Category: Q&A

Dr. Gentry:

By conviction I am a paedobaptist. But I have been studying the arguments that support a Reformed Baptist perspective. Much of their case seems to rest upon a particular interpretation of Jer. 31:31-34. They conclude that since this prophecy indicates that all members of the new covenant will know the Lord there is therefore no basis for baptizing infants (who are incapable of faith) and including them within the new covenant community. The point seems to be that a primary distinction between the new and old covenants is that under the new covenant there would be no members bearing the covenant sign unaccompanied by faith as there were under the old covenant. How would you respond to this objection to infant baptism? E.G., Pennsylvania

Dr. Gentry’s response:

This is an excellent question. Let us consider it.

Just briefly I would point out that the focus in Jer 31 is on the nation’s disobedience to God despite God’s goodness to them (Jer 31:31-32). In contrast to their previous disobedience, God declares that the coming new covenant will have a spiritual power that the old covenant did not have. That is, through the new covenant God will write the law on the heart’s of men (Jer 31:33).

This is his point: the promise of spiritual strength for insuring covenantal obedience. His point is not to define (or redefine) covenantal membership, but to promise strength for covenantal obedience through the internalizing of his law (by the Spirit, cf. Rom 8:1-4).

When he states that “they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (Jer 31:34), this must be understood as over against their former disobedience. God reminds them of their past when he speaks of “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” (Jer 31:32). Thus, we must stick to his point: Israel of old disobeyed God, therefore God will correct the problem by internalizing his law.

Consequently, we must understand that in this new prophetic scenario he is setting future (mature) obedience over against the past (mature) disobedience. I doubt if v 32 would imply that the infants broke the covenant when they came out of Egypt, any more than 1 Cor 10:7 implies that infants “sat down to eat and drink and stood up to play” which involved acting “immorally” (1 Cor 10:8), testing the Lord (1 Cor 10:9), and grumbling (1 Cor 10:10). Likewise, here in Jer 31 God does not have in mind the infants when he speaks of the spiritual internalization of the law in the future new covenant. To bring in infants in this context is to mix apples and oranges — against the express context of comparison of adult actions.

The reference “from the least of them to the greatest of them” (Jer 31:34), then, does not mean that the entire covenant membership in the new covenant era will have faith and knowledge of God (in an mature sense), so that we may surmise that by definition God no longer includes those incapable of mature faith. Rather, it means that all of the people in consideration who are involved in the particular problem in view (that problem being overt covenantal disobedience, such as not capable by an infant), will have the spiritual power for obedience under the new covenant. This is his point, and nothing more.

That he is speaking of adult problems (and therefore does not even consider the question of covenantal membership) is also indicated in the context: it also focuses on faithlessness and intentional behavior such as is incapable for infants to commit: “Set up for yourself roadmarks, / Place for yourself guideposts; / Direct your mind to the highway, / The way by which you went. / Return, O virgin of Israel, / Return to these your cities” (Jer 31:21). This is not a call to eight day old members of the covenant, but their representatives. Likewise the new covenant promise does not deal with the question of membership but of conduct.

Dr. Gentry:

Your discussion is great regarding Gal. 6:16 on pages 172-174 in your book titled: “He Shall Have Dominion. I like to ask you a question about how you handle the argument put forward by dispensationalists regarding Galatians 6:16 and the term Israel. They say the term is never used to refer to Gentiles. How would you respond?

C.H.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

The dispensationalist reply is one of desperation in that we know that other peculiarly Jewish titles can refer to Gentiles, for example, Gal 3:29; 1 Pet 2:9. How can such Jewish designations be applied to Gentiles while this one designation (Israel) cannot?

Furthermore, we should remember also that Jesus said God is able to raise up stones to replace the Jews as the children of Abraham (Matt 3:9). If he could do that (even if this is a metaphorical statement), why could he not appoint Gentiles to take Israel’s position? Especially in that they (we!) have been adopted into his family?

Finally, in Rom 11:17 we find that Gentiles are grafted into the Israel’s tree. Would not the grafted branch be considered a part of the tree? Thus, in this case Gentiles would be a part of the tree of Israel and could, on this basis, be called Israel.

But really, the exegesis of Gal 6:16 in its context demands this — even without these other arguments.

Dr. Gentry:

What’s the “Mark of the Beast”? And because your answer will obviously have to have some first century application, isn’t it at all curious to you that for the first time in human history — with microchips, retinal scanners, a growing one-world economy, etc.—that the technology exists to make the “Mark of the Beast” a reality?

F.P. (Raleigh, NC)

Dr. Gentry’s response:

The computer technology of today does not fit the requirement of the text of Revelation for the following reasons:

1. The mark of the Beast is no more a literal mark than the mark of the Lamb in the next few verses (14:1).
2. Such a mark is a metaphor for dominion and control. In Rev 13 no one may buy or sell without the mark.
3. The beast who imposes it has divine pretensions, forcing his worship on the world (13:4, 8). This speaks of emperor worship by Nero Caesar.
4. This very OT oriented book is using the mark on the right hand and forehead as a negative reflection on God’s requiring his Law on his people (Dt 6:8).
5. Any present day mark goes against John’s time-frame (near), relevance (persecuted churches), and theme (judgment of Israel).

Thanks for your question. I hope this helps.

Dr. Gentry:

Dispensationalists point out that God promises the new covenant to Israel only. The Jeremiah 31 text clearly mentions only “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” How can we say that the new covenant finds fulfillment in the Church?

R.P.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your question. I hope the following brief answer will be helpful.

First, please note that Jesus and Paul both apply the new covenant to the Church.

The Lord’s Supper is the sacrament of the new covenant that Christians take on a regular basis. Christ established the Lord’s Supper with these words: “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood'” (Luke 22:20). Paul repeats this in his epistle to the Corinthians: “In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me'” (1 Cor. 11:25).

Paul is the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13; 1 Tim 2:7), yet he claims that he is a servant of the “new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). Obviously he sees the new covenant as including the Gentiles.

Second, you will find by reading the New Testament that the Church of Jesus Christ is the fruition of Israel. In fact, many Jewish descriptors are applied to the Church. We are the “seed of Abraham” (Rom 4:13–17; Gal 3:6–9, 29), “the circumcision” (Rom 2:28–29; Php 3:3; Col 2:11), “a royal priest-hood,” (Rom 15:16; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; cp. Ex 19:6), “twelve tribes” (Jas 1:1), “diaspora” (1Pe 1:1), the “temple of God” (1Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2Cor 1:16; Eph 2:21). These terms clearly reflect Israel’s covenantal identity, yet they are applied to the Gentile Church.

Peter designates Christians as “stones” building up a “spiritual house” (1Pe 2:5–9). But he does more: he draws upon several Old Testament designations of Israel and applies them to the church. He calls Christians: “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation” (1Pe 2:9–10; Ex 19:5–6; Dt 7:6). He and Paul call Christians “a peculiar people” (1Pe 2:10; Tit 2:14), which is a familiar Old Testament designation for Israel (Ex 19:5; Dt 14:2; 26:18; Ps 135:4).

Thus, New Testament Christians may even call Abraham “our father” (Ro 4:16) and the old covenant people our “fathers” (1Co 10:1), clearly evincing a spiritual genealogical relation. Employing another figure, Paul says we are grafted into Israel (Rom 11:16–19) so that we become one with her, partaking of her promises (Eph 2:11–20). Jesus teaches that Gentiles are other sheep which must be brought in to make “one flock” (Jn 10:16).

Paul even applies the name “Israel” to Christians: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). The “and [kai]” preceding “Israel of God,” is probably epexegetical, so that we should translate the passage: “mercy upon them, that is, upon the Israel of God.” Unfortunately, Dispensationalists see Galatians 6:16 applying to Jewish converts to Christ, “who would not oppose the apostle’s glorious message of salvation” (New Scofield Reference Bible). But such is surely not the case. After all, Galatians’ entire context opposes any claim to a special Jewish status or distinction: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26–28). In the new covenant Christ does away with all racial distinctions. Why would Paul hold out a special word for Jewish Christians (“the Israel of God”), when he states immediately beforehand that we must not boast at all, save in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:14)? After all, “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation” (Gal 6:15).

Consequently, Jeremiah’s mentioning the house of Israel and the house of Judah poses no difficulties for the New Testament writers. They apply Jewish terms to the Christian faith because it is the fulfillment of Israel.

Third, the dispensational system presents an unnecessary confusion here. Consider: By Christ’s appointment, the Lord’s Supper is the sign of the new covenant (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1Co 11:25). It is to be kept until he comes (1Co 11:25–26). But in dispensationalism, when Christ comes to establish the new covenant with Israel for a millennium, he will do away with the Lord’s Supper (which is the sign of the new covenant), while re-establishing the bloody sacrificial system (which is an old covenant foreshadowing of Christ’s redemptive labor, Heb 10:1–3) as a “memorial.” And the millennial priests will perform this memorial in Christ’s bodily presence for 1000 years.

The new covenant is one of the key stumbling blocks for dispensationalism. As important as the new covenant is in Scripture, dispensational theologians have not been able to settle on a particular view of it. Charles Ryrie’s Basis of the Premillennial Faith outlines three leading dispensational views: (1) The Jews Only View. This is “the view that the new covenant directly concerns Israel and has no relationship to the Church” (p. 107). (2) The One Covenant/Two Aspects View: The one “new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church” (p. 107). (3) The Two New Covenants View. This is Ryrie’s view, for this actually “distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the church. This view finds two new covenants in which the promises to Israel and the promises to the Church are more sharply distinguished even though both new covenants are based on the one sacrifice of Christ” (p. 107).

Oddly enough, today dispensationalists no longer hold to three views of the new covenant. They now have four views: “there are four major dispensational views of the new covenant” (Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, 280). The new covenant creates pandemonium in the dispensational system.

Dr. Gentry:

Why wasn’t Nero considered an option in antiquity. This seems to undermine your identification of 666. If you (and other moderns) could figure it out, why couldn’t the early Christians? After all, Revelation is the most frequently cited NT text in Christian writings of the 2nd century but, to my knowledge, none of these postulate Nero of as being signified by 666. Thank you, P.T., Las Vegas, NV

Dr. Gentry’s response:

It is true that Nero doesn’t arise much in the ancient documents we have. However we should note the following in this regard:

• 666 must have meant something when John wrote it, but as we can see by the time of Irenaeus the meaning was already lost. Ireneaus offers three suggestions. Thus, all this problem does is tell us the meaning was lost, not that the Nero meaning is erroneous.
• The very nature of apocalyptic is such that it baffles and challenges the reader. John himself had to have an interpreting angel explain some of the matters in his own vision (e.g., Rev 7:13-14; 17:9-10). We should not be surprised that without John present and apart from an interpreting angel the meaning could have been lost. And this is especially so in light of my next observation.
• It is the tendency of human nature and the evident temptation of the early church for one’s own situation to serve as an interpretive lens. In light of the later Roman persecution of the church, the temptation to adapt Revelation to the church’s own predicament would have been great. The church’s circumstances and temptations could easily explain the arising of new interpretations for purposes of “relevance.”

We see this tendency even in the Historicist school of interpretation: this approach generally views Revelation’s events as beginning to unfold in the first century and leading up to the interpreter’s present time, almost invariably with the expectation that Revelation’s climax is being reached.

But as to whether there were any Christian beliefs about Nero being connected to 666. How about Victorinus commentary on Revelation? While he indicates the Apocalypse was written during the Domitian reign, he nevertheless states this;

“And one of the heads was slain to death, and his death-stroke was healed: speaks of Nero. For it is certain that when he was followed by the cavalry sent by the Senate, he cut through his own throat. This one raised, therefore, God is to send as a worthy king to those worthy, to the Jews and to the persecutors of Christ, a Christ of such a kind the persecutors and Jews have deserved. And because he will be bearing another name, and also beginning another life, so thus the same will be taken for Christ. For Daniel says: He will not be acquainted with the desire of women, in this he will be very impure, and with no God of their fathers will he be familiar. For he will not be able to seduce the people of the circumcision unless he becomes a defender of the Law. Finally he will compel the saints to no other thing except to receiving circumcision, if he will be able to seduce them. Thus, he will make the faith of the people to him, so that by them he will be called Christ. For he has risen up from hell, as we also spoke of above in the words of Isaiah: Water, he says, nourishes him, and the abyss enlarges him. He who must change his name and not change his name when he comes, the Holy Spirit says: His number is 666 (DCLXVI); this number is to be completed by Greek letters”.

I hope this helps resolve some of the problems you see in the Nero identification.

Dr. Gentry:

I am having a discussion with a friend who rejects infant baptism. Is this quote by Greg reflective of his position? It comes from a tape by Dr. Greg Bahnsen where he is commenting on the question as to when children should take communion:

“How about children? Well not children who don’t understand these things because at Passover, remember, the child who took the meal had to say ‘father what do these things mean?’ The child had to be a discerning, understanding child. But now how young can the child be? The answer to that question is ‘I don’t know.’ You bring me a two-year-old who can give me a two-year-old profession of faith and we’ll have that two-year-old take the Lord’s Supper. Some will say well that’s not possible. I don’t know, I don’t know enough about human psychology to tell you whether it is or not, but if it happens I’m not going to say God’s word says eleven years old before you can join the church. There’s nothing like that. And if we’re going to be true to our principles as Reformed people we should not impose prerequisites that the Bible doesn’t impose. There’s no age requirement for the Lord’s Supper.”

B.M. (Odenton, MD)

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Yes, this reflects Greg’s position according to my experience and discussions with him. For instance, he didn’t like using the term “paedocommunion” to describe the position he opposed: he was against baptized infants being allowed communion. The word “paedo” speaks of “children” without reference to age. “Paedo” doesn’t demand the concept of “infant.” He believed in infant baptism but not infant communion. He believed that some children could not only be converted but could also understand enough to give a testimony. This is why in the Preface to Theonomy in Christian Ethics he speaks of Jim Jordan’s views on paedocommunion in a round about way: “automatic infant communion (without sessional examination).” Greg believed in “paedo” communion, if by that you understood that the children were expected to profess faith in Christ. Interestingly, Lee Hahnlen’s testimony is that he is convinced he was converted at age three.

2. In a discussion with a Reformed Baptist, what do I say about the covenant regarding Isaac’s children. She can’t conceive of how a parent could take any comfort in the covenant when Jacob was chosen and Esau wasn’t. It seems to her that it is based on God’s choice, and that the cov’t relationship of the parent did not affect the outcome. What would you say to that?

For a Reformed Baptist I would focus on their strong predestinarian view (which I share). I would remind them that God’s eternal decree of election is unknown to us. As Spurgeon once said: “I wish God put a yellow mark on the back of the elect so that I could lift men’s coattails and tell if they were elect or not. But since he didn’t, I must preach the gospel to all.” By this point I mean that the Reformed Baptist recognizes (with us) that election is the determiner of salvation. And the fact is, many of the children of believers are not elect and will not be saved. As Presbyterians we recognize that election cuts across the covenant. Jacob and Esau are one example of that truth.

But I would then point out that in the historical outworking of redemption we discover that salvation tends to flow in family generations (consider your own children and your Reformed Baptist’s children). The greatest growth of the church has been through family generations. This is a covenantal expectation, not an accident of history. This is a covenantal expectation even though the covenant does not absolutely insure salvation of individuals.

I would also point out that though the covenant is not a guarantee of salvation, it is a means of grace. Like the preaching of the word. Preaching does not guarantee men will be converted, but it is a means God uses to bring men to himself. Some Calvinists have taken the concerns of your friend and developed Hyper-Calvinism: Since God saves men of his own eternal decree, why should I bother preaching, evangelizing, sending out missionaries? This is obviously an abuse of the doctrine of eternal election. So then, covenant families do not guarantee converted children, but it is a means God uses to bring children to himself. The view of your friend could lead to surmising: Since God saves people in terms of his own eternal decree, why should I bother teaching my children the gospel, to pray, to go to church and so forth? I am sure your friend would not go that route, but it is a logical conclusion in that line of thinking.

The covenant has many benefits even though it does not insure election and guarantee salvation: It provides Christian parents with the means whereby they can have a hope for their children (more children of covenant families are saved than those of non-covenant families) and whereby they can train up their children. It obligates parents to covenantally surround their children with all the means of grace and to seek their children’s profession. It provides their children formal obligations to faith, structures for encouraging that faith, and so forth.

Simply put: covenantal theology continues the old covenant’s inclusion of children among the people of God. We should consider some of the implications inherent in the assumption that family generations are excluded from the covenant community of the New Testament era. If families were no longer considered a part of the covenant community or as partakers and beneficiaries of God’s covenant, the question we must raise is: “Why?” Would this imply that the New Covenant (instituted by Christ in Luke 22:20) is less generous than the Old Covenant (contrary to Gal. 3:28), thereby accounting for his excluding the family unit? Or perhaps this suggests that the New Covenant is less potent (contrary to 2 Cor. 3:7-11), thus explaining its ineffectiveness where no personal, self-conscious faith exists? Are infants of believers today more depraved than they were in the Old Covenant era? Is the family of less significance now than then? The answer to each of these questions must be “no!”

I wonder what your friend would have thought had they been born a Jew in the OT period? Would they have looked at Jacob and Esau and concluded there is no comfort in God’s covenant and his covenant is not a means which he uses to effect the outcome of salvation? You see, in the final analysis our obligation is to commit to what Scripture teaches, even when we do not see all of the advantages or do not understand all the implications. That was Isaac’s obligation even when he learned that “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.” We do see God’s covenant established in Scripture.

I hope this is helpful!

Dr. Gentry:

You argue that John must be measuring an actual, historical temple in Rev 11:1-2. Yet Ezekiel measures a temple, even though it does not exist in history. This suggests that the temple does not need to exist for John to measure it. How do you explain this problem for your view? R.L.T, Nashville, TN

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your perceptive question. Please consider the following response.

Ezekiel’s prophecy expressly tells us that Israel has been attacked and destroyed. He opens with this statement: “Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.” (Ezekiel 1:1.) He is among the exiles because Jerusalem has been attacked and destroyed. Everyone knows that the temple was destroyed in these events.

Furthermore in Eze 40 where Ezekiel begins the measuring, he opens this vision with: “In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same day the hand of the Lord was upon me and He brought me there” (Ezekiel 40:1). Thus, he introduces the temple vision with words that show the historical temple no longer exists.

Just before this prophecy of the measuring, Ezekiel is promised by God: “Therefore thus says the Lord God, “‘Now I shall restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I shall be jealous for My holy name'” (Ezekiel 39:25).

After he measures the temple, he writes:

“Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city. And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. Ezekiel 43:1-3

And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will [future tense] dwell among the sons of Israel forever.” (Ezekiel 43:7a).

Consequently, even a surface reading of Ezekiel repeatedly reminds the reader that the city (and thus the temple) is destroyed and the people exiled. But in Revelation there is no indication that he is having a vision of a future rebuilt temple. The clear implication is that the temple is standing but is in danger.

Dr. Gentry:

As I study your argument for 666 as a reference to Nero Caesar, these two questions arise. Could you please explain your understanding of these objections?

• If Irenaeus’s statement refers to John rather than the apocalypse, the statement seems to suggest that John wasn’t telling people who the beast was during his lifetime. That seems odd if those things had already occurred.
• If John did reveal to his contemporaries the identity of the beast why wouldn’t it have been common knowledge amongst the Christians and therefore Irenaeus?

Thank you, S.F., OH

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your questions. In answering both of these questions, I could take recourse to Mark Twain’s experience. He once was asked a question in an interview, regarding which he reported later: “I was glad to be able to answer quickly! I answered: ‘I don’t know.'” When we stop to think about it, there are many questions that arise regarding the history of biblical interpretation. We sometimes are dumbfounded as to how things get lost or turned around. So to the questions you pose, we could respond simply: “I don’t know.”

Ironically though, your first question happens to be exactly what Irenaeus claims: John did not tell who the beast (Antichrist in Irenaeus’ view) was. Irenaeus writes: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.”

Here he says that John did not announce the name of the beast — whenever it was that John lived. And he doesn’t tell us why John did not inform his hearers. If Irenaeus’ report were true, it would account for why we don’t have a clear indication of the identity of the beast in church tradition (which, as a matter of fact, we do not have).

Regarding your second question I usually point out that 666 must have meant something. John certainly emphasizes the number of the beast as indicating the identity of the beast. Whatever it originally meant to John, it somehow was lost early on (much to our regret!). Irenaeus poses three possible options in the preceding context, but then gives the statement cited above. He doesn’t know even though he claims John lived almost into his own lifetime and taught people whom he himself knew.

We know that teachings can be quickly scrambled or lost. Think of how often the Lord told the disciples he must die, only to have them confused and dismayed when he died — even doubting the women who saw him after the resurrection. Some even doubted the resurrection after they saw him with their own eyes (Mt 28:17). Think of how quickly the Galatians fell from the truth (Gal 1:8). We wouldn’t have so many denominations and doctrines if things were clearly understood once they had been taught.

We can imagine this problem being more apt to happen regarding a complex and symbolic book like Revelation. Apparently John wanted to tantalize his audience in his drama. After all, he could have written it in another form than symbolic drama (for instance, consider his Gospel). There is so much in Revelation that is confusing!

Furthermore, it may well be (and I think is the case) that John died not long after his release from imprisonment on Patmos. In my view, Irenaeus’ statement that indicates John lived almost into Irenaeus’ own lifetime could very well be mistaken. Like his claim (on the same grounds: tradition) that Jesus ministered for 15 years and died when approaching age 50. In other words, he simply was mistaken.

In addition, I suspect that a part of the problem with the loss of the meaning of the name of the beast lies in the circumstances of the church thereafter. As the church was being persecuted over the next couple of centuries, she began to apply the prophecies of Revelation to herself in making them “relevant.” This allowed the original meaning to slip away while offering “encouragement” to those who saw Revelation “being fulfilled” around them. Hal Lindsey is not unique to biblical interpretation; even long ago people thought of Revelation as applying directly to themselves and thought the end of all things was upon them.

I hope this is helpful. You have asked an interesting question that frustrates us.

Dr. Gentry:

Good afternoon, sir. I recently read an article by you in which you referred to the label “optimistic amill.” as an oxymoron. Could you please tell me why you think that? I’d be very thankful. I am currently working through these eschatological issues and any help you could give me would be much appreciated. KC, Cleveland, OH

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your question. My comments are based on two factors:

• Historically amillennialism has tended to be pessimistic in terms of the question of widespread, long-lasting cultural success for the Christian faith. That is, regarding these:
  • As a system of gospel proclamation it teaches that the gospel of Christ will not exercise any majority influence in the world before Christ’s return;
  • As a system of historical understanding it, in fact, holds the Bible teaches there are prophetically determined, irresistible trends downward toward chaos in the outworking and development of history; and therefore
  • As a system for the promotion of Christian discipleship it dissuades the Church from anticipating and laboring for wide-scale success in influencing the world for Christ during this age.

  My debates with Strimple (Three Views on the Millennium), Gaffin (formal debate in Elkton, MD), and Fowler (in West. Theol. Jrnl.) confirm this to me.

• It seems to me that the verses an amill would want to use in order to underscore his optimism are those that endorse a postmillennial perspective. Unless, of course, he is optimistic on grounds other than direct biblical revelation.

Please understand that my comment is not meant to be pejorative (as some frequently take it). I am simply highlighting the key difference between amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Hope this is helpful. May the Lord bless your present studies in eschatology.

Dr. Gentry:

I have a friend who has pointed out problems he has with some of your response to HyperPreterism. He asked me these questions about you: Why do you not publicly debate HyperPreterists? And: In your chapter in Mathison’s book against HyperPreterism, you focus solely on the creedal argument. Does creedalism preclude exegesis? L.F.R, NC

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your inquiry regarding my position as expressed in my chapter in Keith Mathison’s When Shall These Things Be? I generally make it a practice to avoid direct interaction with HyperPreterists for several reasons:

• According to a friend of mine, they have posted on one website prayer for my death. Why should I give them a portion of my life? Is that any way to conduct theological debate (outside of Islam, that is)?
• They tend to be rude, argumentative, and simplistic in interacting with others.
• They have difficulty understanding historic orthodox positions, such as their misconstruing what I am saying in my chapter in Mathison’s book.
• They seem to have only one mission in life: to argue HyperPreterism. I have to make a living!

However, I do occasionally make an exception to cordially expressed inquiries (when I have time!). So I will answer your question as to whether my position in Mathison’s book entails the impossible and absurd position that “We must reject preterism before we can consider preterism.”

In response, please note:

• • It is simply a naive and grandiose overstatement to say that I argue that Christians must reject HyperPreterism before they can consider it. After all, how would you know whether it should be rejected if you do not first consider it? Your friend’s argument simply does not make sense! Whoever your friend is, he is simply not thinking clearly if he surmises that I (and the other men in Mathison’s book) hold such an obscurantist position.
  • What is worse, your friend has grossly misread my chapter in Mathison’s book. And I would even suspect he has not read it at all (this problem is a constant frustration among many who have interacted with HyperPreterists: HPs too often fail to carefully analyze arguments). I do not argue as your friend thinks I do, as anyone reading my chapter should understand. Ironically, I have written hundreds of pages in numerous books arguing the exegetico-theological case for my eschatological views. I have only engaged the historico-creedal argument in a few places (Mathison’s book being the most voluminous and obvious case). In addition, I was asked to provide ONE chapter in a multi-chapter book which was to offer other arguments.
  • Your friend should note that my chapter is replete with documentation from numerous Christian scholars regarding the role of creedal orthodoxy in framing the faith of the church. I cannot understand why your friend presents my position as if it is unique to me. In fact, some criticisms of my chapter have noted that I engage in documentary overkill by proving what everyone knows: Christianity has a long established a creedally-framed orthodoxy. I feel that I am caught between a rock and a hard head by such complaints.
  • The careful reader should note that in my “Introduction” on the second page of my presentation I forthrightly contradict your friend’s assertion. There I state: “We open with the creedal argument, not as the final word in the debate, but as the first word – – – not as our only concern, but as a crucial concern.”

Please note that I am simply setting the context of the debate: historic, Christian orthodoxy v. Nouveau unorthodoxy. I am opening the argument; I am not concluding it or closing it down. Orthodox Christians simply want unorthodox men to know where they are coming from. In fact, I did not even write the chapter for HyperPreterists, but for young Christians who may be subjected to the tempting lure of HyperPreterism: “Come, join with us: We are starting a New Reformation! Get in on the ground floor of a new church!” Sounds exciting. But the young Christian needs to realize what he is leaving behind if he succumbs.

• Actually what I was saying was: The universal, historic, corporate Christian church has a biblically based, exegetically derived, systematically organized, clearly enunciated, publicly stated, creedally-secured, theology that affirms (for instance) a future, bodily resurrection and a future, visible Second Coming of Christ. Whether or not any individual wants to adopt the faith of our fathers is his own decision to make. What I argue in my chapter is: When a person adopts an historically unorthodox position he MUST understand that he is placing himself outside of the faith of the historic Christian church. HyperPreterists should simply declare: “We know what the historic Christian faith affirms, but we simply do not believe it and we do not care whether we are outside of orthodoxy.”

My chapter notes that by slipping loose from the anchor of historic orthodoxy, HyperPreterists are adrift on the tides of wholesale theological change. I note by way of introduction that many great doctrines of the faith are gradually being eroded by the relentless tides of hyper-preterist experimentation.

We all know that HyperPreterism is a new movement. I am simply calling upon Christians to recognize that it is new and potentially dangerous. In my “Conclusion” I state: “A critique of any new theological construct or religious movement must consider it on the basis of the historic creeds of orthodox Christianity as an important first step.” My chapter should not be interpreted to be the only step in theological reflection; I expressly affirm the opposite position. I argue there that we must “get our bearings” and note our “theological orientation” as we move into a consideration of a new theology.