PMW 2024-059 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

An old lawyer’s maxim states: “If you can’t pound the facts, pound the table.” This loud procedure has been adopted by many Christians for spreading fear about orthodox (partial) preterism. They argue that many hyper-preterists were once partial-preterists, and thus orthodox preterism leads to heresy. Therefore, they loudly urge Christians to avoid all preterism as dangerous.

Partial preterism and hyper-preterism

Well, it is certainly true that many hyper-preterists started out as partial preterists. And they often boast about this fact. Indeed, Gary DeMar in his recent podcast about my Revelation commentary mentions this issue:

“Ken may not be a little upset with me when I say this but Full Preterists are going to delight in this because it fits so much of their perspective. In times past you will hear people say that one of the reasons they became full preterists is because of reading works by Ken Gentry and Gary Demar.”

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

I am well aware that most hypers start out as partial preterists, and that many have used my work as a springboard to hyperpreterism (against my vigorous warnings against such). That is sad, but true. Yet their falling into the hyper-preterist heresy cannot be blamed on the existence of the partial-preterist system or on partial-preterist advocates themselves.

In the early 1990s Greg Bahnsen had to fend off opponents of theonomy because of a number of knot-heads who adopted theonomy and caused ecclesiastical problems with it. Bahnsen pointed out that you have to distinguish between use and abuse. Theonomy was not the problem; the abuse of the position was the problem.

Certainly there are many points of contact between hyper-preterism and partial-preterism. After all, at the very least they both employ the word “preterism.” Thus, they obviously hold to some of the same conclusions. On certain texts. And we must note that AD 70 and the Second Advent/Final Judgment are theologically related, though historically distinct (as many evangelical scholars note). AD 70 points to the Final Judgment, as a type points to its anti-type.

In fact, as hermeneutics scholar David R. Bauer notes:

“Since Matthew employs this language of the coming of the Son of Man to describe the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 10: 23; 16:28; 24:30) as well as Jesus’ second coming in judgment over the world (Mt 16:27; 19:28; 24:44; 25:31), it follows that Matthew uses the image of the coming of the Son of Man to describe both the inauguration of Jesus’ universal authority and rule at the point of his exaltation (Mt 28:18; cf. Mt 26:64) and the manifestations of his authoritative judgmental work in the world at the destruction of Jerusalem and at his parousia. Thus the destruction of Jerusalem is the beginning of the end, and the parousia is the culmination of the end” (The Gospel of the Son of God [IVP 2019], p. 303).

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation. Both sides thoroughly cover the evidence they deem necessary, then interact with each other.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Bauer’s rhetorically powerful observation highlights why orthodox preterists (along with many non-preterist evangelical scholars) speak of the “church age,” present Christian history since the first coming of Christ, as “the last days.” AD 70 is the beginning and the Second Advent is the end of “the last days.”

However, it is a serious mistake to claim that partial-preterism is dangerous because some have left it behind (!) and ventured off into hyper-preterism. If it were the case that partial-preterism leads inexorably to hyper-preterism, why are there more partial-preterists than hyper-preterists? Hyper-preterism is a recent theological abnormality, whereas partial preterism stretches back hundreds of years to the early centuries of Christianity. Should not all partial-preterists eventually be hypers?

Doctrinal use and abuse

Furthermore, using this line of reasoning all Christians would have to be careful of holding to any position, because every position can be twisted into heresy. Consider the following.

The free grace problem. Shall we deny free grace as the God-ordained means of salvation because some people have abused grace and galloped off into licentious conduct? Paul had to deal with that problem in his letter to the Romans: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” (Rom. 6:1). The Pharisees could have complained against Paul that his system of salvation by grace quite naturally leads people to that conclusion. But that was an abuse of the system.

This is much like hyper-preterists arguing that we are spiritually resurrected today (John 5:24-25; Eph. 2:6–7), and that is all there is to the resurrection concept in Scripture. They have a serious problem with understanding the theological principle of the “already but not yet.” That is, we are already resurrected spiritually, but this is in anticipation of ultimately being resurrected physically (notice how Jesus brings the two together in John 5:24-29). They are related but not identical. We are spiritually resurrected now, but not yet resurrected in the full and final sense of the word (body and soul).

The divine sovereignty problem. There are some Calvinists who go overboard with their view of God’s absolute sovereignty (which is taught in Scripture). They become hyper-Calvinists who believe it is not necessary to engage in evangelism or missions because God will sovereignly save whom he will, without our aid. Shall we therefore dismiss the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty? No, rather we should dismiss those who abuse the system.

The unity of God problem. If we look back in history (and even today) we find that some heretics properly observed that the Bible speaks of only one God and noted that God is, in fact, one (Deut. 6:4; 1 Tim. 2:5). On this basis, they wrongly rejected the idea of the Trinity, thinking they were “defending” the doctrine of the unity of God. This type of thinking led to all sorts of errors regarding God’s nature. But we must not dismiss the unity of God due to this abuse. Nor should we reject the doctrine of the Trinity on the opposite base.

Conclusion

This sort of problem arising due to hyper-preterism is actually anticipated in the Bible. Jesus warns that good seed can land on rocky soil and produce growth that only lasts awhile (Matt. 13:5–6). Paul warns of those who are blown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). John warns that there were some who “went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

Significantly, it is often the orthodox preterist who is the most vigorous opponent of hyper-preterism. No one wants to see their doctrinal system twisted and abused. Even if it seems like a lot of fun and creates a little group of fans.

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This long-awaited commentary has now been published. It is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book.

Click: https://www.kennethgentry.com/the-divorce-of-israel-2-vols-by-gentry-pre-publication-offer/

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com