Originally Posted by Jaymin Allen

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

Originally Posted by Jaymin Allen

Right...I like your line of reasoning

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Mike Kear

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.

Originally Posted by Jaymin Allen

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 ?