Kenneth Gentry and Eschatology

[Iconoclast]

It would seem that if someone were presenting the postmill view,it would be quite natural to view the great commission as a central biblical theme. In light of Eph. 3:
9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

We are allowed by God to declare truth to all men everywhere of God's loyal love.
Post mill see this as coming down to the physical creation being delivered also from the curse ,where the Amill writers say it is only a spiritual rule awaiting,or "groaning" to be brought into the eternal state.
I like how Gentry and the other postmill writers urge believers to be active in every sphere of life, and not just leave it to the ungodly to make all political and social laws for us.
Some of the Amill writers react against this element of the teaching,however I do not see much in print to counter this idea of what David Englesma summed up as an accusation of world flight. Engelsma laments the lack of Amill writers putting forth more of an answer to the numerous postmill writers.
Has anyone seen what they believe to be major weakness in the writings of Gentry,that would be a red flag? If the person and work of Christ is at the heart of our gospel proclamation in fulfilling the great commission,why would it be wrong to say that this has always been a central part of God's revelation of Himself in the bible? Or am I not understanding what is being presented?

 

[JohnV]

Now that I have a bit more time I can answer a bit more accurately instead of reactively.

I belong to a confessional church. That means that I have taken vows of commitment which binds me to the doctrines the church teaches, namely the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms. Postmillennialism is not one of those binding doctrines. The church has ruled that I may be either Amil or Premil with the same freedom of conscience to my confessional bond as I would be if I were Postmil. In other words, a millennial view is not binding.

Therefore when I find that a man's hermeneutic is in any way dependent upon things which are non binding, I cannot believe that his hermeneutic will produce anything that is binding. If there is no distinction between binding and non-binding, how will I know which part of his hermeneutic is binding and which is not? I would believe that his entire hermeneutic is suspect. Therefore I am no worse off if I don't read his material, nor any better of if I do. It is not related to my confessional commitment in the church. It's just interesting reading, and nothing more.

The hermeneutic that I am interested in is that which is wholly dependent upon revealed truth, as the Confessions teach also. That way I know that the results may well be binding, but at least worthy of serious consideration.

Gentry actually has a serious problem if he includes his Postmillennial commitment as a precommitment to his hermeneutic. The Confessional standard of the church says that Postmillennialism is non-binding, while he makes it an ingredient to his hermeneutic. Which is to say that he is trying to make Postmillennialism binding through his arguments. His difference is with the Reformed churches, for they do not make millennial views binding upon anyone. Therefore Reformed churches do not make millennial commitments part of hermeneutical practices and methods.

I mean, just think of it a moment: Gentry comes to some hermeneutical conclusion as a result of utilizing his Postmillennial commitment upon the text of Scripture. He therefore supposes that the Bible teaches that conclusion. But that teaching is non binding, because it depends upon a non-binding element. As long as the least part of the foundation is uncertain, the entire structure is uncertain. He actually has a resulting non-binding Biblical teaching.

That's a huge, huge problem. Why should the interpretation of one text be non-binding while another is binding? What kind of Biblical commitment will this engender in his adherents? Who's going to separate the binding from the non-binding, if that distinction is not going to be made before the hermeneutical interpretation is done? His task in sorting things out will be endless. And it will always depend upon non-binding principles.

If I were an Amillennialist in his congregation, where hermeneutics depended upon a Postmillennial precommitment, whether in part or wholly, the most that he could do would be to warn me of my confessional commitment to the peace and unity of the church. But as soon as he began to insist upon his hermeneutics for the congregation, he would be the one violating that peace and unity, since that would exclude me from participation. Even if I were the only Amillennialist, I am within my confessional commitment, and he outside of it. All he could ever hope to achieve would be a church policy of a Postmillennial commitment, not a doctrinal commitment to it.

Postmillennialism is non-binding in the Reformed churches. When someone says or shows that his hermeneutics is in any way or degree dependent upon something that is non-doctrinal, then he is telling me that his hermeneutic can be nothing that can effect my confessional commitments. It is not of the sort that my confessional commitment seeks.

That's also why I don't need to give FV the time of day. It's interesting reading maybe, but there's nothing there that has any bearing on my confessional commitments. Their foundation is in their liberty to their own views, not in what is binding from the Confessions of a confessional church. It can have no influence upon my faith. The Confessions expressly forbid that. Only the clear revelation of the Word of God may have that place.

 

[KMK]

Excellent post, John! Thank you.

Does your view necessarily eliminate (or at least limit) the preaching of certain obscure passages where meaning is only derived by applying a particular escatalogical POV? And if so, is there anything wrong with that?

 

[RamistThomist]

The confession says we preach the whole counsel of God.

Revelation 20 is in the whole counsel of God.

Ergo, ....

 

[JohnV]

Ken:

The rule is that those things of Scripture which are known are the guide to understanding those things which are not known. An eschatological point of view is nothing else than that, a point of view. Personal convictions that are not confessional commitments are to be kept separate from those things which are confessional commitments when it comes to coming to determining and understanding the Word of God for what it says.

When I say "confessional commitments" I'm referring to those things to which the vows are tied.

 

[JohnV]

I mark a distinction between the counsel of God and the counsel of men. The purpose of exegesis is to determine what God is saying.

If Postmillennialism is part of the Counsel of God, then it is to be binding. You can't have revelational teaching from God that is not binding. The churches have ruled on that: it is not binding. No one person or group of individuals may overrule the church as to what is bound to the conscience and what is not. The church has ruled, and I have to go by that. I am bound to the church's confession, not someone else's conscience. Thus the church's ruling does not proclaim that Postmillennialism is part of the counsel of God, thus leaving it to the personal consciences of men.

I'm not saying that people should not Postmillennialists. That's their business, not mine. They have the same liberty that I have, and may have their views without question of their personal commitment to the confessional standards of the church. Same with Premils. As an Amil, I am no more right or wrong than they are, and we are equally within our confessional commitments and vows.

It is one thing, however, to personally hold to one millennial view, and quite another to say that the particular view is part of the counsel of God. We do not know, and it is a very bold assertion to make.

 

[tcalbrecht]

If I'm hearing some folks correctly, "eschatology" is strictly related to matters mentioned in WCF chapters 32 and 33.

Again, if I'm reading this correctly preterism, historicism, futurism, etc are not really eschatological positions, but rather frameworks for interpreting certain texts of Scripture (e.g., the book of Revelation). The pope as anti-Christ and the millennium are not eschatological concepts (except insofar as the terminus of the millennium is the second coming and resurrection).

That being said, the only confessional (Reformed) definition of "eschatology" (last things) is what is stated in places like WCF 32 and 33, and to insist, for instance, that amillennialism is the Reformed eschatology is misguided at best.

 

[RamistThomist]

I mark a distinction between the counsel of God and the counsel of men. The purpose of exegesis is to determine what God is saying.

Revelation 20 is the counsel of God, not men. You missed what I was saying. WHen the preacher comes to Revelation 20, he is forced to a millennial view. Your position has admirable points but this is where I have to take issue.

If Postmillennialism is part of the Counsel of God, then it is to be binding. You can't have revelational teaching from God that is not binding. The churches have ruled on that: it is not binding. No one person or group of individuals may overrule the church as to what is bound to the conscience and what is not. The church has ruled, and I have to go by that. I am bound to the church's confession, not someone else's conscience. Thus the church's ruling does not proclaim that Postmillennialism is part of the counsel of God, thus leaving it to the personal consciences of men.

This isn't related to what I was saying so I probably won't address it. I don';t think you are seeing the force of what I am saying: If I have to preach on Revelation 20 (because it is the counsel of God), then I will have to come to grips with a millennial view. There is no other way around it.

Does that bind the consciences of the parishioners? Not necessarily. I can tell them they are free to their positions but only if they come to them on exegetical grounds. I wouldn't dare go beyond that.

I'm not saying that people should not Postmillennialists. That's their business, not mine. They have the same liberty that I have, and may have their views without question of their personal commitment to the confessional standards of the church. Same with Premils. As an Amil, I am no more right or wrong than they are, and we are equally within our confessional commitments and vows.

I am premillennail, by the way. And at least one or two of us--the premil, amil, or postmil--is wrong.

It is one thing, however, to personally hold to one millennial view, and quite another to say that the particular view is part of the counsel of God. We do not know, and it is a very bold assertion to make.

Again, I wasn't making x millennial view part of the counsel of God. I am saying that I have the right to express it when the counsel of God mentions it in the text. In other words, The Confession can't forbid me from preacihng on this text of the bible. I will restate my example.

Revelation 20:4-6. Are they two literal resurrections?

If you ignore the question, you have failed to deal with the text.

If you answer the question, regardless of your answer, you have immediately identified yourself as a _________millennialist. There is no way of getting around it. I will copy and paste this illustration again in future posts.

 

[Jaymin Allen]

Now that I have a bit more time I can answer a bit more accurately instead of reactively.

I belong to a confessional church. That means that I have taken vows of commitment which binds me to the doctrines the church teaches, namely the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms. Postmillennialism is not one of those binding doctrines. The church has ruled that I may be either Amil or Premil with the same freedom of conscience to my confessional bond as I would be if I were Postmil. In other words, a millennial view is not binding.

Therefore when I find that a man's hermeneutic is in any way dependent upon things which are non binding, I cannot believe that his hermeneutic will produce anything that is binding. If there is no distinction between binding and non-binding, how will I know which part of his hermeneutic is binding and which is not? I would believe that his entire hermeneutic is suspect. Therefore I am no worse off if I don't read his material, nor any better of if I do. It is not related to my confessional commitment in the church. It's just interesting reading, and nothing more.

The hermeneutic that I am interested in is that which is wholly dependent upon revealed truth, as the Confessions teach also. That way I know that the results may well be binding, but at least worthy of serious consideration.

Gentry actually has a serious problem if he includes his Postmillennial commitment as a precommitment to his hermeneutic. The Confessional standard of the church says that Postmillennialism is non-binding, while he makes it an ingredient to his hermeneutic. Which is to say that he is trying to make Postmillennialism binding through his arguments. His difference is with the Reformed churches, for they do not make millennial views binding upon anyone. Therefore Reformed churches do not make millennial commitments part of hermeneutical practices and methods.

I mean, just think of it a moment: Gentry comes to some hermeneutical conclusion as a result of utilizing his Postmillennial commitment upon the text of Scripture. He therefore supposes that the Bible teaches that conclusion. But that teaching is non binding, because it depends upon a non-binding element. As long as the least part of the foundation is uncertain, the entire structure is uncertain. He actually has a resulting non-binding Biblical teaching.

That's a huge, huge problem. Why should the interpretation of one text be non-binding while another is binding? What kind of Biblical commitment will this engender in his adherents? Who's going to separate the binding from the non-binding, if that distinction is not going to be made before the hermeneutical interpretation is done? His task in sorting things out will be endless. And it will always depend upon non-binding principles.

If I were an Amillennialist in his congregation, where hermeneutics depended upon a Postmillennial precommitment, whether in part or wholly, the most that he could do would be to warn me of my confessional commitment to the peace and unity of the church. But as soon as he began to insist upon his hermeneutics for the congregation, he would be the one violating that peace and unity, since that would exclude me from participation. Even if I were the only Amillennialist, I am within my confessional commitment, and he outside of it. All he could ever hope to achieve would be a church policy of a Postmillennial commitment, not a doctrinal commitment to it.

Postmillennialism is non-binding in the Reformed churches. When someone says or shows that his hermeneutics is in any way or degree dependent upon something that is non-doctrinal, then he is telling me that his hermeneutic can be nothing that can effect my confessional commitments. It is not of the sort that my confessional commitment seeks.

That's also why I don't need to give FV the time of day. It's interesting reading maybe, but there's nothing there that has any bearing on my confessional commitments. Their foundation is in their liberty to their own views, not in what is binding from the Confessions of a confessional church. It can have no influence upon my faith. The Confessions expressly forbid that. Only the clear revelation of the Word of God may have that place.

John V,
First I want to commend you on your excellent post, I found it very informing and apt to redirect the thinking of many. However, I have a couple points of disagreements with you that I would like to raise and see how you will respond to them. First, is the priority of Confessions in the Christian life.

When I ponder the opening portions of the beautiful Westminster Confession I read paragraphs 4 and 10 from its opening chapter: 'The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.' 'The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'

So it seems as though Confessions of the Church are derivative from and subordinate to what scripture itself speaks of (I am sure we all agree here). We all know the famous scripture in II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." When I see Paul assert "all scripture is... profitable for doctrine" and I watch you write "An eschatological point of view is nothing else than that, a point of view" it made me a little ansy... Taking II Timothy 3:16 into consideration, the study of any of Scripture's doctrines will be beneficial to the Christian. Eschatology is certainly one of the major fields of biblical theology. The idea of biblical eschatology "begins at the very genesis of universal history and extends to its ultimate consummation. Thus, its sweep encompasses the whole of time and the entirety of the biblical record" (Gentry, He Shall have Dominion, PG 4). I love the way Jurgen Moltmann establishes this: "From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present." So, if such precedence is given to Eschatology, we really should not overlook this field of study. For most Christians, Scriptures hold a dominant sway over our worldviews. So in summary, I would like to study the scriptures on an eschatological outlook because scripture has affirmed that it will be profitable to others and me.

Another interesting aspect to eschatology is some of the Church fathers were concerned with these matters. Origen (although a lot of his work unacceptable) in his "Against Celsus" 8:68 sets a Postmillennial hope up very well. Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine surely wrote much of an "eschatological outlook" as well.

The next point I want to raise is an inaccurate portrayal of Kenneth Gentry. I just finished reading "The Greatness of the Great Commission" and I did not get the "distinct notion" that Gentry's theology was informing his exegetical work. If you could point that out to me, I would be grateful. I saw the contrary to be true… the first 10 chapters deal with Gentry’s exegetical notions especially in chapter 4, 5, and 6… then in chapter 11 Gentry dashes into the Great Commissions eschatological outlook. Again, that is what I witnessed from reading the book, if you saw it as Gentry’s theology informing his exegesis than by all means show it to me please. I actually want to take it a step farther, because I have never witnessed Gentry “solely” relying upon his theology to shape his exegetical notions. So if you find any work where Gentry is putting the cart before the horse, please inform me.

I hope this does not sound much like a polemical response, it really was not if it cast that illusion. I am really new to Creedal theology and the place of Confessions to the Church is surely a novelty to me. So, I am asking you more or less to inform me ?

 

[Jaymin Allen]

I mark a distinction between the counsel of God and the counsel of men. The purpose of exegesis is to determine what God is saying.

Revelation 20 is the counsel of God, not men. You missed what I was saying. WHen the preacher comes to Revelation 20, he is forced to a millennial view. Your position has admirable points but this is where I have to take issue.

If Postmillennialism is part of the Counsel of God, then it is to be binding. You can't have revelational teaching from God that is not binding. The churches have ruled on that: it is not binding. No one person or group of individuals may overrule the church as to what is bound to the conscience and what is not. The church has ruled, and I have to go by that. I am bound to the church's confession, not someone else's conscience. Thus the church's ruling does not proclaim that Postmillennialism is part of the counsel of God, thus leaving it to the personal consciences of men.

This isn't related to what I was saying so I probably won't address it. I don';t think you are seeing the force of what I am saying: If I have to preach on Revelation 20 (because it is the counsel of God), then I will have to come to grips with a millennial view. There is no other way around it.

Does that bind the consciences of the parishioners? Not necessarily. I can tell them they are free to their positions but only if they come to them on exegetical grounds. I wouldn't dare go beyond that.

I'm not saying that people should not Postmillennialists. That's their business, not mine. They have the same liberty that I have, and may have their views without question of their personal commitment to the confessional standards of the church. Same with Premils. As an Amil, I am no more right or wrong than they are, and we are equally within our confessional commitments and vows.

I am premillennail, by the way. And at least one or two of us--the premil, amil, or postmil--is wrong.

It is one thing, however, to personally hold to one millennial view, and quite another to say that the particular view is part of the counsel of God. We do not know, and it is a very bold assertion to make.

Again, I wasn't making x millennial view part of the counsel of God. I am saying that I have the right to express it when the counsel of God mentions it in the text. In other words, The Confession can't forbid me from preacihng on this text of the bible. I will restate my example.

Revelation 20:4-6. Are they two literal resurrections?

If you ignore the question, you have failed to deal with the text.

If you answer the question, regardless of your answer, you have immediately identified yourself as a _________millennialist. There is no way of getting around it. I will copy and paste this illustration again in future posts.

Right...I like your line of reasoning

 

[wsw201]

Do you believe Kenneth Gentry has the right ideas on Eschatology?

Only if your a partial preterist postmil.

 

[RamistThomist]

I mark a distinction between the counsel of God and the counsel of men. The purpose of exegesis is to determine what God is saying.

Revelation 20 is the counsel of God, not men. You missed what I was saying. WHen the preacher comes to Revelation 20, he is forced to a millennial view. Your position has admirable points but this is where I have to take issue.



This isn't related to what I was saying so I probably won't address it. I don';t think you are seeing the force of what I am saying: If I have to preach on Revelation 20 (because it is the counsel of God), then I will have to come to grips with a millennial view. There is no other way around it.

Does that bind the consciences of the parishioners? Not necessarily. I can tell them they are free to their positions but only if they come to them on exegetical grounds. I wouldn't dare go beyond that.




I am premillennail, by the way. And at least one or two of us--the premil, amil, or postmil--is wrong.

It is one thing, however, to personally hold to one millennial view, and quite another to say that the particular view is part of the counsel of God. We do not know, and it is a very bold assertion to make.

Again, I wasn't making x millennial view part of the counsel of God. I am saying that I have the right to express it when the counsel of God mentions it in the text. In other words, The Confession can't forbid me from preacihng on this text of the bible. I will restate my example.

Revelation 20:4-6. Are they two literal resurrections?

If you ignore the question, you have failed to deal with the text.

If you answer the question, regardless of your answer, you have immediately identified yourself as a _________millennialist. There is no way of getting around it. I will copy and paste this illustration again in future posts.

Right...I like your line of reasoning

Except for my conclusions!

Gentry is a gentleman. I have dialogued with him via email often. I like his books on theonomy and ethics better than I do his work on eschatology.

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

Gentry is a gentleman. I have dialogued with him via email often. I like his books on theonomy and ethics better than I do his work on eschatology.

Have you read his book Yea, Hath God Said? where he and Michael Butler defend th tradition view against the Framework hypothesis of creation? It looks interesting.

 

[RamistThomist]

Gentry is a gentleman. I have dialogued with him via email often. I like his books on theonomy and ethics better than I do his work on eschatology.

Have you read his book Yea, Hath God Said? where he and Michael Butler defend th tradition view against the Framework hypothesis of creation? It looks interesting.

I have seen it. I haven't read it.

 

[JohnV]

John V,
First I want to commend you on your excellent post, I found it very informing and apt to redirect the thinking of many. However, I have a couple points of disagreements with you that I would like to raise and see how you will respond to them. First, is the priority of Confessions in the Christian life.

When I ponder the opening portions of the beautiful Westminster Confession I read paragraphs 4 and 10 from its opening chapter: 'The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.' 'The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'

So it seems as though Confessions of the Church are derivative from and subordinate to what scripture itself speaks of (I am sure we all agree here). We all know the famous scripture in II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." When I see Paul assert "all scripture is... profitable for doctrine" and I watch you write "An eschatological point of view is nothing else than that, a point of view" it made me a little ansy... Taking II Timothy 3:16 into consideration, the study of any of Scripture's doctrines will be beneficial to the Christian. Eschatology is certainly one of the major fields of biblical theology. The idea of biblical eschatology "begins at the very genesis of universal history and extends to its ultimate consummation. Thus, its sweep encompasses the whole of time and the entirety of the biblical record" (Gentry, He Shall have Dominion, PG 4). I love the way Jurgen Moltmann establishes this: "From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present." So, if such precedence is given to Eschatology, we really should not overlook this field of study. For most Christians, Scriptures hold a dominant sway over our worldviews. So in summary, I would like to study the scriptures on an eschatological outlook because scripture has affirmed that it will be profitable to others and me.

Another interesting aspect to eschatology is some of the Church fathers were concerned with these matters. Origen (although a lot of his work unacceptable) in his "Against Celsus" 8:68 sets a Postmillennial hope up very well. Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine surely wrote much of an "eschatological outlook" as well.

The next point I want to raise is an inaccurate portrayal of Kenneth Gentry. I just finished reading "The Greatness of the Great Commission" and I did not get the "distinct notion" that Gentry's theology was informing his exegetical work. If you could point that out to me, I would be grateful. I saw the contrary to be true… the first 10 chapters deal with Gentry’s exegetical notions especially in chapter 4, 5, and 6… then in chapter 11 Gentry dashes into the Great Commissions eschatological outlook. Again, that is what I witnessed from reading the book, if you saw it as Gentry’s theology informing his exegesis than by all means show it to me please. I actually want to take it a step farther, because I have never witnessed Gentry “solely” relying upon his theology to shape his exegetical notions. So if you find any work where Gentry is putting the cart before the horse, please inform me.

I hope this does not sound much like a polemical response, it really was not if it cast that illusion. I am really new to Creedal theology and the place of Confessions to the Church is surely a novelty to me. So, I am asking you more or less to inform me ?

Jaymin:

It appears to me that both you and Jacob missed what I was saying. I'm not at all suggesting that eschatology has no place in theology. It is a very important part. What I'm talking about and keeping distinct is the particular millennial views that are but a small part of the theology around eschatology.

Perhaps you missed it. It was the key to what I said above. I said that Postmillennialism is non-binding. That is, I can be Amillennial, Jacob be Premillennial, and Gentry be Postmillennial, and each of us still be within our confessional commitments. We know, of course, that if one of them is true then the other two cannot be true, because there are mutually exclusive aspects to each. The reason the church allows mutually exclusive views on the same thing is because the church does not know which is right. The church does not know because God has not revealed it to her. The church would never allow Premillennialism if the Word revealed that Postmillennialism was true. But the church does allow it, and that is because the church does not know. Which millennial view to believe is not revealed to us; it is not in the counsel of God that we have as the sufficient and perspicuous Word of God.

If the church does not require one particular view of me, but allows me to any one of three mutually exclusive views, or even to no view at all, then no man is going to require it of me in her place. It comes to this: do I believe the church, who says that she does not know? Or do I believe a man who claims he does know? And as a minister of the church, is he under the church's authority, or his own? Is he commissioned to preach as Bible doctrine that which the church has confessed she does not know to be true from the Bible?