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

Gentry certainly presented many important and serious objections. They deserved a serious and substantive response, and I suspect they will get much more than what I have offered here. Other full preterists are just now beginning to look at his critique, and will eventually produce additional answers to his excellent questions. Let me summarize what we have tried to establish in this paper.

In our opening remarks, we clarified what full preterists do and do not believe. We are not hyper-preterists in the sense of putting everything in the past with no on-going fulfillments. We do believe in an on-going spread and ever-widening development of the Kingdom. We defined what postmillennial means and showed that there are both postmil futurists and postmil preterists. Full preterists are more consistent as reconstructionists than partial preterists, with a longer-term perspective and a more optimistic worldview. Ezek. 47 and Rev. 21-22 certainly give a very optimistic and long-term program for the Kingdom that extends indefinitely beyond our day into the future. We showed how the term “preterist” only properly applies to “full preterists” and not to the partial preterists like Gentry. Gentry is really a postmil futurist.

We quoted Chilton, Bahnsen, Jordan and Gentry himself to show that Matt. 5:17-19 does not refer to the end of the physical “heaven and earth,” but rather to the end of the Mosaic economy and the consummation of God’s redemptive plan. Gentry is very inconsistent with himself and other reconstructionists on this very point.

Gentry has a consistency problem with the release of Satan at the end of the millennium and the cessation of the charismatic gifts. After my written debate with the “partial charismatic, partial preterist, reconstructionist” Joseph Balyeat, he admitted that the full preterist position is consistent on this, while Gentry’s position is not.

In the section dealing with the creeds and early church beliefs (points one through three), Gentry has painted himself very creedalistic. Yet, he teaches at least two different major “comings of the Son of Man” separated by thousands of years. This is not exactly “strict conformity” with the great creeds and confessions of the Christian faith. We pointed out that the creeds nowhere say anything about a “coming in judgment at AD 70” like Gentry believes. And neither do the great confessions of faith (i.e. Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg, etc.). In fact, these confessions teach a Vatican and papal fulfillment of the Harlot and Beast. Gentry is out of sync with the creeds and confessions just like full preterists are. If he has freedom to differ, so do we.

His section on “Creedal Failure” was well-named. The great ecumenical creeds did fail to understand the correct time and nature of fulfillment of the major eschatological events. The full preterist view has adequately shown that the creeds and confessions need reform in their “interpretations and applications” (not in their Biblical content). We have shown that there is a definite difference between “creedal orthodoxy” and “Biblical orthodoxy,” and that only Scripture can determine true orthodoxy. Gentry seems to posit far more authority to the creeds than either the Bible or the Reformers. Now that there has arisen a conflict between the Biblical imminency statements and the creedal interpretations of a postponement, we must decide where to stand. Full preterists safeguard Biblical inerrancy, even though it contradicts the interpretations and applications of uninspired men (in the creeds). Gentry gives up Biblical integrity to maintain creedal integrity. We believe that mistake is fatal. If the imminency statements cannot be trusted, nothing else in the NT can be trusted. Allegiance to the creeds on this point unravels the very basis for Biblical faith.

The full preterist view supposedly leaves us today with no directly relevant passages (according to Gentry). But we have shown that his theonomic interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19 puts him into the real inconsistency. Full preterists believe all of Jesus’ and the apostles’ teaching about the Kingdom “already” applies to us today. He still has a lot of “not yet” things left hanging.

In his fourth point, he raised the hermeneutical issue regarding the similarity of language. We have shown how his own hermeneutics suffer many inconsistencies and leave him hopelessly vulnerable to the skeptic’s attack.

His questions about the resurrection (points five through eight) seem to make it the heart of the controversy. He verbalizes many relevant and poignant objections. It does not seem that he has reckoned with the possibility that Murray Harris’ view of the nature of Christ’s resurrection body might be the correct one. He assumes there is only one legitimate way to view the nature of our resurrection bodies (“physical, tangible”). Murray Harris has shown otherwise. The “seed analogy” in 1 Cor. 15:35ff easily solves many of the problems raised here by Gentry. The traditional views of a “physical, tangible” resurrection raise more difficulties than they solve. Gentry’s funeral eschatology is at odds with his systematic eschatology. Full preterists are consistent on this. Regardless of what the resurrection is, it had to have been an AD 70 event since it is connected with the return of Christ in several contexts of imminency. According to Gentry’s own hermeneutics, the imminency factor has to be taken seriously in determining when a passage was to be fulfilled. But, he has ignored this imminency factor when it comes to the resurrection.

We demonstrated the Biblical impotency of partial preterist views such as Gentry’s by their failure to deal consistently with such issues as the non-divisibility of Matthew 24, the usage of the Greek word parousia, the “heaven and earth passing away,” and the “cloud-coming” in Acts 1:11. If there ever were a passage which points directly to the return of Christ in AD 70, Acts 1:11 is it. It has High Priest and Yom Kippur typology written all over it. The “cloud-coming” motif also forms a direct link with Christ’s numerous “cloud-coming” promises. Gentry’s position is probably shown to be its weakest here. This passage is full preterist turf.

We showed how the NT passages using the Greek word “parousia” must be taken consistently as either all future or all past. Partial preterists are the ones who have the real Biblically-indefensible position. They are fighting a two-front war against the futurists and the “real” preterists (full preterists). I feel confident that we have more than adequately answered point-by-point every issue that he has raised against the full preterist view. I look forward to further interaction with him about it.

Eschatology (the Last Things) points directly to the divine nature of our Savior and to the splendor of His kingdom. It deals with the final consummating events of soteriology, all of which is totally dependent upon the divine nature of the Redeemer. Eschatology is focused entirely on unveiling Who Christ is, and showing that the God of the First Things (the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David) is the God of Last Things who appeared at the end of the ages to consummate His promises to save us from the Death ushered in at the beginning. Without God's personal and direct intervention against the Death-curse, we could not have been saved. Eschatology is focused on that victory over Death. Study of eschatology is pointless and powerless without recognizing and emphasizing its connection to Christ's pre-existence, incarnation, and re-glorification. There is a desperate need to solidly ground every bit of eschatological teaching in the deity of Christ and the Triune Nature of God. The two are organically and inseparably related. To leave theology (the study of God and His nature and work) and soteriology (study of salvation and redemption and atonement) out of our presentations on eschatology (study of Last Things) is spiritual shipwreck. There will always be a fierce battle over these biblical truths. The preterist message will have no biblical power or divine blessing if it is taught without the deity of Christ being its main focal point. There is divine power in the Blood of the Lamb. Take the divinity out of the blood, and it has no power to save at all! The closing scenes of Revelation, where the whole eschatological drama reaches its climax, contains many references to the Lamb and His divine “worthy” role in the consummation of salvation. The temple and sacrificial typology is very prominent throughout the book of Revelation. The Lamb receives exactly the same kind of worship as the One who sits on the throne. That would be blasphemy of the highest sort unless the Lamb is also God. God made it clear throughout the OT that He would share His glory with no one else (Isa. 42:8). Yet Jesus shared His glory even before the foundation of the world (John 17:5). There is no one who can save man except God (Isa. 43:10-13). Yet Jesus is our Savior (1 Jn. 4:14). God became flesh in order to not only be the sacrifice, but the High Priest who presents that sacrifice, and the Mercy Seat on which His sacrificial blood is presented. He is our everything! If you want to know what eschatology is all about, here it is: the unveiling of the nature of the One who redeemed us, and how that redemption was actually accomplished, and what it means. This is what all the OT sacrificial typology and the festivals were about. Why go to all the bother of teaching the Jews that they had to have a perfect sacrifice and a perfect High Priest and a perfectly clean and holy altar? No human or created being could ever come close to providing that kind of sinless perfection. What was God pointing to? Only God Himself could be that kind of sacrifice, altar and High Priest. So, if God had not prepared a body for Himself (Heb. 10:5) to be the sacrifice, and in which to present that sacrifice, we could not have been saved. Eschatology unveils what God Himself (not a created being) has done to bring us back to Himself. No other religion has so great a salvation. The others have man trying to work his way up to God. Christianity shows us God coming down to man. The apocalyptic imagery of Revelation is designed to inspire a holy awe in us as we see the final events (eschatology) of the redemptive drama (soteriology) unveil Who Jesus really is (Christology/Theology) and what He has done. A correct view of eschatology puts all of theology in proper perspective. What an amazing story of mercy and grace, and an awesome display of His holiness and majesty. Who can but adore Him and desire with all his heart to live in His Holy presence forever, and to present that story to as many as we can (through words, actions and covenant symbols), so they will be converted and edified to spend eternity with Him too?

If Gentry and others insist on labeling this Biblical view of redemption as “heterodox” and “heretical” according to the creeds, then so be it. I will not trade my Biblical birthright for their creedal pottage. Their creedal theology gives license to the liberal, atheistic and anti-Christian critics to blaspheme Christ and discredit His Word. They have surrendered the integrity of the inspired Word in order to maintain confidence in the uninspired creeds. This is the same thing the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’ day were doing when Jesus said,

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. ...You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. ...thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that. [Mark 7:8-13]

The creeds have no value if Christ and His Word are in error. I will stick with the view which consistently upholds the honor and dignity of Christ and His inspired Word. “Traditions of men” can be mistaken and must always be held in some suspicion. I close with these words:

“...skeptical criticism of the Bible has become almost universal in the world. And people have attacked the credibility of Jesus. Maybe some church fathers made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide with that. I can’t abide with Jesus being a false prophet, because if I am to understand that Jesus is a false prophet, my faith is in vain.” [R. C. Sproul, Sr. at the 1993 Covenant Eschatology Symposium in Mt. Dora, Florida]