Talk:End times

From Theopedia

Contents 1 No -ology titles? 2 Technical Limitations? 3 What view? 4 Removed section

No -ology titles?

Jordan, where did we get marching orders to eliminate -ology titles?? Gomarus 14:37, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

It's still up for discussion if you don't like the idea. It's not the idea of elimination, but subordination to easier language for the common laymen. Christology -> Christ, Harmotology -> Sin, etc. The ology's can have pages that describe their term, but I think for the sake of the common reader we shouldn't forcibly put content under these intimidating terms. 2c. -Aaronshaf 14:41, 2 Nov 2005 (EST) (Rather, we should put the main content under easier terms. -Aaronshaf 14:45, 2 Nov 2005 (EST))

Sorry, that was my assumption. No one said anything yesterday about leaving Christology instead of Jesus Christ and so I assumed no one cared. And since we were not using Christology (which in my mind is one of the easiest to recognize "ology" words), I thought we'd get rid of Eschatology which has no pointer towards the study of end times or last things. Maybe I should have simply left "Eschatology" there and allowed the redirect from "End times" to take readers there. JordanBarrett 14:43, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

I guess its no big deal. I kinda liked Jordan's thought yesterday that (regarding the novice) we "enable to learn" by introducing the "proper" theological terminology which will be found in standard text books, etc. We can try to do both. Gomarus 14:49, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

Aaron, what do you think of trying this? Maybe we can have "ology" titles (with redirects from common used terms), and use simpler terms for categories. JordanBarrett 14:56, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

Technical Limitations?

The article refers to Jürgen Moltmann, but presents his name as J? Moltmann. Is there a technical limitation in the wiki that prevents his name from being rendered correctly? I am very new to the markup language being used, so I am a real dunce on this. I am guessing that in order for his name to be linked to the main article on Jürgen Moltmann, we can't use the "ü"? --Jaiotu 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

no technical limitation. There have been some problems recently which messed up any special characters like that. They just need to be corrected when you come across them :-). --Tom (t|c|w) 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. --Jaiotu 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it fixed. Pretty weird stuff, but it should be fixed. JordanBarrett (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure how to go about fixing this, since it appeared that the main page for Jürgen Moltmann would also have to be edited. --Jaiotu 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What view?

What's the Reformed take on eschatology? Would they accept ignaugurated eschatology; an already-and-not-yet idea? If there is not specific stance, what do road do we want to take here? JordanBarrett (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an article in itself! The short answer is that now, it depends whom you ask. Over here, amill is preferred, with allowances made for postmill (v. rare) and historic premill. Dispy premill is looked upon with some admixture of condescension and confusion; it seems impossible to us that it should be possible to be Reformed and dispensational. I guess you guys can answer for Americans. Historically, it gets controversial. Amills (naturally) claim that the Reformed confessions are amill, and that, although Calvin didn't like speculation on such questions, he was basically amill, too. [1] Other types may well answer otherwise.

Of course, I'd prefer amill to be the preferred option, but that's not likely. My big concern is that dispy premill not be presented as a valid option; beyond that, I'm willing to let each view point have its voice. Better get back to work. Wooster (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I'm wondering more about a Reformed take on say, the Kingdom of God rather than the time and extent of the millenium. Is the KoG here? Partially? Fully? Is it completely future? I'm wondering what the Reformed take is on this instead. That's more what I'm getting at. ;) JordanBarrett (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In my estimation you may find amill, postmill, and historic premill among those who are "legitimately" Reformed. But as Wooster mentioned, dispensational premill is specifically excluded. I had thought that R. C. Sproul was amillennial, but it seems he is postmillennial (see January 1999 issue of Tabletalk) and a partial (moderate) preterist (see his The Last Days According to Jesus). I would think that amill is the majority view among Reformed. It is my understanding that the amill sees the Kingdom of God as inaugurated at Christ's first advent and to be consummmated at his second advent. Jim, . . . Gomarus 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I had class with Gregory Beale last night (an amill), and he mentioned (and confirms what Jim said) that Sproul is a partial preterist. JordanBarrett (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JB: Ah, with you. Of course, in one sense, the "millennial question" is the acid test of one's view of the Kingdom. I know it sounds like elevating a minor part of Scripture over the rest, and I would agree, but for the fact that one's view of the Kingdom seems inalienable from one's view of the Millennium. Why the smaller view (Millennium) got chosen as the test and not the bigger (Kingdom) is beyond me. But in my estimation, one of the big Reformed contributions to theology is the idea of the now-and-not-yet. Speaking from my experience, which is to say, among British Reformed folk (mostly baptistic), a view of the Kingdom as being inaugurated at the Cross/Resurrection/Incarnation and fulfilled at the Second Coming is the most prevalent. Wooster (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think that this article needs to be "beefed up" to something more than what it is now, considering that it is a permanent link on the main page. Additionally, it should be mentioned that ideas about the "End Times" have often undergone a greater degree of innovation than other areas of theology since it is rare than one's view of eschatology impacts one's orthodoxy.

For instance, Dispensationalists, Historicists and Partial Preterists all affirm the future Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Body as it is understood in the most ancient creeds and confessions, thereby maintining orthodoxy. However, Full Preterists deny both the future Second Coming and the Bodily Resurrection which is a denial of what has historically been seen as Orthodoxy. The Full Preterist would counter this claim, however, by referencing Sola Scriptura and denying any value to the creeds and confessions.

I believe the dominant "Reformed" position of eschatology is the Historicist view, although Partial Preterism seems to be gaining ground, particularly through the influence of R. C. Sproul and some other well respected theologians. --Jaiotu 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call Jaiotu. I would like to see this article receive a lot of content too. For those who feel able, please add what you can to the article. I will try and do the same when I can between class and reading.

Wooster, that makes more sense. My knowledge is pretty weak in certain areas of eschatology, so it's good to know that inaugurated eschatology falls in the Reformed camp (or even came from it). However, I'm not sure I agree that one's position on the Millenium determines their view on the Kingdom. For example, during my class with Beale last night, he's an amill and holds to inaugurated eschatology. We were talking about progressive dispensationalists, and most of them believe in the already and not yet (e.g., Bock). To me, when you're talking of the Kingdom, you're dealing with what's here and what's future. I don't see why even those who believe the millenium is future can't believe that the end times have begun, or have been inaugurated. Perhaps this needs to go to the forum. ;) JordanBarrett (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

Should the following really be a whole section in the end times page? And given Moltmann's theology, shouldn't we get quotes from people more representative of traditional, evangelical protestantism? -Aaron Shafovaloff 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As a basis for Moltmann's theology of hope

Jürgen Moltmann states that "eschatology means the doctrine of Christian hope, which embraces both the object hoped for and also the hope inspired by it. From first to last, and not merely in epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore is also revolutionizing and transforming the present. The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but is the medium of Christian faith as such, the key in which everything in it is set, the glow that suffuses everything here in the dawn of an expected new day,"^[1]

Moltmann's eschatology is big enough in the global sphere of eschatology that it doesn't hurt to leave it there. True, Moltmann is not a traditional or conservative evangelical per se, but his theology of hope does have some great things to say. In other words, I think we can be selective and insert the best parts of his theology. Jordan Barrett (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)