God's Hope for God's World
PMW 2023-034 by Louis Berkhof
Louis Berkhof was a famed Reformed theologian who wrote an important Systematic Theology. In this theology he explained and defended the historic Christian understanding of the physical resurrection of the dead. In this he was in lockstep with virtually universal Reformed theology, as well as with the ecumenical creeds defining Christianity to the world.
Below is his comments on the resurrection, taken from his Systematic Theology, pp. 720ff.
PMW 2023-033 by Andrew Sandlin
The following article written by Andrew Sandling, President of Center for Cultural Leadership explains why he (and I and many others!) did not notice Gary DeMar’s commitment to the core principles of hyperpreterism until recently.
Gary DeMar’s Heretical Eschatology: What Did I Know, and When Did I Know It?
By P. Andrew Sandlin
I don’t intend to pursue further the controversy over Hyper-Pretersim (HP) brought to light by this letter signed by a number of Gary’s friends.
But I feel obliged to respond to Gary’s statement that he hasn’t changed his views in about 25 years, and that I have continued to promote him during that time, and only lately have I objected to his views. Have I just over the last few months become more severe in my judgment on heresy? Was I tolerant of Gary’s false teaching for a quarter century and only in the last few weeks become publicly intolerant of it?
The short answer is no. Here’s the longer answer:
Gary is quite correct that I had concerns over his eschatology 25 years ago. The (HP) heresy was rearing its ugly head. Its books were being carried by the late Walt Hibbard at the now defunct Great Christian Books, which was influential in the Reformed camp at that time. By reliable accounts, noted author David Chilton had embraced the HP heresy before his premature death. Many people seemed to have had the impression that to embrace postmillennialism was to embrace preterism, and even heretical HP.
Continue readingPMW 2023-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In response to a previous article I wrote on the Olivet Discourse, a reader challenged my interpretation of the division in the Discourse. He believes the Lord does not move to consider his second coming and final judgment until Matt. 25:31. He challenged me largely because he felt that the view I present (a division in the Discourse at Matt. 24:34–36) does not actually deal with the disciples’ question in Matt. 24:3. They expected the destruction of the temple would signal “the end of the age,” which my reader assumes is the end of the old covenant era, and therefore of the temple era in AD 70.
The Two-age Structure of Redemptive History
I am currently researching a book on the two-age structure of redemptive history. My view is that which is taught by most Reformed (e.g., B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, Richard Gaffin, Greg Bahnsen) and many orthodox evangelical (e.g., George E. Ladd, Grant Osborne, R. T. France, D. A. Caron) scholars. There is clear and compelling evidence that the two-age structure of redemptive history is not speaking of the old covenant versus the new covenant. Continue reading
PMW 2023-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the final installment in a three-part study of seven “letters” to the seven churches in Revelation. I have been arguing that they are not really letters at all. Rather they are judgment oracles. This fits perfectly with the preterist understanding of Rev as a covenant lawsuit against Israel. In the previous article I offered the first two arguments for the oracular nature of these seven messages. In this article I will complete my argument by presenting my final three points.
Third, the oracles are a part of the crucial, introductory vision of the Son of Man and even flesh out this visionary unit that extends from 1:9 all the way through to 3:22. The oracles are not separate, free-standing material. Unfortunately, this is obscured by the modern chapter divisions imposed upon the text. But we can see the unified nature of this larger section from several lines of evidence: Continue reading
PMW 2023-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In the preceding article in this three-part series, I introduced the concept that the seven messages that appear early in Rev are not really letters. Rather they should be understood as prophetic oracles built on the covenant lawsuit model of the Old Testament. These seven oracles are important for several reasons. I will highlight two of those in this article, and the remaining ones in my next article.
First, a major reason John writes Rev is to encourage faithfulness through the storm of persecution befalling John’s original Christian recipients. Throughout Rev he urges perseverance through the coming trials (1:3, 9; 12:11; 13:10; 14:4–5; 16:16; 17:14; 21:7). For instance, John opens with: “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 1:9). So at the very beginning of his book John declares that he and his recipients are “in the tribulation” and that they must also engage in “perseverance.” The several other verses I list above also testify to the urgent call to hold on through the storm. Continue reading
PMW 2023-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The literary genre of Revelation is one of the key issues in its proper interpretation. The question of genre even affects our understanding of the seven letters in Rev. 2 and 3. The “Seven Letters of Revelation” are a familiar and popular section of John’s Revelation. Unfortunately, these popularly-designated “letters” to the seven churches are not actually letters at all.
Rather the so-called Seven Letters are actually more adapted to Revelation’s overarching literary genre and judgment message. They are prophetic oracles or royal proclamations. And as such they perfectly fit in with the theme and flow of Revelation. Continue reading
PMW 2023-028 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
During his earthly ministry, Jesus repeatedly refers to himself as “the son of man” (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8; etc.). But what does this self-designation mean? How is it used in the Gospels?
As we consider this phrase in the Gospels, we must keep three important issues in mind: (1) Jesus is the only one who ever uses this phrase. Never do his disciples, the Jews, or anyone else mention it. (2) The phrase is always used with the definite article: “the son of man” (3) In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus himself does not even begin using it until Matt. 8:20. Each of these points is significant. Continue reading
GoodBirth Ministries is raising funds to subsidize Kenneth Gentry’s exegetical and theological research. And your help is much needed and appreciated.
If you would like to read more about GoodBirth’s projects or make a tax-deductible donation, please go to: GoodBirth Ministries website.
Recent comments