[Response To Gentry's Analysis of the Full Preterist View...]

[GENTRY] Second, hyper-preterism has serious implications for the perspicuity of Scripture. This viewpoint not only has implications for the later creeds, but for the instructional abilities of the apostles: no one in church history knew the major issues of which they spoke - until very recently! Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that significance?

Second. I can’t believe I’m reading these words from the pen of a Reconstructionist who claims to be a preterist. Gentry has taken some very preterist positions on many of the eschatological passages in his writings against the dispensationalists, and in his presentations at the 1993 Covenant Eschatology Symposium. After reading and listening to his many eloquent and thorough defenses of preterism, it seems strange to read what he says here. His statements under point number two seem to unravel the great preterist statements he has made elsewhere. Why is he laboring so hard to leave the impression that there is a huge difference between his partial preterist position and the full preterist view? He’s only discrediting his own fine defenses of the preterist view elsewhere.

The perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture and the instructional abilities of the apostles are not jeopardized by the full preterist view, any more than they are threatened by Gentry’s partial preterist view. Gentry asks, “Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that significance?” The same argument could be levied against his early date for Revelation and his near full preterist interpretation of the Apocalypse. In fact, I think arguments like that were raised against Gentry in Orlando by some of the other non-preterist theologians there. If Scripture is so clear, why aren’t children seminary professors? Why do we even need seminaries at all? And why don’t all seminary professors and theologians agree on eschatology if it is so clear? If the early church had such a perfect understanding of it, why haven’t more Christians down through the ages taken Gentry’s position regarding the book of Revelation? Why does he need to write a whole book in defense of the early date of Revelation, and another whole book defending his postmil view, if Scripture is so clear about eschatology and the church understood it so perfectly from the beginning? Gentry needs to answer his own question. It applies to him just as much as it does to any other preterist. It should be obvious to all that eschatology is one of those Biblical subjects which Apostle Peter said is “hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16).

I do not know any full preterists who affirm that the early church understood everything perfectly, but we certainly would agree that the church received a perfect revelation. There was really no excuse for them not to understand it. But, as many experts in patristic studies can attest, the early church did not understand the TIME and NATURE of fulfillment of eschatology very well. They kept on repeating the imminency ideas until the middle of the second century until it finally was no longer possible to conceive of themselves as a part of “this generation.” Whether you are a preterist or a futurist, this continuation of the imminency idea is embarrassing and destructive to the church’s integrity as interpreters. For the preterist it is only somewhat puzzling, but for the futurist it is fatal. If Jesus and the apostles taught imminency (as in fact they did), then a non-fulfillment destroys the inspiration and integrity of Christ and the apostles. However, if it was fulfilled and the church only failed to understand it, then we can charge the mistake to non-inspired churchmen and leave the integrity of Christ and the apostles intact. As R. C. Sproul and others have well noted, this is where the lines for the looming war over the integrity of the Bible are being drawn. And it is the real dilemma the futurist faces. The full preterist view has already solved it, and it is the only view which can solve it consistently and still preserve Biblical integrity.

Joseph M. Canfield (in his separate response to Gentry) has pointed out a similar threat to the integrity of Jesus and the Apostles coming from an Islamic author, Jabril Muhammed (“The Final Call” Sept. 8, 1996, “Is The Pope The True Representative of Jesus” p. 27):

More dangerous is the statement of Jabril Muhammed, a current Mohammedan writer who says that the plain words of Jesus called for a First Century return. He follows most unbelieving interpreters in holding that since no Return occurred, then Jesus was mistaken. But he takes this a step farther and says that Jesus’ alleged mistake proves that Mohammed is greater than Jesus. As we are faced with an upsurge of Islam, the statement is conveniently ignored by Futurists. How would Gentry answer Jabril Muhammed?

The ignorance of the early church is certainly surprising, but not unexplainable or overwhelming. What will unravel Christian Faith is to see the imminency being unequivocally taught by Christ and the apostles, but then believe (like Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell) that they were mistaken. That is exactly what all futurist and partial preterist views are ultimately forced to conclude. Which would you rather believe – that Jesus and the apostles were mistaken, or that the early church misunderstood and misinterpreted the TIME and NATURE of fulfillment? Why are we so quick to defend the integrity of the creeds, while leaving the inspiration of Christ and the apostles defenseless? This is “invalidating the Word of God for the sake of our tradition” (Mk. 7:13), just like the Pharisees were doing with their rabbinical traditions. I do not apologize for saying that the early (post-70) apostolic fathers misunderstood biblical eschatology, especially when the only alternative is to strip Christ and the apostles of their inspiration and integrity. One of the two groups was in serious error. There is no way to preserve the integrity of both groups. Liberal, skeptical and anti-Christian scholars have left no alternative for the conservative Christian. A mistake has to be charged to either Jesus and the inspired NT writers, or to the uninspired church fathers who interpreted them. Full preterists have made the only choice that consistently preserves the integrity of our faith. Gentry seems to be taking the other alternative by paying homage to the creeds.

See the Tenth section of this response where we show Gentry’s inconsistency in splitting the imminency and coming statements in Matthew 24. His weakness and vulnerability to the liberal attack is more obvious there.

All branches of Christendom (except maybe those who worship the creeds) recognize that our understanding of Scripture is getting progressively better. We did not start out with a perfect understanding. We instead started out with a perfect revelation, but a very imperfect understanding of it. One implication of a progressive understanding is that older concepts will be found slightly or largely in error, requiring adjustment or replacement by the better understanding. Note what Iain Murray (1977) said about John Murray in the Preface to Vol. 2 of the Collected Writings of John Murray:

“...this is not to say that [John Murray] thought Reformed theology had reached definitive conclusions on all biblical subjects. On the contrary, he judged it to be the constant business of the Church to seek a larger knowledge of Scripture for, as he writes in a characteristic sentence, ‘We are but touching the fringes of the mystery of God’s will...” [emphasis added]

Those who tend to hold the creeds as authoritative and inspired will be the first to raise the red flag when their long-held traditional “interpretations and applications” are questioned. Philip Schaff, who composed the three-volume work, The Creeds of Christendom, had these relevant comments about that behavior (Vol. I, p. 7):

In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. ...Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. [emphasis added]

Note the words of Schaff in the quote above: “In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church.” I suspect Philip Schaff is a little more qualified in the area of patristics than Gentry (and some other creedalists I know who will be reading this), and consequently in a better position to know what the limitations of the creeds are and how to improve them. However, creedalists will still be horrified at Schaff’s suggestion that the creeds are only “relatively correct” and may require improvements after the church has made progress in its understanding. I suspect they will also take offense at his suggestion that, “Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing.” And, lest any creedalist think Schaff fails to understand the true nature of “Romanizing,” he explains how creed-olatry and pope-olatry are similar: “Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope.” They are both idolatry. I believe Schaff has clearly reflected the true spirit of the Reformation’s sola Scriptura battle cry. Gentry seems to be speaking otherwise.

At least three times in the first chapter of volume one (of Schaff’s three-volume work on the Creeds), he mentions the idea of growth and development in our understanding of the Christian faith, and constantly warns about the dangers of esteeming creeds above the Word of God. As I stated in my debate with Joseph Balyeat in Kingdom Counsel, if someone is really satisfied with judging the merits of the full preterist position by Scripture alone, he won’t need to use the creeds against it. He will only bring the creeds into the picture if he presumes that the creeds are flawless (inspired) and therefore authoritative. If there was the slightest doubt about the correctness of the creeds, he would not use them as a standard.

There is an infinite difference between the creeds and Scripture. Scripture is inspired, and therefore infallible. Creeds are not inspired, so they can be mistaken, and always have to be held in some measure of suspicion. If I didn’t attach significant value to the creeds, I would have given Gentry’s whole objection here the quick brush off. But, they are more valuable than most other historical documents of uninspired human origin because they give us a window to view what the understanding of the church was at the time of their composition, and because they were formulated by so many brilliant minds over the course of several centuries of debate and discussion. But their main value is in the areas of theology that they were working on at the time (mainly Christology). They did little (if any) work on the eschatological statements in the creeds. And we must never forget that some of those same people formulated other doctrines and practices that have since been found to be in error, and went to extremes in dealing out cruel punishments upon those who disagreed with them. They condemned and killed men and women whom we now know to have been saints. This should be cause for pause before we enshrine these men’s opinions on a level with or above Scripture.

Some creedalists with whom I exchanged email stated that this whole issue of creedal orthodoxy is a matter of authority. I agree with them. I would go even further to assert that ultimate authority is bound up with inspiration and infallibility. Nothing can be ultimately authoritative unless it is infallible and inspired. The Roman Church knows this and that’s why they had to develop the doctrine of the infallibility (inspiration) of the Pope. The creedalists are doing the same thing with the councils and creeds. They have to vest infallibility and inspiration into the creeds in order to use them as an ultimate authority. Authority and inspiration go together. If the men who composed the councils were not inspired in the same way Scripture writers were, then their products (the creeds) have no more authority than any other writings of uninspired men. More value? Yes! More authority? No!

It is Gentry and other creedalists who are running counter to the principle of continual reform by locking us up with their creeds. It is time for another wave of Reformation to break out of that prison cell. And the preterist interpretation of eschatology has just provided the key to unlock the door of continuing reform. If Gentry and other theonomists really want to be on the cutting edge of the continuing Reformation, here is their chance. The partial preterist view just won’t cut it when the skeptic critics of the Bible fire their laser cannons at the integrity of the imminent coming passages. Only the full preterist view can provide the consistent basis upon which to build a conservative and thoroughly Reformed systematic eschatology. Opportunities like this don’t come around every century, perhaps not even every millennium. Don’t miss it. Don’t trade your “reformed and always reforming” birthright for a mess of creedolatry pottage.

Every generation of Christians must be perceptive and vigilant. We can never assume that any uninspired document or system of theology is perfect. The possibility always exists that further study will reveal a flaw. When a builder discovers a flaw in his construction, what should he do? Cover it over, pretend like it isn’t there, and hope no one gets hurt when the building collapses later! Or, stick our heads in the sand and hope the critics go away! Killing the messenger won’t make the bad news go away! The battle is already being fought. Albert Schweitzer and others of his liberal critical armada have already fired their cannons. Traditional futurist eschatology is not only failing to fight back, but is manufacturing more ammunition for the opposition to use against the integrity of Scripture. They insist the imminency passages can mean anything we want them to mean, except “imminency”). The liberals just smile and load it in their cannon and fire another round. A partial preterist position does not solve the problem. The dilemma remains. How long will Gentry and other partial preterists hesitate between two opinions on this (1 Kings 18:21)? Whose side are they really on? Quit helping the faithless critics!

Surely Gentry has an uneasy feeling about using creedal arguments against the full preterist view, since he has elsewhere come down solidly in favor of sola Scriptura. In his book, HSHD (top of p. 494), he said the following to counter the premillennialist arguments against his partial preterist views: “For the devout Christian, the ultimate issue determining the validity of a particular eschatological system is none other than the Word of the Living God.” All of us can say “Amen” to that. But, does Gentry really mean it? If so, why does he use the creeds and patristic testimony as his first line of argumentation here? From reading his statements against the premillennialists, we would have expected him to focus on the biblical arguments first, fully and finally. Why the inconsistency?

In regard to the instructional abilities of the apostles, I have always wondered exactly what Peter meant in 2 Pet. 3:16 when he said that some of Paul’s eschatological teaching was “hard to understand.” The Jews missed both the soteriological and eschatological meaning of the OT Scriptures. They are still looking for a physical-literal fulfillment, even though Christ repeatedly said His kingdom was not of this world (Jn. 18:36) and was to come in that generation “without observation” (Lk. 17:20-21). In the gospel accounts where Jesus was explaining the meaning of the parables to the twelve, did you ever notice that the apostles were very often “dull of hearing”? The twelve still didn’t really believe Christ would rise from the dead. When Jesus was crucified, they thought it was all over. If it was difficult for someone who had been personally taught by Christ to understand, why should we be surprised that the average Christian missed it? It was not the fault of the inspired, accurate and complete revelation. It was the fault of the uninspired interpreters who did not expend enough perspiration to understand inspiration. When did the saints ever understand God’s revelation completely? Do we understand it completely even today? Or has God so worked in His revelation that it will forever challenge (and humble) even the greatest minds in the church? Certainly, the saving essentials are simple enough for a child to understand, but all the subtle nuances of biblical typology may never be exhaustively unveiled even though mankind has an eternity to interpret it. As John Murray often said about our present state of understanding, “We are but touching the fringes of the mystery of God’s will.” So why is Gentry so shocked that the church missed some things?

If we don’t believe we can make progress in our understanding of God’s Word, why are we constantly trying to refine our hermeneutics (interpretative skills)? If the early church really solved all the enigmas, exegeted faithfully all the biblical doctrines, and infallibly formulated all the creeds, why bother reforming or reconstructing anything? What was the Reformation all about? Why bother “always reforming” if there is nothing else left to be reformed? Why spill so much blood and ink if it was all infallibly set in stone from the creedal era? Why not just take what the early church has given us (sacerdotalism, Maryolatry and all) and just stick with it? Have Gentry’s books made any improvement upon the early church’s understanding of eschatology? Or is he just regurgitating what the historic church “always and everywhere” believed? Why bother writing any more books if there is no possibility of improving our understanding?

[GENTRY] Clement of Rome lived through A.D. 70 and had no idea he was resurrected! He continued to look for a physical resurrection (Clement 50:3). Jude's (supposed) grandsons still sought a physical resurrection (cf. Eusebius, EH 3:24:4). Whoever these men were, they come right out of the first generation and in the land of Israel - with absolutely no inkling of an A.D. 70 resurrection or a past Second Advent. See also the Didache 10:5; 16:1ff (first century); Ignatius, Trallians 9:2; Smyrnaens 2:1; 6:1; Letter to Polycarp 3:2 (early second century); Polycarp 2:1; 6:2; 7:1. See also Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr.

Gentry cites several patristic writers in defense of his futurist position, leaving the impression that no early writers made any significant preterist statements, and that early writers were mostly futurist in orientation. It is quite surprising to see Gentry do this, especially in view of the other great quotes of patristic writers in his books in defense of the preterist view of Revelation. For example, see his BJF (pp. 41-109, 343-353) and The Beast of Revelation (pp. 129-166). Which list of patristic citations does Gentry want us to use? Is there support for the preterist view in the patristic writings or not? Does Gentry really believe that the preterist view implies that “no one in church history knew the major issues of which they spoke - until very recently?” If he does, why does he take a basic preterist approach to so many passages that the historic church did not? Gentry needs to make up his mind. He is arguing against his own position here. The historic creeds did not teach “some kind of judgment coming at AD 70” like Gentry. It is amazing to see Gentry use Papias, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr here as evidence against the preterist view, when in his other writings against the premillennialists, he repudiates their value as witnesses, and even uses some of them to buttress his own partial preterist view. There seems to be a little “doublespeak” going on here. Whose side is Gentry really on? He keeps manufacturing ammunition for the skeptical opposition!

David Chilton’s Paradise Restored has some excellent quotes from patristic writers which support the preterist viewpoint. And my two articles on the creeds (mentioned above) quote several more, as well as some of the leading patristic scholars who show what the early church really believed about eschatology. They didn’t understand the full implications of AD 70 any more than they understood any of the other systematized views which we moderns have formulated, including Gentry’s own views. And if we have to have clear and universal patristic support for our position before it can be seriously considered, Gentry’s own views would be just as disqualified. Who says we have to have any patristic support for a doctrine that can be proven from Scripture? What was the whole point of the Reformers’ stand on sola Scriptura?

Gentry makes a big deal here about Clement of Rome and others, whose lifespans overlapped the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Clement supposedly wrote his epistle to the Corinthian church about AD 96. I will quote the section Gentry makes reference to (50:3) with the Scripture references Clement alludes to inserted in brackets:

All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect [1 Cor. 13:10] in love, now possess a place [John 14:3] among the godly, and shall be made manifest [Rom. 8:19; 1 Cor. 1:7,8; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 1:3-9; 1 Jn. 3:2] at the visitation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, “Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves. [Isa. 26; Ezek. 37]”

Note that this passage does not use the words “physical resurrection,” but even if we agreed with Gentry that Clement was referring to a “physical resurrection,” that would not remove all the other embarrassing problems in this text. Does Gentry really accept all the other “interpretations and applications” of Clement here? In the context around this quotation, Clement is talking about Paul’s discourse on love (1 Cor. 13). Notice the flip-flop between realized (“already”) events and imminent future (“not yet”) events. Clement leaves the impression that the “perfect” had already come and that the eternal dwelling “place” (which Jesus said would be given at His return) had already been given to those who had already “been made perfect.” But Clement was still expecting the (imminent, i.e. “a little time”) arrival of the kingdom of Christ. The “propitious day” of the kingdom’s arrival and their resurrection was imminent (only “a little time” away). Gentry says that when there are imminent time indicators in a passage, they mean “imminence.” So what was the resurrection that was imminent to Clement? Was it really imminent? Did Clement goof? I suspect Gentry would not agree with all of Clement’s interpretations here in this one brief text, much less with all the other ones in the rest of Clement’s writings and the other early writers he cites. Does Clement really carry any weight with Gentry? Would he agree with what Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and the other apostolic fathers say about the book of Revelation and its late date? Absolutely not! In BJF Gentry spends a whole chapter discounting Irenaeus’ value as evidence. Why then is he using them against the preterist view? It looks like he is shooting himself in the foot again. I’m sure his premillennial opponents will love the nice things he says about the apostolic fathers.

Before we leave Clement, I must deal with his interpretation of the resurrection. He quotes or alludes to several ideas found in Isa. 26, Ezek. 37 and other OT resurrection texts. Clement says God “will raise you up out of your graves.” The passage here could easily be taken in the same collective national sense as Ezek. 37’s restoration from Babylonian captivity, or may simply be speaking of the eschatological regathering of all those who were “dead in sin” back to life in the kingdom of God, the true Israel. There is more than one way to interpret the language here. Gentry and other futurists have made some assumptions about this text that are clearly unwarranted, especially in view of the fact that Gentry admits (in his point four) that Scripture speaks of more than one type of resurrection, and mentions Ezek. 37 as a case in point. What is also interesting is that Ezek. 37:12f even mentions the nation of Israel coming up out of their “graves” (captivity) and being restored to the land of Israel. This resurrection was Israel’s return from Babylonian captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah in 536 BC and following. Was it a literal physical resurrection of physically dead Jews out of physical graves? No, of course not. Gentry would agree that it is speaking of their restoration from captivity. Even if Clement was expecting a physical resurrection, he was alluding to passages that were not teaching a physical resurrection. So, Clement was wrong not only in his interpretation of the TIMING of the eschatological events, but also of their NATURE of fulfillment as well. The same can be said for most (if not all) of the patristic writers Gentry lists here. No Christian should jump for joy as we realize how mistaken the early church was in their understanding of the time and nature of eschatological fulfillments. But, we shouldn’t hesitate too long in admitting their failure and correcting them, however, since the only alternative is to charge the mistake to Jesus and the apostles. Which of these two alternatives does Gentry pick? Is he going to keep manufacturing ammunition for the liberals, skeptics, and anti-Christian critics?

[GENTRY] Berkouwer rightly notes that the reason the resurrection found early creedal acceptance was because of the clear emphasis of the New Testament. The hyper-preterist view has serious and embarrassing implications for the perspicuity of Scripture - and despite the fact we are now (supposedly) in our resurrected states and have the outpoured Holy Spirit and His gift of teachers who were to protect us from every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4)!

There are several misunderstandings wrapped up in Gentry’s remarks above. When he cites Berkouwer in defense of the idea that “the resurrection found early creedal acceptance,” he builds a straw man argument. He leaves the impression that full preterists deny the biblical (and creedal) doctrine of a collective resurrection. We don’t. It is a biblical eschatological event. Anyone who denies it has definitely put himself outside biblical orthodoxy. Full preterists believe the Bible teaches that a collective resurrection would occur. We just disagree with traditional “interpretations and applications” of the TIME and NATURE of that resurrection. Gentry assumes that there is only one way to interpret the NATURE of fulfillment of the resurrection (i.e. that it can only be a physical resuscitation of the individual’s physical body and its physical exit from the grave). On the basis of that assumption, he interprets the TIME of fulfillment as still future (since there is no record of anything like that occurring at AD 70). What if his presuppositions about the NATURE of fulfillment are incorrect? That would invalidate his assumptions about the TIME of fulfillment as well. If we must hold rigidly to traditional interpretations about the time and nature of fulfillment, Gentry himself would be in trouble with his Reformed predecessors, most of whom believed the Roman church is the harlot of Revelation and that the pope is the Beast. Does Gentry have freedom to interpret the time and nature of fulfillment of those eschatological events differently than the Roman church or the Reformed churches? Is he the only one who has that freedom? If the Bible speaks so clearly on this subject that no other interpretations of the nature and time of fulfillment are possible, why is there so much disagreement about the book of Revelation among the various millennial camps? Is Gentry going to affirm that all other interpretations of the book of Revelation besides his are “heterodox” (outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity), and that his view (which is comparatively new also) is the only orthodox one? I would like to have seen the reaction of the other Reformed theologians present at the Symposium in Orlando (1993) if he had affirmed such a position in their hearing. It would indeed have been one of those occasions when “all heaven broke loose.” Since I will be dealing much more with the resurrection in later sections, I will not say any more about it here.

What I find interesting in Gentry’s statements here, is that he seems to leave himself hopelessly vulnerable to the charismatics’ arguments for a continuation of the miraculous sign gifts, when he says that we today still “have the outpoured Holy Spirit and His gift of teachers.” Full preterists don’t believe that. This is another one of those areas where Gentry radically misunderstands what we full preterists are saying. Charismatics will love him for his statements here, and take him right to Acts 2:17-21 to show that the charismatic gifts would be poured out “in the last days” up until “the great and glorious day of the Lord.” Then they would go to 1 Cor. 1:5-8 to show him that the saints would not be “lacking in any gift” as they eagerly awaited “the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the end” and “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Gentry fails to show why this latter passage could not be speaking about the return of Christ. The charismatics will keep stabbing him with it until he gets the point. If Christ’s return (the one mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:5-8) has not happened yet, then the charismata must still be around. Gentry has written a book against Wayne Grudem’s views explaining why he believes the charismata ceased in the first century, but it did not explain away the problem raised by this passage (1 Cor. 1:5-8). The full preterist can consistently affirm an AD 70 cessation based on these three texts (Acts 2:17ff; 1 Cor. 1:5-8; 1 Cor. 13:8ff). If Gentry does not take a preterist approach to these passages, he leaves himself defenseless against the charismatic view. But if he does take a preterist approach here, his statement that we still “have the outpoured Holy Spirit and His gift of teachers” seems inconsistent and contradictory.

Is the Holy Spirit still functioning as a Paraclete? Has the Paraclete ceased giving those miraculous gifts? They were not supposed to cease until “the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” at “the End” and “the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 1:7f) Will Gentry affirm that the “revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” has already occurred at AD 70 (as he implies in his commentary on the book of Revelation). If not, then his whole book against Wayne Grudem’s views falls flat on its face in hopeless inconsistency. Gentry also leaves the door wide open for a loosing of Satan at the end of the millennium (which he believes is still future), which implies a resumption of demon-possession and lying signs and wonders. This would necessitate the resumption of the Paraclete’s distribution of charismatic gifts to counteract Satan’s activity. It is not surprising that many premillennial dispensationalists who believe the end of the world is imminent, also believe Satan has been released and the charismata are back in full force. Gentry has no consistent way to counter this argument for the fresh outbreak of the charismata at the end of the millennium. And since he believes Christ’s major coming after the millennium is still future, he must believe in either the continuance of the charismata until that final return, or the resumption of them at the release of Satan at the end of the millennium. And if the Paraclete is not done with His work yet (which included inspired revelatory work), Gentry is put in the unenviable position of believing the revelation, confirmation and consummation of redemption is not yet complete. This would open the canon of Scripture and unseat Christ as the ultimate in redemption.

Gentry says the charismatic gifts ceased and that the perfect (or fullness) arrived in the first century, and that the transition period is over. But, as the charismatics are very quick and fond of pointing out, it is inconsistent to say the perfect has arrived and the transition period is over, if the eschatology is not also consummated. The charismatic gifts and the transitional state of partialness would not cease until the “apocalupsis” of Christ and “The Day” of Christ arrived (1 Cor. 1:7,8). The cessation is tied directly to the consummation. If the cessation has occurred (as Gentry affirms), then the consummation of eschatology must also have occurred. If the transition period for Pneumatology is over, the transition period of eschatology must also be over. If the consummation has not yet occurred, the charismata have to still be around. The constantly reiterated NT theme of an imminent completion of the transition from a state of partial-ness to one of completeness (maturity or perfection) is shared in common by soteriology, Pneumatology and eschatology. This common thread of “somewhat already, not yet everything, but imminent” consummation of all three of these theological systems is the worldview of the NT. Schweitzer, Dodd, Cullmann and others have noted this. Paul’s writings especially show that all three of these theological systems (soteriology, Pneumatology and eschatology) were inseparably interconnected and were being brought to consummation together in that transitional generation. Non-charismatic Reformers only see the past fulfillment of soteriology and Pneumatology. Their eschatological consummation is still futurized. Charismatics agree that soteriology is fulfilled, but see Pneumatology and eschatology fulfillments as still future. But full preterists see all three as inseparably interrelated, and by necessity consummated together at AD 70. Because Gentry has a partially realized eschatology, he should also have a charismatic Pneumatology and a partially realized soteriology to be consistent. The charismatic gifts have not ceased unless Christ has returned for his final time. Gentry needs to get consistent on this.