Confession

[CThomas]

Here's my confession. I just can't seem to figure out a way to get a good enough handle on eschatology to form a view that I feel comfortable with. The problem is that these issues seem so holistic, and to tie together such a large volume of material from disparate parts of the Bible, that I can't seem to figure out a way to get a handle on it. I can't figure out a good, linear way to progress on this issue. If I start by studying some passage over here, it turns out you can't really decide the right interpretation of it without considering that passage over there, and lots of others. I think the parallel book on the eschatatological readings of Revelation is a great piece of this and I liked it a lot, but even that is hard to figure out without having informed views of lots of other eschatogy-related passages outside Revelation. Any suggestions for me?

[dizerner]

I like this guy I think he's pretty balanced and close to the text check out his book "The End"
http://marklhitchcock.com/

[steve]

I think Mark Hitchcock is a very nice guy.

He is a dispensationalist, and he follows a "newspaper exegesis," like most dispensationalsists do (note, in a blurb for his book on blood moons: "The book is whirlwind tour of the end of days and how newspaper headlines are clear signs of the coming of the end.")

Those who follow this approach do not inspire my confidence in their treatment of biblical prophecies.

I have read his doctoral dissertation, in which he argued for the late (Domitianic) date of Revelation. He seems like a genuine Christian gentleman, but his arguments were not persuasive. He once debated Hank Hanegraaff about the date of the book of Revelation, and (as, I think, all viewers would agree) Hitchcock won the debate handily—but that was not due to the essential strength of his arguments. His opponent seemed unprepared.

[robbyyoung]

Here's my confession. I just can't seem to figure out a way to get a good enough handle on eschatology to form a view that I feel comfortable with. The problem is that these issues seem so holistic, and to tie together such a large volume of material from disparate parts of the Bible, that I can't seem to figure out a way to get a handle on it. I can't figure out a good, linear way to progress on this issue. If I start by studying some passage over here, it turns out you can't really decide the right interpretation of it without considering that passage over there, and lots of others. I think the parallel book on the eschatatological readings of Revelation is a great piece of this and I liked it a lot, but even that is hard to figure out without having informed views of lots of other eschatogy-related passages outside Revelation. Any suggestions for me?

Hi CThomas,

The best way to go about understanding eschatology is to master the historical context:

1. Who's the audience?
2. What's the audience expectation?
3. Was that expectation given time parameters in the lifetime of the original audience?
4. Was fulfillment, then, spiritual, physical or both?

The "how" question, concerning fulfillment, is another study altogether. However, if you can satisfy the 4 questions above, you can possibly be on your way to clarity.

God Bless.

[backwoodsman]

For many years I thought, I really have to study eschatology sometime, but it's so complex and confusing that I'm just not up to tackling it yet. I really wanted to understand where in the Bible my beliefs came from, but thought that, for the moment at least, all I could do was trust that those much more wise & knowledgeable than I really did understand it all as well as they said they did, and were teaching me the truth. When I finally started nibbling around the edges, I found that what the Bible actually says is a lot simpler and clearer than they'd told me. The more I got into it, the more clear it became that most of the eschatological beliefs that get the most airtime these days are simply pulled out of the air and shoehorned into Scripture, and don't have a shred of solid exegesis to support them. It's a classic case of everyone just believing & teaching whatever was taught to them, maybe with a personalized twist here & there, but never seriously thinking through it.

One thing that helped clarify things for me was comparing Scripture to the historical record and seeing how it was fulfilled, one point after another, all the way down a pretty long list. A good place to start that study would be "The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation" by Philip Mauro. It's hard to find a hard copy at a reasonable price, but you can get it in PDF here:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/p ... yweeks.pdf
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1 ... weeks.html

[Paidion]

Thank you, Backwoodsman, for the pdf to Mauro's "The 70 Weeks and the Great Tribulation." I have a lot of respect for Philip Mauro, and have his book "The Hope of Israel."
I have already glanced through the pdf, but I just don't see his preterism as valid.

I, myself, consider the most scriptural position to be that which is known as "historic pre-millenialism", and I do believe in the later date for Revelation. Though the early date does not demolish historic pre-millenialism, preterism would have to collapse if the book of Revelation were accepted and the later date were proved to be true.

However, I don't think it necessary to hold the "correct" eschatological view. Some make so much of eschatology, that it takes precedence over practical Christian living. Furthermore, unlike other futurists, I think that many of the prophecies do not HAVE to happen—just as Jonah's prophecy that Ninevah would be overthrown in 40 days, didn't have to happen, and in fact, didn't happen. For, according to the book of Jonah, when God saw their repentance, He changed His mind and didn't bring upon them the disaster which He intended. So, understanding the character of God in this respect, it makes sense to think that He might also change His mind concerning some of the predictions He made through His prophets for the future.

[dizerner]

The preterist position makes most of the Scriptural warnings and admonitions about preparation and readiness no longer applicable to believers today. As such it's really hard for me not to see it as heresy, since it simply directly contradicts the clear Biblical warnings that were written for us, not for some people long ago and far away.

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Take away and redefine that, and no longer does the Bible speak, it's just a dusty irrelevant book of another time. The heart of any true and living eschatology should be preparation for the return of Christ. If you say "live right and you won't have to worry about it," that simply makes me wonder why the Bible makes such a big deal of being ready.

[steve]

If you say "live right and you won't have to worry about it," that simply makes me wonder why the Bible makes such a big deal of being ready.

dizerner,

What is meant by "being ready," if not that we are to "live right and you won't have to worry about it"? Just curious.

[steve7150]

I can't figure out a good, linear way to progress on this issue. If I start by studying some passage over here, it turns out you can't really decide the right interpretation of it without considering that passage over there, and lots of others. I think the parallel book on the eschatatological readings of Revelation is a great piece of this and I liked it a lot, but even that is hard to figure out without having informed views of lots of other eschatogy-related passages outside Revelation. Any suggestions for me?








To me Historicism is the only view that makes sense. If Revelation means to unveil something not previously known then Revelation s/b mostly about future events after 70AD and if you think God knows the future and cared to reveal some of it to us, consider Historicism. It also is not rigid and you can bring in your own thoughts and ideas into the mix which i like to do.

[canada]

Paidion ... are you sure Mauro is a (partial) preterist?