# Theonomy And The Dating Of Revelation



## JM (Mar 29, 2007)

> His first tactic is to create an environment of what may be called
> "virtual reality." This phenomenon is becoming very popular in this
> day of computer-generated illusionary data. I call Gentry's use of it an
> experience in "back-to-the-future" manipulation.



Link is here.

It's interesting reading, any thoughts?

Peace,

jason


----------



## tewilder (Mar 29, 2007)

JM said:


> Link is here.
> 
> It's interesting reading, any thoughts?
> 
> ...



Since the author is a twit who can't distinguish between theonomy, partial praeterism, and Christian Reconstruction, why should we take him seriously?


----------



## Kevin (Mar 29, 2007)

tewilder said:


> Since the author is a twit who can't distinguish between theonomy, partial praeterism, and Christian Reconstruction, why should we take him seriously?


----------



## Kevin (Mar 29, 2007)

It is not so much a critique of Gentry as a complaint that he is not a dispensationalist.

  Two thumbs down from me.

BTW I trust that Masters seminary journal his improved the standard for book reviews since then.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 29, 2007)

tewilder said:


> Since the author is a twit who can't distinguish between theonomy, partial praeterism, and Christian Reconstruction, why should we take him seriously?


 
In an effort to keep posts more edifying, please refrain from referring to people as twits. 

I'm sympathetic to Gentry even and yes I agree with you that he is confusing categories.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 29, 2007)

JM said:


> Link is here.
> 
> It's interesting reading, any thoughts?
> 
> ...



In the aftermath of the "All self-respecting Calvinists are premil" scandal started by John MacArthur at the Shepherd’s Conference, Jason Robertson over at FIDE-O blog had some interesting words to say about Dr. Thomas's hermeneutical methods. He made some of his comments on the Narrow Mind Internet show (look for shows 766 and 767). He shared with the listeners Thomas's view that the OT prophecies about Israel and the kingdom were intended to be taken and fulfilled "literally", but that the New Testament authors had to reinterpret all those prophecies when things didn't turn out according to plan, and then apply them to Jesus. According to Jason, Thomas actually told him, "Because Israel rejected the Messiah, the apostles had to reinterpret the Old Testament to open the door for salvation to a new church that included Gentiles." 

It seems Thomas has his own problem with “virtual reality”.

BTW, the third edition of BJF has Gentry's response to many of Thomas's critiques.


----------



## beej6 (Mar 29, 2007)

OK, I may be slow, what's BJF?


----------



## brymaes (Mar 29, 2007)

beej6 said:


> OK, I may be slow, what's BJF?


_Before Jerusalem Fell_, Gentry's book supporting an early date of authorship for the Revelation.


----------

