal, Bottomless-Pit snack bars; Smoke-of-a-Great Furnace coffee filters; Seven-Trumpets music supplies; and a few thousand other such products.

There you go! If Dr. White can have fun on his webcast, I can have fun on my blogsite. I suspect White and I could have some fun fellowship together. Unfortunately, he lives in Phoenix, Arizona. Too far away, and too hot in the day. The last time I was there was in the mid 1990s. I was speaking at a Bible conference on postmillennialism. I remember mentioning the excessive heat to a church member there. He replied: “But it’s a dry heat.” I pointed out that the same could be said about the heat in Hell. I haven’t been invited back since. Though I hope that is not why.

Eschatological Themes: Postmillennialism and Preterism (7 CDs)

These lectures cover themes important for understanding the relationship of preterism and postmillennialism. The issues covered are not only important but fascinating as you come to realize better and better that the looming of AD 70 had an enormous influence on the New Testament.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Dismissing His Minor Objection

As a reminder, White makes the following three complaints against my presentation: (1) Hermeneutically, I limit Paul’s concern in 2 Timothy 3 to his day only. (2) Theologically, I cannot account for Paul’s normative statement in 2 Timothy 3:12. (3) Historically, the wholesale decline in the European nations of the Reformation undercuts the postmillennial hope.

The first two objections are his main, most crucial points. They are his key concerns regarding my position that I presented in my original article. These concerns lead him to reject my analysis, as well as my whole eschatological position. The other one is secondary, though it is significant enough for him to bring it up (and is often heard as an objection to postmillennialism).

I will deal with White’s minor complaint first. I do this for two reasons: (1) It is not as crucial, and may be disposed of rather quickly and easily. (2) The two main objections are more dramatic, and so rhetorically I want to pull my reader along on a journey through the material. (Don’t you feel the excitement growing?) But now for his secondary complaint:

The decline of Christianity in Reformation Europe is certainly a painful reality for all Christians, especially Reformed ones (as Dr. White and I are). And even more so for postmillennial Christians. God mightily blessed and greatly enlivened the true church through the pouring out of his Spirit in effecting the Reformation in Europe. Consequently, the large-scale loss of Europe to a meaningful, biblical Christianity is a heart-breaking matter. But is it prophetically significant? That is the question.

At the 29:20 mark in his webcast, White expresses his agreement with Riddlebarger, whom I quote in my article. Riddlebarger wrote: “Throughout the last days, some will distort the gospel to tickle itching ears and gather followers to themselves.” In this context White calls his listener to look at Europe, the home of the Reformation. He urges us to consider the lamentable decline of Christianity in those lands where the Reformation occurred. They are spiritually defunct.

But this complaint exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of postmillennialism. This misconstrues postmillennialism at two points. First, postmillennialism does not hold that each year will show a greater progress of the gospel than the year before. Christianity’s forward march is incremental. And it proceeds with fits-and-starts — much like the individual’s up and down progress in sanctification.

Second, by the very nature of the case postmillennialism cannot be discounted by an historical observation of this kind. After all, the definition of postmillennialism is that Christianity will have won a world-dominating victory throughout the earth before Christ returns. It does not claim that this will be the case by 2014. Until Christ returns, postmillennialism cannot be discounted on the basis of current or recent historical circumstances. We do not know how much longer the Lord will delay his coming. It could be thousands of years longer.

We could just as easily reject the basic, orthodox doctrine of Christ’s second coming on the basis of the fact he has not yet returned. After all, we read in 2 Pet 3:3–4 that we will hear such complaints: “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’” Though the “last days” begin in the first century — as White agrees and Scripture teaches (Acts 2:16ff; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 1:1–2) —, they are continuing even still today. In fact, they will continue through to the very “last day” at the resurrection — as White also agrees (John 6:39, 44, 54; 11:24).

So then, during this age we will hear complaints that the Lord is not returning. But Peter answers just such an objection. And he does so in a way that suggests Christ’s coming lies off in the distant future, perhaps thousands of years away: “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:8–9).

Yogi Berra apparently was a postmillennialist. He presented us with his theological maxim: “It ain’t over til its over.” Or maybe he was talking about baseball. I am not sure. But baseball is a biblical sport, and is the first sport mentioned in all of the Bible. After all, the foundational book of Scripture, Genesis, opens with: “In the big inning” (Gen 1:1). You can’t argue with facts.

Getting to Work

At the 11:24 minute-mark in his one hour webcast, White finally mentions my article. But then it is not until 28:40 that he actually begins engaging the issues. But how can I complain? Here I am two articles into my own reply, and I have only barely begun to engage his argument! The casual nature of the presentation of his eschatological program (which is much simpler than dispensationalism’s complex, intricate, complicated, labyrinthine, convoluted, difficile, arduous, confusing, onerous, elaborate, laborious, and tangled structure) requires, however, that I impose some order on his loose presentation.

So now without (too much) further ado: in my next article I will begin presenting and replying to his key observations. I will seek to discuss the matter in a little more structured manner. Of course, in writing articles one can do that more easily than in free, conversational discussion.

But this reminds me of a joke before I free up your time: Two lazy farmers were sitting on the front porch one afternoon. The first one said: “I saw you a holdin’ a pig up to the apple tree yestidy. What was you a’doin?” The second replied, “Aw, I was just lettin’ ‘im eat some apples.” The first one expressed surprise: “Isn’t that a terrible waste of time?” The second justified his activity, saying: “Ah, what’s time to a pig?”

See you next time! Lord willing and the Antichrist doesn’t arise.

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 12, 2014 01:01

December 10, 2014

JAMES WHITE AND 2 TIMOTHY 3 (1)

PMT 2014-148 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. White 1a

Introduction to My New Series

Amillennialism is postmillennialism minus hope.

Before the early twentieth century, theologians would speak of only two eschatological positions: “premillennialism” and “postmillennialism.” In this regard, amillennial theologian Cornelis Venema notes regarding amillennialism and postmillennialism: “Whatever differences exist between the two views, they have in common an identical framework” [Venema, Promise of the Future, 220]. In fact, both systems are post millennial in that they hold that Christ returns after the “millennium.”

Historically, the two systems were generally considered as simply two perspectives from the same position until sometime around the 1920s. Consequently, they were both called “postmillennialism.” Venema notes that even in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1929–30, no entry appears for “amillennialism.” The term “amillennialism” was coined in the early 1900s. Writing in 1943, Albertus Pieters states: “Recently, those who take this view have begun to call themselves ‘amillenialists’” [Albertus Pieters, Studies in the Revelation, 310].

The fundamental, defining difference between amillennialism and postmillennialism is the prospect of the historical hope of the universal conquest of the gospel before Christ’s second advent (see my “Definition” page in the header of this blog).

In this regard, amillennial scholar Robert B. Strimple puts the matter starkly: “Our Lord knows of only two ages, the present age and the age to come. He tells his disciples that in this present age they cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution and must forsake all things for his sake” [Strimple in Darrell Bock, Three Views on the Millennium, 63]. (Upon reading this statement I immediately put Dr. Strimple on my prayer list, for previously I had not realized how deeply he had been suffering for the gospel.)

Amillennial writer Kim Riddlebarger speaks of church history as the period “of both the triumph of the spiritual kingdom of God in the midst of the corresponding rise of evil in opposition to Christ and his kingdom” [Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 29]. And he admits the “lamentable state of affairs” of evil opposition is “an inevitability for Christ’s church,” in that he expects “heresy and false teaching to plague Christ’s church until the end of the age” [p. 126].

Idea of My New Series

On October 16, 2014 noted Reformed Christian apologist and amillennialist, Dr. James White, posted a webcast in which he critiqued my PostmillennialismToday article titled: “Postmillennialism and ‘Perilous Times’” (PMT 2014-029). In that article I gave a brief analysis of 2 Tim 3:1 and its warning of “perilous times” in the “last days.” I noted that “nothing taught in these verses is contra-postmillennial.”

As an amillennialist, Dr. White disagreed with my analysis, of course. He became aware of my article in that one of the members in the congregation where White is an elder posted my article on his Facebook page. White was intrigued and decided to offer a friendly critique of my article. He did this informally through his popular webcast at his Alpha & Omega Ministries website.

White’s basic concern was that my argument was hermeneutically and exegetically flawed — two serious concerns that certainly hamper eschatological discussion! For instance, at minute-marker 11:33 in his webcast he states: “It struck me as being an example of where the hermeneutic and exegesis just does not seem consistent with what you would normally expect to find.” You can listen to White’s webcast presentation at: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/10/16/2-timothy-3-amillenialism-postmillenialism/

Due to Dr. White’s prominence in Reformed circles and the number of requests I received to do so: I will interact with his analysis in a brief series. Unfortunately, there is no transcript for me to cite for documentation. And his presentation is quite informal and oftentimes wandering. So I will deal with his spoken words, occasionally citing them, but usually just summarizing them.

Furthermore, the informal nature of his presentation was unpolished, and sometimes was not as clear as I would like. He meandered a good bit, even laughing about how easily he gets off topic, kidded with someone in the studio near him, mentioned golf for some reason, and jokingly blamed Doug Wilson for distracting him because he received a tweet from Wilson while recording the webcast.

In fact, at the end of the broadcast (at marker 56:47) he laughed and made a comment when he noticed another tweet pop up. That tweet commented: “Four blood moons mean absolutely nothing, but if [unintelligible] ever completes a show without wandering off topic it is a sure sign the end is near.” Though I could not discern a part of White’s reading of the Twitter message, it clearly was referring to him.

This type of presentation is okay, of course. The very nature of his webcast is to provide a personable, casual, and (oftentimes) fun inquiry into various issues. He does not intend it to offer tightly structured arguments, as one might in a journal article. I myself must confess that I often cut up in my verbal presentations, too! Such light-hearted discussions add to the joy of listening. I only mention this as a forewarning that I am not always able to directly quote him and I am apologizing in advance if I misunderstand him.

Presentation of My Worthy Challenger

Dr. White is as a strongly Reformed witness for Christ and an able defender of the faith. He has a broad outreach and an important ministry in our day and time. I am thankful for his labor for Christ and his church, and pray God’s blessings on his endeavors. Except for this one, of course :).

Though he was very casual in his presentation, I was impressed that he would even bother to interact with my blog article. He is an extremely busy man; I honestly do not see how he does so much. And I am sure he has bigger fish to fry than Skinny Kenny. But I am thankful he deemed my article significant enough to interact with it.

He was very courteous to me in his discussion. He never derided or belittled me. He never mentioned that in my KennethGentry.com logo, my hair appears to be parted on the right side, giving the false impression I am left-handed. I suspect he realizes that the image had to be reversed to have my photo looking into the logo rather than out of it. (I am jesting, of course. I have nothing against left-handed people. In fact, the last three males born in my family are left-handed: my youngest son and my two grandsons. But I digress.)

In fact, at marker 52:00 Dr. White specifically stated: “I’ve got all sorts of respect for Ken Gentry. I’m not saying avoid that man!” I appreciate that. He does see the value, I am sure, of “iron sharpening iron” (Pro 27:17). And he certainly did not file me the wrong way (i.e., against the grain).

Summary of White’s Specific Concerns

It seems to me that when all is said and done, from his perspective three key concerns arise from my presentation. (1) Hermeneutically: I limit Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3 to his day only. (2) Theologically: I cannot account for Paul’s normative statement in 2 Timothy 3:12. (3) Historically, the wholesale decline in the European nations of the Reformation under cuts the postmillennial hope.

The first two objections (as I list them) are his main, most crucial points. They are his key concerns regarding my position as presented in my original article. These concerns lead him to reject my analysis. The other one is secondary, though it is significant enough for him to bring it up.

In my next article I will begin interacting with Dr. White’s comments. Unless Al Gore decides to close down the Internet which he took the initiative in inventing. See: Al Gore.

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 10, 2014 01:01

December 8, 2014

POSTMILLENNIAL UTOPIA?

PMT 2014-147 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Paradise

I have an occasional practice of asking Facebook friends and PostmillennialismToday readers for some questions about eschatology that they might have. Be aware: I usually upload blog articles several weeks in advance. So your question might come slowly, rather than what you might expect: “the time is near.” Send your questions to me at: KennethGentry@cs.com

Eric Clayton Heil writes: “What is your response to the ‘Utopia’ charge leveled by (especially) Premills?

Unfortunately, in the eschatological debate, postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological option to misconstrue. This is due to its going against the prevailing pessimistic expectations of the other millennial views. Hope for our historical future seems like Utopia to these folks. And as we know “Utopia” comes from the Greek: ou (“not”) and topos (“place”) and means “no-place.” So if postmillennialism is utopic, it is going no place.

Unfortunately, faulty hidden presuppositions often taint millennial arguments, even though the evangelical and reformed critics are seldom aware of these. In this regard I must dispel three common errors that infect their understanding of postmillennialism. Dismissing these will not make them postmillennialists, but it will bring them back to considering what postmillennialists actually believe.

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

First, postmillennialists do not assert universalism. The postmillennial hope is of a widespread, culturally influential presence of the true Christian faith. We believe that one day Christianity will be the rule rather than the exception to the rule in human affairs. However, we do not hold that all will be saved at any point in history. The world will always experience the presence of unbelievers. But in the future it will be more on the order of tares in a wheat field. Such a postmillennial understanding cannot lead to any utopia of an ideal society.

Second, postmillennialists do not believe in perfectionism. Not only will there always be the presence of unbelievers on earth — even at the height of the kingdom’s historical advance —, but the kingdom will always be composed of sinners. These will be sinners saved by grace, to be sure. But like any good, evangelical church, these saved sinners will never reach a state of spiritual perfection while on earth. That sanctification level awaits our leaving these mortal bodies and entering into the presence of God. Who would say any local church on earth is a utopia? And yet at the same time, who would not say they would rather the world be more like a church community of believers than like the streets of Detroit at night?

Third, postmillennialists do not engage in satisfactionism. By this we mean that we do not prefer the advancing kingdom on earth — even at its height! — to entering into the presence of our Lord and dwelling with him in eternity. We have a work to do. A work which God has called us to. But we never take our eyes off the glory of the eternal order and complete freedom from indwelling sin that we receive there. Thus, we can never be fully satisfied with even the highest advances in history. Thus, we do not prefer earthly dominion over consummational glory.

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

If the critics would do a “virus check” for these three latent errors, we could more accurately and fruitfully focus the debate.

I would point out a more accurate definition of postmillennialism to those making the utopia charges. Then we could get the debate on track. A useful working definition is found on my “Definition” page here at PostmillennialismToday.

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 08, 2014 01:01

December 5, 2014

PILGRIM MOTIF V. POSTMILLENNIALISM?

Wanderer PMT 2014-146 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Chris Comis asks: “What is your response to the ‘pilgrim/sojourner’ motif in the Scriptures, especially as it is often presented by amills and premills from 1 Peter? Just curious.”

Anytime you discern a motif in Scripture, you must recognize that it just that: a motif, a general pattern. It is not a universal, controlling structure. Just as narratives may involve multiple motifs, so does Scripture and theology.

Several different motifs may appear regarding a single entity. For instance, regarding Christ, we find a shepherding motif in Scripture. We also find a suffering motif. And we discover a warrior motif, as well. Indeed, Jesus is both a lamb and a lion in Scripture. All of these are true, but must be understood in their different contexts and for their differing purposes.

Nourishment from the Word (by Ken Gentry)

Reformed studies covering baptism, creation, creeds, tongues,

God’s law, apologetics, and Revelation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Motifs must be understood in their proper settings. The motif of a pilgrim people should be understood over against the permanent status of our eternal home. Even postmillennialists believe that temporal history will give way to the eternal estate, which is far more glorious. Thus, the pilgrim motif shows God’s people as engaged in a journey to a greater glory. We have an ultimate destiny beyond this mortal veil.

This pilgrim motif is especially helpful for encouraging the church when it is under siege, as was early Christianity. The persecuted believer must understand that though he is currently suffering and beleaguered, this temporal life is not all there is to the Christian faith. He must understand that he has a greater glory beyond this veil of tears. The pilgrim motif does not contradict postmillennialism.

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 05, 2014 01:01

December 3, 2014

END-TIME REVOLT IN DISPENSATIONALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

Tank firing PMT 2014-145 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I have started a practice of asking Facebook friends and PostmillennialismToday readers for some questions about eschatology that they might have. This is my second effort at that. Be aware: I usually upload blog articles several weeks in advance. So your question might come slowly, rather than what you might expect: “the time is near.” Send your questions to me at: KennethGentry@cs.com

Ben Askins asks: “What similarities and differences are there between the postmillennial conception of the brief period of global rebellion at the end of the millennium and the dispensational post-trib premillennial conception of the Great Tribulation?”

All through eschatological positions allow for a final rebellion at the end of history. This seems to fit better within premillennialism and amillennialism, given their historical, systemic pessimism. But even postmillennialism allows such, as I point out in PMT 2014-009 and 105.

Nevertheless, postmillennialism and premillennialism are enormously different on this point. Let me explain (especially since you asked me to!)

But now: How does that differ from premillennialism? Actually fundamental differences distinguish the views of these two systems. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is to explain the problems this view presents in premillennialism, especially dispensational premillennialism (which will be my focus due to its large influence in evangelicalism).

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?

(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

1. Literal v. spiritual. This Satanic rebellion occurs at the end of the millennium, which in premillennialism is a literal 1000 years. Postmillennialism sees this perfectly round number in this highly symbolic book as an image of a long period of time, stretching well beyond 1000 years.

The dispensational millennium has Christ literally on the earth in Jerusalem, so that the surrounding of the camp of the saints in the beloved city is a literal, military siege against the local manifestation of Christ’s reign. In postmillennialism, this surrounding of the city is an image of a Satanically-inspired attempt of unbelievers to destroy Christianity, rather than attacking a literal “headquarters” to Christianity.

2. Humiliation v. providence. In dispensationalism the number involved in the rebellion demonstrates the greatly reduced ratio of the saved found at the beginning of the millennium as compared to the lost living at the end. As Robert Thomas notes: “The population of the millennial kingdom will have spread far and wide…. Sad to say, unbelievers will exist in very large numbers among the generations subsequent to the one populating the earth initially in the Millennium” (Revelation 20:8–22, 423).

Walvoord (Revelation of Jesus Christ, 302, 305) agrees with Thomas, but adds more (surprising!) detail: “Those who are tempted are the descendants of the tribulation saints who survive the tribulation and enter the millennium in their natural bodies.” He cites Atkinsom noting that he “believes infants born during the millennium will live to its conclusion and will not be required to make a choice between the devil and Christ until the end. The children of those entering the millennium far outnumber the parents, and undoubtedly the earth is teeming with inhabitants at the conclusion of the thousand-year reign of Christ. Outwardly they have been required to conform to the rule of the king and make a profession of obedience to Christ. In many cases, however, this was mere outward conformity without inward readily.” “Thus the last gigantic rebellion of man develops against God’s sovereign rule. . . . Even in the ideal situation of the millennial reign of Christ, innumerable hosts immediately respond to the first temptation to rebel.”

Thus, dispensationalism not only has Christ personally reigning on earth for a literal 1000 years, but after his personal ruling of his kingdom, it begins collapsing toward the end. Consequently, an enormous number revolt against the direct, personal rule of Christ, effectively causing him to endure a “second humiliation.”

Lord of the Saved

(by Ken Gentry)

A critique of easy believism and affirmation of Lordship salvation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Postmillennialism sees the final rebellion as under the providence of God in his loosing Satan just before the end. This is designed to allow the tares among the wheat to be exposed for what they are and for sin to come to its final, ugly expression. Satan’s loosing leads to his gathering a following (tares) within a world largely dominated by the gospel and Christianity (wheat). This rebellion is brief and limited, and is against the majority, prevailing Christian culture. It is not a military revolt against Christ’s direct, hands-on rule, but is a providential movement allowed by God.

3. Enormity v. hyperbole. We read of the number of rebels being “like the sand of the seashore” (Rev 20:8). This suggests to literalists in dispensationalism to be a truly enormous number. But postmillennialist understand this biblically. We understand this as simply expressing a surprisingly large, though limited number, rather than a virtually unlimited, literal number. Let me explain.

John declares that the number of them is like the sand of the seashore (Rev20:8c). This hyperbolic statement is a common ancient image that the Bible uses of large-scale armies in (Jos 11:4; Jdg 7:12; 1Sa 13:5; 2Sa 17:11), various local populations (1Ki 4:20; Isa 10:22; 48:19; Jer 15:8; 33:22; Hos 1:10), the patriarchs’ offspring (Ge 22:17; 32:12), and so forth.

In fact, the 1Sa 13:5 reference specifically mentions only 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen accompanying Philistia’s army. In 2Sa 17:11 the writer is referring to early Israel’s own army, which could hardly approach this enormous number literally. In Jer 15:8 God speaks against Jerusalem warning that “their widows will be more numerous before Me / Than the sand of the seas” (Jer 15:8a).

Thus, this number is an exaggerated, hyperbolic figure. It certainly indicates a large number, but not necessarily a dominating number as the imagery might imply in a literalist scheme.

4. Absurdity v. Normalcy. In dispensationalism the revolt comes while under Christ’s personal, direct, and benevolent rule. And it comes at Jesus’ high point in redemptive history, the ultimate, most glorious, final dispensation. But it also comes after 1000 years of men living in mortal bodies which weaken and die (the descendants of the tribulation saints who enter the millennium after Christ’s second coming). And these mortals actually attack and attempt to overthrow the exalted Christ and his resurrected, imperishable saints who have shown themselves incapable of weakness of death. This is absurd.

Whereas in postmillennialism this revolt pictures a cultural revolution against Christianity and the church in normal history. This is like modern-day apostasy in local churches: people who claim to be converted to Christ eventually apostatize. But in this case, Christianity has come to dominate world affairs, and these rebels seek to undermine and overthrow the Christian faith through common means.

These are a few of the fundamental differences between the postmillennial view of the end-time revolt as compared to dispensationalism.

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 03, 2014 01:01

December 1, 2014

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND PLANETARY EXPLORATION?

Mars PMT 2014-144 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I want to start a practice of asking Facebook friends and PostmillennialismToday readers for some questions about eschatology that they might have. This is my first effort at that. Be aware: I usually upload blog articles several weeks in advance. So your question might come slowly, rather than what you might expect: “the time is near.” Send your questions to me at: KennethGentry@cs.com

Daniel Jansky asks: “Colossians 1 says Christ is redeeming all of earth and the heavens to Himself. Is it possible that we will colonize other planets before the Lord comes back?”

Direct Answer

I do not see any Scripture that demands that specific conclusion. That is, I do not see any express statement in the Bible informing us that we will one day take the gospel to other planets. The Bible has a distinctly this-world focus — though it is very much aware of the larger Universe and accounts for it as God’s creation. It seems to me that the geo-centric focus of Scripture — both in its creation account and it redemptive story —suggests that the earth is the only place with intelligent life.

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole,

then focuses on its glorious conclusion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But I would say that by implication we might surmise the exploration of other planets under the banner of Christ. That is, while the Lord delays his coming, we may well advance in our technology so that we will go to other planets and colonize them. I certainly do not see any biblical prohibition of such an endeavor.

And if this does come to pass, the postmillennial system requires that ultimately this exploration — which will be by men created in the image of God — would involve the gospel. By that I mean, the men who do the exploring and settling would be (at least ultimately) objects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, they would eventually come under the sway of his redemptive rule.

It seems that we are not too far off from at least getting to Mars. From some reports I have read, we may send explorers to Mars before too long. According to the Mars-One.com website: “Mars One will settle men on Mars in 2023.”

That MarsOne report reads: “Today Mars One announced its plan to establish a human settlement on Mars in 2023. Every two years after that a new crew will join the settlement. Mars One has contacted established aerospace suppliers from around the world that can supply all the mission components, and received letters of interest from these companies. Mars One will involve mankind as the mission’s audience, creating a worldwide media event around the first manned flight to and settlement on Mars.”

November 28, 2014

HAGEE’S ERRORS ON ISRAEL (3)

This is Part 3 of a three part review of Hagee’s widely-read, but wholly erroneous study of Israel. John Hagee 3 Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Flo.: FrontLine, 2007). This is a continuation of my last article highlighting Hagee’s theological errors.

4. The Jews are not responsible for Jesus’ death

Hagee vigorously argues that “one of those deadly New Testament myths is that the Jews killed Jesus, yet no justification can be found in the New Testament to support this lie” (p. 125). He defines Anti-Semitism as “a poisonous stream of venom” wherein “Christian leaders [labeled] the Jews as ‘Christ killers” (p. 20). He announces that “the Jews are not Christ killers” (p. 122).

This is not only a mistaken belief on his part, but effectively calls the Apostles and writers of the New Testament liars filled with poisonous venom. Though it is true the Romans physically accomplished the crucifixion of Christ, the Gospel record clearly and repeatedly emphasizes that it was because of the Jews. Pilate even washed his hands of the death of the innocent Christ forced on him by the Jews (Matt 27:24; cp. John 18:28-31; 19:12, 15).

Overview of Prophetic Issues (6 CDs)

by Ken Gentry

These messages were given at a Bible conference in upstate New York.

They cover foundational issues for students of prophecy to consider.

They will serve as helpful guides to both preterism and postmillennialism.

For more study materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus prophesied that the Jews would kill him: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death” (Matt 20:18; cp. Matt. 27:11-25; Mark 15:1). The Emmaus Road disciples even recognized this fact when they described “how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of death, and crucified Him” (Luke 24:20).

While recognizing the obvious physical role of the Romans in Christ’s death, Peter, Stephen, and Paul repeatedly blame the Jews for his death. Speaking to a general religious gathering of Jews (Acts 2:5-11), Peter states: “Men of Israel, listen to these words: … this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:22-23). Stephen denounces the Jewish crowd gathered at his trial, declaring that they were the “betrayers and murderers” of “the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52). Paul charges that “the Jews … both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” (1 Thess 2:15). See also: Acts 2:36; 3:13-15a; 4:10; 5:28, 30; 10:39; 13:27-29; 26:10.

5. Anti-Semitism had its origins in Christianity

Hagee believes that “anti-Semitism has its origin and its complete root structure in Christianity” (p. 17). He even favorably cites James Parkes: “In our day … more than six million deliberate murders are the consequences of the teaching about Jews for which the Christian Church is ultimately responsible … which has its ultimate resting place in the teaching of the New Testament itself” (p. 125).

We must confess that Christianity often engaged in deplorable Anti-Semitism. But such was based on an abuse of the biblical record, not the fact of that record. The New Testament is no more Anti-Semitic in this than are the prophets who vigorously charged Israel with sin. Isaiah calls Israel’s rulers “rulers of Sodom” and the people “people of Gomorrah” (Isa 1:10) — while rejecting the legitimacy of their worship (1:11-15). He even says of rebellious Israel that her worship is equivalent to offering “swine’s blood” and burning incense to “an idol” (66:3).

Jeremiah declares the land “completely polluted” (Jer 3:1) and the people “a harlot” to be divorced by God (3:1-10). Ezekiel calls upon executioners to come and destroy Jerusalem (Eze 9:1ff), warns that God’s glory has left the temple (10:1ff), and compares Israel to a harlot (Eze 16). Is this not inflammatory, denunciatory language? Why are they not deemed “Anti-Semitic”? Could not their words be abusively taken to justify persecution of the Jews?

Furthermore, in Hagee’s adulation of Judaism and denunciation of Christianity, he totally overlooks the widespread persecution of Christianity by the Jews: “on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1). This appears repeatedly in the Apostolic record (Matt 10:17; 23:37ff.; Acts 4:1-3, 15-18; 5:17-18, 27-33, 40; 6:12-15; 7:54-60; 8:1; 9:1-4, 13, 21, 23, 29; 12:1-3; 13:45-50; 14:2-5, 19; 17:5-8, 13; 18:6, 12, 17; 20:3, 19; 21:11, 27-32; 22:3-5, 22-23; 23:12, 20-21; 24:5-9, 27; 25:2-15; 25:24; 26:21; 28:17-29; Rom 15:31; 2 Cor 11:24; Gal 6:12; Heb 10:33-34).

Nor does Hagee mention the famous role of Jews bringing firewood to burn Polycarp at the stake. Nor the birkath ha-minim, the benediction against the heretics (Jewish Christians), which was cited daily in the synagogues beginning in the late first century: “For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Nazarenes and the minim perish as in a moment and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they not be inscribed” (b. Berkhoth 28b). In the Jewish Tosefta (AD 300) we read of the Jewish treatment of Minim (Jewish Christians): “One does not sell to them or receive from them or take from them or give to them. One does not teach their sons a trade’” (t. Hullin 2:20); and “The Minim and the apostates and the betrayers are cast in [a pit] and not helped out” (t. B. Mezia 2:33).

Postmillennial Lectures

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Formal seminary course developing and defending postmillennial eschatology.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

6. Christianity and Judaism are spiritual brothers

Hagee demands that “evangelicals” must recognize of the Jews that “we are spiritual brothers” (p. 173) and that he is seeking “reconciliation with my Jewish brothers” (p. 35).

Can we call someone a “brother” who rejects Christ (1 John 4:2-3; 5:1)? Is not Christianity superior to Judaism? And are not Christ’s words against the Jews who reject him quite strong? “And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12). How can we deem our Jewish friends to be our “spiritual brothers,” if we hold to the New Testament?

In conclusion, this book should have a label on it warning the readers: “Contains doctrine that is hazardous to your spiritual health.” He at least could have titled it “Leave Behind,” as a suggestion as to what we should do with it.

View more on Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 28, 2014 01:01

November 26, 2014

HAGEE’S ERRORS ON ISRAEL (2)

Hagee 2 This is Part 2 of a three part review of John Hagee’s error-filled book on Israel. That book should be avoided at all costs, even half-priced. John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Flo.: FrontLine, 2007).

Again space constraints forbid my fully engaging his many theological errors, but I must present those that form the very purpose of his book. His exegetical stumblings and historical confusions lead inexorably to these serious theological errors. Six keys errors I will highlight are Hagee’s claims that:

1. Jesus did not present himself as the Messiah.

Hagee writes: “Not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament … says Jesus came to be the Messiah” (p. 136). “The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews” (p. 140; cp. 145). In fact, he wrongly argues that “if God intended for Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, why didn’t he authorize Jesus to use supernatural signs to prove he was God’s Messiah”? (p. 137).

These incredible assertions absolutely contradict the New Testament and historic Christian teaching. Jesus is called “Christ” in over 385 passages of the New Testament. “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term “Messiah.” When Jesus asks his disciples “Who do you say that I am,” Peter answers: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:15-16). To this Jesus responds: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). Jesus actually blesses Peter for declaring his Messiahship, even noting that God in heaven revealed this to Peter. He then “warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ” (Matt. 16:20). In similar terms faithful Martha also declares Jesus to be the Christ (John 11:27).

Israel in the Bible and History (9 CDs)

Conference lectures highlighting the nature, call and identity of Israel.

Important rebuttal to dispensationalism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Note only so, but contrary to Hagee, Christ did prove this through supernatural signs. In John 10:24-25 the Jews demand of him: “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answers them: “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these bear witness of Me.” Note his clear affirmation and his pointing to his “works” (miracles) as witness to the fact. God did authorize Jesus to use signs to confirm his Messiahship. In fact, the Jews see his signs as proof of his Messiahship: “many of the multitude believed in Him; and they were saying, ‘When the Christ shall come, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?’” (John 7:31).

Christ’s messianic signs represent the very purpose for John’s writing his Gospel. The Gospel closes with these words: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31; emph. mine).

Before his crucifixion, in his High Priestly Prayer he speaks to the Father: “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3). In Matthew 26:63-64 Jesus is on trial for his life. The high priest formally demanded of him: “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Matthew records his answer: “You have said it yourself” (Matt. 26:64). Thus, under oath he affirms that he is the Messiah.

Later at Pentecost in Jerusalem Peter preaches from the Psalms: “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know … [David] looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay…. Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:22, 31, 36). This is the apostolic message throughout Acts (Acts 4:26; 5:42; 8:5, 12; 10:36, 48; 17:2-3; 18:5, 28; 20:21; 26:23; 28:31). Indeed, Paul was “confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 9:22).

2. The Jews did not reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Hagee states that: “The Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah” (p. 132, 135), for “how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered? (p. 136, emph. his). “Had Jesus permitted himself to become the reigning Messiah to the Jews, he would have missed the sovereign will of God for his life” (p. 134) because “Jesus had to live to be the Messiah” (p. 135). He explains that those who reject Jesus and seek his crucifixion “could not have numbered more than a few hundred” (p. 129). The plot against Jesus “had nothing to do with the Jewish people as a civilization,” for “three out of four Jews did not live in what the Romans called Palestine” and “nine out of ten of the Jews in Palestine at that time lived outside of Jerusalem” (p. 131).

“Jesus, Matthew, and the Rejection of Israel” (1 CD)

by Ken Gentry

Surveys the Gospel of Matthew and highlights the numerous references — direct and indirect — that suggest that Matthew’s Gospel was written (at least in part) to demonstrate

that God was rejecting Israel.

A great many passages in Matthew are surveyed and briefly elaborated upon.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In the first place, the Jews did reject Christ. Early on in John’s Gospel we read that “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). John is not limiting the rejection to leadership of Israel. And in the following context we read that John the Baptist denied being the Christ though affirming he was Christ’s forerunner (1:19-29) and Andrew told Peter “‘we have found the Messiah’ (which translated means Christ)” (John 1:41). In fact, he wrote the Gospel to urge belief in Jesus as the Christ” (John 20:31), though his own did not receive him as such.

Stephen declares this in his sermon: “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become” (Acts 7:51-52).

According to Scripture we learn even that “Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him… ‘I know that you are Abraham’s offspring; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you” (John 8:31). The Lord even warned his disciples of the prophesied outcome: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause’” (John 15:24-25). He frequently noted that even ancient, evil pagans would more readily believe that the Jews: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you” (Matt 11:21-22; cp. Matt 10:15; 11:23-24). And Stephen’s denunciation (Acts 7:51-52) was given before a broad Jewish audience (Acts 6:9, 12-13; 7:57-58; 8:1).

At the end of his ministry Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (not over the Sanhedrin or the high priestly aristocracy): “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37).

In the second place, Christ did come to die. Peter declares to the Jews that “the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:18). Paul busied himself among the Jews in Thessalonica “explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ’” (Acts 17:3). In his defense before Festus regarding the Jewish accusations against him, Paul asserted “that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23).

3. The Old Covenant remains in effect

Hagee argues that “the Old Covenant is not dead” (p. 158). In fact, “Scripture plainly indicates that the church (spiritual Israel) and national Israel exist side by side, and neither replaces the other — ever!” (p. 146, emph. his). “Replacement theology advances the concept that the Old Covenant, or Old Testament, has been replaced by the New Testament” (p. 158).

These assertions require us to believe that Jews are saved today without express faith in Christ — in that they are under the God-ordained, continuing old covenant standards. But not even this helps the Jews much since they do not have a temple in order to carry out the requirements of the old covenant!

Besides, Jeremiah’s revelation of the new covenant states that the new covenant will supplant the old (or else there would be no purpose in it): “‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord” (Jer 31:31-32). Can the Jews ignore the new covenant God has made? The new covenant which is established by the blood of Christ and is pictured in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)?

Paul declares that if one keeps the sign of the old covenant (circumcision) as a religious obligation “Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal 5:3). This is because “in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything” (Gal 5:6). He writes that the old covenant’s glory was fading even when given by Moses (2 Cor 3:7, 13). Therefore, the old covenant “has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it” in the new covenant (2 Cor 3:10). Thus, “when He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).

Indeed, Christ came to save us and to unite Jew and Gentile in one body “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man” (Eph 2:15). To teach that the old covenant commandments remains in effect and are acceptable to God is to put asunder what God has joined together in Christ. And this directly contradicts Jesus’ statement that “an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father…. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:21, 23). Jerusalem will no longer be central; the temple system will no longer be in effect.

To be continued!