Is it time to end "End Times" statements within denominational doctrinal statements? In a recent research paper, I postulate the need for denominations to leave out specific and explicit eschatological statements within their doctrinal statements due to the debatable nature of the topic in Scripture. Below is the paper in full. Feel free to read it in chunks or all at once. Thanks for spending time mulling over this topic. I find it extremely important and something every denomination should consider.
Eschatology and the vastly detailed opinions and biblical positions regarding it have been highly debated within Christian circles since the dawn of the Christian age. Within Christian history, no particular eschatological position, particularly involving the millennium, has been accepted as solely orthodox. Questions abound as to what Scripture truly claims about these controversial yet important topics, and there continues to be challenges in resolving these tensions. As there has never been a truly central, orthodox belief on the millennium, Wayne Grudem writes, “It is important to affirm the genuine evangelical standing of those who have differing positions on these questions.”[1] To boldly claim that one eschatological view is “clear” or “obvious” is incorrect and audacious.
The Scriptural information provided to the people of God as to what will exactly transpire at the end of the world is minimal and what remains is a list of continually debated and constantly questioned possibilities. Christians must be honest about this reality and humbly accept that brilliant, godly and well-intentioned scholars with hermeneutical integrity and biblical soundness have approached the same sets of Bible verses and have achieved differing exegetical results. This should not bother us, but should motivate us to dig into Scripture with humility and excitement to determine our own personal convictions on uncertain eschatological matters, which, though important, are not clearly set forth within the pages of the Bible.
The motivation for individual Christians to personally study and come to personal convictions should not be stifled by church denominations choosing explicit and specific eschatological positions to place in their doctrinal statements. When denominations insist that church members adhere to exact and unwavering eschatological views in doctrinal statements, personal ability to wrestle with Scripture to determine personal beliefs among congregants is stifled. Additionally, although to many the Biblical evidence is fairly clear, the matters of eschatology are Scripturally unprovable, peripheral to the salvific Gospel message, and over which it is foolish to break fellowship with fellow Evangelical, orthodox Christians. Lastly, no particular eschatological position affirms Biblical inerrancy more than the others or places a greater weight on a literal rendering of the text. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author and the thesis of this paper that denominations should not force congregants to adhere to any particular eschatological conviction as a requirement for membership within their churches and should therefore promptly remove any explicit or specific eschatological convictions from their doctrinal statements.
It is this thesis that drives the author to engage with a recent eschatological debate within the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA). Within the EFCA doctrinal statement (known as the “Statement of Faith”) there is a specific mentioning of Christ’s premillennial return. Those who wish to become members in churches within the EFCA must agree with this eschatological view.
It is essential that Christians are encouraged to wrestle with Scripture’s mysteries and come to personal convictions on all doctrinal categories, including eschatology. While it is natural and understandable for churches to divide into denominations based on differing understandings on what they believe to be central to the Christian faith, eschatology remains a unique smorgasbord of varying insights, convictions, conjectures and hopes. The “differences on these matters should be seen as matters of secondary importance, not as differences over primary doctrinal matters.”[2] Churches may choose particular sides on issues of baptism, prevalence of miraculous spiritual gifts, and other fairly two-sided debates. Yet to force congregants to affirm one particular view of eschatology is inappropriate when the varying possibilities are numerous. Denominations like the EFCA should “set aside their differences over issues considered less important, in order to cooperate in spreading the gospel”[3], including though not limited to adhering to a particular view of eschatology.
As the wide array of eschatological views clearly exists, “it is inconsistent to include only one of the historically acceptable orthodox views”[4] in a denominational doctrinal statement. It is misleading and irresponsible for any denomination, including the EFCA, to force church members to affirm one particular view. The debate over what is clear regarding eschatology in Scripture has yet to be resolved and the Biblical passages given as evidence, particularly in Revelation, are challenging to exegete, as “Revelation is an exceptionally difficult book to interpret.”[5] The correct interpretation of many events depicted within eschatology will seemingly only be clearly evident when they finally occur, and therefore remain unprovable until it is both too late and relatively unimportant.
There are many “essentials” to the Christian faith, beliefs central to the Gospel message in the pages of Scripture. Scripture itself summarizes what the essentials are, acting as God’s primary and most authoritative method of providing His people with a clear blueprint and guide. What is central to the Christian faith surrounds the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, in which Paul summarizes the Gospel message as Christ dying for the sins of God’s people according to the Scriptures, being buried and then subsequently raised from the dead by God on the third day, and being personally witnessed by others. Scripture puts forth that the central Gospel message is that “Jesus was killed, raised, exalted, [and] saved those who repented and believed in Him.”[6] He will one day return and make all things new as he returns in the “twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Cor. 15:51b).[7] Other doctrines remain important, though they are not essential to salvation and should not cause rifts, disunity or division with the people of God. Pastors and other church leaders should not shy from teaching from their eschatological convictions and attempting to biblically convince others to agree with them. Clearly such actions are only natural and commendable as responsible pastors and leaders should certainly share their genuine convictions that are steeped in Scriptural support and prayerful consideration. Yet to force congregations to accept exact eschatological viewpoints, including but not limited to the premillennial position, is unacceptable. They are simply not central to the salvific Gospel message. The saving message of Jesus Christ which effectively calls and saves the people of God remains true and solidly whole without one holding to a particular eschatology. Since Scripture is clear that Jesus will come again, belief in such a truth is essential and central in and for the Gospel message. Yet how and when Jesus will return remains somewhat of a mystery and not appropriate to include as a central and essential element of the Gospel.
The Old Testament tells the story of God choosing a people for Himself. Israel, though sinful and inherently no more deserving of favor and grace than any other nation, was chosen by God to be His people. His blessings and grace were constantly upon them, even when Israel’s rebellion and wickedness was tremendous. The New Testament reveals the sovereign choice of God to extend His blessings and grace to all people, no longer limiting Himself to one particular people group. He sends Christians to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:19-20).
As God gathers His New Covenant people from every corner of the earth, His desire is for His people to be unified, as if they are one nation like Israel. Christians are to be one collective people group, the body of Christ, unified under the banner of God’s salvation through Jesus. Galatians 3:28-29 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” 1 Corinthians 1:10 shares a similar thought from Paul as he states his wish that the Corinthian church seeks agreement in all matters, imploring them to ensure “that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” “The call to maintain the unity of the body of Christ is easily evident in the New Testament.”[8] We are not all going to be identical in our beliefs that are peripheral to the Gospel. Many opinions and convictions abound regarding important doctrines, including eschatology. Denominations like the EFCA should and will continue to teach based on their convictions and beliefs. But they must not give up unity in the body of Christ, preventing others from joining their congregations due to disagreement over such things. The Gospel is and always will be central. The ordering of events surrounding the return of Christ is not.
Creating Statements of Faith that do not allow for differences in theology surrounding eschatology do not create unified communities of believers. Rather, such statements lend themselves to creating more division as some believers who may be great assets to the Kingdom work at particular churches are treated as second-class attendees, unable to become members due to their inability to side wholly with one small portion of the Statement of Faith, which is peripheral to the Gospel message. If believers are meant to be “one” in Jesus Christ and have no divisions between them, we must be extremely cautious when creating divisions. If divisions are to be made, they must be in regards to the essentials of the Gospel message, the person and work of Jesus. To inhibit believers from becoming members of churches due to particular convictions regarding any of the historically orthodox views of eschatology is drawing the line too tightly and causing rifts where there should be union. “The need for believers to choose carefully which issues they will break fellowship over is readily apparent when one gives even a cursory look at Statement of Faiths from various denominations and movements.”[9]
Premillennial, postmillennial and amillennial positions are all Biblically tenable. Each perspective advocates for Biblical inerrancy and the literal rendering of Scripture. In recent years, the debate within the EFCA has persisted regarding whether the denomination should delete or uphold the premillennial position in its Statement of Faith. On January 24-26, 2007, with over 400 pastors and other church leaders in attendance, four highly educated and renowned scholars convincingly represented four main positions in eschatology (dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, historic premillennialism and amillennialism). Greg Strand, the EFCA Director of Biblical Theology and Credentialing, summarized the speakers’ debate, writing, “All affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture; all insisted upon careful attention to the exegesis of the Biblical text; and all insisted on the importance of a canonical meaning as a factor in interpretation.”[10] Yet all four men have different conclusions, all of which have been accepted throughout Christian history as both orthodox and Biblically tenable. According to Wayne Grudem, “Evangelicals who hold to these various positions all agree that Scripture is inerrant, and they have a commitment to believe whatever is taught by Scripture.”[11] “The task of the exegete is to determine as closely as possible what God meant in a passage, not what it means to me.”[12] The question is what is taught by Scripture, and in the realm of eschatology, it is simply too complex to be certain.
Arguments for particular eschatological views are many times based solely on one particular exegetical conclusion found within one very limited portion of Scripture. A strong example of this is found in the 2007 EFCA debate surrounding premillennial eschatology in their Statement of Faith. There are some premillennialists like Dr. Doug Moo (one of the presenters in the debate) who believe that,
Revelation 20 provides the only text that suggests premillenialism as the correct view of the millennium. Moo not only believes that Revelation 20 is a “difficult text to interpret with other legitimate possible readings”, but also that if it was not for that the passage, he would not be a premillenialist.[13]
This candid statement demonstrates the difficulty found in basing an entire eschatological belief system on very little clear information found in Scripture.
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, a methodology utilized in theological considerations which has been credited to John Wesley, emphasizes the need to reflect upon theology using four measurements: Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Though in-depth analysis of eschatology through the use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not necessary here, a few main points based on each of the four measurements are helpful to realize.
1) Scripture is the highest of authorities, trumping tradition, reason and experience, though the latter three measurements can inform our interpretation of Scripture. Scripture does not give clear indications as to what eschatological views are most “Biblical” or closest to the original intent of the authors and all views are well-organized theories at best.
2) Tradition does little to help the debate as to what eschatological view has been most widely accepted. Multiple possibilities emerge across history, leaving several acceptable orthodox positions to examine and prayerfully decide upon for one’s personal convictions.
3) Reason, though helpful to utilize in conjunction with Scripture and Tradition, is limited in value when approaching eschatology and quite secondary in importance, though it may assist in affirming the Scriptural and Traditional proof that one finds in study.
4) Experience is by far the most unhelpful of the four measurements in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral for the topic of eschatology. Though we will certainly experience the “end times” in some form or another, our experience will only serve to prove or disprove what we had already been convinced of during our finite time on earth.
“The problem with much of evangelical theology is that it does not perceive itself as being governed by…an interpretive tradition, much like scientists who claim to present the world as it really is.”[14] Every conclusion we have regarding theology comes through the vehicle of approaching interpretation through interpretative traditions. Some traditions of interpretation are correct; some are not. It is best for us to own up to this fact and be humble about our conclusions on things that are not readily apparent within Scripture and not central to the Gospel. Denominations must set aside differences over peripheral issues that are less important so that all believers may collaborate together to spread the Gospel message with maximum effectiveness. Rather that stifling the abilities of individuals within their congregations to study and come to personal conclusions about vastly debated doctrines like eschatology, denominations like the EFCA must remove explicit and specific eschatological convictions from within their doctrinal statements. The various eschatological convictions are Scripturally unprovable, peripheral to the Gospel message, and it is foolish to break fellowship with or refuse membership to those who merely disagree over a specific eschatology. Within the varying eschatological belief systems there are several viable possibilities that uphold the inerrancy of Scripture and attempt to exegete the pertinent passages with Biblical integrity and prayerful consideration. Let us seek unity and one-ness within the body of Christ, maximizing our effectiveness as a people of God, rather than dividing the body over matters that we are unable to know with certainty on this side of eternity.
[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 1095.
[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 1095.
[3] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 4, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[4] “Minutes of the General Conference Business Session: The Evangelical Free Church of America,” The Ministerial Forum 18, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 3.
[5] Greg Strand, “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology,” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 4.
[6] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 13, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[7] The Bible (English Standard Version) – To be the version cited from this point forward
[8] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 7, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[9] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 3, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[10] Greg Strand, “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology,” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 7.
[11] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 1095.
[12] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 19, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[13] Greg Strand, “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology,” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 5.
[14] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means for Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 22, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
References
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000.
“Minutes of the General Conference Business Session: The Evangelical Free Church of America.” The Ministerial Forum 18, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 1-8.
Strand, Greg. “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology.” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 1-8.
Taylor, Bill. “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means for Differentiating between Them.” (May 2011): 1-33. www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
Eschatology and the vastly detailed opinions and biblical positions regarding it have been highly debated within Christian circles since the dawn of the Christian age. Within Christian history, no particular eschatological position, particularly involving the millennium, has been accepted as solely orthodox. Questions abound as to what Scripture truly claims about these controversial yet important topics, and there continues to be challenges in resolving these tensions. As there has never been a truly central, orthodox belief on the millennium, Wayne Grudem writes, “It is important to affirm the genuine evangelical standing of those who have differing positions on these questions.”[1] To boldly claim that one eschatological view is “clear” or “obvious” is incorrect and audacious.
The Scriptural information provided to the people of God as to what will exactly transpire at the end of the world is minimal and what remains is a list of continually debated and constantly questioned possibilities. Christians must be honest about this reality and humbly accept that brilliant, godly and well-intentioned scholars with hermeneutical integrity and biblical soundness have approached the same sets of Bible verses and have achieved differing exegetical results. This should not bother us, but should motivate us to dig into Scripture with humility and excitement to determine our own personal convictions on uncertain eschatological matters, which, though important, are not clearly set forth within the pages of the Bible.
The motivation for individual Christians to personally study and come to personal convictions should not be stifled by church denominations choosing explicit and specific eschatological positions to place in their doctrinal statements. When denominations insist that church members adhere to exact and unwavering eschatological views in doctrinal statements, personal ability to wrestle with Scripture to determine personal beliefs among congregants is stifled. Additionally, although to many the Biblical evidence is fairly clear, the matters of eschatology are Scripturally unprovable, peripheral to the salvific Gospel message, and over which it is foolish to break fellowship with fellow Evangelical, orthodox Christians. Lastly, no particular eschatological position affirms Biblical inerrancy more than the others or places a greater weight on a literal rendering of the text. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author and the thesis of this paper that denominations should not force congregants to adhere to any particular eschatological conviction as a requirement for membership within their churches and should therefore promptly remove any explicit or specific eschatological convictions from their doctrinal statements.
It is this thesis that drives the author to engage with a recent eschatological debate within the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA). Within the EFCA doctrinal statement (known as the “Statement of Faith”) there is a specific mentioning of Christ’s premillennial return. Those who wish to become members in churches within the EFCA must agree with this eschatological view.
It is essential that Christians are encouraged to wrestle with Scripture’s mysteries and come to personal convictions on all doctrinal categories, including eschatology. While it is natural and understandable for churches to divide into denominations based on differing understandings on what they believe to be central to the Christian faith, eschatology remains a unique smorgasbord of varying insights, convictions, conjectures and hopes. The “differences on these matters should be seen as matters of secondary importance, not as differences over primary doctrinal matters.”[2] Churches may choose particular sides on issues of baptism, prevalence of miraculous spiritual gifts, and other fairly two-sided debates. Yet to force congregants to affirm one particular view of eschatology is inappropriate when the varying possibilities are numerous. Denominations like the EFCA should “set aside their differences over issues considered less important, in order to cooperate in spreading the gospel”[3], including though not limited to adhering to a particular view of eschatology.
As the wide array of eschatological views clearly exists, “it is inconsistent to include only one of the historically acceptable orthodox views”[4] in a denominational doctrinal statement. It is misleading and irresponsible for any denomination, including the EFCA, to force church members to affirm one particular view. The debate over what is clear regarding eschatology in Scripture has yet to be resolved and the Biblical passages given as evidence, particularly in Revelation, are challenging to exegete, as “Revelation is an exceptionally difficult book to interpret.”[5] The correct interpretation of many events depicted within eschatology will seemingly only be clearly evident when they finally occur, and therefore remain unprovable until it is both too late and relatively unimportant.
There are many “essentials” to the Christian faith, beliefs central to the Gospel message in the pages of Scripture. Scripture itself summarizes what the essentials are, acting as God’s primary and most authoritative method of providing His people with a clear blueprint and guide. What is central to the Christian faith surrounds the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, in which Paul summarizes the Gospel message as Christ dying for the sins of God’s people according to the Scriptures, being buried and then subsequently raised from the dead by God on the third day, and being personally witnessed by others. Scripture puts forth that the central Gospel message is that “Jesus was killed, raised, exalted, [and] saved those who repented and believed in Him.”[6] He will one day return and make all things new as he returns in the “twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Cor. 15:51b).[7] Other doctrines remain important, though they are not essential to salvation and should not cause rifts, disunity or division with the people of God. Pastors and other church leaders should not shy from teaching from their eschatological convictions and attempting to biblically convince others to agree with them. Clearly such actions are only natural and commendable as responsible pastors and leaders should certainly share their genuine convictions that are steeped in Scriptural support and prayerful consideration. Yet to force congregations to accept exact eschatological viewpoints, including but not limited to the premillennial position, is unacceptable. They are simply not central to the salvific Gospel message. The saving message of Jesus Christ which effectively calls and saves the people of God remains true and solidly whole without one holding to a particular eschatology. Since Scripture is clear that Jesus will come again, belief in such a truth is essential and central in and for the Gospel message. Yet how and when Jesus will return remains somewhat of a mystery and not appropriate to include as a central and essential element of the Gospel.
The Old Testament tells the story of God choosing a people for Himself. Israel, though sinful and inherently no more deserving of favor and grace than any other nation, was chosen by God to be His people. His blessings and grace were constantly upon them, even when Israel’s rebellion and wickedness was tremendous. The New Testament reveals the sovereign choice of God to extend His blessings and grace to all people, no longer limiting Himself to one particular people group. He sends Christians to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:19-20).
As God gathers His New Covenant people from every corner of the earth, His desire is for His people to be unified, as if they are one nation like Israel. Christians are to be one collective people group, the body of Christ, unified under the banner of God’s salvation through Jesus. Galatians 3:28-29 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” 1 Corinthians 1:10 shares a similar thought from Paul as he states his wish that the Corinthian church seeks agreement in all matters, imploring them to ensure “that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” “The call to maintain the unity of the body of Christ is easily evident in the New Testament.”[8] We are not all going to be identical in our beliefs that are peripheral to the Gospel. Many opinions and convictions abound regarding important doctrines, including eschatology. Denominations like the EFCA should and will continue to teach based on their convictions and beliefs. But they must not give up unity in the body of Christ, preventing others from joining their congregations due to disagreement over such things. The Gospel is and always will be central. The ordering of events surrounding the return of Christ is not.
Creating Statements of Faith that do not allow for differences in theology surrounding eschatology do not create unified communities of believers. Rather, such statements lend themselves to creating more division as some believers who may be great assets to the Kingdom work at particular churches are treated as second-class attendees, unable to become members due to their inability to side wholly with one small portion of the Statement of Faith, which is peripheral to the Gospel message. If believers are meant to be “one” in Jesus Christ and have no divisions between them, we must be extremely cautious when creating divisions. If divisions are to be made, they must be in regards to the essentials of the Gospel message, the person and work of Jesus. To inhibit believers from becoming members of churches due to particular convictions regarding any of the historically orthodox views of eschatology is drawing the line too tightly and causing rifts where there should be union. “The need for believers to choose carefully which issues they will break fellowship over is readily apparent when one gives even a cursory look at Statement of Faiths from various denominations and movements.”[9]
Premillennial, postmillennial and amillennial positions are all Biblically tenable. Each perspective advocates for Biblical inerrancy and the literal rendering of Scripture. In recent years, the debate within the EFCA has persisted regarding whether the denomination should delete or uphold the premillennial position in its Statement of Faith. On January 24-26, 2007, with over 400 pastors and other church leaders in attendance, four highly educated and renowned scholars convincingly represented four main positions in eschatology (dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, historic premillennialism and amillennialism). Greg Strand, the EFCA Director of Biblical Theology and Credentialing, summarized the speakers’ debate, writing, “All affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture; all insisted upon careful attention to the exegesis of the Biblical text; and all insisted on the importance of a canonical meaning as a factor in interpretation.”[10] Yet all four men have different conclusions, all of which have been accepted throughout Christian history as both orthodox and Biblically tenable. According to Wayne Grudem, “Evangelicals who hold to these various positions all agree that Scripture is inerrant, and they have a commitment to believe whatever is taught by Scripture.”[11] “The task of the exegete is to determine as closely as possible what God meant in a passage, not what it means to me.”[12] The question is what is taught by Scripture, and in the realm of eschatology, it is simply too complex to be certain.
Arguments for particular eschatological views are many times based solely on one particular exegetical conclusion found within one very limited portion of Scripture. A strong example of this is found in the 2007 EFCA debate surrounding premillennial eschatology in their Statement of Faith. There are some premillennialists like Dr. Doug Moo (one of the presenters in the debate) who believe that,
Revelation 20 provides the only text that suggests premillenialism as the correct view of the millennium. Moo not only believes that Revelation 20 is a “difficult text to interpret with other legitimate possible readings”, but also that if it was not for that the passage, he would not be a premillenialist.[13]
This candid statement demonstrates the difficulty found in basing an entire eschatological belief system on very little clear information found in Scripture.
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, a methodology utilized in theological considerations which has been credited to John Wesley, emphasizes the need to reflect upon theology using four measurements: Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Though in-depth analysis of eschatology through the use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not necessary here, a few main points based on each of the four measurements are helpful to realize.
1) Scripture is the highest of authorities, trumping tradition, reason and experience, though the latter three measurements can inform our interpretation of Scripture. Scripture does not give clear indications as to what eschatological views are most “Biblical” or closest to the original intent of the authors and all views are well-organized theories at best.
2) Tradition does little to help the debate as to what eschatological view has been most widely accepted. Multiple possibilities emerge across history, leaving several acceptable orthodox positions to examine and prayerfully decide upon for one’s personal convictions.
3) Reason, though helpful to utilize in conjunction with Scripture and Tradition, is limited in value when approaching eschatology and quite secondary in importance, though it may assist in affirming the Scriptural and Traditional proof that one finds in study.
4) Experience is by far the most unhelpful of the four measurements in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral for the topic of eschatology. Though we will certainly experience the “end times” in some form or another, our experience will only serve to prove or disprove what we had already been convinced of during our finite time on earth.
“The problem with much of evangelical theology is that it does not perceive itself as being governed by…an interpretive tradition, much like scientists who claim to present the world as it really is.”[14] Every conclusion we have regarding theology comes through the vehicle of approaching interpretation through interpretative traditions. Some traditions of interpretation are correct; some are not. It is best for us to own up to this fact and be humble about our conclusions on things that are not readily apparent within Scripture and not central to the Gospel. Denominations must set aside differences over peripheral issues that are less important so that all believers may collaborate together to spread the Gospel message with maximum effectiveness. Rather that stifling the abilities of individuals within their congregations to study and come to personal conclusions about vastly debated doctrines like eschatology, denominations like the EFCA must remove explicit and specific eschatological convictions from within their doctrinal statements. The various eschatological convictions are Scripturally unprovable, peripheral to the Gospel message, and it is foolish to break fellowship with or refuse membership to those who merely disagree over a specific eschatology. Within the varying eschatological belief systems there are several viable possibilities that uphold the inerrancy of Scripture and attempt to exegete the pertinent passages with Biblical integrity and prayerful consideration. Let us seek unity and one-ness within the body of Christ, maximizing our effectiveness as a people of God, rather than dividing the body over matters that we are unable to know with certainty on this side of eternity.
[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 1095.
[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 1095.
[3] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 4, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[4] “Minutes of the General Conference Business Session: The Evangelical Free Church of America,” The Ministerial Forum 18, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 3.
[5] Greg Strand, “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology,” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 4.
[6] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 13, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[7] The Bible (English Standard Version) – To be the version cited from this point forward
[8] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 7, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[9] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 3, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[10] Greg Strand, “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology,” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 7.
[11] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 1095.
[12] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means For Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 19, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
[13] Greg Strand, “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology,” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 5.
[14] Bill Taylor, “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means for Differentiating between Them,” (May 2011): 22, www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
References
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000.
“Minutes of the General Conference Business Session: The Evangelical Free Church of America.” The Ministerial Forum 18, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 1-8.
Strand, Greg. “Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology.” Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Association 17, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 1-8.
Taylor, Bill. “Hermeneutics and the Efcc: Essentials, Non-Essentials and Means for Differentiating between Them.” (May 2011): 1-33. www.efcc.ca/pdfs/HermeneuticsandtheEFCC.doc.
RSS Feed
