Eschatology 101: Repent! The End is (possibly) Near(er)! Apologetics.com Audio!

2009 February 9
tags: , , ,
by Neiswonger

Repent! The End is (possibly) Near(er)! Audio on Apologetics.com

http://apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=320:eschatology-101-repent-the-end-is-possibly-nearer&catid=43:kkla-995-fm-los-angeles&Itemid=74 Click me :)

from → Anglican, Assemblies of God, BIOLA, Blogroll, Calvary Chapel, Calvinist, Dispensationalist, Emergent Church, Episcopal, Episcopalian, Evangelical, Evangelical Free Church, KKLA 99.5, Lutheran, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, PCUSA, Pentecostal, Presbyterian Church in America, Presuppositionalism, Presvbyterian, Reformed, Reformed Episcopal, Reformed Theology, Roman Catholicism, United Methodist, baptist, bible, church, rockharbor, the emergent church, the emerging church

One Response leave one →
  1. 2009 May 31
    Job permalink

    Well, Jesus Christ actually said “repent for the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is at hand”, and realized eschatology (most prominently in the Gospel of John but also present in other places, especially in Peter’s sermon on Pentecost that proclaimed that the endtimes prophecy of Joel 2:28 had just been fulfilled) means that “the end”, “the last days” etc. has been present ever since the work of Jesus Christ on the cross (see Hebrews 1:2).

    I exited the “Left Behind” camp when, after a challenge from a Reformed Christian, saw that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation did not contain anything that could be construed as supporting multiple returns of Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, many New Testament texts, including the Book of Hebrews (which the premillennial dispensationalists rarely deal with) specifically precludes it.

    Still, I am unable to join any camp that takes the hatchet of Origen to Revelation 19-20. I find it very odd that sola scriptura Christians not so much use different rules of interpretation for eschatology that they do everything else, but different rules of interpretation for eschatological passages that contradict preterism, amillennialism, etc. It would be one thing if amillennials discarded all of eschatology, saying that it is the on area of the Bible that requires completely different rules of hermeneutics. I would still disagree with it, but it would at least be plausible. What I cannot abide is the one hermeneutics for the passages for which they agree, and the different hermeneutics for the others! And then there is the claim “Revelation was written to reveal Jesus Christ and to comfort the church and has no other purpose” … if so then that is the ONLY book in the Bible that basically has to be ignored because virtually all of its contents (nothing between chapters 1-3 and 21-22) is true! If that is the case, why is Revelation even in the canon? After all, there is some historical and doctrinal truth in the apocrypha and other extrabiblical literature, but they are excluded because of what isn’t true. So why not do the same with Revelation if chapters 4-20 are just placebos, possibly containing visions that were never had and prophecies and judgments that will never come to pass? I know that there were other apocalypses, but they weren’ t in the canon for a reason. The Old Testament books that contain apocalypses are in the canon because the prophecies and judgments in those books CAME TRUE.

    So for now, I am trying to investigate what historic premillennialism taught. I see that Millard Erickson has switched to that view, maybe he will produce something worth reading.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS