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.”
PMT 2015-120 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
My computer is getting lighter as I remove more of the questions that have been sent to me by readers. Today’s question regarding the Book of Revelation, one of my favorite pastimes!
You are committed to the Reformed faith, yet you don’t take the historicist approach to eschatology which was widely held among the Reformers. Why do you not follow the Reformers in this part of their theology.
Thank you for your inquiry. You are correct that I am committed to Reformed theology. However, I differ from the Reformers in that I take a preterist approach to Revelation rather than an historicist approach. I do so for the following reasons: Continue reading
PMT 2015-117 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Once again I am offering some succinct answers to a reader’s question. Sometimes brevity can more quickly assist our understanding. (But please do not tell the publisher of my upcoming 1700 page commentary on Revelation.) Here is today’s question and brief answer.
What is the “Mark of the Beast”? And since your answer will obviously have to have some first century application, isn’t it at all curious to you that for the first time in human history — with microchips, retinal scanners, a growing one-world economy, etc.—that the technology exists to make the “Mark of the Beast” a reality?
Thanks for your question. This type of thinking is fairly common in our American dispensationalist-dominated religious environment. Continue reading
PMW 2020-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I appreciate the questions readers send to me. I regret that I am not able to answer them quickly, due to my schedule. However, here is one that is a favorite among dispensationalists. And it is an intriguing one.
You argue that John must be measuring an actual, historical temple in Rev 11:1-2. Yet Ezekiel measures a temple, even though it does not exist in history. This suggests that the temple does not need to exist for John to measure it. How do you explain this problem for your view?
Thanks for your perceptive question. Please consider the following response. Continue reading
PMW 2020-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
A reader asks:
Dr. Gentry, I just got done watching your Revelation series on DVD. I just had a few questions.
I noticed you didn’t really touch much on Rev 12:4, and I’ve always been curious as to the meaning of that verse. A lot of people use it to say that when Satan rebelled he took a third of the angels with him. But that verse doesn’t seem to be talking about his rebellion at all, but rather his defeat during Christ’s earthly ministry. If that’s the case, then are there any other verse that talk about a “third of the angels”? Or is Scripture actually silent about that?
Thanks for watching my lectures on Revelation in the “Survey of the Book of Revelation” DVD set. Obviously I could not deal with every verse and every topic in the twenty-four lectures, but this is a good question and deserves a reply. Please consider the following comments on Rev 12:4. Clearly, the dragon is Satan, as John makes clear in Rev 12:9. But what does he mean we he speaks of his “tail” which “swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth”? Continue reading
PMT 2020-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Paul was a postmillennialist. We can know this by process of deduction. We know he was not a dispensationalist, because the dispensational system is so complicated that it took 1830 years to develop. Plus he never presents a Rapture chart in any of his known epistles (though admittedly he could have included one in either of his two lost Corinthians epistles). And we know he was not an amillennialist because he did not have a Dutch name. Continue reading
PMW 2020-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Postmillennialism holds a high view of the church. And of Christian worship in the church. And membership in the church. The church is the central focus of the kingdom of God. Much of the decline of Christianity that we are witnessing in America is related to Christians failing to understand the significance of the church for the Christian life.
In this article I will briefly present a biblical argument for church membership. Revival and reformation in our land must begin with the church, the household of God. Continue reading