Just got a series of 16 lectures by Ken Gentry

shackleton · #1 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 12:12 PM

I am taking classes at Whitefield Theological Seminary and currently up to the class on Eschatology. When I got the lectures in the mail saw that Ken Gentry was teaching the class.

For books I have :
Postmillinnialism by Keith Matthison
Before the Temple Fell by Gentry
He Shall Have Dominion by Gentry
and the section on Eschatology in Reymond's Theology

List of Lectures:
Doctrine of the End Times
Millennial Views
Biblical Eshc. 1-3
Goal of Redemption
Creedal Matters
Final Judgement
Great Tribulation
Revelation/ Theme and Flow of Revelation
Dispensatinalism
Historical Distortions
Daniel's 70Weeks
Major Texts

It should prove to be interesting. Since I have discovered Gentry I am also going to read God Gave us Wine.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #2 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 12:21 PM

Awesome!!!

bconway52 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 08:35 PM

I bought these lectures to supplement a course on eschatology in college. They are wonderful!

Calvin'scuz · #4 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 08:47 PM

These are very good lectures. You'll find that as you listen through them they'll begin to match up closely with Gentry's book "He Shall Have Dominion." It's almost as if he used his outline for that book to guide his lectures (but you don't really notice it until maybe the 3rd or 4th lecture). You might want to read HSHD before you begin listening to the lectures. I'm at Whitefield also (MAR program) and reading it before listening/outlining the lectures really helped me to get more out of them and save time as well. God's speed as you go through your studies. It's a lot of work, isn't it?

AV1611 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 04:22 PM

YouTube - The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (4...

shackleton · #6 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvin'scuz

These are very good lectures. You'll find that as you listen through them they'll begin to match up closely with Gentry's book "He Shall Have Dominion." It's almost as if he used his outline for that book to guide his lectures (but you don't really notice it until maybe the 3rd or 4th lecture). You might want to read HSHD before you begin listening to the lectures. I'm at Whitefield also (MAR program) and reading it before listening/outlining the lectures really helped me to get more out of them and save time as well. God's speed as you go through your studies. It's a lot of work, isn't it?

It is indeed very time consuming but very beneficial. In talking to pastors I have noticed that the depth of theological training is lacking. WTS definately has a strong emphasis on theology, which is good and why I choose to take classes there.

blhowes · #7 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

YouTube - The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (4 of 25) by Ken Gentry

That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

YouTube - The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (4 of 25) by Ken Gentry

That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?

I do. I believe that the canon of Scripture had to be completed prior to the end of the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #9 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 08:57 PM

Interestingly enough his scholarship on Revelation being written prior to AD 70 is actually gaining some ground in more "academic" circles. I plan on reading his book in the future.

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 08:59 PM

If the Canon was not completed prior to 70 AD then when was it completed? Surely the NT had to be completed before the Old Covenant system was publicly and finally abolished with the Destruction of Jerusalem.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #11 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

If the Canon was not completed prior to 70 AD then when was it completed? Surely the NT had to be completed before the Old Covenant system was publicly and finally abolished with the Destruction of Jerusalem.

Agreed.

blhowes · #12 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I do. I believe that the canon of Scripture had to be completed prior to the end of the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants.

Why?

Daniel Ritchie · #13 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I do. I believe that the canon of Scripture had to be completed prior to the end of the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants.

Why?

So that the NT church would have the complete Canon of Scripture before the Old Covenant system was finally ended - thus signifying the end of the period of transition.

blhowes · #14 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

So that the NT church would have the complete Canon of Scripture before the Old Covenant system was finally ended - thus signifying the end of the period of transition.

Are there scriptures (there must be, I just don't know which ones) that talk about when the NT scriptures were to be completed - ie., something that tells us that AD 70 would be the cutoff point?

Daniel Ritchie · #15 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

So that the NT church would have the complete Canon of Scripture before the Old Covenant system was finally ended - thus signifying the end of the period of transition.

Are there scriptures (there must be, I just don't know which ones) that talk about when the NT scriptures were to be completed - ie., something that tells us that AD 70 would be the cutoff point?

It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.

blhowes · #16 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.

Never thought about it before. I'll have to sleep on it and ponder the strangeness. It does seem like a nice way to "wrap things up".

AV1611 · #17 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?

There is strong internal and external evdence for an early date IMO, but I am not completely convinced.

danmpem · #18 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.

I'm just wondering, if the destruction of the temple publicly signified the end of the OT/old covenant, then what was the temple there for between the times of the cross, torn curtain, & ressurrection and 70 A.D.? Between the tearing of the curtain and the resurrection, wouldn't that be the most public it could get?

These aren't statements disguised as questions - I really am just wondering.

Daniel Ritchie · #19 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.

I'm just wondering, if the destruction of the temple publicly signified the end of the OT/old covenant, then what was the temple there for between the times of the cross, torn curtain, & ressurrection and 70 A.D.? Between the tearing of the curtain and the resurrection, wouldn't that be the most public it could get?

These aren't statements disguised as questions - I really am just wondering.

With the completion of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, the sacrificial worship of the Temple was defunct. However, prior to 70 AD there was a period of transition for the Jews to adapt to the New Covenant. But this came to an end with the destruction of Jerusalem which further testified to the reality that the OT system was publicly and finally abolished. Once this happened, the period of transition was over, and the Jewish Christians could no longer involve themselves with Apostate Israel's worship.

Daniel Ritchie · #20 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?

There is strong internal and external evdence for an early date IMO, but I am not completely convinced.

As it is not a soteriological issue, or even a confessional issue, it is not something we can be ultra-dogmatic about.

AV1611 · #21 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

As it is not a soteriological issue, or even a confessional issue, it is not something we can be ultra-dogmatic about.

I have been re-reading Matthison's book on Postmillennialism, on the whole I would agree with his arguments. The preterist argument for Revelation I find quite convincing as it provides a great deal of exegetical control instead of the "each man to his own" approach of the other methods of interpretation. I am broadly sympathetic to the preterist interpretation and an early date but further study is required.

Daniel Ritchie · #22 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

As it is not a soteriological issue, or even a confessional issue, it is not something we can be ultra-dogmatic about.

I have been re-reading Matthison's book on Postmillennialism, on the whole I would agree with his arguments. The preterist argument for Revelation I find quite convincing as it provides a great deal of exegetical control instead of the "each man to his own" approach of the other methods of interpretation. I am broadly sympathetic to the preterist interpretation and an early date but further study is required.

Ken Gentry has a whole book on the early date called Before Jerusalem Fell (which I think was his ThD. thesis). I have not read it myself, but have heard that it is very good. I liked Keith Mathison's arguments when I read the book (over 6 years ago), but my commitment to historicism kept me from fully embracing it. That commitment has since been abandoned.