Post Millennialism safe house

[3 Resurrections]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid034hNu4ucmjhjUMcJP49M8UNmaJomfSM2pVvyo3QaVCjQhAitYvsXsGT2qpkGRfqgjl&id=1668525845&mibextid=qC1gEa
I love Gary DeMar and have several resources from American Vision. I’ve been watching this play out on FB. Hopefully he will return to orthodoxy.

There is a definite eschatological answer that would bridge the divide between these conflicting parties. Each of these groups is seeing correct parts of the eschatology picture, but not the whole. I have been reading Dr. Gentry's postings as of late on his website. He is on the warpath. For Gary DeMar - it sounds as if he is cautiously trying to avoid an explosive confrontation. If I were an unbeliever looking on, I would be put off of Christianity altogether by the discord being pushed into the forefront. Dr. Gentry needs to back off. If there is any error in DeMar's current stance, then it will come to naught, just as Gamaliel counseled his own peers in Acts 5:38-39.

 

[Hammster]

There is a definite eschatological answer that would bridge the divide between these conflicting parties. Each of these groups is seeing correct parts of the eschatology picture, but not the whole. I have been reading Dr. Gentry's postings as of late on his website. He is on the warpath. For Gary DeMar - it sounds as if he is cautiously trying to avoid an explosive confrontation. If I were an unbeliever looking on, I would be put off of Christianity altogether by the discord being pushed into the forefront. Dr. Gentry needs to back off. If there is any error in DeMar's current stance, then it will come to naught, just as Gamaliel counseled his own peers in Acts 5:38-39.

The three questions that Dr. Gentry asked Gary were fairly simple questions that go to the heart of what American Vision believes. They aren’t trick questions, or nuanced questions.

From what I understand, Gary is addressing these questions on his podcast. I’ll be listening.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The three questions that Dr. Gentry asked Gary were fairly simple questions that go to the heart of what American Vision believes. They aren’t trick questions, or nuanced questions.

From what I understand, Gary is addressing these questions on his podcast. I’ll be listening.

I also will be checking on what is said on the podcast. But I do know this: Dr. Gentry elevates the scholastic, the "professional", and the creeds to the equivalent of scripture in importance. This is a constant drumbeat on his website, and tends to veer away from the Berean principle of the ordinary man and woman searching the scriptures themselves for truth regarding these matters.

 

[Hammster]

I also will be checking on what is said on the podcast. But I do know this: Dr. Gentry elevates the scholastic, the "professional", and the creeds to the equivalent of scripture in importance. This is a constant drumbeat on his website, and tends to veer away from the Berean principle of the ordinary man and woman searching the scriptures themselves for truth regarding these matters.

Do you have an example of where he’s done this?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Do you have an example of where he’s done this?

You will find samples of this on Dr. Gentry's website postmillennialworldview.com (which you are probably familiar with), in particular when he posts material against what he terms "hyper-preterism". It seems that in his mind, this term encompasses just about all preteristic views other than his own. The words "orthodox" and "creeds" feature heavily in these posts. And I say this even while expressing my full appreciation for his book "Before Jerusalem Fell", which launched my eschatological studies a dozen years ago (a book which needs some serious revision to give the correct early composition date for Revelation). I check into his website almost every day, along with a number of other Christian forums for balance.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The three questions that Dr. Gentry asked Gary were fairly simple questions that go to the heart of what American Vision believes. They aren’t trick questions, or nuanced questions.

Actually, yes, they are "nuanced questions". I have just listened to Gary DeMar's most recent 2 podcasts from this week on this ongoing situation, and I along with him am wondering just why Gentry took a private letter which should have remained between himself and DeMar, and then went very much public with it on Facebook. This is not evidence of the purported "brotherly love" which the questioners are insisting is their primary motive. This unofficial, unregulated tribunal is not something which a man engaged in a current cancer fight should necessarily have to be embroiled in at the moment.

Gary DeMar explained just why he was delaying responding to these questions publicly, and how those three questions weren't as simple as they appear to be at first glance. He said he had composed a lengthy response, but decided for now against sending it. Even his wife cautioned him in effect that any direct response he submitted to these three questions would be misconstrued, would only lead to yet another set of questions, would settle nothing, and would satisfy no one. The inquisition would still continue regardless, and I believe she is right on that.

Perhaps it is just my impression, but I am sensing a similarity to the Pharisees which came to Jesus endeavoring to entrap him in His talk so that they could accuse him before the Sanhedrin.

 

[Hammster]

Actually, yes, they are "nuanced questions". I have just listened to Gary DeMar's most recent 2 podcasts from this week on this ongoing situation, and I along with him am wondering just why Gentry took a private letter which should have remained between himself and DeMar, and then went very much public with it on Facebook. This is not evidence of the purported "brotherly love" which the questioners are insisting is their primary motive. This unofficial, unregulated tribunal is not something which a man engaged in a current cancer fight should necessarily have to be embroiled in at the moment.

Gary DeMar explained just why he was delaying responding to these questions publicly, and how those three questions weren't as simple as they appear to be at first glance. He said he had composed a lengthy response, but decided for now against sending it. Even his wife cautioned him in effect that any direct response he submitted to these three questions would be misconstrued, would only lead to yet another set of questions, would settle nothing, and would satisfy no one. The inquisition would still continue regardless, and I believe she is right on that.

Perhaps it is just my impression, but I am sensing a similarity to the Pharisees which came to Jesus endeavoring to entrap him in His talk so that they could accuse him before the Sanhedrin.

The way I’m seeing it is that Gary is the president of a public organization that is largely post-mil. Gary has written books and done podcasts on eschatology from a preterist perspective. So when he starts making comments that get friends and associates to scratching their heads, I think being questioned publicly is the right way to go. Whoever ends up being right, Gary’s problem was his unwillingness to engage, and the way he did it made it appear as if he had something to hide. I’m glad he’s done the podcast, but two months ago would have been better.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Whoever ends up being right, Gary’s problem was his unwillingness to engage, and the way he did it made it appear as if he had something to hide.

Why would you want him to respond before he even has arrived at settled answers to the questions he is bringing up for himself? He's chewing on things, according to his own admission. Let him finish chewing. This generation has too short an attention span and demands instantaneous responses to everything. They think in sound bites and flip comebacks. Not enough patience for deep reflective thinking.

 

[Hammster]

Why would you want him to respond before he even has arrived at settled answers to the questions he is bringing up for himself? He's chewing on things, according to his own admission. Let him finish chewing. This generation has too short an attention span and demands instantaneous responses to everything. They think in sound bites and flip comebacks. Not enough patience for deep reflective thinking.

Let me be clearer. I don’t necessarily think he should have had a full response two months ago. But he should have acknowledged that they were legitimate questions, and he would respond to them in time. I’m not seeing that he did it that way.

 

[Hammster]

I listened to most of the first podcast. I appreciate that he acknowledged that the letter was done in love. However, if you didn’t know the backstory, you could almost conclude that the letter came out of nowhere. And I think the criticism of the actual questions was a bit petty.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I listened to most of the first podcast. I appreciate that he acknowledged that the letter was done in love. However, if you didn’t know the backstory, you could almost conclude that the letter came out of nowhere. And I think the criticism of the actual questions was a bit petty.

If these men were members of the same local church assembly, there would be grounds for calling each other to account. But they are not. Believers have a certain degree of autonomy, as each is developing in sanctification at varying levels, even though members of the same local assembly do have an increased responsibility for being in sync with each other, since their ties of closer fellowship are more critical.

For this recent division between men who aren't even in the same local assembly to be deliberately splashed all over social media before the unbelievers in general - not exactly the way I think Christ would have done it. This should be handled in more of an "in-house" manner, wouldn't you think? And it's not as if Dr. Gentry and those signing the letter have the authority to demand a certain response from another brother in Christ. That would be presumptuous. It is CHRIST who is the only "head over all things to the church". Just like Paul once taught, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth..." (Romans 14:4). Every man has to be "fully persuaded in his own mind", and that includes Gary DeMar.

 

[Hammster]

If these men were members of the same local church assembly, there would be grounds for calling each other to account. But they are not. Believers have a certain degree of autonomy, as each is developing in sanctification at varying levels, even though members of the same local assembly do have an increased responsibility for being in sync with each other, since their ties of closer fellowship are more critical.

For this recent division between men who aren't even in the same local assembly to be deliberately splashed all over social media before the unbelievers in general - not exactly the way I think Christ would have done it. This should be handled in more of an "in-house" manner, wouldn't you think? And it's not as if Dr. Gentry and those signing the letter have the authority to demand a certain response from another brother in Christ. That would be presumptuous. It is CHRIST who is the only "head over all things to the church". Just like Paul once taught, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth..." (Romans 14:4). Every man has to be "fully persuaded in his own mind", and that includes Gary DeMar.

I think since they both have public ministries, and both make public statements about issues, this is the appropriate way to handle it.

 

[Hammster]

Theological Jenga & Full Preterism | Blog & Mablog

Sharing Options Contents Introduction Default Assumptions & Chesterton’s Fence The Confession of Martha 2 Macabees This Pregnant World What Fruitfruits Should Tell Us The Tomb of David No Mini-Millennium Preterism is Precious The Only Eschatological Truth that the Universal Church Has Ever...

dougwils.com

 

[3 Resurrections]

Theological Jenga & Full Preterism | Blog & Mablog​

Sharing Options Contents Introduction Default Assumptions & Chesterton’s Fence The Confession of Martha 2 Macabees This Pregnant World What Fruitfruits Should Tell Us The Tomb of David No Mini-Millennium Preterism is Precious The Only Eschatological Truth that the Universal Church Has Ever...

dougwils.com

I read this link by Doug Wilson. He is absolutely correct in his point #5 that "...the First-fruits and the harvest must resemble each other." A physical resurrection of the body is the same for the "First-fruits" as for any other resurrection event following that one. But he is forgetting that in Israel, the "First-fruits" barley harvest was the first of no less than THREE harvest celebrations in Israel's agricultural setting - not just one single harvest to follow the First-fruits. This pattern of THREE harvest celebrations in OC Israel at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles was intended to be symbolic for the THREE resurrection events that God planned for His saints.

Doug Wilson also makes one very grave error. He states that the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected individuals died again later, and that Lazarus did also, as well as the widow's son resurrected at Nain. This is directly contradictory to the stated rule in Hebrews 9:27-28 that it is appointed unto man to die ONCE - not twice - comparable to the very same way that Christ Jesus was offered in death only ONCE (not twice). Doug Wilson is absolutely wrong that Lazarus experienced a "resuscitation". That was a bona-fide resurrection for Lazarus into his glorified body that would never die again another time. This is why Christ told Martha that she would see the glory of God displayed in the raising of her brother Lazarus. If Lazarus was only "resuscitated", and fated to die again a second time, that would be no display of God's glory at all if a resurrection status could be undone so easily.

Doug Wilson also makes a mistake in saying that the Matthew 27:52-53 saints were only those who had "just recently deceased" in those days. The time of their death is actually immaterial, and is never stated. And the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were NOT taken into heaven with Christ when He ascended in Acts 1. We know that is impossible, because Revelation 15:18 tells us about heaven's temple that "no man was able to enter into the temple until the 7 plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." This fulfillment of the seven plagues did not happen by the time of Christ's ascension.

I agree with Doug Wilson that the millennium cannot be "shoehorned" into the AD 30-70 period. This millennium period was supposed to "expire" and be "fulfilled" when the "First resurrection" had taken place. That "FIRST resurrection" was the "FIRST-fruits", which was "Christ the First-fruits" and the (144,000 First-fruits) Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised from the dead on the same day. This literal thousand-year millennium is long past since AD 33. And it is a literal number as well as a highly symbolic one.

 

[JM]

Q. Does baptism come into play with Postmil eschatology?

I think it does.

 

[Hammster]

Q. Does baptism come into play with Postmil eschatology?

I think it does.

Do tell.

 

[JM]

Do tell.

I'm chasing several ideas around in my head right now so I'm not sure yet.

I've also been attending a Lutheran Church the last month and Postmil is causing me to rethink traditional doctrines in light of my eschatology. The Kingdom is now and spiritual, I think we agree, I'm just not sure if credobaptism fits into that model.

For the last three or four years I've considered baptism a (church) management issue leaving who gets dunked to the elders but now I'm seeing it as a Kingdom issue.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

We should be serious churchman, serious about the faith once delivered.

Home altar.

 

[JM]

Saller is kind of a weird guy, at least that's my personal impression of his work, but he is still out there fighting the good fight.

 

[JM]

"That some form of Christianity is to be the religion of the world, is not only an assured fact to the believer in Revelation, but must be regarded as probable, even in the judgment which is formed on purely natural evidence. Next in transcendent importance to that fact, and beyond it in present interest, as a question relatively un- decided, is the question, What form of Christianity is to conquer the world? Shall it be the form in which Christianity now exists, the form of intermingling and of division, of internal separation and warfare? Is the territory of Christendom forever to be divided be- tween antagonistic communions, or occupied by them conjointly? Shall there be to the end of time the Greek, the Roman, the Protestant churches, the sects, and the heretical bodies ? Or shall one or other of these specific forms lift itself above the tangled mass, and impose order on chaos ? Or shall a form yet unrevealed prove the church of the future? To that the answer seems to be, that the logic of the question, supported by eighteen centuries of history, renders it able that some principle, or some combination of principles now existent, will assuredly, however slowly, determine the ultimate, world-dominating type of Christianity. Unless there be an exact balance of force in the different tendencies, the internally strongest of them will ultimately prevail over the others, and, unless a new force superior to it corner in, will be permanent." (Lutheran) Charles Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and its Theology