Coming Soon: Interview with Kenneth Gentry

It's my great pleasure to be able to announce that Kenneth Gentry has agreed to let me interview him on my show on Friday, February 24th. Gentry's contribution in The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question, as well as his defense of an early date for the book of Revelation in Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, were instrumental in my conversion to preterism from premillennial futurism. He's authored many other books, including Navigating the Book of Revelation, whose presentation of preterism's understanding of Revelation he joins me to discuss. Stay tuned!

Episode 39: This Generation Shall Not Pass

Episode 39 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In Matthew 24:34 Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." The meaning of Jesus' statement seem obvious, but most Christians in America today think He was saying something else. How is the phrase, "this generation," used by Jesus and others in the Bible? And what impact does that have on Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse?

Episode 19: Leave the Past Behind

Episode 19 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I play some calls I made in to the Stand to Reason radio show with Greg Koukl on the topic of preterism, hyperpreterism and skepticism, as a follow up to episodes 17 and 18 in which I interviewed Dee Dee Warren on the same topics.

Episode 18: It's All Over

Episode 18 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dee Dee Warren on the claim made by skeptics of Christianity that Jesus was a false prophet, discussing how a proper biblical understanding of the “end times” turns the claim on its head. The interview spanned nearly 2 hours, so I’ve split it up into two parts. This episode contains the second half of the interview; see episode 17 for the second half.

Episode 17: The End Of The World

Episode 17 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dee Dee Warren on the claim made by skeptics of Christianity that Jesus was a false prophet, discussing how a proper biblical understanding of the “end times” turns the claim on its head. The interview spanned nearly 2 hours, so I’ve split it up into two parts. This episode contains the first half of the interview; see episode 18 for the second half.

Coming Soon: Interview with Dee Dee Warren

I cannot express how excited I am to announce that in an upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast I will have the great honor and privilege of interviewing my friend Dee Dee Warren, discussing the topic of preterism. Dee Dee is creator of The Preterist Site, owner of The Preterist Blog at which I'm a guest author, and host of The Preterist Podcast, a recent episode of which I had the pleasure of guest-hosting (which convinced me to start my own podcast, for better or for worse), and is increasingly becoming one of the world's foremost experts on preterism and hyperpreterism--all of which means she can be forgiven for her Apple fanaticism. Stay tuned for this exciting episode!

Exegetical Eschatology: Do Not Seal Up

In previous articles in this series I've concentrated on many of the presumptions we read into texts dealing with the end times. I demonstrated that we are not justified in assuming that the thousand years of Revelation must refer to precisely 1,000 years and that the reign of Christ during that time would be physical on earth. I demonstrated that we are not justified in assuming that Jesus' disciples ever expected a "first going," so we need to be careful how we understand their questions concerning His future "coming." And I demonstrated that we are not justified in assuming that Jesus' use of lightning imagery in the Olivet Discourse was intended to communicate that the "coming" of which He spoke would be physically visible to the entire world population.

Having dealt with those assumptions, I'd like to start looking at biblical passages which began to make me curious, back when I was a staunch dispensational futurist. The texts we'll be looking at in the next couple of articles in this series are ones which most Christians either gloss over without realizing the weight of the words they're reading, or wave off using "sound byte" explanations without deeply considering the weakness of those explanations. These passages are the so-called "time texts" which we preterists think strongly point to a first century fulfillment of much (but not all) of biblical prophecy, and we're going to begin today by looking at a pair of texts which, considered together, are very powerful.

Bring Me to Life: Let the Downloading Begin!

The first ever episode of the Theopologetics Podcast is available for download now! The topic is the general resurrection of all the dead, which I use to introduce myself and what this podcast is all about. Related is a seeming ignorance of the doctrine in American Evangelicalism, which instead focuses on “heaven” as a place where our spirits go when we die, as well as a refutation of hyperpreterism’s claim that the resurrection is non-physical and happened in the first century.

Let me know what you think!

Chris Calls In to "Stand to Reason"

Some of you may be familiar with Greg Koukl's "Stand to Reason" apologetics ministry. They have a weekly radio show, archived in podcast form, and I've recently begun listening. In a couple of recent episodes, callers in have asked about preterism, and Greg (and the callers in) has distinguished between preterism and hyperpreterism using the abhorrent "partial" and "full" prefixes, against which Dee Dee Warren of the Preterist Podcast has rightfully railed (see this blog post, a shorter version of Dee Dee's article, "Perfuming the Hog").

Being new to Greg's show but having developed a respect for him and his aim toward teaching Christians how to think, rather than merely what to think, I decided I'd call in and humbly request that he change his terminology. I agree with Dee Dee that the terminology we employ is important, and likewise wrote about it in "A War Over Words". If you would like to listen to my discussion with Greg, check out his podcast and listen to July 18th's show, "Reflections on UK Vacation." I was the first caller in the second hour of the show, and you can fast forward to 00:59:43 if you want to skip to my call.

Now, keep in mind I was terribly nervous; I've struggled with stage fright all my life. As such, I likely spoke too quickly at times, missed certain points I shouldn't have and failed to clarify certain of Greg's statements. For example, I said at one point that preterists would agree to an extent with hyperpreterists concerning the "time texts," but should have clarified that we don't think those refer to the Second Coming. Also, when asked what hyperpreterists think the resurrection was, I said they believe that refers to the spiritual rebirth all Christians undergo, otherwise known as being "born again," but I am not certain that that's the case and should have prefaced my statement with, "I believe" or "I think." Other examples, I'm sure, could be identified (and I encourage you to let me know so I don't make similar mistakes in the future).

Nevertheless, I'm pleased overall with how things went (despite Greg's having mistakenly called it the book of "Revelations;" I can forgive him for that). In the end, Koukl seemed to agree with my reasoning, said I put my request well, and I gather that in the future he will use terminology which more clearly distinguishes the orthodox view from the heretical one. Let me know what you think!

Exegetical Eschatology: As the Lightning Comes

Previously in this series, we examined some of the assumptions we tend to read into the texts concerning the "end times." We learned that these assumptions are at best unwarranted, and at worst appear to contradict what Scripture teaches, and as such we must approach this biblical issue more carefully than we may have done in the past.

I've covered most of the sort of overarching assumptions I had intended to address, those which impact how we understand a variety of passages throughout Scripture. Today, because I witnessed it in action in a recent episode of a podcast I listen to, I want to look at something more particular, more specific. While perhaps not properly characterized as an assumption, this idea is nevertheless often presumed to be true without any effort to look elsewhere in Scripture to see if it is warranted.

God So Loved the World: Debating Baptismal Regeneration--Put On Hold

Last time I posted what seemed like the beginning of an email debate over the necessity of baptism when it comes to salvation. After the response I posted, my friend suggested we meet in person with his pastor to discuss the matter. Initially I agreed; however, after a couple of probing questions I have decided I cannot in good conscience discuss baptism or any other doctrinal matters face-to-face until we come to an agreement on what I think is a more fundamental matter. Here is how I came to that conclusion.

After a couple of emails back and forth, my friend wrote,

[Jim] I understand that what God wants for us is to be saved and join him in Heaven...How we are to get to be with God in Heaven is written down in a manner for us to understand. I seek the truth that leads to Heaven...I want to be sure that I am teaching myself and my family that they have a way to get to Heaven.

This emphasis on "heaven" at first didn't strike me as all that serious. Many Christians refer to the resurrection as "heaven," or don't readily think of the resurrection, but at least acknowledge it. I responded,

[Theopologetics] Also, I'm assuming you mean that you "want to be sure that [you are] teaching [yourself] and [your] family that they have a way to [be resurrected]." I just want to make sure that your hope is in the resurrection, ultimately, not "heaven." If not, that's another important discussion we need to have.

You see, at this point I just figured "going to heaven" was a euphamism for the resurrection. My friend responded,

[Jim] You use the word resurrection, which I understand to mean return to physical life from physical death. I don't use this term in talking of "life in Heaven" for this would be a spiritual life and in order to get there we (people) must die physically.

Now for some reason, at this point I still didn't suspect anything. I don't know if I initially misread his words or what, but I still thought we were just disagreeing on terminology. I responded,

[Theopologetics] Scripture teaches that our hope is in the final, bodily resurrection from the dead, which for many Christians is merely an afterthought. When you said you want to teach your family what they need to "have a way to get to Heaven," I just wanted to make sure that you recognize that "heaven" is a temporary, less-than-ideal state, and that your ultimate hope is in the resurrection.

I've left some things out, as I don't want to get off topic in this mini-series. But suffice it to say that we were discussing another issue or two as well, and at this point my friend decided we should table any further discussion on those other topics until we met in person. I was fine with this, except I noticed that he didn't address what I had said about the resurrection. This is where alarm bells started to go off, and I wrote this:

[Theopologetics] I still need to know that you acknowledge that all the dead will one day in the future be bodily resurrected from the dead--after our time in heaven. If you do, great, we can meet and discuss baptism. If you do not, I'm not comfortable meeting to discuss baptism until we discuss the resurrection, and I'll explain why if you'd like.

I honestly wrote this with nearly 100% certainty that he would respond in agreement. To my surprise, this is how he responded:

[Jim] I don't agree with that, but that can be added to the list of things to study the scriptures to understand.

To anybody familiar with the debate between preterists and hyperpreterists, you'll know, now, why I am not comfortable discussing any other doctrinal matters until we can agree on the resurrection. Here is how I responded to him:

[Theopologetics] I appreciate your honesty. Honestly =). Yes, we can discuss that too, then.

However, when we get together face-to-face, I do not think I can in good conscience discuss baptism until we've discussed the resurrection. The centrality of the future, bodily resurrection is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15, particularly verses 12 to 19. And in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, the teaching of those who deny the future resurrection is likened unto gangrene, and that their heresies were destroying the faith of some. I hope you'll understand--even if you don't agree--that I cannot subject myself to the risk of having my faith destroyed by discussing baptism or any other topic with someone who denies the resurrection. Not until we agree on the future bodily resurrection can I in good faith discuss any other doctrine with you and your pastor in person.

So yes, we can plan on meeting with the plan to discuss a) the resurrection, and b) baptism, among anything else you would like. But I'm sorry that I will not be comfortable moving onto baptism, etc., until we've agreed on the resurrection. Are you comfortable, then, with the possibility that we might not ever get to the topic you primarily desire to discuss?

It wasn't until after I sent this a couple of hours ago that it dawned on me that my friend might be a hyperpreterist. I assumed that he just didn't believe in the resurrection, which of course is serious enough. However, I got to wondering, are there professing Christians who deny the resurrection but who aren't hyperpreterists?

Please keep my friend and me in your prayers. I'm not sure if he will be willing to meet to discuss the resurrection if there's the possibility we may not get to baptism. I hope he understands--and indeed I hope you, my readers, understand--why I cannot comfortably discuss other doctrinal matters in person with him until we agree on this essential of the historic Christian faith. Stay tuned for updates.

Exegetical Eschatology: A War Over Words

Before I start this post, I want to correct something I said previously in this series. In "Four Views of the Future," I stated that "Discussions over the timing...of Christ's return relative to the 'millennium'--premillennial, millennial, amillenial--are discussions about the chronology of future events from a futurist's perspective." This is not really true. Adherents to the other major views also hold certain positions regarding the thousand years of Revelation and its timing relative to the return of Christ--myself included. Please forgive my error.

Also, I said that in the next entry in this series "we'll look a bit more closely at the variations within futurism." I had intended at that time to discuss the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib views of the "rapture", and the pre-mil, a-mil and post-mil views of the "millennium" within the futurist camp. I've decided against this, however, as explaining these views this early on in the series is unnecessary, and requires introducing concepts I wish to save for later. So instead, I will discuss these schools of futurism when the relevant topics come up.

Now, in that introductory post I also said that coming up next would be a discussion of "a war over words regarding preterism." Indeed, that is the subject of this post. I feel this is an important addendum to the introduction to the four views of eschatology because the term "preterism" is often met with immediate concern by other Christians. This is because the term has been, as of late, associated with a recent eschatological position that places itself, by its beliefs, outside the orthodox faith of historic Christianity. This needs to be clarified, therefore, lest the orthodox view that historically goes by the term "preterism" be immediately dismissed by my readers.

Exegetical Eschatology: Four Views of the Future

The word eschatology is defined as "any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the future state, etc." In Christian theology, it is the study of the "end times." It includes discussion of such topics as the return of Christ, the antichrist, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment. Relevant passages include Jesus' Olivet Discourse, the book of Revelation and much of Daniel's prophecies.

The word exegesis is "critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text." It comes from the Greek exegeisthai which means "to interpret," and is comprised of the root words ex, meaning "out," and hegeisthai, meaning "to lead, guide." Thus, exegesis is the extraction of meaning out from, in the case of Judeo-Christianity, the Bible. In contrast, eisegesis means "an interpretation...that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text." In other words, it is the reading into the Bible one's own beliefs.

In this new series, "Exegetical Eschatology," as the name suggests, this subject of the "end times" will be discussed with an emphasis on the extraction of meaning from Scripture. Throughout the history of the Church this topic has been the subject not only of intense debate, but also of speculation as to its relevance to contemporary world events. Particularly in modern times, there are large numbers of Christians speculating as to whether some modern figure is the antichrist, or if microchips implanted into body parts are the "mark of the beast," or if perceived increases in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters like hurricanes indicate the end is at hand. Eschatology has also in modern times been the subject of popular entertainment, in the form of horror movies and pseudo-fictional literary works such as Time LaHaye's Left Behind series.

With so much in-house debate amongst Christians as to the nature of biblical prophecies concerning the "end times," with such frequent and, often, fanatical speculation as to the relevance of modern persons and events to prophetic passages in the Bible, and with so many varied eschatolological positions infusing modern entertainment, one may wonder why we should concern ourselves with what Scripture has to say about the subject at all. Is there any hope of coming to properly--that is, biblically--understand anything about the "end times?" I happen to think there is, and even if I did not, I'm not inclined to believe that wholesale portions of Scripture were given to us by God knowing full well that we stood no chance of grasping even the smallest iota of His words.