How I determine what escatological or end times viewpoint to adopt? I use an approach that I use for all Biblical studies. I approach it with several rules of thumb that interpretations must follow for me to consider it. This is the first part of a series of posts that I will publish from time to time specifying the rules I use to evaluate a viewpoint.
The first rule of thumb is that the view must be logically consistent. Why do I make this rule the very first rule rather than a central point of doctrine, such as the reliability of Scripture? The reason is that if logical consistency is not insisted from the very beginning, all attempts at reason and discussion are futile.
The basic law is:
Not only do we need to pay very close attention to the time issues, but we need to exercise care in the sense of the logical statements being made. For instance, some claim that the description of God as the Trinity is a logical contradiction. This is because God is one and at the same time God is three. Looking carefully at the creedal formulations of God as the Trinity uses different language to describe God's oneness (essence) from God's threeness (person). Because the one and three are stated in different senses or relations, the law of non-contradiction is not violated and so the creedal statement of the Trinity is logically consistent.
The rule not only applies to direct statements made about an interpretation, but it also applies to logical consequences that necessarily follow from an interpretation. Let me give an example. Suppose it is agreed that in principle Christ could return at any moment. Thus Christ could return this very day that you are reading this blog entry. Let us further suppose that an eschatological system was proposed where either a catastrophic period with a minimum duration spanning years must occur or a period of great visible advancement of the church must occur which will take at least a decade or more for it to happen. As we analyze either of these systems, we will discover as a necessary inference that Christ could not in principle return this day but that it would have to be delayed at least several years to several decades from now. While the advocates of either view would not state the obvious contradiction that Christ is going to return today and He will not return today, there is in the analysis that while they hold in principle Christ could return today, they also hold that Christ could not return today. This is a contradiction, and according to the law of non-contradiction, neither of these views can be true.
Why must this rule be assumed in the first place? Because imagine trying to argue a point without assuming this. It would mean anything goes. Discussion becomes meaningless. God exists and does not exist,. In fact, try to argue against the law of non-contradiction. It can't be done.
This rules out many systems of beliefs. For instance, the view that there is no absolute truth falls on its face because to assert that there is no absolute truth is the assert there is an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.
In the area of eschatology, Jesus made several statements. The first is that you cannot pinpoint the time of Christ's second coming. There is an eschatological system that says the Christ will "rapture" the church (which is distinct from Christ's second coming) and that will start a precise countdown clock where the second coming will occur seven years later. This contradicts that you cannot pinpoint the time of Christ's second coming and that view must be rejected. The second is that Christ's second coming can occur any day. Any view which must delay Christ's return for the conditions to be met for Christ's return must also be rejected.
I'll Continue the series with another sanity check in a later post.
The first rule of thumb is that the view must be logically consistent. Why do I make this rule the very first rule rather than a central point of doctrine, such as the reliability of Scripture? The reason is that if logical consistency is not insisted from the very beginning, all attempts at reason and discussion are futile.
The basic law is:
Nothing can be true and false in the same sense (or same relation) at the same time.For instance, we cannot say that at March 3, 2007 George Bush was the President of the United States and on March 3, 2007 George Bush was not the President of the United States. Someone who is sharp might say that on January 20, 2009 George Bush was the President of the United States and was not the President of the United States, since on that day the presidency was passed from George Bush to Barack Obama. However, a careful examination of the statement concerning George Bush shows this is true for certain times of the day but not for other times of the day.
Not only do we need to pay very close attention to the time issues, but we need to exercise care in the sense of the logical statements being made. For instance, some claim that the description of God as the Trinity is a logical contradiction. This is because God is one and at the same time God is three. Looking carefully at the creedal formulations of God as the Trinity uses different language to describe God's oneness (essence) from God's threeness (person). Because the one and three are stated in different senses or relations, the law of non-contradiction is not violated and so the creedal statement of the Trinity is logically consistent.
The rule not only applies to direct statements made about an interpretation, but it also applies to logical consequences that necessarily follow from an interpretation. Let me give an example. Suppose it is agreed that in principle Christ could return at any moment. Thus Christ could return this very day that you are reading this blog entry. Let us further suppose that an eschatological system was proposed where either a catastrophic period with a minimum duration spanning years must occur or a period of great visible advancement of the church must occur which will take at least a decade or more for it to happen. As we analyze either of these systems, we will discover as a necessary inference that Christ could not in principle return this day but that it would have to be delayed at least several years to several decades from now. While the advocates of either view would not state the obvious contradiction that Christ is going to return today and He will not return today, there is in the analysis that while they hold in principle Christ could return today, they also hold that Christ could not return today. This is a contradiction, and according to the law of non-contradiction, neither of these views can be true.
Why must this rule be assumed in the first place? Because imagine trying to argue a point without assuming this. It would mean anything goes. Discussion becomes meaningless. God exists and does not exist,. In fact, try to argue against the law of non-contradiction. It can't be done.
This rules out many systems of beliefs. For instance, the view that there is no absolute truth falls on its face because to assert that there is no absolute truth is the assert there is an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.
In the area of eschatology, Jesus made several statements. The first is that you cannot pinpoint the time of Christ's second coming. There is an eschatological system that says the Christ will "rapture" the church (which is distinct from Christ's second coming) and that will start a precise countdown clock where the second coming will occur seven years later. This contradicts that you cannot pinpoint the time of Christ's second coming and that view must be rejected. The second is that Christ's second coming can occur any day. Any view which must delay Christ's return for the conditions to be met for Christ's return must also be rejected.
I'll Continue the series with another sanity check in a later post.
