Category Archives: Objections

LITERALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

LiteralPMW 2021-116 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

From time-to-time, I am try to answer questions that readers send in. Here is one that I have received in a few different forms. I thought PMW readers might appreciate this brief Question and Answer.

Reader question:

I have a question for you. I recently heard a postmill/amill debate. The amill gave a criticism against postmill that I am really stuck on. Maybe you can help.

He said that postmills apply the restoration Psalms and prophecies like dispensationalists do, in a literalistic, types and shadows fashion. For example, regarding Psalm 2:8 the amill said that postmills apply the terms “nations” and “earth” in a way that Jesus and the apostles never intended (political entities, etc.). From his perspective, the NT teaches that for Christ to make the nations and earth His footstool refers to the salvation of the Gentiles from every tribe tongue and nation, not Christ’s influence on political structures, etc. Continue reading

“PERILOUS TIMES” IN POSTMILLENNIALISM?

PMW 2021-013 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In 2 Timothy 3:1 we find a passage that seems to undercut the postmillennial optimism for the historical long run. There Paul writes: “realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.”

Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger sees this passage as a problem for those who hold the prospect of a victorious church: “Throughout the last days, some will distort the gospel to tickle itching ears and gather followers to themselves.” He continues in response to postmillennialism: “Paul warned us that this lamentable state of affairs is an inevitability for Christ’s church.” Continue reading

THE POPULARITY OF NEGATIVITY

PMW 2020-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I have just received an email from a postmillennial reader who does not live in America. He has two questions that probably are on the minds of other postmillennialists. So I thought I would briefly respond to his questions and post my answers for other readers to consider. (I will slightly tweak his comments to remove personal information).

My reader writes

“Where I live it seemed to me that the interest in end times faded a bit over the last couple of years. However more and more videos and links are now reaching my digital shores and it seems caused by the newest crises to hit the world — the doom and gloom prophesied re Coronavirus.

The Coronavirus provides ample fertile ground for faded premils to get their motor started one more time, but also providing a gateway for younger people to adopt what seems to them an easy escapist argument. I am sensing some animosity from some people because of this basic optimism and my Christian dominion approach. This is at odds with the current pessimistic view prevalent among friends.

I have therefore dusted the old books and started reading your Perilous Times again. As I am reading I was wondering why the premill and amill views are the more popular approach to a view of end times.

In relation to the above have you ever considered whether an incorrect understanding of the foundational teaching of original sin could add to the pessimistic approach to end times?

Example: why do we deserve a better future as humans when we are unworthy in the eyes of an exclusive judgmental God?

The example is not my view but could be stuck in a psychological part of the thinking process of many people causing them to believe that they (and humanity) must suffer for their sins.”

Continue reading

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE DAYS OF NOAH (2)

PMW 2020-024 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)

PMW 2020-023 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

POSTMILLENNIAL UTOPIA?

PMW 2019-089 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One PostmillenialWorldview read asks: “What is your response to the ‘Utopia’ charge leveled by (especially) Premills? This is a common charge levied against the postmillennialist. And the erstwhile postmil would do well to consider the matter.

Unfortunately, in the eschatological debate, postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological option to misconstrue. This is due to its going against the prevailing pessimistic expectations of the other millennial views. Hope for our historical future seems like Utopia to these folks. And as we know “Utopia” comes from the Greek: ou (“not”) and topos (“place”) and means “no-place.” So if postmillennialism is utopic, it is going no place. Continue reading

JESUS AND PRETERISM (1)

PMW2019-082 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, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry). Continue reading