MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 4)

hyperpreterism, Olivet Discourse September 4, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-068 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third posting on the reason I am writing a book on the two ages doctrine of redemptive history. If you don’t believe me, just count them. We now come to an important historical application of this study:

My theological concerns

The third issue prompting this book is my deep concern over the troubling development of a new heterodox theology rooted in (though not limited to) eschatology. This theology has set itself over against historic Christian doctrine, and is known by orthodox Christians as “hyper-preterism.”

Three fundamental, core errors of “hyper-preterism” that render it heterodox define the system in all of its various, differing, and competing forms. These include its denials of: (1) a future, physical, bodily return of Christ, (2) a future, physical, bodily resurrection of the dead, and (3) a future, physical, restored new creation. [1] However, hyper-preterism is mutating over time, such that its errors are not confined just to eschatology but are negatively impacting numerous other areas of theology. Continue reading →

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 3)

Olivet Discourse, Two Ages September 1, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-067 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief explanation for my working on a new book dealing with the two age doctrine of redemptive history. This is my third installment, I am only just now getting to my second reason. Why do I want to write a book on the two ages?

Second, my Olivet research. The second issue prompting this book on the two ages was my deep and abiding interest in the Lord’s Olivet Discourse (aka the Eschatological Discourse). I have been especially interested in the extended version found in Matthew’s Gospel to which I have given much attention. [1]

Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s coming destruction (Matt. 24:2; cp. Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6) serves as the very impetus giving rise to his great Discourse which generates the disciples’ question regarding “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3–4). Continue reading →

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 2)

Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Two Ages August 28, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-066 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my second article introducing my reasons for writing a book on the doctrine of the two ages of redemptive history. Three particular issues have mainly prompted me to write this book.

First, my eschatological interests

The first issue is more general: my long-standing interest in and engagement with Reformed eschatology (after having converted out of dispensationalism while in seminary). Eschatology is not simply one locus of systematic theology; neither is it a secondary or inconsequential one. Rather it is an intricate part of God’s over-arching redemptive plan. Eschatology and soteriology are inextricably linked. And as strange as it may initially seem, Reformed theologians argue that eschatology actually precedes soteriology. Thus, Geerhardus Vos (2001: 77) can declare that “eschatology is older than soteriology.” Or as he puts it elsewhere: “the eschatological is an older strand in revelation than the soteric” (1948: 15). Continue reading →

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 1)

Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Uncategorized August 25, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this short series I will introduce my reasoning for my currently working on  a book on the two age doctrine of redemptive history. I will begin this series with an important issue which forms a necessary backdrop to understanding the two age doctrine:

The unity of the Bible

The Bible is the divinely-ordained collection of sixty-six books which were directly revealed by God’s Holy Spirit for his own glory and the benefit of man (1 Pet. 1:10–12; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Yet despite the Bible’s collective nature it is fundamentally one book. The very word biblios is a word in the singular form that signifies the unified nature of Scripture. Commenting on 1 Peter 1:10–12 and citing WCF 1:5, Richard Gaffin (2023: 49) argues that the “overarching activity of the Spirit explains why in the Old Testament as such ‘the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole’ is present and discoverable. The multi-authored diversity and varied genre of the Old Testament constitute an organically unfolding and divinely determined didactic unity.” Continue reading →

PRINCIPLED POLYTHEISM AND THE PCA

Church, Theology August 21, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-064 by Larry Ball

Recently, I listened to a Baptist preacher give the invocation on the first day of the 250th Liberty Celebration in Washington, D.C. He gave thanks to God that America was a place where people of every religion were free to worship their own god. That’s one reason I am not a Baptist. Politicians and theologians call his views an expression of the doctrine of “principled pluralism.” Now, with the PCA Ad-Interim Partial Report on Christian Nationalism, Presbyterians have joined the Baptist bandwagon, and eagerly defend what is still called “principled pluralism.”

My contention is that the term “principled pluralism” is no longer functional or valid. The demographics of America have changed dramatically. A more appropriate term is “principled polytheism.” Principled pluralism originally described the belief that all Christian denominations were free to worship publicly in America. Keep in mind that we are talking about public worship and not private worship. Religion in the minds of our early fathers was synonymous with Christianity. Principled polytheism is the view that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc., have the right under the U.S. Constitution to worship freely and publicly in the United States. Continue reading →

THE DANGER OF SPIRITUALIZING THE ASCENSION

Ascension, Eternity, hyperpreterism, Resurrection August 18, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-063 Gerrit Scott Dawson

Gentry note:

The following is excerpted from Dawson’s excellent study: Gerrit Scott Dawson, Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2004), pp 146–47. I highly commend this book as a counter to hyper-preterism’s etherealizing Jesus resurrection body as he ascends into heaven. The continuing incarnation of Jesus (rather than a thirty-year incarnation) has also been held by orthodox Christians.

Dawson writes:

The balance required for properly loving the world as part of the mission for Christ without being co-opted by the world in its resistance to God has never been easy to maintain…. [As one example Dawson warns against “withdrawal from the world,” as follows:]

First, the church has always had a tendency to withdraw from this fallen, violent, broken world. Even after the resurrection, Peter and John went back to fishing until Jesus met them on the shore (John 21;3). Perhaps they thought the risen Jesus had simple departed, leaving them on their own. That would have been an ascension without any hope of return. But Jesus corrected their understanding as he gave them the mission of feeding his lambs (John 21:15), being his witnesses to all the earth (Acts 1:8) and making new disciples (Matt 28:18). In these descriptions of Jesus’ giving the disciples a mission to enact in the world, we also hear of promises he left them. The departing Jesus is he who said “I am with you always’ (Matthew 28:20), who assured the disciples that he would come again (John 12;22i–3) and of whom the angels said ‘This same Jesus who has been taken from you into heaven will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’ (Acts 1:11). The absence and the presence are always maintained so that the church is sent into the world with hope. Continue reading →

THE KEY FOB TO OLIVET

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse August 14, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-062 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Matthew 24 is a well-known text that speaks of great prophetic judgments. Who has not heard of “wars and rumors of wars” (v. 6)? “False prophets” (v. 11)? “Enduring to the end” (v. 13)? “The abomination of desolation” (v. 15)? “Great tribulation” (v. 21)? “The powers of the heavens shaken” (v. 29)?

Unfortunately, for the most part, futurism controls the popular approach to Matthew 24 today. Futurists place all the events of Matthew 24:4ff thousands of years off from Jesus’s day and into our own approaching future. This is categorically wrong for various reasons that flow readily from the text itself. I am offering this running survey as a sample of a modern preterist exegesis. You will see many agreements with Grotius, but also some areas of disagreement. Preterism is not monolithic.

The most significant key for interpreting the Discourse is the Lord’s own express declaration in Matthew 24:34 regarding the timing of the “great tribulation” and other judgment events. In fact, this is a key fob that controls all things automatically. For that verse declares: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Here we have an authoritative, clear, and compelling pronouncement of the time of the events recorded in 24:4-33.

Continue reading →