JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Listening to three youtube vids of Thomas Gentry convinced me that partial preterism is valid. I'm a neophyte in this argument, so while i lean toward amil I'm impressed with 70 AD as being at least part of what our Lord was prophesying in Matthew 24.Is that B H Carroll on your profile pic? He's been really helpful to me in working out a recapitulative historicism.
To my mind, "things which must shortly come to pass" rules out idealism and futurism. And I think the structure of the book clearly indicates recapitulation. I think those are the simplest indicators of how the book is meant to be understood. The only options left at that point are recapitulative historian and preterism, and preterism seems like a very "forced" way of reading the book.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-on-partial-preterism-by-dr-ken-gentry.84775/
I was reading Martin Lloyd-Jones on the 'last things' and he dismissed post mil theory on the basis of the events of the 20th century. I agreed with him for a time, but then came to the realization that with God all things are possible, and perhaps the signs of the times are not a barometer to measure by.