Kenneth Gentry post millennialism

[RJ Spencer]

Anyone hold to a Kenneth Gentry type post millennialism? Specifically the idea that the Millennium is the entire church age and that there will be no actual golden age? How does it differ from an optimistic Amillennial view? I currently hold to an optimistic amill view, so I find Gentry very intriguing. Most of the Puritans that were post mill held to a golden age, not necessarily a literal 1000 years though. Did any of the Puritans hold to a Gentry type progressive post millennialism?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I haven't read it in a long time but think that Cornel Venema did a bang up job on this topic. I am an optimistic Amil.

http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/thepromiseofthefuture.pdf

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

He goes through the history of all the Millenial views and the scriptures. Amil is a recent term used to describe those who didn't hold to a literal 1K view but held to various views looking at Scripture in their fullness. There are variants. We have been previously known as Post Mil.

 

[RJ Spencer]

He goes through the history of all the Millenial views and the scriptures. Amil is a recent term used to describe those who didn't hold to a literal 1K view but held to various views looking at Scripture in their fullness. There are variants. We have been previously known as Post Mil.

I understand that we were once post mill. My main question is, what is the difference between Gentry's form of Post millennialism and the optimistic Amill view? He seems to be more of an amill than a true post mill.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I haven't read it in a long time but think that Cornel Venema did a bang up job on this topic. I am an optimistic Amil.

http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/thepromiseofthefuture.pdf

Excellent find, Randy. I read that book about 13 years ago and sold it a few years later, but it is a good book and it is good to have it on PDF.

 

[Von]

what is the difference between Gentry's form of Post millennialism and the optimistic Amill view?

Can someone, in a nutshell, give me the difference between optimistic Amil and 'normal' Amil?

 

[RamistThomist]

Can someone, in a nutshell, give me the difference between optimistic Amil and 'normal' Amil?

Some amils of the Engelsma stripe (of whom I am appreciative) highlighted the "darkening of culture" passages in the New Testament.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I understand that we were once post mill. My main question is, what is the difference between Gentry's form of Post millennialism and the optimistic Amill view? He seems to be more of an amill than a true post mill.

I have always thought that amillennialism is such an unfortunate term for anyone who has the slightest positive view of the future. It means 'no' millennium, and even amills believe in a millennium according to their definition. I think this negative connotation of amillennialism has more to do with why positive amills call themselves postmillennialists — just my two cents.

But that's not why I'm writing. I read a book recently that made me rethink my millennial view more than anything else has in the past 20 years. It's a commentary on the Book of Daniel--and not a book on prophecy per se. But you can't talk about Daniel without getting into prophecy at some points. And when you look at the prophecies of Daniel, it's hard not to also look at the prophecies in The Revelation. And that's what this book does in a different way then I have come across before.

In short, the author's thesis is that the church indeed will experience massive global revival with hordes of people coming to Christ as well as the restoration of the Jews. But the difference is he believes that this will happen simultaneously with the tribulation of the last days. There are elements of it that sound like dispensationalism, but it is not at all dispensational. I would love for several of you to read it to tell me what you think about the author's handling of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Here's the book.

from the
PREACHING THE WORD
series
DANIEL
The Triumph of God’s Kingdom
by
Rodney Stortz
R. Kent Hughes, General Editor
CROSSWAY BOOKS
A PUBLISHING MINISTRY OF
GOOD NEWS PUBLISHERS
WHEATON, ILLINOIS​

 

[Dachaser]

Anyone hold to a Kenneth Gentry type post millennialism? Specifically the idea that the Millennium is the entire church age and that there will be no actual golden age? How does it differ from an optimistic Amillennial view? I currently hold to an optimistic amill view, so I find Gentry very intriguing. Most of the Puritans that were post mill held to a golden age, not necessarily a literal 1000 years though. Did any of the Puritans hold to a Gentry type progressive post millennialism?

Thought postmil holds to golden age ushered in by church right before second coming?

 

[TylerRay]

Anyone hold to a Kenneth Gentry type post millennialism? Specifically the idea that the Millennium is the entire church age and that there will be no actual golden age? How does it differ from an optimistic Amillennial view? I currently hold to an optimistic amill view, so I find Gentry very intriguing. Most of the Puritans that were post mill held to a golden age, not necessarily a literal 1000 years though. Did any of the Puritans hold to a Gentry type progressive post millennialism?

Partial preterism is one of the distinctives of Gentry's eschatology. The only folks in the 17th century that embraced partial preterism were Jesuits.

In contrast to Gentry's partial preterism, most optimistic amillennialists embrace an idealist reading of Revelation.

 

[Dachaser]

Partial preterism is one of the distinctives of Gentry's eschatology. The only folks in the 17th century that embraced partial preterism were Jesuits.

In contrast to Gentry's partial preterism, most optimistic amillennialists embrace an idealist reading of Revelation.

Is that what Dr Sproul switched to holding?

 

[arapahoepark]

Partial preterism is one of the distinctives of Gentry's eschatology. The only folks in the 17th century that embraced partial preterism were Jesuits.

Not quite accurate.
https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/05/03/preterism-in-history/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Is that what Dr Sproul switched to holding?

In his book, The Last Days According to Jesus, he advocates a partial preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:1-34. I cannot remember if he touches on Revelation in that book.

 

[Dachaser]

In his book, The Last Days According to Jesus, he advocates a partial preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:1-34. I cannot remember if he touches on Revelation in that book.

He moved from the A Mil position, correct?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

He moved from the A Mil position, correct?

I am not 100% sure, as it is possible to be a partial preterist and still remain amillennial.

 

[Dachaser]

I am not 100% sure, as it is possible to be a partial preterist and still remain amillennial.

What would be the main difference?

 

[RamistThomist]

What would be the main difference?

Preterism deals with the timing of "parousia" passages in the NT, which has little to nothing to do with the millennium.

 

[TylerRay]

Is that what Dr Sproul switched to holding?

I don't know if he ever switched, but he held to a partial preterist and postmillennial eschatology.

 

[User20004000]

In his book, The Last Days According to Jesus, he advocates a partial preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:1-34. I cannot remember if he touches on Revelation in that book.

Yes, he does. In particular in a chapter entitled, What Did John Teach in Revelation? He gets into the nearness of the events, dating of the book and the sixth king.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yes, he does. In particular in a chapter entitled, What Did John Teach in Revelation? He gets into the nearness of the events, dating of the book and the sixth king.

Thanks for that reminder, Ron. I think I read that book in 2006, so it has been a while. I notice that there is a lecture series on the same subject as the book on Monergism (with links to YouTube videos).

 

[TylerRay]

Not quite accurate.
https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/05/03/preterism-in-history/

Funny how they call the Arminian Grotius and the Socinian LeClerc Reformed. They don't name any other "Reformed" preterists. Nevertheless, I stand corrected: Jesuits, an Arminian, and a Socinian held to partial (full in the case of Grotius, perhaps?) preterism in the 17th century.

 

[TheBruisedReed]

In his book, The Last Days According to Jesus, he advocates a partial preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:1-34. I cannot remember if he touches on Revelation in that book.

He does touch a bit on Revelation, but the focus is definitely the Olivet Discourse, as you said.

And I see that this has already been addressed in this thread! Whoops!

 

[Dachaser]

Funny how they call the Arminian Grotius and the Socinian LeClerc Reformed. They don't name any other "Reformed" preterists. Nevertheless, I stand corrected: Jesuits, an Arminian, and a Socinian held to partial (full in the case of Grotius, perhaps?) preterism in the 17th century.

Their would seem to be even more Dispensational reformed then PP.

 

[arapahoepark]

Funny how they call the Arminian Grotius and the Socinian LeClerc Reformed. They don't name any other "Reformed" preterists. Nevertheless, I stand corrected: Jesuits, an Arminian, and a Socinian held to partial (full in the case of Grotius, perhaps?) preterism in the 17th century.

Perhaps so. If it's part of the dispensationalist talking point that a Jesuit invented Preterism to destroy it's credibility then not only is the genetic fallacy in play, it's also demonstrably false.

 

[TylerRay]

Their would seem to be even more Dispensational reformed then PP.

Dispensational theology and Reformed theological are two different systems, and are incongruous one with another. There have been a lot of Reformed folks who have embraced partial preterism in the last 60 or 70 years.

 

[TylerRay]

Perhaps so. If it's part of the dispensationalist talking point that a Jesuit invented Preterism to destroy it's credibility then not only is the genetic fallacy in play, it's also demonstrably false.

Our brother asked if any Puritans embraced partial preterism. I simply answered his question.

 

[TylerRay]

Perhaps so. If it's part of the dispensationalist talking point that a Jesuit invented Preterism to destroy it's credibility then not only is the genetic fallacy in play, it's also demonstrably false.

It's ironic that the dispensationalists bring that up. The Jesuits advanced both preterism and futurism in attemp to answer the Protestant claim that the Pope is the antichrist.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In relation to the OP, the attitude of the "Puritans" to the millennium is much more complex than we often imagine. I recommend reading Crawford Gribben's book The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology (1550-1682) for an overview of the subject.

 

[Dachaser]

Dispensational theology and Reformed theological are two different systems, and are incongruous one with another. There have been a lot of Reformed folks who have embraced partial preterism in the last 60 or 70 years.

I agree with that last part, as I was just saying that there are many Baptist calvinists like Dr MacArthur then reformed PP.

 

[RJ Spencer]

Thought postmil holds to Holden age ushered in by church right before second coming?

Yes, I mistook what the author was saying. He is not saying that there will be no golden age at all, but that the golden age will not cover the entire millennium, nor will the golden age be a literal thousand years.