Greetings,
A few evenings ago, Douglas and I went into IRC and had a good "live discussion," mostly about eschatology. Our views seem to be very much alike, as well as both of us having things we're studying further, or may not have fixed views about. This thread/topic was an excellent idea, imo. Thanks, Douglas!
My personal beliefs about eschatology have also evolved. Growing up in a Pentecostal church, I was taught to believe in Premillennial Pre-Tribulational Dispensationalism of the standard variety. Hal Lindsay was especially influential when I got saved {or rededicated my life to God?} in 1974. I read his
The Late Great Planet Earth just a few days after I "went up front to the altar" during a revival at a Baptist church, being led through "The Romans Road to Salvation" by a deacon.
Of course, Lindsay's book was interesting reading. But I immediately began to compare the Bible to what he wrote. Soon, I read John Walvoord's
Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis, another highly influential book of the time. Neither book convinced me of what they were espousing, comparing the books to scripture. But since I hadn't ever really studied out the Bible itself on these matters, I had nothing else to believe. Premill Pre-Trib Dispensationalism was my default position: I knew nothing else.
A couple years later I began as a student at Central Bible College of the Assemblies of God. There I learned other views, in Church History and Eschatology courses. Out of much curiosity and for personal study, I bought books that weren't required reading for any of my courses. George E. Ladd's highly esteemed
Commentary on Revelation and Robert Gundry's
The Church and the Tribulation led me to become Post-Trib {comparing books to scripture all along, mind you}.
Ladd's Commentary {Ladd who, incidentally, remained a premillennialist throughout his life, afaik} brought me into my first critical examination of Revelation. Ladd, as Steve Gregg comments in one of his lectures, was in many regards like an amillennialist. What prevented him from going over the edge, so to speak, was that he couldn't quite see Rev 20 in an amillennial way, though he understood how and why amillennialists interpret the chapter as they do.
My "conversion" to amillennialism came after about a week of a concentrated study of Revelation. I had read most of Ladd's book. But I put the book down and, in my devotional and study time, I read Revelation several times, non-stop, start to finish. This interrupted my regular studies {for classes} and was probably reflected in my grades. But it was something I just
had to do. It was one of the better, and most prayerful, times of study I've had in my entire life. I
agonized over this. I got close to God.
In concern about my future in the AG {Assemblies of God} I got counseling from one of its top theologians, Stanley M. Horton {who has since, incidentally, left the AG over the "initial evidence" of speaking in tongues}. After 2 or 3 sessions, "Brother Horton" and I {we called our profs "Brother" & "Sister" back then} were essentially debating. It was civil. And it was a stalemate. The conclusion was: Agree to disagree and that I had no future in the AG; a conclusion I came to myself, since Bro Horton had told me that, though I could be an amillennialist in the AG, I could not say anything contrary to official AG doctrine and maintain my ministerial license or credentials. This would have been an impossible thing to do, which is why I decided to leave the denomination...and college. In 1981 "I quit" with only eleven hours to go for a Bachelor's degree....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also backslid and/or lost my salvation{?} up till 1999, when I became a believer again. The details on my status during this time, with regard to if I was saved or not, is "undecided" as far as I can tell. However, prior to August 1999; I'll just say I'm glad I didn't die!
Why I backslid was simply because I did! It was of my doing and responsibility. At the same time, and regardless of whether Premillennial Pre-Tribulational Dispensationalism is correct or isn't —
the devil used it to draw me away from God. The reasoning went something like this: "If they made up the pre-tribulational rapture...{you know it's utter nonsense!}...didn't they also invent God?" "Isn't it
all fairy tales?" and so on, and so forth....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Praise God, O Hallelujah!!!
In 1999 I found out and experienced the truth of:
...if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself (2 Tim 2:13, NIV).
Amen! Glory to God and the Lamb, His Christ!!!
Worship excursus over, Amen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since '99 I've spent virtually all of my free time studying theology and the Bible. At 52, and never being married with no children, I have plenty of time to devote to study daily. I might overdo it, I don't know. It's just that I've felt that I lost so many years, and even though I continued to study the Bible and theology "some" during my {I'll say} "down time" {in more ways than one}...well, I've been studying a lot the last few years!
Now, what about eschatology?
What have I learned? And what have I unlearned? {the two so often seem to go hand in hand}. Before proceeding, a quote from a guy I met @ Beliefnet. He saw it pinned up on his church's {cork} bulletin board. I don't think I could ever forget it!:
"Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions!"
— Anonymous
This, among other things, is a good rule for hermeneutics {the art & science of biblical interpretation}. I take it as a good rule
on principle: as among the very first things we should think. "Am I asking the right stuff?" If I'm not, my answers will surely be flawed, incomplete, half-truths, or just plain outright wrong! It's most and more important to begin by asking the right stuff...than it is to find or have answers. First Things First. Ask a wrong question, get a wrong answer. False Premises = False Conclusions.
So what about my eschatology beliefs evolving?
I had become vaguely familiar with preterism in Bible college. It was very briefly covered in an Eschatology course. I don't recall if, or to what extent, the full and partial versions of it were elaborated upon. I first encountered and discussed it personally on the web in 2000. In 2004 I heard Steve Gregg for the first time on Hank Hanegraaff. Among the things he and Hank discussed was partial-preterism. Since then I've heard, I would think, just about every lecture by Steve on eschatology and quite a few by other teachers, preachers, along with eschatology debates on mp3 or internet radio.
In the last year I've spent more time than usual studying eschatology. I've seen things in new ways that are hard to describe. It would take time. Like Douglas, it sort of seems like I could be leaning toward full preterism. But, referring back to the quote {above}, I'm not willing to go that route uncritically on general principle. I'm unwilling to believe in anything uncritically. For me, it's impossible. Some things don't demand as much critical thinking as others. But when it comes to eschatology, I have to don my Thinking Cap, roll up my sleeves, and get to work! There are no shortcuts....
The Olivet Discourse and Apocalyptic Literature.
Of the three synoptic passages, Matthew 24 is the most "problematic." Anyone who's studied eschatology knows this. For that matter, a brand new Christian comes to know this as soon as they read it! {I know I sure did}. While I left Premillennial Pre-Tribulational Dispensationalism quite some time ago; I don't have all the "mysteries" of the Olivet Discourse figured out. I have important clues and a general sense of where and how to proceed, but haven't ironed everything out.
The Olivet Discourse has been called "The Little Apocalypse," due to its small size compared to the Book of Revelation, aka, The Apocalypse {Greek, apokalupsis, "an unveiling" or "a revealing of that which has, hitherto, been hidden or undisclosed"}. Apocalyptic literature, and/or sections from it, can have more than one legitimate interpretation, depending on the context or verse(s) under consideration. Some have described apocalyptic literature as depictions of "impending doom." That's certainly part of what it is. I've added-on an "impending bloom" to focus toward the highly hopeful aspects of apocalyptic! Amen?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've gone on long enough. Thanks for reading!
To conclude this post, I offer a proposition. Namely that, when it comes to eschatology, any and all systematic approaches {or systematic theologies} MUST take SECOND SEAT to biblical theology! By "biblical theology" I mean what the Bible said in its original context, its first meaning, what the authors intended to say and said, and how they were initially understood. I can't overemphasize how important I think this is.
At the same time, we all "categorize" our beliefs into systems of thought as "tiered thinking" on any given topic. It's human nature to do this and it's what systematic theologies---like Arminianism, Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Full Preterism {alphabetically listed, among many others}---are designed to do: function as a reference point, as opposed to being THE point of reference
!
!
As long as the right questions have been asked {see the quote above}, systematic theology serves its function of informing, taking its Number Two position
under the teaching of the whole Bible: "Biblical theology," per my definition, above.
Biblical theology forces us to think outside any "box" that might cause us to contradict the biblical authors. If we've constructed a systematic theology that doesn't sufficiently acknowledge and implement the teachings of the biblical writers, we've made a "systematic theology box" that is not only faulty and inept, but can be incredibly hard to get out of! I know from personal experience...I used to be "pre-trib." I'm out of that "box" and most definitely am not interested in being trapped inside another!
I hope this made sense, that I didn't "trail off" into minutae. What we're really talking about is the importance of
biblical hermeneutics, and how we've come along in our hermeneutical endeavors with regard to eschatology. I could say a lot more but...Okay, maybe later!
Thanks again for your time and for a really great topic, Douglas!
....
, and that some things might not have been intended to be fully understood....