Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry

12.07.2013 Views

Concluding Remarks 337 men” to Christ (’John 12:31), then the Church can confidently seek to bring “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). We also noted in the beginning of our inquiry that a serious confusion as to the nature and message of Revelation is partly responsible for the cultural defeatism and retreatist pietism so influential in twentieth century Christianity. There we observed that one reason for confusion as to the Church’s future is due to a radical misunderstanding of the date of the writing of Revelation. If Revelation is inadvertently dated after the events it prophesies as future, the way is opened to a radical misconstruing of its message. Indeed, not only has the message been misread in such circumstances, but it has been wholly inverted, placing in our future what really lies in our past. Hence, the significance of the date of Revelation.

APPENDIX A RESPONSE TO HOUSE AND ICE After the manuscript for this book had been sent to the typesetter, an interesting critical analysis of the early date view of Revelation came to my attention. This ardysis is contained in a book by Dallas Seminary professor H. Wayne House and Pastor Thomas D. Ice, entitled Dominion Thology: Blessing or Curse? In this work, the authors offer a neo-dispensationalist analysis and refutation of those Christians who hold to the doctrinal complex of Calvinistic soteriology, presuppositional apologetics, theonomic ethics, postmillennial eschatology, and covenantal commitment. 1 As a theological system, this doctrinal complex has come to be associated with the broader theological movement known as “Dominion Theology”; as a theological framework for Christian social theory, it is known as Christian Reconstruction. Chapter 12 of House and Ice’s work is entitled “‘Rightly Dividing’ the Book of Revelation,” and it is directly relevant to the present work. In Chapter 12, the authors critique the @-eterist approach to the book of Revelation, which understands most of Revelation’s prophecies as being fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This view has been revived recently by some Reconstructionists, and is becoming increasingly popular among others, even among many outside of Reconstructionism. In the first half of Chapter 12, the authors critique David Chilton’s Day of Vengeance, focusing much of their attention on his brief notes regarding Revelation’s date. 1. H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice, Dominion Tbologv: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), p, 17. Probably we should speak of a capital “R Rcconstructionism when we mean that system which employs these five points. Small “r” reccmstructionism might be used to refer to those who desire a Christian reconstructed society, whether or not they hold to these five points (perhaps Francis Schaefer is a good example of a small “r” reccmstructionist). 339

Concluding Remarks 337<br />

men” to Christ (’John 12:31), then the Church can confidently seek<br />

to bring “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor.<br />

10:5).<br />

We also noted in the beginning of our inquiry that a serious<br />

confusion as to the nature and message of Revelation is partly responsible<br />

for the cultural defeatism and retreatist pietism so influential in<br />

twentieth century Christianity. There we observed that one reason<br />

for confusion as to the Church’s future is due to a radical misunderstanding<br />

of the date of the writing of Revelation. If Revelation is<br />

inadvertently dated after the events it prophesies as future, the way<br />

is opened to a radical misconstruing of its message. Indeed, not only<br />

has the message been misread in such circumstances, but it has been<br />

wholly inverted, placing in our future what really lies in our past.<br />

Hence, the significance of the date of Revelation.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!