Kenneth Gentry, and some others that he uses as proxies, have been attacking Gary DeMar publicly (much of it on Facebook) since 2023 about the three questions controversy. Gentry and others have been alleging that DeMar is a closet full preterist. (More on full Preterism later.) In their minds, that makes DeMar a heretic and thus guilty of unorthodox eschatology.
In response, DeMar has simply pitted one supporter of the three questions against another to show that none of them agree with each other, so why should he respond directly. As a debate tactic, this is brilliant.
Furthermore, the original three questions lacked any citation of Scriptures to defend their claims. The originators of the three-question letter controversy base the whole thing on church tradition and not Scripture. This is why they are divided on their understandings. It is this hole in their logic that I would like to comment upon.
As DeMar likes to point out, when it comes to the historic Creeds of Christendom, nobody decided to “show their homework.” The Creeds make claims about the Christian faith but never cite any verses as proof texts; neither do they have any minutes of the meetings to explain the logic of why statements were included. In short, all that is preserved for us are the conclusions and not anything to back them up.
For the purposes of this blog, I am limiting discussion to the Nicene Creed. FYI the Nicene Creed was drafted in 325 AD and updated slightly into its final form in 381 AD.
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,* who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Two comments on the above version. First, this is from a Roman Catholic website and a word or two might be different in another English translation. Second, in the paragraph on the Holy Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Yep, “and the Son” highlights the difference in the understanding of the Trinity between Churches; although there is much history behind this division.
Preterism
Preterism, in its simplest form is believing that some parts of the Bible are in the past. If you believe Jesus is the prophesized Messiah and fulfilled related Old Testament prophecies, then you are a preterist. If you believe that some prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD, but others are still future to us then you are a partial preterist. If you believe everything in the Bible including the last few chapters of Revelation are fulfilled in some way, then you are a full preterist.
Sadly, the difference between full and partial Preterism is really more nuanced than what I just stated. There are people that are in between full and partial preterists. Some folks believe that some things began in the past, continue to be true today, and will not know complete fulfillment until sometime in the future.
The two sections of the Creed getting the most attention in the controversy are these:
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
I could dissect these parts in much detail but not too many folks would care so I’ll try to keep this simple.
The type of questions being asked are like this:
- Where are these statements found in the Bible (Proof texts)?
- How did the original audience understand these statements?
- Were the statements based on Scripture, future or past when written into the Creed in 325 AD?
- When is or will be the resurrection of the dead?
- When is or will the Kingdom begin?
- What and when is the world to come?
- If Jesus is on the Throne now, what is he doing or waiting for?
- When is the resurrection of the dead?
Again, we have to reverse engineer the Creed to figure out such questions.
Folks, this sounds simple at first blush but once you start looking at this, it is evident that you are treading into deep theological waters trying to fully grasp the concepts tossed out by the writers of the Creed.
The Creed speaks of a future coming of Jesus, presumably at the end of the world but where is that in the Bible? Most of the coming passages are understood by the signers of the three questions letter as coming in judgment in the First Century, but “The Church” has historically believed in a final and consummating coming at the end of history.
This leaves a theological mess. Were the coming passages fulfilled (full Preterism)? Mostly fulfilled (partial Preterism)? Mostly in the future (Premillennial)? Requiring double fulfillment? Or something else?
Here’s an example from Paul to illustrate the complexity of the issue. He writes that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This verse is often quoted to give comfort to grieving families. It was quoted at my wife’s funeral. But how do you get to be “present with the Lord” without being judged in some fashion so God permits you to enter his presence? This implies that judgment is not at the end of the world but upon death. So, if you are judged at death then why not also be given your resurrected body at the same time? We spend eternity in bodies not as spirits floating around on clouds playing harps.
Gentry and his friends presuppose that the Creeds and Church tradition are correct about much of this being future and then interpret the Bible with these presuppositions trying to discern which bucket that a particular verse belongs in. If you agree with him then he calls you “orthodox” and if you disagree—especially about the timing—then I guess you get a letter calling you “un-orthodox.”
Matthew 24
Generally, Matthew chapters 23-25 are all one dialogue by Jesus frequently called the Olivet Discourse. Chapters 24 & 25 are said in response to questions asked of Jesus by his disciples. Some folks like DeMar believe that chapters 24 and 25 are a single unit speaking of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Others split chapter 24—some like Gentry at very odd points—into part being fulfilled in 70 AD and part of the prophecy being future.
J. Marcellus Kik and many others split Matthew 24 between about verse 34 to 36 so that the first part of the chapter is about 70 AD and the rest is the traditional Second Coming.
Kenneth Gentry does this too, plus he pulls Matthew 24: 27 as a stand-alone verse concerning the Second Coming even though it comes in the midst of the part which most think applies to AD 70.
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
I don’t want to get into the weeds about this except to say that Gentry didn’t always hold this position but has adopted it in more recent times. It makes no sense, but he is hell-bent in accommodating the Creed into his post millennial position. He needs verses to support both AD 70 and the traditional Second Coming. Gentry is a lone gunman on verse 27 but holds this unique position.
If you look at the Olivet discourse, what many such as Kik try to do is book end the statements about “this generation” to fit an AD 70 application (Matthew 23:36 to Matthew 24:34) and then futurize the rest of chapter 24. Gentry randomly cherry picks verse 24:27 that he is compelled to futurize in the midst of the “this generation” passage.
Gentry is obliged to shoehorn verses into the future because of the Creed and Church tradition; not the context.
Were Matthew the only account of what shall be the signs of the end and coming of Jesus, then maybe Kik could have a point, but this bifurcation of Matthew is destroyed by looking at the same account in the other synaptic Gospels.
Conflicting Versions
Once you compare Matthew 24 & 25 with the parallel accounts in Luke 21 and Mark 13, then the structure forced onto the account in Matthew collapses. It is clear that all three accounts in their entirety are about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. It was a local judgment that could literally be escaped on foot by fleeing to the mountains. As proof that this was so, there are zero historical records of a single Christian being killed in the siege of Jerusalem. Secondly, Christians knew it would happen all the way back to the beginning chapters of Acts. Why was the Church in Jerusalem the only place where property was sold and the proceeds held in common by and for the Church? It was not socialism in the Bible; it was a testimony that the city would be lost within a generation as Jesus prophesized.
The problem that Gentry and other signatories of the three-question letter have is that there is not a single verse in the Bible that all parties signing the three questions letter agree apply to the end of the world. At least some of the signers believe verses should be applied to the AD 70 judgment.
On the one hand they want the traditional view that Jesus returns at the end of everything and at the same time they know that most verses apply better to an AD 70 fulfillment.
Folks the truth is that Jesus doesn’t really tell us how it all ends. Neither does he tell us what heaven will be like. In the end, we will have a body like his. We will not marry nor be given in marriage. We will have jobs of some sort and worship God. There is no more death or sin. Anything beyond this is speculation.
Between now and then, the Gospel will spread across the world. Most people will be believers at some point in the future. So many folks will be saved that when it is all over, it can truly be said that Jesus is the savior of the world. The end, whatever form or time it happens, is thousands of years from now. You are still living in the early church so buckle up and get to work.