PMW 2024-101 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Ironically, the most hope-filled eschatology is the least liked in our contemporary setting. And this despite its strong presence in the 1600-early 1900s. As we contemplate this fact, we must recognize that the most popular objections against postmillennialism are practical concerns. They are frequently brought against postmillennialism in the popular literature. But to no avail, for there are easy answers to them. Let’s see how this is so.

“World conditions contradict postmillennialism”

Too many evangelicals get their understanding of biblical prophecy from reading the newspapers through their faulty interpretive lens. They point out a truly conservative Christian concern: America is in a great moral and spiritual decline today. And such a decline contradicts postmillennialism’s historical expectations. For instance, dispensationalist theologian Paul N. Benware responds against postmillennialism that “the idea that the world is getting better and better does not at all seem to be in line with reality. The evidence points rather to a world that is growing more and more wicked.”]

Postmillennialists are well aware of world conditions. And yet we continue with our optimistic outlook despite these contemporary conditions. Consider two postmillennial responses to this complaint.

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation
By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from an orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed preterist perspective. Ball understands John to be focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Insightful. Easy to read.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

This objection uses a wrong method. That is, this argument selects too narrow a sample from history. When we consider the broader historical scheme, this problem vanishes away. World conditions, and especially conditions for Christians, have actually improved greatly since Christianity first arose 2000 years ago.

In the first three centuries of our era, Christianity was relentlessly assaulted by the Jews on the one hand and cruelly persecuted by the Romans on the other. Thus, in light of the big picture: Are Christians better off today than they were in the first two or three centuries? Are world conditions worse today in Christian areas than they were in the first century under Nero? Anyone who is aware of the Roman persecutions against the early church should understand that believers are in a much better situation in large portions of the earth today.

This objection assumes an erroneous definition. We must understand that nothing in the postmillennial definition requires either relentlessly forward progress of kingdom conditions or the kingdom’s reaching its highest advance by any particular date. As noted in the preceding chapter, postmillennialism is gradualistic. The gradualistic postmillennialism presented in this book simply teaches that before the end the kingdom of God will reach world-dominating proportions.

Thus, until history ends this argument cannot undermine the postmillennial hope. Glorious revivals may yet occur — and postmillennialists are confident they will.

Dispensational Distortions
Three Lectures by Kenneth Gentry. Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

“Postmillennialism undermines watchfulness”

Also as noted in the last chapter, postmillennialism holds to a long-term view of the future. Because of this many evangelicals complain that this eschatology actually undermines a spiritual motive to serving Christ. That is, postmillennialism discourages Christians from watching for the Lord’s return. By the very nature of the case postmillennialism denies the “imminent” return of Christ.

We see this line of complaint in best-selling dispensationalist author Dave Hunt’s writings. Hunt laments postmillennialism because, in it “there is an increasing antagonism against eagerly watching and waiting for Christ’s return, which surely was the attitude of the early church.” Hunt represents many others who see our denial of the imminency of Christ’s return as destroying a spur to sanctification. But consider:

This objection is based on a erroneous understanding. To deny that Christ could return at any moment does not destroy a spur to holiness. Surely sanctification is not encouraged by believing a falsehood (that Christ will return in one’s own lifetime). Those who argue for an “any moment” view of the return of Christ as a major spur for holy living ultimately root sanctification in erroneous expectations. After all, Christ was not to return in the first 2000 years of Christian history, as we can now see. Were early Christians who expected Jesus to return at any minute made holy by believing an error?

The Truth about Postmillennialism
By Ken Gentry

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This objection overlooks a more likely event. Any expectation of the possible return of Christ should be a weaker spur to sanctification than the realization that we could die this very minute. We are statistically more certain that we will die in a relatively short time (Psa 90:4–6, 10; 1 Pet 1:24) than we are that Christ will return today. This has proven true for 2000 years. And this was the very point of his Parable of the Rich Barn Owner (Luke 12:16–20): the barn owner did not take into account the fact that he could die at any moment.

This objection forgets the ultimate reality. Because of our doctrine of God, we should know that we are living constantly under the moment-by-moment scrutiny of a righteous Judge. We cannot escape his presence during any moment of life, for “there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Heb 4:13). David tried to escape God’s scrutiny, but failed (Psa 139:7–12). The theological certainty of our present openness to the Lord ought to move us to serve him more faithfully even than the possibility that he may return today.

“Postmillennialism is basically liberal”

Many non-postmillennialists see historical optimism as a liberal, social-gospel approach to history. Thus, postmillennialism seems to tend towards liberalism. For instance, dispensationalist scholar John Walvoord argues that postmillennialism cannot resist the tendency to liberalism in that it “lends itself to liberalism with only minor adjustments.” Pentecost adds that in postmillennialism there is a “trend toward liberalism, which postmillennialism could not meet, because of its spiritualizing principle of interpretation.” How shall we respond?

The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Such an objection involves an impossible definition. Actually the postmillennial response is quite easy: It is absolutely impossible for there to be liberal postmillennialists. How can we say this? After all, the very term “postmillennial” means that Christ will return after (“post”) millennial conditions (“millennium”). Now we must ask: What liberal believes that Christ will return ever? By definition liberalism denies that Christ is God in the flesh; they believe he was merely a first-century rabbi who is now long dead.

Such an objection is invalid on its very surface. No evangelical theology (such as postmillennialism) can lead to liberalism with only “minor adjustments.” Who would consider these as minor issues needing adjustment: postmillennialists believe in the existence of the Creator, the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, his physical resurrection from the dead, his second coming to end history, and more. Any shift from evangelical postmillennialism to liberalism requires fundamental changes, not “minor adjustments.” The differences separating postmillennialism and liberalism represent the enormous gulf separating supernaturalism from naturalism. The systems of thought are not at all close together.

Such an objection is interpretively naive. Dispensationalist J. Dwight Pentecost charges that postmillennialism’s “spiritualizing principle of interpretation” lends itself easily to liberalism. He promotes the literalist approach and sees that as protecting the Christian from liberalism. But this sort of argument can be turned on the dispensationalist. Could we not argue that premillennialism leads to cultism because of the literalistic hermeneutic of such premillennial cults as Mormonism? And does not Pentecost himself admit that literalism was the method applied by the Christ-rejecting Pharisees?

Click on the following images for more information on these studies: