Thank you Greg,
for an opportunity to address some of these issues in an organized manner. (I hope) I see things degraded somewhat since you posted to me. I am sorry I did not get back to your sooner but I had other things I needed to do.
First, it may be by design that I am responding to Kenneth Gentry rather than posters. What I have found is that people treat these posts as 'debates' and everyone knows that debate is about winning not truth. "WHO WON the debate?"
I am not interested in debate. I am, however, available for "dialogue".
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Let us reason together = yakach 'yaw-kahh' = to prove, decide, judge, rebuke, reprove, correct, be right
I am interested in 'being right' not winning a debate.
When you said "arguments that (I) put forth to you off the top of my head and which you casually (and I think erroneously) dismissed", I realized that it is difficult for others to understand where I am at, and equally, I the same. You see, when you put forth these arguments and even when you quote Gentry's statements you honestly believe there is no good answer and that the Preterist has not looked at them. When I see these arguments 'so-called' over and over again Greg, it is difficult for me to remember that those who are quoting them are sincerely convinced by them, but conclude rather that they are just shooting things off that bolster their 'position'. (I apologize for that) This is, sadly, the second thing that 'debate' is about, 'position'. The first is 'pride' of which none of us is short. Men end up for pride sake using anything in their arguments to win and maintain their positions.
Let us agree together not to go there if we can.
Second, I want everyone to know that I greatly appreciate the work that Gentry has done to establish Preterism in general, all be it that he is kicking at the goads with his stance against Full Preterism. If someone could prove that the quote from Irenaeus was proof that the book of Revelation was in fact written after the destruction of Jerusalem then the full preterist position would be lost. How can the prophecies be fulfilled if written after? They become historical works at best. Gentry's book Before Jerusalem Fell is to be honest an excellent book. To those who suggest that Revelation was written in 96AD, I would point to this book before any other. In fact, I will not debate that point unless they have read that book first. It is not only well-written and well foot noted, but also a very logical and graceful work. While I will contend that the 'proofs' that Gentry now offers against being 'consistent' are a real disappointment, I would also speak against what I heard someone else speak against him. They stated that they highly doubted Gentry would make it into the Preterist camp because “he now held 'position' and reputation that may be too dear to him.” I stated that I highly doubted that. You see, Greg, Gentry was a Partial Preterist when it was under as much assault as Full Preterism is now. In fact, I bought his book, House Divided, when it first came out. I first became a partial preterist when I read Marcellus Kik’s book Eschatology of Victory. I bought that book and read it in 1985, it was written in 1971. The foreword was by Rushdoony. Many Reconstructionist encouraged this book. Mr. Rousas John Rushdooney’s opening statement was this:
“One of the intellectual curiosities of the twentieth century is the unwillingness of scholars and Christina leader to admit the existence of a major school of Biblical interpretation. Although postmillennialism has a long history as a major, it is summarily read out of court be many on non-Biblical ground”
While it is obvious that ‘Rush’ in this statement is a postmillennialist, how easily his “out of court” comments could apply to what Gentry has brought against Consistent Preterism. I disagree that Gentry is too committed to his ‘position’ to change now, in the public eye, as it took a great deal of biblical integrity for him to become a partial preterist in the climate that he endured when doing so.
That being said, I am more than happy to avoid “casually (and I think erroneously) dismiss(ing)” your sincere objections to the Consistent Preterist view.
Before I point out how poor these arguments really are upon honest investigation, I also want to point out but one more critical point about the ‘debate’ mentality period. I think we Christians have learned some pretty poor behavior patterns from some very ill mannered “church fathers’. When the Church of Rome asked Martin Luther to recant and repent, he admitted that he could repent of the manner in which he presented his views but not the views themselves. His manner displayed little of the Christian spirit. I believe we are all guilty of this but feel little shame. Gentry quickly changed the term “Consistent Preterist” to “Hyper Preterist”. This is very subtle, as it appeals to the hatred for Arminian soteriology in the reformed camp. How might this possibly be true you may ask? Calvinists, hate to be called Hyper-Calvinists or Arminian. Either is hated and grouped together into the camp of “another gospel”. The use of the already stigmatized term “Hyper” immediately appeals to guilt by association to anyone in the reformed camp. Such techniques could be blamed first upon the Full Preterists, if one wanted to claim that they first changed the terms Partial Preterist and Full Preterist to Consistent Preterist and Inconsistent Preterist but when my children say each hit the other first, I simply discipline them both. I find it sad that Gentry obviously takes offense and delves into such childish things. Perhaps he uses “hyper” as it takes less time to type J
Next, let me show you that he prima fascia appears more interested in defending Reconstructionism than anything else with his stance, I quote:
” From time to time I receive letters from men declaring themselves "Reconstructionist" and "consistent preterist."
Then, he seems to excuse himself for having not done more about the ‘situation’ by saying:
” Due to my primary writing ministry against rapidly changing dispensationalism, I have not had time to deal extensively with the issue, but I do have some random thoughts that I will make public”
My advice to Ken would be to tread slowly lest you find yourself on the ‘wrong side’ of the ‘debate’ J “Random thoughts” will not cut it in this discussion. Gentry should ‘know his enemy’, if he intends to go to battle, as we are well armed with the word of God and not as people foolishly perceive us, as misfortunate and empty-headed heretics.
Again Gentry seems to insinuate that his main concern is to defend “Reconstructionism” against the ills of ‘Maniacal Preterism’ (I will give them a yet more effect name to call us if they think name calling will help them “win” – sorry flesh is weak – LOL): Gentry first says:
Let me begin by noting that, in the first place, I do not know how anyone could credibly claim to be postmillennial and hyper-preterist, nor do I understand how he could claim to be Reconstructionist, while maintaining his hyper-preterism.
This last statement reveals much about the motivation for Gentry to have posted these ‘‘random” ‘objections’. His first tenant it would seem is to make Preterists ‘enemies’ of his ‘reconstructionist crusade’. He makes them the common enemy of his already won Reconstructionist brothers, first. How sad, when he has already confessed many of his own ‘party’ confess themselves to be both. This from a man who co-authored a book entitled “ House Divided”?
Allow me to briefly reiterate that I think Gentry, a Doctor from Whitefield, is a highly skilled exegete and logical thinker but something has gone critically wrong within the article you have pointed me to. It seems almost a different man than the one who wrote Before Jerusalem Fell. Gary North has publicly called for the excommunication of all “Hyper Preterists” but that is not unusual behavior for him. This, from Gentry, is in my opinion, unusual. Perhaps you have chosen an article of “random thoughts” that Gentry did not expect to be called upon, or to be his final word. We can only hope as went David Chilton so will go Kenneth Gentry.
the hyper-preterist position cannot be theonomic
Someone should tell Gentry – I am both a hyper-preterist and theonomic and if it came down to deciding, as he seems to suggest, I am not so partial to my ‘positions’ that I could so easily be dispelled from choosing Consistent Preterism over Theonomy, but rejecting either is equally ridiculous in my mind. Does Gentry forget his roots? What is theonomy and how did we win so many over to it?
Theo = God Nomo = Law
Simply put = God’s law. We told people that any country anywhere would either be ruled by the laws of fallen men or by the laws of a sinless and perfectly wise God. How could any Christian, regardless of his eschatology, be against having their land ruled by God's law? Gentry has indeed spent too much time with the ‘escapist’ mentality of the dispensationalist. He presumes that he must argue the same things against us? The unfortunate mistake Gentry seems to be making here is to fail to see that there are all kinds of Preterists. Yes, I have met and debated with Antinomian Preterists. Yes I have debated with Arminian Preterists. Preterism is about biblical prophecy and it’s fulfillment. It says little about a man’s views on soteriology or political economics, although most who have studied this have studied the other schools of theology. I know some, and Gentry addresses this in the article, who profess that the “moral law’ is passed because “heaven and earth” have passed in 70 AD.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That is a ‘positional’ exegesis and a very poor one exercised by antinomians, and yes we, the Full Preterists, have our share of them even as Christ said:
Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
And again:
Matthew 7: 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
However Gentry does not delve into the extensive explanations offered to show that Christ was speaking exclusively to the moral law and not the ceremonial law, which was in fact about to pass away. How does Gentry prove that Jesus was not speaking about the ceremonial law instead of the moral law? Or how does Gentry prove that Jesus was only not speaking about both?
How does Gentry explain “not one jot or tittle” but and yet the entire ceremonial law?
He goes outside the verse itself to prove that, and bases unon the presuppostion that “heaven and earth” are the physical terra and firma. Did not Jesus, faithfully, observe the Passover every year? Did not Jesus celebrate both the Passover and Institute the Lord’s Supper even hours before the cross? Why would Christ celebrate Passover – a mere sign and symbol – when He knew full well that he was the reality? How does Gentry prove that 5:17 does not fit well that the ‘heaven and earth’ system of the ceremonial law that was indeed both being fulfilled and passing away – like yeast, bit by bit, and ultimately, all be it carnally, with the complete destruction of the temple, so that, even the unfaithful could not longer practice it? Gentry says that the statement of Christ is exclusively speaking to the moral law. How does he prove that? Remember Jesus concluding remarks to His defense who claimed he was a ‘destroyer’.
Matthew 5: 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
It is the ungodly that propose Christ did away with the moral law in 70AD, not Consistent Preterists. I will not speak further about Matthew 5:17-19 as it alone could lead to pages. I just think Gentry is a little self-assured thinking he can absolutely exclude ceremonial law in his understanding of it.
In any case Greg, I detect that my lengthy replies are not furthering our discussion even as you had stated ” try to limit your posts to one point at a time and it will be easier for us to dialogue” So, in compliance to your request. I would suggest that I point form Gentry’s complaints:
1. Creedal Failure
2. Biblical Perspicuity
3. No Canon
4. Hermeneutical Failure
5. Anthropological Errors
6. Piercing Questions
7. Effects of the Resurrection
8. Christology Implications
9. A brief Millennium
10. History and Church Errors
11. Ecclesiastical Labor
Now we both know the methods of those who win debates. If an opponent brings forth 10 points, 9 of them very convincing, leave off the 9 strong and make light rather of the 10th and weakest point. That you may know I am not reduced to such tactics and indeed did not intentionally or “casually (and I think erroneously) dismiss” your arguments against Consistent Preterism, and that I am not so interested in ‘winning’ if it can be proven that I am wrong, I would prefer you to chose which of the above points you would most like me to address. It may be what you consider the strongest point but it may also be the one you find most interesting. It is your choice. You may already agree that some of the points above are easily overcome so perhaps we may agree they are weak and likely a waste of time anyway.
I look forward to your first choice.
Your Brother in Christ
Brian |
