Category Archives: hyperpreterism

MY HYPER-PRETERIST FRUSTRATIONS (2)

AD 70, hyperpreterism, Olivet Discourse February 9, 2021 Leave a comment

PMW 2021-012 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous posting I opened a quick two-part testimonial explaining why I do not like interacting with Hyper-preterists. Their argumentative method is terribly frustrating. I will now continue with and conclude my testimonial.

REGARDING PRESTON’S THIRD ARTICLE

Preston:
He writes: “The reader needs to remember, as I have documented, that Gentry takes a decidely [sic] and admittedly non-historical, non-creedal view of Revelation.” A few paragraphs later, he writes: “Gentry, when defending his own unorthodox, non-historical, non-creedal views that stand in opposition to the long standing scholarly consensus on Revelation…” Continue reading →

J. S. RUSSELL & MILTON TERRY: “FUTURISTS”?

hyperpreterism, Millennium July 10, 2020 Comments: 7

PMW 2020-054 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Hyper-preterist movement has gained a small foothold among some evangelical Christians. Unfortunately, this aberrant movement makes the same sort of error as Hyper-Calvinism: it takes certain biblical teachings and presses them beyond their Scriptural warrant. By using actual biblical truths and specific Scripture verses, the Hyper-Calvinist can make a doctrinal error sound quite persuasive, as can the Hyper-preterist. Continue reading →

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (2)

AD 70, hyperpreterism, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Preterism May 22, 2020 Comments: 5

PMW 2020-040 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second (and final) presentation of an interview conducted with me on preterism and postmillennialism.

Interviewer: Shifting to a related topic. Do preterist and non-preterist postmillennialists differ significantly in their reading of Matthew 24? Are there different interpretations of the two “days” even among preterists?

Gentry: Matthew 24 has been subjected to a fairly wide variety of interpretive approaches. Perhaps the more widely endorsed one holds that the Lord more or less jumbles together material on A.D. 70 and the Second Advent, in that A.D. 70 is a microcosmic precursor to the Second Advent. This view makes it difficult to sort out the verses in regard to which event the particular verses focus on. Among evangelical preterists two basic positions prevail: that 24:4–34 focus on A.D. 70 and 24:36ff focus on the Second Advent (this is my view, and the view presented by J. Marcellus Kik). The other view holds that all of Matthew 24–25 deals with A.D. 70. Continue reading →

IMPORTANT REBUTTAL TO HYPER-PRETERISM

AD 70, hyperpreterism, Interpretation April 2, 2019 Leave a comment

PMW 2019-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am a preterist and a postmillennialist. The fact that I am a postmillennialist proves that I am not a Hyper-preterist, for postmillennialism has a number of prophecies that remain to fulfilled. I am, thus, an Orthodox Preterist, sometimes called a “Partial Preterist” by those who have made off with a perfectly good hermeneutic label and mutated it into a whole new unorthodox theology.

Though Hyper-preterism is a very small Internet movement, it has caused debates in no small number of local churches. Thus, I have published several brief critiques/rebuttals to this theological system, such as my chapter in Keith Mathison’s When Shall These Things Be? and my small book Have We Missed the Second Coming? Of course, more needs to be said. And I hope to write more on the topic in the future, when I have completed several current and projected projects. Continue reading →

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (3)

hyperpreterism, Interpretation December 21, 2018 Leave a comment

PMW 2018-102 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and concluding article in a three-part series highlighting a few samples of Hyper-preterist confusion regarding my writings. Their stumblings here illustrate how they can stumble elsewhere. And how they can confuse their followers so easily: they themselves are confused! Their poor followers are making the mistake that Jesus warned about: “If a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). You should read the first two articles before reading this one.

Continue reading →

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (2)

hyperpreterism, Interpretation December 18, 2018 Comments: 28

PMW 2018-102 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part series highlighting several Hyper-preterist confusions regarding my writings. Hyper-preterists stumble here just as they do in their attempted exegesis of key passages of Scripture. You should read my first article before reading this one.

In the previous article I pointed out that my arguments for a transition in Matthew 24 between AD 70 and the Final Judgment are not my (distinctive, self-created) arguments. I picked them up from others. In this article I will point out the arguments from those other writers, my predecessors.

For instance, the following commentators see Matt. 24:36 (or its parallel Mark 13:32) as shifting the focus of the Discourse from the near-term (“this generation”) AD 70 destruction of the temple to the distant (while “delaying,” Matt. 25:5) Second Advent and Final Judgment at the end of history. This, of course, does not prove that the shift is true, but it will prove that the argument for a shift at v. 36 was not created by me. I will list a few of these scholars: Continue reading →

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (1)

hyperpreterism, Interpretation December 14, 2018 Comments: 4

PMW 2018-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Hyper-preterism is an heretical view of eschatology that denies the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith. (Don’t mention this to them, though, for they want by themselves to determine what the church of our Lord Jesus Christ should believe.)

Specifically, the four leading (but not only!) Hyper-preterist errors involve their denying important biblical doctrines:

1. They deny a future, physical resurrection of all men. Some even deny the continuance of Christ’s physical resurrection after he left the earth!

2. They deny a future, visible, glorious, physical return of Christ.

3. They deny a future, universal, final great judgment of all men.

4. They deny a future end to temporal history and the beginning of the final, physical, consummate, reconstructed new creation order (which is anticipated in the spiritual new creation existing now in the gospel, 2 Cor. 5:17). In their view, history continues forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. Thus, God must forever endure a sinful universe without any final judgment and removal of sin. God’s created order will continue in a sinful estate. Continue reading →