Robert Powell in TH104 Introducing Bible Doctrine IV: The Church and Last Things

3 years ago

And, so it begins. The eschatology portion of this course begins in lesson 24. As with most things "academic," we begin with the definition. Of all the different denominations and approaches to prophecy, all appear to be in agreement over this one thing: eschatology means the study of "last things." Also, most are in agreement that the singular event that sparked "the end" was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. From that position of agreement, Evangelicals quickly part into many different directions. Some, such as Thomas Finger, build their entire theology around eschatology. Others disagree and declare that prophecy was never meant to be anything predictive. For them, prophecy is simply something motivational, a tool of preaching and teaching meant to challenge the listener and cause them to repent. Though there are many approaches to eschatology, there appears to be three main schools of thought. One group sees prophecy as strictly symbolical. For instance, stars don't fall from the sky. Locust don't have stingers in their tails. Thus, we should see the metaphor of scriptural writing and convert to a spiritual understanding. Then, there is another group that sees prophetic events as something that should be applied figuratively. For them, prophecy is meant to announce that the future is going to change in abrupt and profound ways. God has a plan for the future and prophecy is the means by which the announcement is made. The third group takes prophetic scripture literally. Though prophecy has symbolic and figurative aspects, this does not erase the future literal meaning. For instance, the dark figure associated with the "Abomination of Desolation" had a partial fulfillment during the Maccabean period. So, too, did such a figure appear in the embodiment of Nero. But these two men do not erase the fact that a future antichrist will also be seen. Thus, for this group, we see a strong preference for the notion of the "yes, but not yet approach" when it comes to scripture. Though eschatology divides into many denominational and theological paths, all of the groups seem to rally behind four common beliefs. Prophecy is part of the biblical story It appears first during creation. It makes a promise during the fall. It takes part in the redemption. We all await it's consummation at the return of Jesus Christ. And, so we share commonality as Christians in this foundation. Prophecy foretold the death of the Messiah. Prophecy warns of the impending judgment of humantiy. And, there are real places such as heaven and hell.

Segment 31 presented material that I never considered before. It's one of those situations where one knew the information but never realized the ramifications. The notion of the millennial reign is presented throughout Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah, Daniel, etc); however, the length of time of this reign only appears in one chapter of the New Testament (Revelation 20). In essence, we have Jewish traditions introducing the topic and Christian tradition describing the details. From this background, current eschatology divides into various camps dependent upon where they see the "millennium" on the timeline of historical events. For instance, postmillers and premillers believe the millennial kingdom is a real physical event. Amillers, on the other hand, see the earthly kingdom as only a spiritual occurrence. Premillers believe Jesus physically returns to the earth prior to the millennial reign. Premillers and Amillers believer the kingdom arrives suddenly following a cataclysm. And, perhaps the biggest question of all, we divide over who receives the Old Testament promises (dispensationalism). Premillers tend to say these promises are for Israel.

Lesson 42 did a "deep dive" into Dispensationalism. Considering my denomination supports this view, I never really had to defend the position. Towards the end of the course material, the instructor presented potential objections worth considering. One objection to dispensationalism is that it appears to divide the Bible into segments per time periods and economies. This argument suggests that this approach makes parts of the Bible irrelevant. For example, the Old Testament is not relevant for the church, because it was not written for the church. Similarly, the four Gospels can also be ignored by the church, because the church did not exist until the Book of Acts. Argument two claims that dispensationalism teaches more than one way of salvation. At its core, dispensationalism claims the Bible is divided into time periods where God deals with humanity within a set of parameters, humanity fails in those obligations resulting in judgment before God begins anew with a new set of guidelines. For example, in the dispensation of innocence, the only rule was to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve failed the restriction, resulting in judgment (death, painful childbirth, thorns, expulsion from paradise, etc.). God began anew with a new set of parameters in the age of conscience. Potentially, if there are seven dispensations, opponents suggest there have been seven different ways of salvation. A final objection to dispensationalism is that it makes the church unimportant. The future is in Israel's hands during the tribulation and millennium. The Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem. Considering the Old Testament is a collection of Jewish books written by Jewish authors and, also considering the New Testament is a collection of Jewish books written by Jewish authors, the church age is just a parenthesis of in-between time. Though I'm still trying to work out my thoughts about dispensationalism, I have to say these three objections do not win the day for me. For instance, I have never heard a dispensationalist teach more than one way of salvation. Using the dispensation of law as an example, I have never heard anyone suggest the law ever saved anyone. The Bible simply does not hold that position. The Book of Galatians is clear on this. What the law does show us is the inherent need for grace. Regarding the stance that the church is unimportant, I suggest that we consider that it is Jesus Christ who will establish His kingdom on this earth. He will rule all nations, Jew and Gentile alike. He is both king of Israel and the church. He literally established the church ("...upon this rock I will build my church"). Sounds rather important to me!