Category Archives: Objections

MATTHEW READ WRONGLY

PMW 2024-051 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Confused man

My brief survey of Matthew’s Gospel is important for setting up the broader literary context of the Olivet Discourse with its warning of Israel’s judgment in AD 70. Both Jesus’ regular teaching and frequent actions, as well as Matthew’s overall historical progression and literary presentation powerfully highlight God’s approaching wrath upon Israel. This understanding of Matthew is so clear as to be undeniable. In fact, Lowery — though a dispensationalist — can even speak of “the strong denunciation of Israel that pervades the gospel” and which employs a “strong polemic against Israel.”[1]

This presentation of Israel’s disturbing spiritual condition and foreboding historical expectation is so obvious, strong, frequent, and widespread that many liberal historians and theologians (wrongly) charge Matthew’s Gospel as a prime source of anti-Semitism in the world. Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (3)

Nero redivivusPMW 2024-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief series on problems scholars have with the early (pre-AD 70) date of Revelation. I am using his Leon Morris’ book: The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) as my main source. Let’s get to work!

A most unusual phenomenon seems to appear in Revelation, according to Morris. His third argument is very popular among late-date theorists. This evidence regards the very unusual and ancient legend known as the Nero Redivivus myth. Morris briefly explains the myth and confidently employs it: “Again, it is urged that the book shows evidence of knowledge of the Nero redivivus myth (e.g. xvii. 8, 11). After Nero’s death it was thought in some circles that he would return. At first this appears to have been a refusal to believe that he was actually dead. Later it took the form of a belief that he would come to life again. This took time to develop and Domitian’s reign is about as early as we can expect it” (Morris 37). Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (2)

Roman persecutionPMW 2024-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Revelation’s early date is generally held by modern postmillennialists of the preterist variety. I have argued elsewhere positively for the early date. So here I am offering a short series that briefly responds to late-date evidences. I am focusing on Leon Morris’ arguments, due to their cogency, succinctness, and his stature as a Revelation commentator.

Morris discovers “indications that Revelation was written in a time of persecution.” This evidence is felt to accord “much better with Domitian.” [1] W. G. Kümmel is quite confident that “the picture of the time which the Apocalypse sketches coincides with no epoch of the primitive history so well as with the period of Domitian’s persecution.” [2] Morris, Kümmel, and a number of other scholars list this as among their leading arguments for the A.D. 95-96 date. Continue reading →

MISGUIDED REJECTIONS OF POSTMILLENNIALISM (2)

PMW 2023-082 by Greg L. BahnsenWeak man

Gentry note:
In the previous posting, Bahnsen noted the misguided and failed attempts to dismiss postmillennialism based on (1) newspaper exegesis, (2) misrepresentation, and (3) the application of two-edged criticism (which applies to the critic as well as the position criticized). In this posting he continues.

OT VS. NT ISSUE

There are current day charges against the position which are premature or unfounded. To this category belongs the allegation that postmillennialism is founded on Old Testament passages rather than New Testament evidence, that the New Testament knows nothing of the proclamation of a semi-golden age.

Continue reading →

MISGUIDED REJECTIONS OF POSTMILLENNIALISM (1)

Bible and newspaperPMW 2023-081 by Greg L. Bahnsen

It must be observed that postmillennialism lost favor (and today remains held in disfavor) with conservative theologians for manifestly unorthodox and insufficient reasons. Extra-biblical reasoning, as well as lazy or poor scholarship, has intruded itself into Christian discussions of eschatology.

NEWSPAPER EXEGESIS

Alva J. McClain says of postmillennialism: “This optimistic theory of human progress had much of its own way for the half-century ending in World War I of 1914. After that the foundations were badly shaken; prop after prop went down, until today the whole theory is under attack from every side. Devout Postmillennialism has virtually disappeared.”

J. Barton Payne’s massive Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy mentions postmillennialism only once, and that merely in a footnote which parenthetically declares “two world wars killed this optimism.”

Merrill F. Unger dismisses postmillennialism in short order, declaring: “This theory, largely disproved by the progress of history, is practically a dead issue.”
Continue reading →

POSTMILLENNIAL UTOPIA?

PMW 2023-057 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 →

APOSTOLIC SUFFERING

CryingPMW 2022-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I introduced the question: “Is the church called to suffer?” The suffering church motif is widespread in evangelical theology. And one reason it is so is because the church is suffering and has long suffered. Another reason though is that there are numerous verses in the New Testament that seem to confirm this perception.

In the opening article I cited several well-known theologians who make this argument. How can the postmillennialist respond? I am dealing with this question in several articles because of its significance — and because of confusion regarding postmillennialism itself. Continue reading →