STAND FIRM IN THE RESURRECTION HOPE (2)

hyperpreterism, Resurrection May 2, 2025 Comments: 2

PMW 2025-034 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in my series discussing 1 Corinthians 15 as it regards the resurrection of the dead. Having thoroughly rebuked the heretical party at Corinth, Paul urges them (and all Christians) to “stand firm. Let nothing move you” (1 Cor. 15:58) from this resurrection hope, as he comes to the grand finale of his letter. This chapter happens to be the Achilles Heel (one among many!) of hyper-preterism and its assault on historic Christianity.

I will be focusing on key verses in Paul’s great “Resurrection Chapter,” though not exegeting the entirety of this lengthy chapter. And I will be concerned (as Paul was) with the believer’s resurrection rather than the unbeliever’s, though Paul held to the resurrection of both (Acts 23:6; 24:15), as did his Lord (John 5:25–29).

An Important Opening Issue

One area of the hyper-preterist’s debate with historic Christian theology has to do with the nature or composition of the resurrection body. That is, whether it will be material or spiritual, whether tangible or ethereal. And I will get to that issue at the appropriate time (right now it is 11:27 am on the day I am writing this, and I am hungry for lunch, but I digress). Continue reading →

STAND FIRM IN THE RESURRECTION HOPE (1)

Eternity, Resurrection April 29, 2025 Comments: 9

PMW 2025-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In 1 Corinthians 15:58, we reach Paul’s argumentative conclusion to 1 Corinthians. This verse closes out the great resurrection chapter upon which Paul exhorts: “Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you” (NIV). Standing firm on the resurrection has been the historic commitment of orthodox Christianity for 2000 years. However, recently not only has liberalism undercut the resurrection, but so has the semi-cultic hyper-preterist movement.

Unfortunately, the hyper-preterist movement, as Hal Lindsey may have expressed it (until his recent change of eschatology), is alive and well on Planet Earth. It is actively at work rejecting and/or re-working long-held eschatological doctrines, but not silently and in a corner. Rather they do so activistically publicly promoting their various (growing number of) heresies. This tragedy has arisen due to a very prideful error: the replacing of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) with solo Scriptura (I alone am the interpreter of Scripture). “I know more than the church of all ages; I do not have to stand on the shoulders of giants.”

Defining hyper-preterism is difficult in some respects. This is because there are several main camps with widely divergent views of crucial defining features. But at the very heart of the matter, hyper-preterists are (in one way or another) rejecting three of the key issues highlighted in biblical eschatology: (1) the future, bodily second coming of Christ, (2) the material, eternal, bodily resurrection of the dead, and (3) the final judgment of all men that ends history. These are the very issues a group of theological friends of Gary DeMar put to him, seeking a simple yes or no answer regarding whether or not he accepted them. He declined to answer with a yes or no.
Continue reading →

MATTHEW 22, MARRIAGE, AND ETERNITY

Age(s) (Two Ages), Eternity, New Creation April 25, 2025 1 Comment

PMW 2025-032 by Michael Allen

Gentry note:

The following discussion is taken from Michael Allen’s contribution to Michael Whittmer, ed., Four Views on Heaven published by Zondervan and available on Amazon. I found this material on pages 124–25 helpful as I am working on my Two Ages book. I will be dealing with Matthew 22 and Jesus’ rebuke of the Sadducees regarding marriage and eternity. You will have to see the book to get the full text and footnotes.

Michael Allen writes:

It has been asked: How will we relate to our spouses and other family members? Will there be marriage, sex, or family units in our final state? Will we remain gendered, and if so, will we wear clothes? It may be helpful to begin reflection elsewhere, to use this question as a teaching moment for a wider principle. Likely no text has so generated eschatological speculation as has Isaiah 60:5, 9 with its reference to the ships of Tarshish bringing treasures into the storehouse of Zion. Many that here is warrant for confidence that the aesthetic or productive triumphs of society will persist into the eschaton. Labor invested in earthly affairs has value not only for today but bright hope for tomorrow too. Continue reading →

HEAVENLY JOY DESPITE EARTHLY LOSS

heaven April 22, 2025 1 Comment

Headon collisionPMW 2025-031 by Peter Kreeft

Gentry note:
As I am researching my book on the Two Ages of redemptive history, I am reading a lot of material — some useful for my work, some not (at least directly) useful. This is an interesting clip from Zondervan’s Four Views of Heaven book by Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft. This is from pp. 172–74 in the Zondervan “Views” book. Surprisingly, it should be insightful and encouraging to Reformed believers. This book (with all its footnotes that I have left out!) is available from Amazon.

Peter Kreeft: “Will we remember tragic events of this life?”

8. Will We Remember Tragic Events of This Life? And Will We Remember and Regret the Absence of the Loved Ones Who Are Not with Us in Heaven because They Are in Hell?

These are two quite different questions. Let’s answer the last and hardest one first.

The question is a trilemma. If we will not regret their absence because we will not remember them, then our happiness would depend on our ignorance of the truth that they are in hell. If we will remember them but not regret their absence, then our happiness would depend on our lovelessness. But truth and love are the two divine and heavenly absolutes. And if we will remember them and regret their absence, then a third heavenly absolute would be sacrificed, namely, joy. Continue reading →

OUR INTERMEDIATE EXISTENCE

Intermediate Estate April 18, 2025 1 Comment

Heaven and spiritsPMW 2025-030 by Michael Allen

Gentry note:
The following few paragraphs are taken from Michael Allen’s chapter in Zondervan’s Four Views on Heaven (p. 130–32). While I don’t agree with every detail of his statement, I have found it very helpful and elucidating. The editor gave a list of questions that each contributor was to answer. This is Allen’s paragraphs given to answering the question. The book is available at Amazon.com

Michael Allen, “A Heaven on Earth Perspective”

5. How does your view of our end relate to the intermediate state? How is it similar and how is it different? Continue reading →

WHY FOCUS ON MATTHEW’S DISCOURSE?

Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse April 15, 2025 1 Comment

PMW 2025-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Matthew

The “Olivet Discourse” is known by scholars as the “Eschatological Discourse.” This title focuses on its content, not its context; on what it teaches, not on where it was given. Though this fundamental Discourse appears in all three of the Synoptics (Matt. 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21), in this posting I will explain why I focus on Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse in my research. I will present seven important reasons.

First, Matthew’s version is in the most Jewish Gospel
“It is agreed on all hands that this is a very “‘Jewish’ Gospel” (Leon Morris). This is significant in that the Discourse is sparked by deeply Jewish concerns raised by the Lord’s disciples (Matt. 24:1–3; cp. Mark 13:4). This includes highlighting the Jewish temple (“holy place,” v. 15; cp. vv. 1–2), its geographical setting in Judea (v. 16), and a distinctly Jewish Sabbath concern (v. 20). Robinson declares that “Matthew is more concerned than any other evangelist with the relationship of Christianity to the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices” (J. A. T. Robinson).
Continue reading →

A SUMMARY OF MILLENNIAL VIEWS

Amillennialism, Millennial Views April 11, 2025 Leave a comment

PMW 2025-028 by Greg L. BahnsenVictory in Jesus

Gentry note: The following material is taken from Greg L. Bahnsen’s valuable study, “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” which is reprinted in his posthumously published collection of articles and lectures on postmillennialism as the book: Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism. I highly recommend this book as a brief introduction to postmillennialism. The following is by Dr. Bahnsen.

The Distinctive Essentials of the Three Positions
In the preceding section of this discussion there was occasion to note that postmillennialism had been misrepresented in its basic position. This causes us to ask, just what are the fundamental differences among premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism? That is, what is the distinctive outlook of each position, its essential and central characteristic?

Here many people are prone to be misled, becoming entangled in questions which are subsidiary and indecisive with respect to the basic dogmatical outlook of a pre-, a-, and postmillennialism. What this means is that they take important exegetical issues pertaining to the millennial question and attempt to use them to delineate the three fundamental theological positions; however, these particular exegetical issues are not decisive for the central and general claims of the school of thought. Perhaps some examples would be helpful.
Continue reading →