Eschatology

"In Heaven, We Will Be Bowing Down Before the Throne of God 24/7" . . . And Other Stupid Statements

My tenth installment into the “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” Series.

Premise: We often make heaven such an esoteric place that no one really wants to go there.

Since I was young, I was excited about getting to heaven. We all were. I remember when my mother told my older sister, Kristie (yes, my wife’s name is also Kristie), about heaven. She told her that Christ was going to come someday to take us there. Upon hearing this, Kristie quickly ran out of the room. When my mother called to her and asked her way she was leaving so abruptly, she said, “I am going to get my shoes so I can be ready to go.”

But I also remember having my hopes dashed by something that produced a great amount of guilt. During a Sunday School session, while we were discussing heaven, the question on the table was if heaven was forever, what were we going to be doing all that time. Wouldn’t we be bored? The teacher responded in a way that is representative of many people’s understanding of heaven: “When we get to heaven, we will be bowing down before the thrown of God twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.”

Talk about taking the wind out of the Superman sails of a little boy such as myself! I had big plans for heaven (which included flying 3-5 hours a day). It was hard enough for me to bow down before the throne of God for five minutes a day, much less for all eternity 24/7. Simply and unspiritually put, that does not sound like too much fun. The answer was always the same when I would timidly admit my fear of ultimate and eternal boredom: “When you are in heaven, sinless and in perfect submission to God’s will, you will be perfectly and joyfully content bowing before the throne of God all day, everyday.”

I would think to myself (although I would never admit it), I am not sure that I want to go there. I mean, I love God and certainly don’t mind bowing before him, but 24/7? If this is something that I will enjoy, it probably is not really me in the resurrection. For years I lived with the unspoken shame that I did not really want to go to heaven.

It was not until many years later that this burden of guilt and fear was taken off my shoulders. It was not until then that I found out that “When we get to heaven, we will be bowing down before the throne of God 24/7″ was a stupid statement.

Where it comes from:

As best I can tell and remember, the primary reason why many people believe this is from the book of Revelation: Continue Reading »

"When We Get to Heaven, We Will Be Timeless" . . . And Other Stupid Statements

Continuing with my series — “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” —

I would like to register a complaint. In truth, I would like to register many complaints about the common Christian view of the afterlife, but I start here. This complaint is important because it not only represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the afterlife (i.e. heaven), but of the very nature of God, for to have this view of the afterlife, one must either be some sort of modified pantheist or an atheist.

Let me make my proposition and then repeat the above charge:

The statement, “When we get to heaven, we will be timeless” represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theology. To have this view of the afterlife, one must either be, as I said, either a modified pantheist or an atheist.

Much of Christian theology carries the assumption that in eternity (heaven), believers will be like God, timeless. This belief goes back quite some time in pop theology.

Notice the concept in the hymn “Almighty Father of Mankind” (emphases added in all)

Therefore in life I’ll trust in Thee,
In death I will adore;
And after death will sing Thy praise
When time shall be no more.

Or how about “The Christian’s Guide,”

When old earth shall cease to travel,
And when time shall be no more,
With our loved ones we will gather
Over on the other shore,
Where all sorrow will be over,
Where all tears are wiped away,
Where with angel voices blending
We shall sing in endless day.

Or take this stanza by James Thomson (1700-1748) in “A Poem Sacred to the Memory of Sir Isaac Newton,”

While in expectance of the second life,
When time shall be no more, they sacred dust
Sleeps with her kings, and dignifies the scene

Or how about the most well known “When the Roll is Called up Yonder,”

When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound, and time shall be no more,
And the morning breaks, eternal, bright and fair;
When the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore,
And the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.

If that were not enough “evidence” for our expectation of future timeless existence, we also have biblical proof:

Revelation 10:6: “And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer” (emphasis mine).

But I don’t believe that there will ever be a time when Christians (or any of creation) will experience timelessness. I believe that we will always experience a succession of moments. There will always be a past, present, and future for the Christian. Continue Reading »

Converse with Scholars at the Credo House: Mark Hitchcock and the World's End in 2012

Here is something that you may yet to have heard of. It is the supposed worlds in in 2012 predicted by the Mayan calendar. There is a 200 million dollar moving coming out at Christmas about this. It is something about which pastors and, indeed, all Christians need to be aware.

Mark was invited to the Credo House to discuss this because of his resent studies in the area and his new book on the subject.

Mark Hitchcock – 2012, The Bible, and the End of the World from Michael Patton on Vimeo.

The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times

One theologian has said that there are two extremes when it comes to studying eschatology (the doctrine of the end times): Eschatomania and Eschatophobia.

Eschatomaniacs talk about nothing else but the end times. With charts in hand they are ready to give the “Gospel of the end times” to whoever will listen. Their “Gospel,” however, is primarily concerned with issues of the Millennium, the timing of the Rapture, the details of the Tribulation, and the Anti-Christ.

Eschatophobics are a product—a reactionary product—of Eschatomaniacs. Because of the emphasis that many would place on the end times, believing that it is all there is, Eschatophobics shy away from any discussions, commitments, or teaching on the end times. It is seen as “unacademic” and counterproductive to the Gospel.

I believe that both of these extremes are unhealthy for the church and are taking their toll on Evangelical theology. I think that issues of eschatology are being relegated to second-class citizens of theology.

As of today, the score is eschatophobia 10, eschatomania 3. Point eschatophobia. Even at Dallas Theological Seminary, the bastion of dispensational theology, the issues are not discussed much. At least that is how it had become when I was there. The respectable positions are in the New and Old Testament and historic theology departments. Not many people are sought to chair the theology department because of their stature in the area of eschatology. It is simply not in vogue anymore. It is the forgotten Gospel of the End Times.

There are several reasons for this, justified or not.

1. Weary of the eschatology debate. Not unlike issues with creationism, the issue of Eschatology has been smothered over the last century. Theologians have fought far too much over the details of the end times and people are tired of being divided. We are living in a century that is seeking to mend old wounds and let theological bygones be bygones (for better or for worse). Many are attempting to live by the dictum “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity”‘ the dictum, though, is playing out this way, “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, silence . . .” Continue Reading »

Tom Schreiner on the Millennium . . . and So Much More

I have always been a great fan of Dr. Tom Schreiner. He is an outstanding Bible commentator and New Testament theologian. But more than this he is balanced and has a good understanding of not only the issues, but the significance of the issues.

In this audio from a sermon that he preached a few weeks ago on Rev. 20, he demonstrates this balance through his comments during his exposition of Revelation 20 and the millennium. He candidly shows how he is not studying to tote any traditional banner. Notice that he reveals that during this particular study, he changed his position from that of a Amillennialist to that of one who believes the millennium is yet future. As interesting as this is to me, as I am a premillennialist, this is not what struck me most. It is the way he speaks about how you and I are to prioritize doctrine and hold those things that are not clearly revealed loosely and humbly. What a champion he is of mine.

Listen closely.

 
icon for podpress  Tom Schreiner on Revelation 20 [38:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The End Times – Across the Spectrum

Considering how the issues of prophecy continue to be one of the most popular and interest gaining subjects in theology, I thought it well worth my time to write a short primer on how to look at eschatological schemes. Eschatology refers to the “doctrine of the end times.” To be sure, there is no one “Christian” eschatology. In fact, there is not even one “Evangelical” eschatology. The history of the church has seen and allowed for much diversity concerning these issues due, in my opinion, to the relative obscurity of the Scripture on the subject. The central issue that is agreed upon by all orthodox Christians over the last 2000 years is that in the last days, Christ will come, there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a judgment to follow. Please keep that in mind.

There are a lot of fancy words used to describe how one might label themselves with regard to end-time issues. Pre-Millennial, Post-Tribulational, historicist, Chiliastic, Preterist and the like are among these labels. My only goal here is to try to clear the table and help people construct a basic structure of the spectrum of eschatology.

There are two categories that I am going to introduce. Then I will follow by showing how these categories relate to the various positions held. These two categories are “Approach” and “Event.” As you will see there is an approach taken to each event. The events describe broad categories that are separated because of the nature, timing, and interpretation of the events they represent.  

Category #1: Approach

Preterist: Belief that the event(s) happened in the past.

Historicist: Belief that the event(s) happen throughout history.

Idealist: Belief that the event(s) are symbolic or parabolic and are always present.

Futurist: Belief that the event(s) are yet future.

Category #2: Events

Event #1: Tribulation: This describes many apocalyptic happenings described primarily in Matt. 24 and Revelation 4-19. Included in this category is the anti-Christ, bowls of wrath, 144,000 witnesses, the Mark of the Beast, and the like. 

Event #2: Millennium: This describes the reign of Christ on the present earth (e.g. before the new creation).

Event #3: The Second Coming and The New Creation: This describes the judgment and the creation of the new heaven and the new earth. Continue Reading »

Why I Don't Teach Preterism

It looks like I am getting some flack from some passionate Preterists (full or hyper Preterist, not partial preterists) who say I don’t give them a fair shake in The Theology Program material. Saying that I don’t give people a fair shake disturbs me very much as our program prides itself all being “fair and balanced.”

But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogant statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. Continue Reading »

How Do I Fit Rewards into My Grace Centered Theology? A Theology of Rewards


Rewards in heaven. I hope to have some, but the idea of rewards in heaven is difficult to fit into my theology. My mother used to say, “As long as I make it, I don’t care if I am riding a tricycle.”

Christ taught that there will be rewards in heaven. Each person will receive a certain “bonus” according to his deeds. Listen to this:

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:19-21 19)

What do we do with this? If I was in the hearing of Christ at this time, I would have asked him some questions:

1. “Jesus, how do we get these rewards?”

2. “Jesus, I thought that redemption—everlasting life—was our reward. Are you saying that we are going to have rewards on top of this reward? A ‘heavenly bonus’?”

3. “Jesus, does everyone receive the same rewards?”

Finally, assuming that I know the answer to these first two (which I think I do), I would ask one final question:

4. “Jesus, what is the decisive cause of these rewards, our works or your grace?”

If it is of grace then it is not of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). Therefore the answer to the first question would have to be “good deeds.” The context to this statement in Matt. 6 is not seeking the rewards of men by pridefully praying or putting on a long face while fasting in public to be seen as holy. Do all things in secret “and your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (v. 18). This implies that there will be rewards in addition to eternal life. That takes care of question two.

In answer to question three is easy. That everyone does not get the same amount of rewards is evident. Not only does the passage above necessarily imply this, Luke 19 and the parable of the minas teaches us as much also. As well, Paul instructs us telling the Corinthians that there will be a time of reckoning for our rewards. At this time, some people’s rewards works will be tested and found wanting. Though their salvation is secure, some people’s rewards will be lost. (i.e. They will not get much of a bonus).

“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:12-15)

This would include those people who fast and pray for the praise of men. Their heavenly reward will be burned up, though their life is secure in God. 

How do I fit this into my theology?

It is the fourth question (”What is the decisive cause of these rewards, our works or your grace”) that causes me to ponder with some confusion. Since my salvation is by grace alone without any reference to works (Rom. 11:6), then are we saying that the added bonus we receive after the resurrection is by works?

I see a couple of options:

1. No, not at all. While works are necessary for these rewards, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, we will not receive any glory for this “bonus.” This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was ultimately responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10).

Salvation=God’s grace alone, without the aid of human effort. (Monergistic)

Rewards=God’s grace alone, fueled by necessary human effort. (Synergistic)

This presents significant problems, especially for a Protestant who believes in sola fide (salvation by faith alone—not works), for this is just the same thing that Catholic doctrine says about the relationship of grace and works with regard to salvation. Why can’t they say the same thing about salvation that we can say about rewards and say that it is of grace alone also? Do you see the problem? If not, just replace “rewards” with “salvation” in the option 1 above. Here, let me do it for you.

“While works are necessary for salvation, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, we will not receive any glory for this “bonus.” This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was ultimately responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10).

In other words, if you are going to go this direction with rewards and define “grace alone” in a synergistic way, why would you have problems with Catholic theology that does the same thing with the issue of salvation? “Grace alone” cannot mean two different things can it?

2. Yes, rewards, unlike salvation, are a result of our good works plus grace. In this, we are fully responsible for what we do or don’t do to earn them. It is both an opportunity and a motivation for us to live a life pleasing to the Lord. While the Lord gets the credit for giving us the opportunity and provides us with the strength to earn these rewards, we have the ultimate deciding factor. In this sense, we get what we earned.

Salvation=God’s grace alone, human effort cannot contribute. (Monergistic)

Rewards=God’s grace plus human effort. (Synergistic)

This is the position that I take. I think that it best evidences the Scriptural teaching on the subject. Justification is by grace alone without any regards to human effort. If human effort did play a part, grace is not grace. However, I believe that a theology of rewards must recognize that human effort plays a decisive role in the rewards we receive.

What does this mean? It means that we have an opportunity beyond anything we could ever imagine. When Christ said to store up your treasures in heaven . . . he was serious. Christians should not cop-out on this issue saying “As long as I have my salvation, I am happy. I don’t care about rewards.” This is to deny Christ’s right to use rewards to push us toward good deeds. It is to say that you are “above” Christ’s motivation.

I am very uncomfortable thinking of this in such a way as it does seem self-serving. In a way, what I am saying about rewards is very similar to what Catholics say about salvation. It is God’s grace that gives us the opportunity, but my effort is ultimately determinative.

But if God has commanded us and motived us in such a way, don’t you think we need to conform our thinking to his?

At the very least, this should help you to understand how Catholics can say that salvation is by grace alone, but human effort is necessary.

What say you? What is your theology of rewards?

Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel?

In a recent episode of Theology Unplugged (solo version), I made a comment that I was challenged to reconsider through an email correspondence. My statement had to do with my position concerning the viability of full or hyper-Preterism as a Christian option. Hyper-Preterism is the belief held by some (a growing number) in the Church concerning the the end times. In essence, it is the belief of hyper-Preterists that all the prophetic events of Scripture have already been fulfilled. Christians are not waiting for the coming of Christ in any sense or the judgment. As well, the resurrection has already happened (in a spiritual sense) and we are living in the new heavens and the new earth. Once we die, our body simply goes to the grave. . . . Bummer, huh?

During this program I said that hyper-preterism is definitely unorthodox, finding its antithetical opposite affirmed from the earliest Christianity until now by all traditions of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant). All Christians have always affirmed that Christ’s return, the resurrection of the dead, judgment, and the new heavens and earth are yet future, even if we disagree about the details.

However, I also said on the program that while this doctrine is an unorthodox or heretical view of eschatology, it is not a doctrine that is damnable in the sense that if one believes it, they are, by definition, not Christian. The reason why I said this is because most hyper-Preterists would not deny the sinfulness of man, Christ’s death, burial, and physical resurrection, and our need for salvation by faith. Heck, most are even Calvinists! Therefore, in my mind, the essence of the Gospel was not at stake.

Dee Dee Warren, who often deals with these issues, wrote to me a very gracious email asking me to reconsider my position. In the email she took the time to give me a concise argument as to why she believes that hyper-Preterism is aberrant to such a degree that it destroys the very essence of the Gospel. Therefore, her position is that if one believes in hyper-Preterism—really believes in hyper-Preterism—then they don’t believe the true Gospel and, therefore, are not saved.

Having corresponded with her, I am beginning to seriously reconsider. I think she may be right and my previous postition wrong.

Dee Dee was kind enough to allow me to post her response here on the blog below. Read it. I would like your thoughts. Is the Gospel of hyper-Preterism a different Gospel to the degree that it destroys the essence of the true Gospel? That is my question for you.

(Please note: this is not simply about defining who is in and who is out, but about the content of the Gospel. It needs to be thought through.)

______________________________

“Michael,

I had listened to your audio program on orthodoxy episode 2, and though I agreed with 99% of what you said, I heard one thing that caused me enough alarm to write. In that program, you said that while hyperpreterism is heretical, it does not deny any foundational Christian beliefs; thus, its adherents are still Christians. Because this is my particular area of specialty, I couldn’t disagree more. I, like you, am very cautious in labeling some beliefs as placing one outside the faith. I, like you, hold to a progressive orthodoxy as you explained in episode 3. Therefore, I am appealing to you on the basis of our shared understanding.

Thus, the question then becomes, what are foundational Christian beliefs? I think we can all agree that the Trinity, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and Jesus’ atoning death on the cross all belong in that category. However, all of the earliest confessions of the historic church, be they in teachings or in formalized statements such as in the Apostles’ Creed, affirm the future bodily resurrection of the dead, the future bodily return of Christ, and the future final judgment. One cannot deny those things and be said to have a Christian belief system. This isn’t simply a matter of arguing about the timing of "the rapture." I would argue, that even without formally recognizing those other categories, hyperpreterism denies the Gospel itself.

I have laid out the case for this position here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrengrave.html

Hyperpreterist David Green is one of the few hyperpreterists with the backbone to admit this fact. Here is what he said in a response to Keith Mathison:

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

The only addition I made to that quote is the word "full." It is David himself who retracted his earlier position of "possibly damnable doctrine" to "definitely damnable doctrine." Ever since I pointed that out in 2005, David came under fire from fellow hyperpreterists for his admission. Is it a coincidence that the article in which that appeared can no longer be found? Well, thank God for the Internet Archive from 3/18/05:

see here

Read it, it is enlightening. And David is right. If he is wrong, he is teaching and believing damnable heresy. David had to do some damage control after I pointed this out, and I interacted with his further points here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41

As we discussed in our emails, Paul specifically condemned a denial of the future bodily resurrection in the strongest possible terms. In 1 Cor 15, denying the bodily resurrection of believers is tantamount to denying the resurrection of Christ. Why? Because He is the prototype, the firstfruits. If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised, for He was one of the dead, and we are still in our sins. How is that? Because Christ is the second Adam, and in hyperpreterism, the second Adam fails at redeeming all that the first Adam lost. The world stays forever in the grip of sin – there is never a consummation. Paul further instructed Timothy that Hymenaeus and Philetus, who said that the resurrection was past, were a gangrenous cancer in the body and causing the shipwreck of the faith of some. This Scripture holds true today – hyperpreterism has caused the shipwreck of faith and churches as its adherents doggedly smuggle it in. I can bring forth the testimony of elders and pastors to substantiate this (it is documented on my site).

Further a logical conclusion of hyperpreterism is that Christ is no longer our mediator. Why? Because His special messianic reign is co-extant with his mediatorial role. Once the resurrection event of 1 Cor 15 happens, Christ gives up that role and all power, authority, and dominion have been placed under His feet – conquered once and for all. Yet in hyperpreterism evil really is never conquered fully once for all – they claim it has, and thus must deny its present reality. This is worthy of Christian Science.

Please I implore you, do not give those holding this cultic teaching the false security of merely being grossly mistaken brethren, and more importantly, don’t expose the brethren to this kind of teaching under the banner of Christian fellowship. This is not Christianity.

On a side note, I had also encouraged you to adopt the terms preterism (or orthodox preterism) and hyperpreterism, for clarity and reality. I have written a piece on this as well at http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrensemantics.html. At that link is also a podcast that I recorded a few weeks ago on this issue of terminology. It is long but very precise and detailed.

I thank you so very much for your time and consideration.

Dee Dee Warren

A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”

 
You may be familiar with a book called 90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death & Life written by Don Piper (not to be confused with John Piper) and Cecil Murphey. It has been on the New York Times and Amazon best seller list since its release in 2004. In the book, Don Piper describes his experience of being in a car wreck where he was pronounced dead by the paramedics. During his death Piper describes the details of his “90 minutes in heaven.”

It is not my intention here to evaluate the validity of near-death experiences in general, but to ask some questions concerning this on in particular. This is not an easy thing for me to do as I believe Don Piper probably sincerely trusts the Lord and truly believes that his experience that evening was a miracle where the God showed him a glimpse of heaven.   Continue Reading »

Next Page »