The Narrow Path Ministries

I have been a Christian since my childhood, I am now 40 years old, and I have gone through a number of different eschatological views over the last 25 years.

I was initially introduced to historical premillenialism as a teenager, and didn't even realy question it or try to understand it for many years. In my late 20's I got involved in a Bible study in which the teacher focused a bit on the premillenial view and then questions started to come.

I struggled with trying to reconcile the premillenial view for several years when I actually came to a point that I thought that maybe the post-mellinial view might be more accurate. Funny thing was I only held that for about a week or maybe two. When I read a book by Kim Riddelberger about Amellinialism and then saw a lot more conguency with that view and the Scriptures.

I had read about pretty much every view currently held by mainstream Christianity and for the longest time felt that the Amelllinial view was the "best" at making sense of Scriptures, but still always had several questions that the amellinial view couldn't answer.

About 3 years ago I started to listen to Steve Greggs view of partial preterism on the Narrow Path, which I admit at first I thought was wacked. but after seriously looking at it, I saw merit in its viewpoint, but I still could not reconcile many things.

Then, the unheard of happened...... I seriously looked at the full preterist position. :O

I have been reading and studying and praying a bit about this now for some time, and it scares the crud out of me. I believe that the full preterist position may be correct. Albeit there are varying details in the full preterist viewpoint I don't understand yet, but...... it is a growing process.

I am much more "understanding" of those of differnt eschatological view points now then I was 10 years ago, when I was SURE I understood it and almost felt it was my task to get them to see it how I did. Funny how things change. I love to discuss theology and eschatology, and hope you guys don't think me of to much of a heretic for believing that what I see in the Scriptures today is more along the lines of a full preterist than any other view.

I will not even try to defend it, as I have seen others on this forum try, and it seems most people are more interested in defending a particular viewpoint instead of being open minded to what the Scriptures are realy saying. Kind of sad actually.

God leads us on a journey of understanding and to all truth, at least for those who are searching for Him. We may not all follow the same path exactly, but as long as we are searching for God and humbly willing to take us where ever the truth leads us, then we should all be respectful of those who are at a different places on that journey. How many of you were some form of premellinialist in the past, and maybe still are? I am not going to say that it is wrong, I will only say I understand it differently at this time and pray that God continues to lead my into all truth.

Your brother,
Doug

In college I became a Christian into a church that was basically pre-mil but also promoted taking dominion in the government (sort of the domain of post-mill thinking). After reading some books on post-mil, i tended toward that direction but not knowing the whole definition of it.

About 5 years ago I started reading scripture to see what was expressed. And I saw many end-time terms in Matt 13 and got stuck there in Matt 13 and ended up with the idea that the judgments in Matt 13 were described as middle of time events which was a shocker.

I also started getting an idea of what mysteries were being revealed in the parables of Matt 13. This showed a kingdom that was starting at the destruction of Jerusalem (AD70 stuff). Then I started talking to full prets cause I thought they might have a similar understanding.

Then maybe a year or two ago I did have experience where I was reading stuff like Matt 24 and Luke 21 and everything seemed to be making sense in a preteristic way -- just almost an overwhelming way.

Now if I hadn't done the study of the kingdom beforehand and had some other reservations, I would have become a full preterist at that moment.

But full preterism didn't seem to properly treat the kingdom. And it seemed to gloss over the idea of redemption ("when you see these things, know your redemption is at hand") which I saw more as being protection to the end of the tribulation rather than being resurrection, as apparently is common among full prets.

These two topics, the resurrections and the kingdom, have become just about fatal obstacles toward me becoming a full preterist. And these two topics, after being studied properly among Christians, I think shall remove the confusion that allows people to become full prets. Toward this goal, I have been prodding Christians (just in two forums) to do a broad study of resurrection to make sense and sort through the various verses about resurrection in scripture.

On the positive side of full preterists, I think they have moved in the proper direction in seeing these many passages as being fulfilled. But they moved without the proper balancing doctrines.

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!

thanks for your response Rick and Mike, it is good to know I am not the only one who has gone through a paradigm shift, and continues to grow and mature in the faith. Anyone who has gone through a paradigm shift knows how un-nerving it can be at first.

Let's all be Bereans in a sense, and continue to search for truth, for all truth must come from the Scriptures.

Hi Douglas, and you're welcome.

I know I said a lot and got a lot off my chest, proverbially speaking. Eschatology has had a big effect on my life....

I would very much like to keep this discussion going. I'm not sure where I want it to go but want to keep posting. Talking about "eschatology hermeneutics" in general is where I've kind of began. I'd like to pursue this some more and, perhaps, we could eventually {sooner or later} bring up certain passages and really focus on them...as opposed to more standard ways that people post with listing of texts {or prooftexts}.
But to keep the discussion going... ....

Paradigm shift.
My eschatology paradigm shift began when I became "post-trib" in about 1978 and it hasn't stopped! To this day I still have difficulties "reading" passages like Matthew 24 without being clouded by what I'll call a "dispensational lens." In the past I had to make very concentrated efforts in order to see the chapter without presuppositions. It was like dispensationalism was "grafted" into my brain!

In the meantime, my studies go on, and I'm doing what I know to do to reject any presuppositions I may have, or have been taught, that might keep me from understanding.

Last nite I heard Steve {Gregg}. I can't recall if it was TNP radio or a lecture. Anyway, he said something I really liked. Namely, that for the Christian, when it comes to doctrine {or beliefs}; we aren't or shouldn't ever see ourselves as "confused." We may not know stuff {which we don't}! Steve said something like, our attitude should be that we're further investigating or considering options. He mentioned, in so many words, that we might as well get used to the idea that we won't learn everything in this life, , and that some things might not have been intended to be fully understood....

Enuf on this for today.
What do you see as sub-topics that we could discuss?
Would you like to take a difficult passage and really look at it?
Have a good weekend, all {Mike & readers}.
Thanks, Douglas,

As Mike has stated before, I think that the resurrection and the Kingdom of God are two excellent points to focus on and have been driving forces for me to try to better understand as of late.

I think it would be very helpful to take a topic and delve into it and how you once understood it a certain way and why, and then later what scriptures convinced you that it may not be as you once thought.

What do you think?

hmmmm...

Whereas I do recommend people to do some independent studies on resurrection and the kingdom, and I would like some to read my analysis on resurrection (at http://www.biblereexamined.com/Eschatology.htm), but the first steps I am recommending is that people investigate God's purpose in the end-time events.

Many prophecies are about Jews. So are the end-time events about God's dealing with the Jews? I would say they mainly are, but not exclusively so.

It looks like you are trying to get some questions discussed that can be answered by viewpoints. This seems like a better approach than fighting over the meaning of this verse or that verse.

Another thought about the kingdom of God...
The kingdom of God should be treated as an undefined or unknown idea for now. Each of the end-time views has a distinctly different view of what the kingdom is and where the kingdom rules. So, instead of accepting the definition of the kingdom as obtained from the eschatological view, it seems better to first see how the kingdom is defined by scripture. (And don't just stick to one verse saying the kingdom of God is within you -- this was a rebuke of the Pharisees, not a definition.)

This post is an edit, combining two posts intro one.

Hello Douglas

You wrote:As Mike has stated before, I think that the resurrection and the Kingdom of God are two excellent points to focus on and have been driving forces for me to try to better understand as of late.

I think it would be very helpful to take a topic and delve into it and how you once understood it a certain way and why, and then later what scriptures convinced you that it may not be as you once thought.

What do you think?

Yes, I suppose we could pick a topic and proceed like this.

Mike seems to want to discuss the kingdom. From what he said in his first post, I went and reread Matthew 13 to try to understand how his beliefs have evolved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike,

I've read a few of your articles. They're interesting. Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to my reply.

I could tell my views of the kingdom fairly briefly. In doing it, it would be easier to just say my views without having to make a scriptural reference for every point. I could do that, but it would take considerable time and effort....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or we could do Q&A, e.g.:

1) What in theme in eschatology do you think you understand best and why?

2) What eschatological concept(s) is/are the most difficult for you and why?

3) What do you see as possible solutions for #2 and why?

Maybe stuff like that, is another idea, Thanks,

Rick,
You almost are right about me wanting to talk about the kingdom. It is true that the kingdom is the topic I would like to talk most about but the only way i could start is by providing my explanation and arguments.

And Matt 13 was the key to my discovery. But I wouldn't expect anyone to discover the evolution. I think I have remnant copies of files of my old website that describes how the ideas came to clarity. Maybe I'll mention some stuff in another post. This is not a topic approached casually. The kingdom is counterintuitive. That's why Jesus said there were mysteries in the parables of Matt 13.

Just like some of my points trigger the potential of pages and pages of response from you, your mention about relying on the old Jewish writings triggers a bunch of ideas for me. My concern is that God was judging that generation for not accepting Christ but instead following their own traditions. Though I understand some of the culture of interpretation of the NT Writers came from the wild hermeneutics of that era -- but the followers of Jesus were much tamer in this.

And the with something like the Book of Daniel, there were aspects that were sealed up until the latter days. I think many keys to understanding of Daniel and Isaiah, for example, came only from Jesus. There didn't seem to be much predictive benefit to many Jews of that era -- for example about the time the Messiah was born among them.

I could expect some benefit from the old writings but I'm just not sure in what ways. Maybe I shall find out after awhile.

Regarding your questions for examining eschatology. I'm not quite on track with what you are asking. Maybe so far it seems that either nothing makes sense or else everything fits together. I did have a question about the judgment of nations expressed in Matthew 25:31-46, but I think I have a basic idea how this connected with Isaiah's prophecies.

Oh. speaking of Isaiah's prophecies... There is much I would like to investigate into the manner in which Isaiah's prophecies were fulfilled before Christ and about which prophecies were fulfilled in the first century -- plus there may be some that prophesy of events later.

Hey Douglas,

Good point:

"Theological Journey"