Are you getting tired of this yet?

October 31st, 2007 | 9 Comments

I’ve always rolled my eyes when I encountered the “Revelation” nuts in the church: obsession with the day’s headlines, thinking that they elucidate the details of the fulfillment of end-times prophecy, this bugs the ever-loving stew out of me.

I realize I’ve been talking a lot of eschatology lately. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m a one-trick pony or that I’m unhealthily devoted to discussion of this particular doctrine. I thought I’d dedicate a post explaining why I’ve been talking about this, and why I am not likely to completely stop posting about eschatology in the future (although I’m sure it will slack off here and there).

I never could stomach codswallop, and especially widely celebrated codswallop. It’s always been natural for me to be critical of things handed to me to believe, even when I understand that the majority believes it. And then sometimes I discover that I have unquestioned, inaccurate presuppositions on a subject. Now, when I realize that I have been eating food with a hair in it, I make absolutely sure that I have purged my mouth by rinsing it with drink and stuffing it with a prodigious amount of uncontaminated food. So it was with my eschatology. Having long since rinsed my mouth out and cleared away the bunk I believed before, for the last few years I have been on the mission of preparing and chewing up the replacement meal. I am using this blog as a way of probing everything and getting my own ducks in a row, but also of answering the questions of some friends who have lately been asking questions.

Although my interests are by no means limited to one or two topics, I do bury myself in one or two at a time until 1) I reach a dead end, 2) I’m distracted by the luster of another topic, or 3) I obtain a measure of comfort with what I believe on that topic. And when this last is achieved, the teacher in me makes me dig just a bit deeper so that I can explain it to others.

This is where I am with eschatology. I am fully aware that there are some divisive topics which do not request to be voiced abroad, or if so, more as a heads-up full disclosure than a “Repent of your contrary belief!” sort of thing. Christianity can tolerate a lack of homogeneity of belief on a number of peripheral topics.

But eschatology is different. Not only does futurism needlessly make Christianity a laughingstock with its endless failed predictions, it’s based solely on a ludicrous hermeneutic for Scripture interpretation that undermines even our Lord’s own credibility. Moreover, my eschatology needs to make substantial gains in acceptance within the Church if its chief implication, the victory of Christianity throughout the world, is to be realized any time soon.

So please don’t roll your eyes when you see me writing about this particular topic, and please do make sure that you’ve tried to understand why it means so much to me and that you are satisfied that you have given it the level of importance that it deserves.

October 31st, 2007

  • http://www.heissufficient.net/ ElShaddai Edwards

    No eye rolling here… I’m just trying to come to terms with the implications of what you’ve written versus Christian creedal tradition that says “Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead” and makes that an “I believe…” statement in the Church. If you believe that’s already happened, then you can’t accept saying that creed. Does that mean you don’t accept the Church and Christianity?

    I realize that only two sacraments really matter: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But the yoke of tradition is a hard one to shake.

  • http://www.heissufficient.net ElShaddai Edwards

    No eye rolling here… I’m just trying to come to terms with the implications of what you’ve written versus Christian creedal tradition that says “Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead” and makes that an “I believe…” statement in the Church. If you believe that’s already happened, then you can’t accept saying that creed. Does that mean you don’t accept the Church and Christianity?

    I realize that only two sacraments really matter: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But the yoke of tradition is a hard one to shake.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Good question, ElShaddai! But remember the name of the earliest creed: the Apostles’ Creed. If, as the earliest tradition claims, this was handed down by the apostles, then it predates the event it describes and like Scripture, this creed is not wrong but fulfilled!

  • http://undeception.wordpress.com Steve

    Good question, ElShaddai! But remember the name of the earliest creed: the Apostles’ Creed. If, as the earliest tradition claims, this was handed down by the apostles, then it predates the event it describes and like Scripture, this creed is not wrong but fulfilled!

  • http://152insightsintomysoul.blogpot.com/ Leah

    Eschatology matters just as much as you say it does, and I hope you’ll keep challenging the dispensational premillenial view (and other futurist theories) until IT becomes the marginal, radical, out-there position.

  • http://152insightsintomysoul.blogpot.com Leah

    Eschatology matters just as much as you say it does, and I hope you’ll keep challenging the dispensational premillenial view (and other futurist theories) until IT becomes the marginal, radical, out-there position.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Thanks for the encouragement, Leah.

  • Steve

    Thanks for the encouragement, Leah.

  • Pingback: Wrestling with preterism « He is sufficient