PMW 2022-044 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the second in a two-part series looking into the relationship between the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:26–28). Both mandates feed the postmillennial hope.
There are a few evangelicals who disassociate the Creation (or Cultural) Mandate from the Great Commission, which has also been called the New Creation (or Evangelistic) Mandate. This is an unfortunate mistake that detracts from the greatness of the Great Commission and a proper engagement of the Christian calling in the world. Nevertheless, the two mandates are intimately related. This may be seen from several considerations. Continue reading
PMW 2021-093 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In some passages the kingdom of God is pictured in terms of Eden renewed, entailing peaceable conditions. But in our fallen world the lion’s deadly and terrifying power serves as a proverbial image in the Old Testament (Num. 23:24; Psa. 7:2; 17:12; Prov. 19:12; 20:2; 28:15; Isa. 38:13). Yet gentle carnivores are images of the fullness of God’s kingdom. For instance, carnivores are seen living in harmony with herbivores, though herbivores are their natural prey in Moses’ and our post-fall world (Gen. 49:9, 27; Deut. 33:20; Psa. 104:21; Isa. 5:29; Nah. 2:12). Continue reading
PMW 2021-067 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Does the “Cultural Mandate” in Gen 1:26-28 help the postmillennial argument? Or is it “forced” evidence? One PMT reader expressed doubt that this has anything to do with the postmillennial hope. So I ask:
Does this passage speak to the postmillennial program? I believe it does. And powerfully so. Continue reading
PMW 2020-072 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this article I am concluding a three-part study of a Reformed writer’s attempt to re-interpret the Westminster Confession of Faith’s statement on six day creation. The paper I am critiquing was written by Dr. Lee Irons.
Irons complains: “assuming that these men almost universally held to a young earth, logically we cannot conclude that the Confession itself affirms or requires the young earth position.” In response we should note:
(1) Irons’ choice of terms unfortunately tends to bias his readers against Hall’s work: once again he speaks of “assuming” something. Hall does not assume the young earth perspective of the divines: he provides what Irons himself calls “a catalogue of quotes”; that is, he documents their views. Continue reading
PMW 2020-071 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the second in a three-part series on the creation statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Six-day creation is an embarrassment to many evangelical and Reformed theologians. It is such an embarrassment that some will even re-interpret historic Reformed statements on the matter. One such re-working of the meaning of the Confession has been attempted by Reformed theological writer Lee Irons. Let’s continue my critique of his effort.
Irons opens his actual response to Hall’s research in the writings of the Westminster divines with this rather surprising comment, a comment that exposes a fundamental flaw in Irons’ effort: Continue reading
PMW 2020-070 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The power of God and the clarity of his revelation are on trial in the courtroom of Reformed theological opinion. Despite the clarity of the statement on creation in the venerable Westminster Confession of Faith, some theologians attempt to re-interpret it to allow for evolution. In this three part series I will analyze one effort to this end.
Lee Irons has provided us with a Framework Interpretation response to David Hall’s important speech to the PCA General Assembly a few years back. In that speech Hall dealt with the Confessional meaning of creation “in the space of six days.” In his response titled “In the Space of Six Days: What Did the Divines Mean?”1 Irons mounts a vigorous assault on Hall’s historical research into the original meaning of the Confession of Faith’s statement. Continue reading
PMW 2020-069 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Many academic evangelicals decry Six-day Creation as naive fundamentalism. They reject it as beneath the dignity of serious exegetical theology. Of course, this is quite mistaken. For a compelling, sophisticated exegetical argument can be made in defense of this view.
As a Reformed Christian trained in exegetical theology, I do not tenaciously hold to an approach to Scripture more in keeping with a “naive fundamentalism.” Rather my view of creation continues an exegetical tradition with a well-argued, long-standing, traditional orthodoxy — an orthodoxy including many noteworthy biblical and exegetical scholars from the past and the present.
Though counting noses is not the way to argue a theological point, I do want to point to many world-class scholars who have held and continue to hold to Six-day Creation. Continue reading