• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Does, or can, our eschatological beliefs have an effect on our soteriology?

Carbon

Admin
Joined
May 19, 2023
Messages
5,902
Reaction score
5,098
Points
138
Location
New England
Faith
Reformed
Country
USA
Marital status
Married
Politics
Conservative
I have asked this question elsewhere, but here it is again.

Can our prophetic interpretation influence or condition our understanding of salvation by faith?

Doesn’t each eschatological system have its own form of hermeneutical methods? I believe they do and effect how we understand scripture in general.

Can our view affect the way we view and understand God’s wrath on Christ on the cross?
 
A few thoughts to start with this.
In dispensationalism, God has two plans for to peoples.
One plan for Israel and another for the church.
I believe looking at the cross in the dipsy way could influence one’s beliefs on this. Are the sacrifices something that will, after Christ returns be re-established in the 1000-year earthly millennium?
Or, we’re these sacrifices types and shadows, which are fulfilled in Christ?
 
I have asked this question elsewhere, but here it is again.

Can our prophetic interpretation influence or condition our understanding of salvation by faith?
Definitely
Doesn’t each eschatological system have its own form of hermeneutical methods?
But it's not just the hermeneutical method that produces the problem. In fact, I could argue that it is more the other way around.
I believe they do and effect how we understand scripture in general.
True.
Can our view affect the way we view and understand God’s wrath on Christ on the cross?
Yes, and finally that, (not so much the hermeneutical method), is at the root of your question, "Can our prophetic interpretation influence or condition our understanding of salvation by faith?" That is closer to the problem than the hermeneutical method is.

You probably would guess what I think about it —that in the end the humanocentric insistence on self-determinism is at the core of the problem. Or humanocentrism itself is.
 
Doesn’t each eschatological system have its own form of hermeneutical methods? I believe they do and effect how we understand scripture in general.
I also, along with @makesends above, believe you have this backwards. It is one's hermeneutic method of how scripture is understood in general that affects one's eschatological system - not the other way around.

I believe looking at the cross in the dipsy way could influence one’s beliefs on this. Are the sacrifices something that will, after Christ returns be re-established in the 1000-year earthly millennium?
Or, we’re these sacrifices types and shadows, which are fulfilled in Christ?
The literal thousand-year millennium of Revelation 20 was in itself a type and shadow that was fulfilled and "expired" on Christ's resurrection-day ascension to the Father.

Can our prophetic interpretation influence or condition our understanding of salvation by faith?
Oh yes indeed. It most definitely tells us what we are saved FROM. The fate of the wicked dead as found in scripture is not what I thought it would be (as I was once taught from childhood upward by premil-disp. teachers and parents). Likewise, the two-sided salvation system they present continually pits Jews against Gentiles throughout history when the apostle Paul told us that under the New Covenant, God no more regarded humanity with these segregated groups anymore ("...there is neither Jew not Greek...").
 
I also, along with @makesends above, believe you have this backwards. It is one's hermeneutic method of how scripture is understood in general that affects one's eschatological system - not the other way around.
I'm of the opinion that is incorrect. Actually, one eschatological system, for example, Dispensationalism is IMO from faulty hermeneutics. Dipsys have to look at the word in such a way that stays consistent with their beliefs.

The literal thousand-year millennium of Revelation 20 was in itself a type and shadow that was fulfilled and "expired" on Christ's resurrection-day ascension to the Father.
I believe the 1000 years shows a season of time, it is not a literal 1000 years.
h yes indeed. It most definitely tells us what we are saved FROM. The fate of the wicked dead as found in scripture is not what I thought it would be (as I was once taught from childhood upward by premil-disp. teachers and parents). Likewise, the two-sided salvation system they present continually pits Jews against Gentiles throughout history when the apostle Paul told us that under the New Covenant, God no more regarded humanity with these segregated groups anymore ("...there is neither Jew not Greek...").
 
Dispensationalism is IMO from faulty hermeneutics.
Yes, it certainly is. That proves that the faulty hermeneutics precede the faulty result of dispensationalist teaching.

I believe the 1000 years shows a season of time, it is not a literal 1000 years.
Well, a season (kairos in scripture) is defined as a specific period of time set apart for God's predetermined purpose. There is no reason why the "expired" end of the millennium when it was "fulfilled" (as in Revelation 20:3 & 7) can't be at the end of a literal period of a literal thousand years - set apart for God's predetermined purpose of binding Satan's deception of the nations. The millennium served as a type and shadow that was "fulfilled" and "expired" at the "First resurrection" - which was that of Christ in AD 33. Whether you believe it was a literal thousand years or not, that was the exact time when the millennium ended. It's not supposed to be that complicated.

Premil-disp. adherents take the millennium and construct all kinds of exaggerated, preposterous conditions around it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it certainly is. That proves that the faulty hermeneutics precede the faulty result of dispensationalist teaching.


Well, a season (kairos in scripture) is defined as a specific period of time set apart for God's predetermined purpose. There is no reason why the "expired" end of the millennium when it was "fulfilled" (as in Revelation 20:3 & 7) can't be at the end of a literal period of a literal thousand years - set apart for God's predetermined purpose of binding Satan's deception of the nations. The millennium served as a type and shadow that was "fulfilled" and "expired" at the "First resurrection" - which was that of Christ in AD 33. Whether you believe it was a literal thousand years or not, that was the exact time when the millennium ended. It's not supposed to be that complicated.

Premil-disp. adherents take the millennium and construct all kinds of exaggerated, preposterous conditions around it.
Well, I'm Amilennial. In case you didn't know.
 
I have asked this question elsewhere, but here it is again.

Can our prophetic interpretation influence or condition our understanding of salvation by faith?

Doesn’t each eschatological system have its own form of hermeneutical methods? I believe they do and effect how we understand scripture in general.

Can our view affect the way we view and understand God’s wrath on Christ on the cross?
it seems odd to say, since we all are the body of Christ. But I think it effects many things. and can even effect the way we walk
 
A few thoughts to start with this.
In dispensationalism, God has two plans for to peoples.
One plan for Israel and another for the church.
I believe looking at the cross in the dipsy way could influence one’s beliefs on this. Are the sacrifices something that will, after Christ returns be re-established in the 1000-year earthly millennium?
Or, we’re these sacrifices types and shadows, which are fulfilled in Christ?
As a dispensational believer. I can say with assurance that except for a few (I have only personally met two) this is not what true dispensational thinking says

The gospel has been by grace through faith from the beginning? No one was ever saved by the law.. So there is not one gospel for one group and another for the other group..

But this does bring in a thought.. Does our eschatology cause us to see things that may not be as they appear
 
I also, along with @makesends above, believe you have this backwards. It is one's hermeneutic method of how scripture is understood in general that affects one's eschatological system - not the other way around.


The literal thousand-year millennium of Revelation 20 was in itself a type and shadow that was fulfilled and "expired" on Christ's resurrection-day ascension to the Father.
it was? (another hermeneutical view?)
Oh yes indeed. It most definitely tells us what we are saved FROM. The fate of the wicked dead as found in scripture is not what I thought it would be (as I was once taught from childhood upward by premil-disp. teachers and parents). Likewise, the two-sided salvation system they present continually pits Jews against Gentiles throughout history when the apostle Paul told us that under the New Covenant, God no more regarded humanity with these segregated groups anymore ("...there is neither Jew not Greek...").
There is no two sided salvation system. Dispensational theology (mainstream) does not teach this. it is an offshoot of the mainstream that are few in number.

Something tells me I will get frustrated in this thread.
 
I'm of the opinion that is incorrect. Actually, one eschatological system, for example, Dispensationalism is IMO from faulty hermeneutics. Dipsys have to look at the word in such a way that stays consistent with their beliefs.
Actually we look at the word. and form our beliefs consistent with that
I believe the 1000 years shows a season of time, it is not a literal 1000 years.
Prophecy should be taken literally. God uses prophecy for a purpose. to prove (to those living) he is the one God that can look years in the future and tell us exactly what is happening.

if we symbolize prophecy, we take that purpose away.
 
Yes, it certainly is. That proves that the faulty hermeneutics precede the faulty result of dispensationalist teaching.
SMH
Well, a season (kairos in scripture) is defined as a specific period of time set apart for God's predetermined purpose. There is no reason why the "expired" end of the millennium when it was "fulfilled" (as in Revelation 20:3 & 7) can't be at the end of a literal period of a literal thousand years - set apart for God's predetermined purpose of binding Satan's deception of the nations. The millennium served as a type and shadow that was "fulfilled" and "expired" at the "First resurrection" - which was that of Christ in AD 33. Whether you believe it was a literal thousand years or not, that was the exact time when the millennium ended. It's not supposed to be that complicated.
Satan has never been bound. If we look at the world. and think satan has been or is bound, and read the prophecies concerning this time, and the peace that Jesus will bring with it. We can not come to the conclusion satan is or ever has been bound.
Premil-disp. adherents take the millennium and construct all kinds of exaggerated, preposterous conditions around it.
Oh Boy :(
 
As a dispensational believer. I can say with assurance that except for a few (I have only personally met two) this is not what true dispensational thinking says

The gospel has been by grace through faith from the beginning? No one was ever saved by the law.. So there is not one gospel for one group and another for the other group..

But this does bring in a thought.. Does our eschatology cause us to see things that may not be as they appear
@Carbon 's post did not say two different means of salvation, but rather two plans for two people. Dispensationalism does have two plans for two people. First the church consisting of believing Gentiles and Jews. Then they are removed for a thousand years while God deals with Israel separately. In many forms of Dispensationalism (and there is more than one) during that thousand years he takes Israel back (backwards) to the types and shadows of the old covenant as a memorial. Which, memorial or not, has believers sacrificing rams and bulls, even as Christ is sitting on the throne (as they say.)
 
I have asked this question elsewhere, but here it is again.

Can our prophetic interpretation influence or condition our understanding of salvation by faith?
ABSOLUTELY!

There are two chief avenues of effect. The first has to do with the way we now live our lives and the seond has to do with our doctrine of salvation.

An example of the first influence can be summarized in the simple state, "The way you believe the world will end has an effect on how you now live your life." If, on one hand you believe God is sovereign and now ruling on earth over the earth and do not create false dichotomies between Jesus needing to be "physically" on the earth in order to rule (an anthropomorphized version of "physical"), and understand Christ's sovereignty applies to the saints, then you step outside your door each morning proactively seeking to subdue the earth and rule over it, making disciples of all the nations and teaching Christ's commands with corresponding confidence as a royal priest bade on the guidance and empowerment God has provided your knowledge that morning's devotional time. If, on the other hand, you believe the world is going to hell in a hand basket, or will do so any day now, then it is incumbent upon you to believe in a manner consistent with that belief. Long term investments would be a poor use of material blessings, like the servant who buried his talent in the ground..... exactly where an earthquake opens up the earth and that wealth falls into a chasm - never to be retrieved again. It's a total loss. While investing fruitlessly you'll continue to tell everyone all your speculations about the never-coming imminent danger of being left behind making yourself a false prophet who most Christians grow to distrust because nothing you "teach" eschatologically ever comes true. In other words, to the degree that salvation is for good works that God has planned in advance for us to perform, on example zealously embraces that role with confidence and success while the other may or may not do so but it's ultimately inconsistent with his or her eschatology. Those two examples do nothing for the Christian how believes works are causal in salvation :(.

Doctrinally speaking, if the Jews must first regain their land, build a temple, reconstitute the Levitical priesthood, and/or re-establish animal sacrifices and an earthly monarchy where Jesus sits on a physical throne made by some man who followed the Old Testament guidelines before the Jews will come to salvation..... then that is a works-based salvation and the subscriber holds to two means of salvation (one by grace alone and the other by grace-plus-works).

So.... two different ways eschatology can (and does) affect soteriology.
Doesn’t each eschatological system have its own form of hermeneutical methods?
No.

Or perhaps it is best to say, not necessarily. Dispensational Premillennialism (DP), for example, teaches to use the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Anyone can use that hermeneutic, regardless of their eschatology or soteriology. In point of fact the difference between DP ism and everyone else is that the DPists do so because their theology dictates it (cart before the horse) while everyone else derives their theology from the use of hermeneutics. Everyone else is, therefore, also at liberty to use other hermeneutical models, such as a redemptive-historical model. The chief difference between one groups use of a given hermeneutic and another group's use of the same model is consistency. For example, DPism teaches a literal reading of scripture but in practice that is not done with much consistency and the result is a literalistic reading, not a literal reading. Most Christians accept the validity of a multiple approaches model, considering literal, allegory, anagogical, and other ways of reading scripture ALL correct as determined 1) by the text itself and 2) the precedent set by the authors of scripture.
I believe they do and effect how we understand scripture in general. Can our view affect the way we view and understand God’s wrath on Christ on the cross?
Yes, but I think that question needs clarification to be addressed correctly relevant to eschatology's effect on one's doctrine of salvation.
 
God does not have separate plans for separate people

In the mellinial reign, God rules THE WORLD with a rod of Iron. He treats and judges the world the same. it is not all about Israel. The only thing different is Israel will have fulfilled the second part of the plan God had for them.

The OT says nations or families of the earth will come to Jerusalem to worship the king. and those who do not will be punished..
 
God does not have separate plans for separate people
Thats correct, He dose not.
In the mellinial reign, God rules THE WORLD with a rod of Iron. He treats and judges the world the same. it is not all about Israel. The only thing different is Israel will have fulfilled the second part of the plan God had for them.
We are in the Millennium.
The OT says nations or families of the earth will come to Jerusalem to worship the king. and those who do not will be punished..
Dipsyism
 
Thats correct, He dose not.

We are in the Millennium.
when did Matt 24 take place?
Lets set dispyism (there is those isms again) aside and look to the word.

When did this happen.
will this happen,
if you do not think it will. why not?

Zech 14: 16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
 
when did Matt 24 take place?

Lets set dispyism (there is those isms again) aside and look to the word.

When did this happen.
will this happen,
if you do not think it will. why not?

Zech 14: 16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
In asking the question and giving the scripture, you are in effect asking someone to deconstruct the entire interpretive system of Dispensationalism (an ism you earlier claimed to be a part of) and reconstruct the entire Bible through the counter of the covenant interpretive method. Theologians have done that. I takes entire books to do so, and sometimes multiple volumes. But dIscounting "isms" as being irrelevant and a cause of confusion in these conversations is not possible. They are dealing with an "ism" which simply means the theological and doctrinal positions of particular ways of interpreting.

Reformed theology, which is covenant theology, does not see Israel in terms of land mass, but according to the promises fulfilled in Christ, and the NT and New Covenant as a forward moving continuation of the covenant with Israel to its spiritual aspects in Christ. All steps in God's complete purpose in redemption (all the land of earth containing his people, and creation restored). It gathers this understanding from the NT interpreting the things in the OT pertaining to redemption. In the NT we find that the land mass of Israel, and the descendants of Abraham concerned physical Israel, and the work of Christ (true and faithful Israel) brings in spiritual Israel. That is why the believer is said to be grafted into the root.

What covenant theology does not do is separate the church from Israel according to land boundaries and ethnicity, and times and/or means of redemption.

God made a covenant with Abraham that dealt with the establishing of a people through whom the Savior would come and giving them land boundaries that set them apart as uniquely the people of God (unique because he did not make a covenant with any other nation to to be their God). In this way God becomes "visible" to the surrounding nations, that they might see him by way of his power and actions as compared to their deaf and dumb god's who cannot who have no power and cannot speak, and can do nothing. At the same time God also covenanted with Abraham concerning the ultimate purpose of this, the one concerning spiritual Israel. Faith counted as righteousness, and not for just Israel, but for all nations and people, in Christ.

It did not begin with Israel but in the Garden of Eden. "He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel."
 
People should know when someone asks a question it is just to ask a question. When someone asks about a passage of scripture. One can just answer the question

If someone when a virgin birth happened or when gods servant came and the blind saw the lame spoke. Anyone can answer

You do not have to take apart or explain a doctrinal position to answer a question if you think you do. Something is wrong.

Just saying
 
People should know when someone asks a question it is just to ask a question. When someone asks about a passage of scripture. One can just answer the question
That would depend on what the question was and what the passage of scripture is. As I pointed out. To just answer that particular question, it would simply bring up more questions, and an argument over each one of them and on and on and on. The question is asked from a particular point of view---yours in this case---which uses dispensations as an interpretive framework for the entire Bible. And you are asking someone who used the interpretive framework of covenant for the entire Bible to interpret that one passage in a way that would satisfy you as having answered it. Sometimes that can be done, but not when you pull one set of scriptures that are prophetic in nature, are using it to mean one thing eschatalogically. OT prophecy does not work that way. So now arises the need to explain why it doesn't work that way and how it does work.

What I did say should have made clear why the Reformed position of covenant theology will never even begin to satisfy with its answer to one passage, the one who is dispensational. So I showed you what that difference is interpretively. That should have at least made you realize that you were asking something that needed to be deconstructed (Dispensationalism) and replacing it with the construction of the covenant method instead of the entire Bible. Covenant theology does not make the divisions that D'ism does. IOW I showed you why the question you were asking could not be answered by simply answering it. There is no way to do that.

And there is no reason to begin a conversation with a grudge.
 
Back
Top