It's the End of the World As We Know it - Why Eschatology Part 3

As we continue our discussion as to how eschatology impacts other facets of our worldview and belief system, we turn to doctrinal, theological and ecclesiological issues. Where previously we discussed a more sociological impact, here we look at the more basic underpinnings of the different belief systems and how eschatology fits into and impacts those systems.

FRUIT BOWL THEOLOGY
Picture a large fruit ball. In that fruit bowl would be placed different fruits (doctrines) that make up ones theological system: hermeneutics, salvation, church discipline and government, Christology, covenants, creation, evangelism, providence, law, gospel, etc. But the bowl that holds these together must be the over-arching theme. For the Reformed community I would argue the bowl that holds these items in the Sovereignty of God. God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things is the thread that runs throughout the entire Bible. It is also the primary focus of the teaching from pulpit and the words from the paper…even the lyrics of its worship. Some in the modern church have made that bowl itself - the thing with which the system is held together - eschatology. What does that look like?

HERMENEUTICS
The art and science of Biblical interpretation.

How do we know what we are reading really means to say? Despite the best intentions NO ONE opens the Scripture with a blank sheet for a mind. Everyone has preconceived notions about the meaning of words, phrases, emphasis, etc. Knowledge of the context, the author, the audience and circumstances at the time are vitally important. With that in mind one must understand that differences in opinion on interpretive methods of Scripture are directly impacted by the presuppositions.

But how does eschatology impact the interpretive method? Sometimes obviously. Sometimes more subtly. A traditional Dispensationalist will see a distinct divide between the Old and New Testaments. And as we will see later this distinction impacts nearly every other major doctrinal category.

So, when one reads certain “buzz” words that seem to relate to their particular view of eschatology, they will always interpret that word in the same way regardless of context. One of the most obvious is the word “coming.” When the word coming is used in relation to Jesus many will always interpret the event in question to be the literal Second Coming of Jesus, even though several instances can in no way be related to that event. Other common phrase or words include; end of the age, last days, clouds, world and several more that will be discussed over the next several blogs. Suffice it to say for our purposes that, yes, your eschatology will impact your hermeneutic.

Another area this shows itself (and I do not have space to go into detail here, but will in great detail when we discuss Daniel) is the adding of a parenthesis of time in Daniel 9. This unwarranted intrusion into the passage has nothing to do with “blank slate” exegesis leading to this conclusion, but rather starting with the preconceived necessity and making it fit the system.

On a side note, the term “latter days” found throughout the Old Testament literally means “the days after this,” or better yet, "some time in the future." It does not necessarily have to mean “the end of days.”

SALVATION
Though this is not true for many modern Dispensationalists, the more popular and traditional Dispensationalist do have differing forms of salvation in their theology. Ryrie and others may shout from the rooftops that it is not true and that Dispensationalism has always believed and taught that mankind was always saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, the following popular authors and theologians beg to differ.

“…grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ…The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” Scofield

“It can be said at once that His (Jesus) dying was not God’s own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God…the plan is given in the Old Testament code…the tabernacle or temple, under prescribed regulations…” Chafer

This is sometimes called the Age of the Church, or the Church period. The characteristic of this age is that salvation is no longer by legal obedience, but by the personal acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ, who by his meritorious ministry has procured for us a righteousness of God'.” Evans

“A distinction must be observed here between just men of the Old Testamen and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. ... Men were therefore just because of their own works for God whereas New Testament justification is God's work for man in answer to faith” Chafer

I would hope that anyone with even the most elementary understanding of salvation by grace through faith would see the great heresy being promoted by the above concept.

The distinction described at the beginning of today’s blog shows itself here again by posturing a different form of salvation between the Old and New Testaments. As a result there is a different resurrection for the Old and New Testament saints as well (discussed later). Again, this is just to show that ones eschatology and the underpinnings and presuppositions of that view has great impact even on the view of salvation.

APOLOGETICS
Bertrand Russell, the famed atheist, made some very strong arguments in the 20th century regarding the validity of Christ’s claims to deity when he pointed out that clearly Jesus believed (and taught) that he would return within a generation. Russell argues that Jesus either didn’t return and was a liar/false prophet or that He didn’t really know if He would return which means He wasn’t God either. This put those who debated Russell on the horns of a dilemma. The apologist must make cogent and clear arguments as to where Russell is wrong. If one takes the position that Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse is about the literal, physical Second Coming of Jesus he has the most difficult time dealing with the plain meaning of the text and struggles making his case. Either way, his apologetic is compromised.

THE LAW
If the distinction between the Old and New Testaments remain consistent then how one view the law can be greatly affected. If the law is only for Old Testament Israel (as the claim is made) than the New Testament Church member has no obligation to follow it. Only if one sees salvation wrapped up in following of the OT ordinances (as shown earlier) is there any trouble. The Reformed reader can see the OT Law differently and realize it’s value for both the OT and NT saint.

This problem has lead many to claim that only those laws repeated in the NT are valid for today and the NT saint is required to obey only them. Here in lies another dilemma. As Gary North has pointed out, the prohibition on sex with animals IS NOT repeated in the NT.

ETHICS
Since our morality and ethics are to be derived from Scripture, if we are to – like above – abrogate the Old Testament law to a different economy, then we are hard pressed to find an over-arching, full-orbed ethical standard. We may be told to love one another, but without the law we may not know how or why. Thomas Ice in his famous debate with Gary DeMar argued that his eschatology gave him his ethical standard (remember the fruit bowl?).

What did that mean? Well, perhaps you were once told that you should not see an “R” rated movie. When you asked why, you may have been told something akin to, “You don’t want to be sitting in that movie theatre watching that R Rated movie when the rapture takes place and that was the last thing you were doing on Earth!” I actually have heard that argument and notice that the ethic is derived from the eschatology, not from a Biblical standard. And when questioned further, to what standard would this person use to make the claim that the R rated movie was something bad and you would be ashamed to have been doing it when Christ returned? They are still caught having to appeal to that which they deny has authority. They could point to Paul and his prohibitions on certain actions and activities, but Paul has to point to the law to make his case. Even given that one could demand a thorough explanation as to which things were right and wrong and the NT simply does not have the exhaustive list nor is there enough for “General Equity” to suffice.

Ultimately I want to show that ones eschatology will impact their ethics and standards, even though I would also argue most Dispensationalist are very inconsistent in this manner and still embrace the law, at least the Big 10.

THE CHURCHLike most of the above the impact one eschatology has on your view of the Church can be traced to the distinction many have created within the pages of Holy Writ. Some claim the Church was a mistake, plan B, a complete unknown and not in the complete and perfect plan of God Almighty. This shows itself most in the Church/Israel distinction which will be a matter of great importance later in our discussions.

So, rather than tackle that weighty issue I will simply discuss one view of the Church in two ways. One, is the Church important and as a covenant body and two, what is the future for the Church.

Because of the aforementioned distinction, many have argued that the Church is not as important, that worship is individualized and God’s relationship with mankind is individualized, not corporate, and the Kingdom of God is postponed. On the other side of the coin are those who say that God deals covenantally with the Church (both the elect and non-elect members). This leads to a view where worship is corporate and regulated (by His word), God’s dealings with men are covenantal through families and that the Church is the Kingdom of God as expressed in the present age.

These differing views also can lead to differing views on the sacraments, church discipline, worship methods, emphasis on preaching or teaching and a lot more. Again, what is important here is that these differences come about as a result of the underlying system found in particular eschatologies.

Finally, and for those who stick around long enough (and most importantly to me) is how eschatology impacts how one views the future of the Church. Is that future paved with misery, deceit, failure and pessimism? Is the world going to hell in a hand basket with Church falling right in line? Will the Bride that Jesus returns for be bloodied, bruised, dirty and ashamed?

Will the gates of Hell prevail?