Category Archives: Interpretation

APPROACHES TO REVELATION: HISTORICISM WEAKNESSES (2)

Interpretation, Revelation June 30, 2014 1 Comment

PMT 2014-078 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Start finish

When we approach the Book of Revelation, we must do so with fear and trembling. It has conquered many a strong scholar. Some have likened Revelation to a black hole: It is so dense that light cannot escape from it. This is strange in that it is actually called a “revelation,” i.e., unveiling, opening. Because of the confusion it generates, scholars recognize for main schools of interpretation. I am offering a short series on these approaches. Continue reading →

APPROACHES TO REVELATION: HISTORICISM (1)

Interpretation, Revelation June 27, 2014 1 Comment

PMT 2014-077 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Historicism

The Book of Revelation is called a “revelation,” despite its seeming to be an obfuscation to most modern readers. It seems that wherever there are five commentaries on Revelation, you will find six views of this mysterious book, such is our perplexity when approaching this magnificent work. Continue reading →

APPROACHES TO REVELATION: INTRODUCTION

Interpretation, Preterism, Revelation June 25, 2014 Comments: 2

PMT 2014-076 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Four View Rev

Revelation is a difficult book. Except perhaps for tele-evangelists, who have spent dozens of hours studying it and thousands of hours preaching it. But even John had difficulties understanding what was going on in his own book (Rev 7:13-14; 17:7; 19:10; 20:8–9). And it is deemed a difficult book by most biblical scholars and commentators. Continue reading →

DISPENSATIONALISM’S INCONSISTENT LITERALISM (2)

Dispensationalism, Interpretation March 31, 2014 Comments: 2

PMT 2014-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article I continuing an expose of populist dispensationalism’s claim to consistent literalism. This study was begun in my last blog post (PMT 2014-038). This is an important argument that can be effectively used against dispensationalists. Unless, of course, they simply write you off as figurative, not being a real person. In which case, I don’t know what to tell you.

Continue reading →

DISPENSATIONALISM’S INCONSISTENT LITERALISM (1)

Dispensationalism, Interpretation March 28, 2014 Comments: 3

PMT 2014-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.inconsistent

Populist dispensationalism is an immensely successful eschatological construct. Its purveyors have sold tens of millions of books to evangelical Christians. One of the key factors in its success is its naive commitment to an alleged “consistent literalism.”

Besides being naive, the dispensational claim to “consistent literalism” is frustrating due to its inconsistent employment — despite contrary claims. For instance, some dispensationalists do not understand certain Old Testament prophecies about David’s millennial reign literally. Older, but still popular dispensationalist, H. A. Ironside writes: “I do not understand this to mean that David himself will be raised and caused to dwell on the earth as king. . . . The implication is that He who was David’s Son, the Lord Christ Himself is to be the King.” [1] On what basis can a consistent literalist allow this view?

Continue reading →

HYPERPRETERISM’S EMPTY PROOF-TEXT

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism February 26, 2014 Comments: 9

PMT 2014-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Empty bucket

I am preterist in the approach to certain key prophecies of the New Testament. I learned this view long ago from my seminary professor and theological mentor, Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. The term “preterist” is derived from the Latin preteritus, which means “past by.” Preterists believe that several key New Testament prophecies were future when they were originally given, but that they have already come to fulfillment in our distant past.

We accept this conclusion on those particular texts because Scripture provides specific, clear, temporal qualifiers for them. For example, we read in Matthew 24 regarding the Great Tribulation: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). Regarding Revelation, John informs us: “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near” (Rev. 1:3). The New Testament is filled with prophecies qualified by such language. Continue reading →

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PRETERISM

Interpretation, Preterism, Revelation February 24, 2014 Comments: 11

PMT 2014-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Arguing

In this blog article I am offering a brief response to Dr. Charles Hill’s critique of preterism. His objections are generally quite commonly alleged against the preterist approach to Revelation. Hopefully, these will help preterists in their own defenses of their approach to Revelation.

Fallacious Arguments

1. Genetic fallacy. Hill opens by poisoning-the-well for several paragraphs. He claims that the Jesuit Alcazar gave “birth” to Revelational preterism in 1619 as a defense of Romanism. Response: (1) This is the genetic fallacy, and totally irrelevant to preterism’s legitimacy. (2) It is erroneous: a thousand years before, the Greek fathers Arethas and Andreas either applied or noted that others applied several Revelation prophecies to Jerusalem’s fall. Just prior to Alcazar, in fact, commentators Hentenius (1547) and Salmeron (1570) provided preterist expositions, though not as fully and systematically. (3) Protestant scholars quickly picked up on preterism: Westminster divine Lightfoot (1658) and Westminster nominee Henry Hammond (1653), as well as Hugo Grotius (1630) and Jean LeClerc (1712). Continue reading →