I assume this all means he's saying my article: https://www.hoperesurrected.com/2020/01/it-has-been-strange-state-of-affairs.html is refuted by this article he wrote against Gentry? Let's find out.
"I have written numerous articles interacting with Kenneth Gentry, an outspoken critic of Covenant Eschatology. He is also one of the most ardent advocates of postmillennialism. In my work on 1 Thessalonians 4:13f entitled We Shall Meet Him In the Air, The Wedding of the King of Kings, I do an in-depth analysis of Gentry’s hermeneutic. It appears to me personally that as time goes on, Gentry becomes more illogical and desperate in his attempts to respond to Covenant Eschatology. His argument addressed in this article is a prime example of that."
Hmm.. So far this appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for one of Don's books, one of which I addressed and refuted in my book Hope Resurrected. He claims that Gentry seems to be becoming more illogical and desperate in his attempts to respond to full preterism. It's quite odd to read this since Kenneth Gentry is an actual scholar by all accounts and Don has been repeatedly shown to be a pseudo-scholar. It is also quite odd to read this attempt to discredit Kenneth Gentry since in recent videos Don did against me and my book Hope Resurrected, he made so many statements where he advocated for early dating of Revelation and attempted to vindicate Gentry and villainize me for making a critique on Gentry's external data to support his early date hypothesis. It sure seems odd to be making claims like these for someone who is reliant on Gentry, a scholar, and his early date advocacy of Revelation but let's continue.
"Dr. Gentry takes every opportunity to condemn preterists, but he refuses to actually engage in honorable discussions with preterists. Dr. Gentry has been challenged many times by numerous people, including myself, to meet me in formal public debate. It seems Dr. Gentry is always “too busy.” Anyone wishing to forward this article, with my invitation to formal debate, to Gentry, is more than welcome to do so. I have little hope that he will respond. Every time I have personally emailed him, even though he has opened the posts, he has not even given me the courtesy of a response, or, he has told me he is too busy. We can only hope that this will change."
One must wonder to themselves why Don wants to debate someone who he thinks is becoming "more illogical and desperate" and apparently, according to Don... "takes every opportunity to condemn [full] preterists, but he refuses to actually engage in honorable discussions with preterists". So far, Preston has called Mr. Gentry illogical, desperate, and dishonorable because he condemns full preterists.
I find nothing so far in this article to defeat any of my arguments I have made against full preterism here. Moreso, all I have found so far to start off with is a hate-post of Don about Kenneth Gentry.
Preston then goes on about a post he got from someone where Gentry says something against full preterists on his blog where he quotes Luke 21:20-22 I suppose? There is no citation to show us where Gentry said or claimed this stuff so that we can get better context... so I suppose we have to take Don's word for it that what he's saying about Gentry is true... being that he's lied and taken me out of context as I showed in Part 1... this doesn't bode well if I'm going to be frank.
Preston's article gives no citations so I have literally no idea where Gentry's claims begin and where Don K Preston's begin. He would do well to learn how to cite and at the very least do quotation marks so we know who is speaking, especially from someone who claims to be such a "scholar" as Preston does. Fact is, when I went to look on the blog to get clearer context, I have found nothing written by Gentry. It's possible whatever Gentry wrote has been since deleted or lost perhaps since May 18, 2019 but who in the world really knows for sure that this is to be trusted or not since Preston doesn't give any source or citation to us except that his friend Ray West apparently gave to him.
It's dangerous to assume I suppose but I'm assuming this part of the article is "Gentry's post" since there is something negative said about hyper-preterists but with Don saying end quote, DKP at the bottom instead of just using quotation marks like a normal person I am left to wonder where Gentry starts and Don begins. Scholars should know simple things like this. This is basics I learned in college as well about citation and quotation... Just throwing that out there. Maybe Don can give us an actual citation or the article this is from? That would be fantastic but I would tell the reader not to hold their breath.
Gentry apparently said: Inarguably, the context here [Luke 21:20-22 is the reference] is focusing on AD 70, as even Dispensationalists agree. The hyper-preterists naively assume that Jesus is speaking globally of absolutely all prophecies when he declares that “all things which are written” will be fulfilled in AD 70. They hold, therefore, that no prophecy remains, which means that prophecies regarding the resurrection of all men, the second coming, and more came to pass in AD 70. They base their argument on deficient hermeneutics. Note just one deadly observation against their approach: The grammar of the passage limits the declaration. Jesus speaks of “all things which are written” by employing a perfect passive participle: /gegrammena /(”having been written”). This refers to prophecies already written — when he speaks in AD 30. Yet we know that more prophecies arise later in the New Testament revelation. Once again we see a limitation on Jesus’ statement. Furthermore, technically it does not even refer to any prophecy which Christ speaks. For these are not prophecies that have already been written. That being the case, the final resurrection (for instance) is outside of this declaration (Jn 5:28-29). Thus, Jesus is referring to all things written in the Old Testament. At this stage of redemptive history those are the only prophecies that had already been written.I would be curious what the rest of the argument was to be honest. The quote appears to be a snippet of some argument Gentry made and we don't have sourcing to get the entire context of this quotation Don apparently mined from somewhere. I'm also not sure as of yet how this argument Gentry, a partial preterist, makes against hyper-preterists like Don is relevant to me as I am preteristic in some aspects with eschatology but am not what one would call a partial preterist by any means.
Don writes that:
Quite frankly, I could hardly believe what I was reading from the erudite Dr. Gentry! He has engaged in numerous debates, and surely knows that one must be careful in making polemic arguments. The absolute desperation, the total failure of logic on the part of Dr. Gentry is glaring and egregious.So apparently Don wants to debate Gentry, yet thinks he's illogical, desperate, dishonorable because he condemns full preterists and was shocked reading this quote he got from somewhere.
I'm assuming that Gentry is saying that at the time that Jesus' words were written down, the words of Paul and Peter and other apostles weren't written yet so this entails that some things have not taken place yet but I could very well be wrong as we don't have anything to gain more context from as Don doesn't give us a reference point to go off from, as is per usual for Don.
He doesn't give us reference points so we can read Gentry for ourselves but then takes it upon himself to "summarize" Gentry's argument "for ease of understanding" to his readers.
Don claims Gentry is saying this and that but in truth, without a reference point so we can read Gentry's full words for ourselves, we can't know for sure what Gentry is saying based solely on a quote that Don clipped. Don assumes Gentry is saying this and that but it could very well be he didn't claim what Preston claims at all.
I'm also still at a loss as to how Gentry's words and this article of Don's have defeated me and my articles and book I've written. All we've received so far is Don claiming Gentry is basically an ignorant buffoon because Don disagrees with him is what I've gathered so far.
Preston makes some arguments here against Gentry and claims that
The New Testament prophecies of the resurrection are simply the reiteration of the Old Testament prophecies (things already written in A.D. 30). Proof of this argument: I need only refer to the words of Paul. The apostle affirmed in the most unambiguous manner that his doctrine of the resurrection was nothing but that found in the Old Testament, i.e. in that which had already been written!
Acts 24:14-15: “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”
Paul said his doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, for which he was on trial, was found in Moses and the Law and the prophets. That certainly qualifies as that which was written before A.D. 30.
Acts 26:21-23– “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”This is absurdity at its finest. Paul does teach a resurrection of the dead certainly. Acts 24:14-15 makes it clear that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. When did this happen? Not AD30. Not AD70 for sure either. Acts 26:21-23 also doesn't help Preston's case here either as it says "he [Christ] should be the FIRST THAT SHOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD". 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that Christ truly and literally rose from the dead. There is no ambiguity here. Christ truly was resurrected and rose from His grave, no longer biologically dead but biologically eternally alive. It's clear that Paul teaches that if Christ rose biologically, so will we.
Paul said he preached nothing, nothing but the hope of Israel found in Moses and the prophets. Do you catch the power of that? Paul taught of the resurrection of the dead.
But, Paul did not preach anything but the hope of Israel found in Moses and the prophets.
Therefore, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was found in Moses and the prophets.
Romans 8:23– 9:1-4– “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body… For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.”
The adoption, according to Paul, was the resurrection. But, the promise of the adoption was given to, and belonged to, Israel after the flesh. This means that the adoption, the promise of the resurrection, was from the Old Testament prophecies.
1 Corinthians 15:54-55– “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” Paul cites Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 as the source of his resurrection doctrine in Corinthians. Paul said that the resurrection would be when Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13:14 would be fulfilled. Thus, the resurrection hope and doctrine of 1 Corinthians 15 was found in, and based on the Old Testament prophecies made to Israel.I certainly would not claim that Paul doesn't teach a resurrection of the dead. He most certainly does. This claim that being adopted (Gentiles being adopted into Israel along with Jewish believers) means they are part of the resurrection of the dead is interesting. Acts as Preston clearly showed us, teaches that there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. It's not just those who are part of Israel. It's also the just and unjust. Weird flex Don but okay...
From these texts, it is undeniable that the resurrection hope expressed by the New Testament writers was nothing other than a reiteration of what had already been written long ago in the Old Testament scriptures! This is fatal to Gentry’s argument and theology.Still unsure how these Scriptures are fatal to Gentry's argument and theology. As far as I'm aware he teaches that the 2nd Coming and resurrection of the dead are future whereas Preston would have to prove that the 2nd Coming not only happened but that the resurrection of the dead took place as well, without spiritualizing it into something that Paul doesn't teach since Paul teaches a biological resurrection of the dead will take place when the 2nd Coming takes place.
You simply cannot say that the New Testament prophecies of the resurrection are not grounded in and based on the Old Covenant prophecies. This is to deny Paul who said he preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in Moses and the prophets. 1 Corinthians 15 is not different from Isaiah 25 or Hosea 13:14, for Paul says that when the resurrection occurred, it would be the fulfillment of those prophecies. To say that 1 Corinthians 15 is the explication of those prophecies is not the same as saying that they are different from those prophecies.1 Corinthians 15 teaches a biological resurrection of the dead. Paul affirms this will take place by quoting Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13:14 as proof that it will certainly take place. In it, the hope of man longed for, will occur, as "death is swallowed up in victory". This is why Paul recalls Isaiah 25.8 and Hosea 13.14. Long the tyrant of man, Death has been vanquished entirely through Christ as He has ensured us the victory over it through the Cross, His death and His Resurrection. All these realities - death, sin, the Law - belonged to this age and will forever be abolished in the coming resurrection. Even now, in this age, God "gives us the victory" through Christ. This is simple stuff.
He keeps making absurd claims about Gentry which leave me wondering where the heck I am disproven by this article.
Gentry may very well make some of these claims in his books that all OT prophecy would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. I'm not sure how this defeats my arguments however since the Old Covenant was completed at the Cross, not the Parousia as Preston erroneously teaches. The Old Covenant being completed and fulfilled so the New Covenant could be ushered in does not mean that all of the Old Testament has to be fulfilled either. There is always the possibility that there can be prophecies in the OT about the New Covenant that have not been fulfilled as of yet. Old Testament does not equate to the Old Covenant since some of the OT does speak about the New Covenant.
Preston's 2nd argument here is that the prophecies of the OT all had to be fulfilled in AD70.
It is incontrovertibly true that the Old Testament foretold the resurrection of the dead. Kenneth Gentry agrees. It is irrefutably true that all New Testament prophecies of the resurrection are drawn from and the reiteration of the Old Testament prophecies. It is undeniable that Jesus said that all things written would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Kenneth Gentry is correct in affirming that all Old Testament prophecies would be fulfilled at / in A.D. 70. And this proves, beyond refutation, that the resurrection of the dead came at the dissolution of the Old Covenant age of Israel in A.D. 70.This all assumes that all the Old Testament prophecies are written about the Old Covenant. We already see through Hebrews 8 which I have covered in previous articles and in my book Hope Resurrected that the New Covenant came about on the Cross, not the Parousia. The Old was already fulfilled by Christ there and then.
Preston rambles on about Gentry being wrong and babbles about Isaiah 25. I find nowhere where he gives some kind of refutation of me here. He has to prove Paul didn't teach a biological resurrection and it is quite clear that Paul teaches a biological resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15.
He makes an absurd claim that Isaiah 24:10 "emphatically posits the resurrection at the time of Jerusalem’s demise". and this is just absurdity at its finest and bad eisegesis coming from Don.
In chapter 26:19-21, the Lord predicted the resurrection at the time when YHVH would come out of heaven and avenge the blood of the martyrs. Of course, Jesus was emphatically clear that all of the righteous blood of all the saints, shed on the earth, would be avenged in the judgment of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 23:34f).For one thing, Preston would have to prove that Jesus actually showed up in AD70. Another thing is like I have said before, he has to prove the biologically dead were raised into biological eternal life like Christ did in AD70 since Paul teaches the resurrection of the dead is a supernatural biological event from God that will take place.
The rest of this article is more rambling about how we need to buy Preston's books and how Gentry is apparently a poophead, though I don't believe he is. I find Gentry for the most part likeable even when I disagree with him on Calvinism and eschatological matters. To conclude, I found nowhere where Preston defeats my arguments I've made and I'm not sure that Gentry has been disproven either as Preston doesn't give us a reference point to see Gentry's actual argument (he only gives a snippet of something Gentry said and it is clear from that snippet that there was more spoken about in that conversation).
On a personal note: This attack on Gentry seems like the same nonsense Preston says about Frost and myself as well so I think that means I'm on the right track if I'm in the same line of insults and derrogatory remarks by Preston as Mr. Kenneth Gentry, who Don wants to debate with, calls him an erudite man, but yet in the same article Gentry is described essentially as an illogical, desperate, dishonorable because he condemns full preterists, poophead. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is what I learned in my many psychology classes called projection.