PMW 2024-019 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
A Reader Writes:
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
My Reply:
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:
Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)
Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
1. 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;
2. 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:
3. 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), 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.
The Harrowing of Hell (by Jay Rogers)
This postmillennial book examines the power of the Gospel, not only to overcome all opposition, but to rise far above the powers of hell. The term “Harrowing of Hell” refers to idea that Christ descended into Hell, as stated in the Apostles’ Creed.
For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com
Postmillennial Worldview 
Hi Dr. Gentry
PS â this may be a duplicate as I am not sure I sent correctly the first time.
Regarding Gary Demar, I have enjoyed both yours and Gary’s work because of your differences, for example, regarding a transition in Matthew 24:34-36 and onward.âYou are my go-to guys to work through the opposing views with you being fine Christian men.â
But if Gary is denying a Second Advent, I find this troubling.âBut I would agree with him that specific verses that are used for the Second coming could reasonably (does not mean he is right) be inferred as still further preterist verses.âGranting I agree with him on that, I am however, still a partial preterist because to me there is no ambiguity with John 6:40 where Jesus says on the last day He will raise us all up.âAlthough the verse does not specifically address the Second Coming, I am thinking it can safely be assumed it is implied because the resurrection of the dead seems to be synonymous with the Second Avent / Last Day.
If your allowed to say without betraying anyone’s trust, did you and your associates ask him about that specific verse?âHow does he deflect such a clear verse that teaches there will be a last day?âFor me, this verse resolves it for me even though I struggle with other verses on whether to apply to 70 AD or the last day.â
JD Brown
The problem in trying to deal with hyper-preterists is that they are so fixated on AD 70 (which is important) that they fail to understand it according to the Now/Not Yet principle of NT interpretation. Therefore their whole worldview revolves around AD 70. Thus, “last day”??? That would be the last day of the old covenant. They also have a serious problem in misunderstanding the two age structure of history: the first age has Adam as its head (not Abraham) and the second age is the eternal consummate order which has the Second Adam as its head. We are now in the overlap of the ages which allows for the Now/Not Yet anticipatory beginning of the age to come (which does not come in fullness until the second advent and the resurrection of the dead.
Your previous explanation for the two-age structure is illuminating and nicely fits in with the Headship principle of Adam and Christ.