Category Archives: Objections

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE DAYS OF NOAH (2)

Objections, Second Coming June 12, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-044 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part series explaining how postmillennialism can be true even though Jesus warns of “the days of Noah” that lay in our future. A reader asked me about postmillennialism in light of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37–39, which reads:

“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matt. 24:37–39)

This is a good question, which is frequently brought up in eschatological discussions. It needs answering. And as I am showing, it can be answered by the postmillennialist — even more easily than many expect. Continue reading →

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE DAYS OF NOAH (1)

Last Days, Objections June 9, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-043 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader sent me a question regarding postmillennialism’s glorious hope in light of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37–39. Jesus’ statement reads:

“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matt. 24:37–39)

The problem we face

This statement appears to undermine postmillennial expectations for the improvement of world conditions under the spread of the gospel. In fact, it seems actually to teach the opposite: that history will descend into wholesale corruption equivalent to the worldwide debasement experienced in the days of Noah. Continue reading →

POSTMILLENNIALISM’S “SIN PROBLEM”?

Objections, sin May 22, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-037  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Though Hal Lindsey is now a postmillennialist (as of November 25, 2024), he once complained, that postmillennialists “rejected much of the Scripture as being literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man” (Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth, 176). I would note, however, that postmillennialists do not believe in the inherent goodness of man, but Lindsey most definitely believes in the inherent weakness of the gospel. He believes that man’s sin successfully resists the gospel even to the end of history. Jonah also had a concern regarding the power of the gospel: he feared its power to save wicked, powerful Nineveh (Jon 1:2–3, 10; 3:2; 4:1–4). Continue reading →

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND SATAN’S LOOSING

Millennial Views, Millennium, Objections, Revelation November 7, 2025 Leave a comment

PMW 2025-088 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Satan loosedI received this question from a reader. I think it might be helpful to other blog readers for me to answer it. Here is the question:

“As I’ve been reading your whole series on Revelation, I have come realize more and more how much we A-Mill Folks agree with you Post Mill Guys. But how does the loosing of Satan coincide with your postmillennial preterist hermeneutic? This seems to be the only area where I have a problem from the Preterist Viewpoint. Please advise where this fits.”

This is a good question that touches on an issue that seems to confront both preterism (Satan’s loosing occurs after 1000 years in a book set to transpire shortly) and to undermine the idea of the universal conquest of the gospel expected by postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is a theological construct whereas preterism is a methodology, rather than a theology. Both merge well in my understanding of postmillennialism. Let me explain. Continue reading →

JESUS WAS A PRETERIST (1)

Objections, Preterism October 7, 2025 Leave a comment

PMW 2022-050 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A few years ago I was privileged to hear Dr. Wayne A. Briddle of Liberty University deliver a cogent, careful, and cordial critique of evangelical preterism (which he designated “partial preterism”). Dr. Briddle graciously allowed me a few moments at the end of his presentation to respond. He also asked if I would mind providing him some sort of critique of his presentation for his better understanding of the issues from my perspective. Here is my reply.

Introduction

In his paper, Dr. Bridle provided a helpful summary statement regarding the nature of and evidence for preterism. His summary was apparently designed for an audience not thoroughly familiar with the debate. I commend him for his careful introduction of the topic. His summary should aid any one interested in the basics of preterism and its variant forms (from heterodox Hyper-Preterism or Full or Extreme Preterism to the Orthodox [“partial”] Preterism of R. C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry). Continue reading →

666 AS A HEBREW MISSPELLING?

Objections, Revelation September 16, 2025 Comments: 3

PMW 2025-073 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this reply to preterist opponents, I will answer the question:
What about the defective spelling of Nero’s name necessary for the value 666? To get the proper value of 666 out of the name Nero Caesar requires an unusual spelling of his name.

This problem is not insuperable, for we do find this spelling in Aramaic documents from Nero’s reign. Who is to say John could not use a defective spelling, especially one which we actually find from that time period? Continue reading →

1 JOHN 2:2 BY B. B. WARFIELD (3)

New Testament, Objections, Optimism September 9, 2025 Comments: 3

Cross and world“Jesus Christ the Propitiation for the Whole World” (3)
PMW 2025-071 by Benjamin B. Warfield

[Gentry note: This is part 3 of an excellent article by renowned postmillennial Princeton scholar, B. B. Warfield.]

The Meaning of “Propitiation”

The expedient made use of by many commentators in their endeavor to escape from this maze of contradictions is to distinguish between Christ as our “Advocate” and Christ as our “Propitiation,” and to connect actual salvation with him only in the former function. Thus Richard Rothe tells us that “the propitiation in Christ concerns the whole world,” but “only those in Christ have an advocate in Christ,” with the intimation that it is Christ’s advocacy which “makes the efficacy of his propitiation effective before God.” In this view the propitiation is conceived as merely laying a basis for actual forgiveness of sins, and is spoken of therefore rather as “sufficient” than efficacious—becoming efficacious only through the act of faith on the part of the believer by which he secures Christ as his Advocate. This is the view presented by B. F. Westcott also, according to whom Christ is advocate exclusively for Christians, while he is a propitiation for the whole world. His propitiatory death on earth was for all men; his advocacy in heaven is for those only who believe in him. Here, there is a universal atonement taught, with a limited application, contingent on actual faith: “the efficacy of his work for the individual depends upon fellowship with him.” Continue reading →