Why Study Eschatology?

[Cow Poke]

Sean, why are you so worried about the endtimes, man?

After all is said and done, there's WAY more said than done!

[Manwë Súlimo]

Hyperpreterism exists and it makes shipwreck of the faith. Someone needs to be there to counter them.

It's no good ignoring a subject because some people you've known have become obsessed with it.

[KingsGambit]

Aside from the fact that this is before the fall (you know before the curse of thorns and thistles and the sweat of your brow and all that), I wonder how that works alongside "I've called you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Buzzword, what say you?

A very similar command is given in Genesis 9:1-3, clearly after the fall, so it's not as if the principles were completely made null and void after the fall. Also, it would take another thread to get too far into it, but I don't see a calling out of the world so much as a call to abandon society but rather not to root oneself in it. One can still work to improve a place that is not their home.

[seanD]

A very similar command is given in Genesis 9:1-3, clearly after the fall, so it's not as if the principles were completely made null and void after the fall. Also, it would take another thread to get too far into it, but I don't see a calling out of the world so much as a call to abandon society but rather not to root oneself in it. One can still work to improve a place that is not their home.

I don't see why it's irrelevant to this thread since the OP brought it up as consequence of "expending" effort (whatever that means he hasn't defined yet) on the eschatological subject. And no one said anything about "abandon society," that's just you trying to create a strawman. Now if he meant things like apologetics, spreading the gospel and winning converts as "improving society" in a spiritual sense I'd agree, but this is not what he said. He was specific with what he meant by "improving conditions" in the here and now (i.e. nuclear power, preventing war, ecological conservation, etc.), things that I see as mainly materialistic, political and geopolitical that have nothing spiritual whatsoever to do with the Christian faith and what we as Christians were commanded to do.

[KingsGambit]

I don't see why it's irrelevant to this thread since the OP brought it up as consequence of "expending" effort (whatever that means he hasn't defined yet) on the eschatological subject. And no one said anything about "abandon society," that's just you trying to create a strawman. Now if he meant things like apologetics, spreading the gospel and winning converts as "improving society" in a spiritual sense I'd agree, but this is not what he said. He was specific with what he meant by "improving conditions" in the here and now (i.e. nuclear power, preventing war, ecological conservation, etc.), things that I see as mainly materialistic, political and geopolitical that have nothing spiritual whatsoever to do with the Christian faith and what we as Christians were commanded to do.

"Abandoning society" isn't a strawman. It's been a serious tactic tried by many Christians throughout church history, whether with the desert hermits in the first few centuries of Christianity or with various groups today. (It's also something I once looked into doing myself, prompting a study of 1 John 2:15.) It is also the very converse of what I've called for. As such, I disagree that there isn't inherent value to the work we do here. When Paul called for people to work, he affirmed that there was value in the word people did with their hands (Ephesians 4:28). I don't disagree that we can overvalue physical things... but I don't think we can set a firm dichotomy when we look at how Jesus called for physical needs to be provided for his people in Matthew 25.

[Buzzword]

Paul didn't warn the Thessalonians not to be preoccupied with signs. The Thessalonians were concerned that Jesus had already come, and so Paul clarified the signs that would lead up to that and actually gave them specific signs to look for prior to that coming day.

Except that this is incorrect.
People in Thessalonica had become convinced that Christ would return TOMORROW, and were quitting their jobs and sitting around like so many apocalypse cults waiting for Judgment Day.

Paul's admonishment that if a man will not work, he should not eat was directed at these people.

Now that I corrected your error, what exactly would you define as "expend the effort."

The kinds of arguments which occur on this board and in churches across the United States, if not the world, which alienate people instead of building relationships, and irrationally prioritize an area of theology which has ZERO impact on the daily lives of everyone who isn't currently writing a book on it.

Also, I take issue with "improving the planet." I don't really see any correlation there with just eschatology, I see a conflict with Christian theology in general. Were we ever really instructed as Christians to improve the planet?

I take issue with any doctrine or dogma which treats this planet, the only one we've thus far discovered which can support us as a species, as a throwaway motel room instead of a living, breathing ecosystem in which (if we follow Christ's command to be good stewards) our children and grandchildren and descendants will be able to survive and thrive.

This planet is the one talent with which we have been entrusted, the one field in which we have been placed and told to sow and reap.
If we bury the talent (or throw it away) or burn the field, how can we expect the Master to repay us when He returns?

A ludicrous focus on eschatology has led far too many church leaders and laypeople to take the man-made philosophy of "this world is not my home" and increase its ridiculousness to the dangerous level of "Who cares about the planet? We're getting a new one anyway."

Aside from the fact that this is before the fall (you know before the curse of thorns and thistles and the sweat of your brow and all that), I wonder how that works alongside "I've called you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Buzzword, what say you?

Why do you interpret "the world" to mean "the physical planet" rather than "the society in which you find yourself"?

For some reason, there is this false dichotomy being argued: you're either discussing eschatology and not being faithful to other things, or being faithful to other things and not discussing eschatology. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm not arguing for a false dichotomy.

I explained in the OP why I have left the study of eschatology, and I asked what benefit those who continue to study it derive from it.

Which is a question you still have yet to answer.

[seanD]

"Abandoning society" isn't a strawman. It's been a serious tactic tried by many Christians throughout church history, whether with the desert hermits in the first few centuries of Christianity or with various groups today. (It's also something I once looked into doing myself, prompting a study of 1 John 2:15.) It is also the very converse of what I've called for. As such, I disagree that there isn't inherent value to the work we do here. When Paul called for people to work, he affirmed that there was value in the word people did with their hands (Ephesians 4:28). I don't disagree that we can overvalue physical things... but I don't think we can set a firm dichotomy when we look at how Jesus called for physical needs to be provided for his people in Matthew 25.

Abandoning the world is a different extreme and I don't relate that to what the OP was describing, especially since I doubt the very few people here that discuss eschatology are presently in that extreme. I would assume you would agree that with such radical statements as that of John 15:18-19, there has to be a line somewhere where our physical and mental involvement in the world in order to improve it is in direct conflict of that passage? So you agree that our duty as Christians is to improve "ecological conservation, nuclear disarmament, stopping and avoiding war, bringing peace" because these are the issues he was specific about and what I was contesting when I brought up John 15:18-19?

[seanD]

Except that this is incorrect.
People in Thessalonica had become convinced that Christ would return TOMORROW, and were quitting their jobs and sitting around like so many apocalypse cults waiting for Judgment Day.

That isn't what they believed. Read the passage carefully.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Aside from the fact that this is before the fall (you know before the curse of thorns and thistles and the sweat of your brow and all that), I wonder how that works alongside "I've called you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Buzzword, what say you?

My take this is an unfortunate consequence of having to translate the original into English. Like for example love, world has different meanings and its an issue that different concepts are being translated into the same English word.

I take Genesis "world" as meaning the physical environment we live in.

I take "I've called you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:19) as being the society you live in. It might get closer to what Jesus meant to translate as "I've called you out of society, therefore society hates you."

This is a case where having a good reference book to the original language and meanings of those words can help understand what God is trying to say.

[Buzzword]

That isn't what they believed. Read the passage carefully.

So you stopped reading right there?
Or are you for some reason waiting to address the rest of my post?

[seanD]

So you stopped reading right there?
Or are you for some reason waiting to address the rest of my post?

Generally I don't respond to posts when they become scattered, especially since I believe I addressed most of your points in my posts to others here. And I'm not sure why you amen'd TM's post, as it's just as much in conflict with what you argued in the OP. World is society and society is the world. The two are interchangeable

[seanD]

I'm not arguing for a false dichotomy.

I explained in the OP why I have left the study of eschatology, and I asked what benefit those who continue to study it derive from it.

Which is a question you still have yet to answer.

Okay, I read your post instead of scanning it quickly and see that this was not part of the original post you broke up, so I'll respond. There are quite a few reasons I believe eschatological discussions are necessary. One reason is so that Christians prepare for terrible things to come. I often use an analogy of getting punched in the stomach. It's better to know you're going to get punched so you can at the very least mentally brace yourself for the blow than getting unexpectedly punched out of nowhere. The main reason though is because we're obeying the command of the Lord to watch the signs. Obviously, there was a reason Jesus gave us signs, otherwise he would have just told his disciples that signs were not necessary and that they should be faithful and prepared at all times and that watching for signs made them expend efforts away from other things that are more positive. The fact he gave us signs and told us to watch these signs is indicative that the signs are important and necessary. If for nothing else, just obedience to the Lord's command to me is the most important reason to discuss the issue.

[KingsGambit]

I don't want to reveal too much now without any public announcements having been made but I am actually affiliated with a group that is in the process of trying to launch a theological journal devoted to eschatology as a whole. Clearly anything having to do with theology should not be off limits as a topic and I really do hope this project gets rolled out. The thing is, the topic of eschatology is so much more than "when is the end/what is the millennium/etc." N.T. Wright's work on the topic and his connection of it to other areas of Christian doctrine are one popular example.

[Christianbookworm]

Okay, I read your post instead of scanning it quickly and see that this was not part of the original post you broke up, so I'll respond. There are quite a few reasons I believe eschatological discussions are necessary. One reason is so that Christians prepare for terrible things to come. I often use an analogy of getting punched in the stomach. It's better to know you're going to get punched so you can at the very least mentally brace yourself for the blow than getting unexpectedly punched out of nowhere. The main reason though is because we're obeying the command of the Lord to watch the signs. Obviously, there was a reason Jesus gave us signs, otherwise he would have just told his disciples that signs were not necessary and that they should be faithful and prepared at all times and that watching for signs made them expend efforts away from other things that are more positive. The fact he gave us signs and told us to watch these signs is indicative that the signs are important and necessary. If for nothing else, just obedience to the Lord's command to me is the most important reason to discuss the issue.

What about the other veiws that have the "gut punch" happen in the past?

[seanD]

What about the other veiws that have the "gut punch" happen in the past?

I guess that's one thing you can ask the Lord when you see him again. Lord, why did you give signs of the end times and command us to watch the signs if you knew your people would jump the gun so many times in history following your command? That's something I can't answer. One thing I do know though is that the history of false alarms is no reason to ignore the Lord's command about the signs of the end times anymore than we should ignore or abandon the study of faith healing just because its been tarnished by fake God healers.