Optimistic or Pessimistic Eschatology

[Mushroom]

In light of the threads on bad news about our society, I had a question about eschatologies.

I have tended towards an optimistic eschatological view for some time, more towards post- rather than a- millenialism, but not completely decided. In Sunday School last Lord's Day we were studying 1Peter 4:

1Pe 4:12-13 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

We also looked at other scriptures that speak of suffering being necessary for our sanctification and the glory of God, and the usual comments were made about how Christians in other countries suffer much more than we do in developed countries, and are therefore more spiritually blessed. It came to my mind that if persecutions and suffering for the faith are necessary things for a stronger Church, how can an optimistic eschatology be true? If things get better and better, wouldn't the Church become proportionately weaker and weaker?

Does that have any impact on eschatology or not? Why or why not?

 

[MrMerlin777]

Speaking as a realized millenialist (a-mil), I frankly don't see the pessimism that people (even some amillennial scholars) speak and write of.

Christ reigns, he is putting his enemies under his feet. The last enemy defeated will be death itself.

I just don't see how an eschatology of our victorious God can be considered pessimistic.

 

[rjlynam]

In light of the threads on bad news about our society, I had a question about eschatologies.

I have tended towards an optimistic eschatological view for some time, more towards post- rather than a- millenialism, but not completely decided. In Sunday School last Lord's Day we were studying 1Peter 4:

1Pe 4:12-13 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

We also looked at other scriptures that speak of suffering being necessary for our sanctification and the glory of God, and the usual comments were made about how Christians in other countries suffer much more than we do in developed countries, and are therefore more spiritually blessed. It came to my mind that if persecutions and suffering for the faith are necessary things for a stronger Church, how can an optimistic eschatology be true? If things get better and better, wouldn't the Church become proportionately weaker and weaker?

Does that have any impact on eschatology or not? Why or why not?

The Gospel does not go forth without opposition. I think the opposition is ultimalely the cause of the suffering of God's saints. If there were no opposition, there would be no agents working against God, right? Be it in the physical or spiritual sense.

So, yes, I would say that it does have an impact on eschatology, or at least understanding the cause and nature of suffering goes a long way in explaining circumstances around us, which, I think, ultimately affects our outlook.

 

[JohnV]

In light of the threads on bad news about our society, I had a question about eschatologies.

I have tended towards an optimistic eschatological view for some time, more towards post- rather than a- millenialism, but not completely decided. In Sunday School last Lord's Day we were studying 1Peter 4:

1Pe 4:12-13 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

We also looked at other scriptures that speak of suffering being necessary for our sanctification and the glory of God, and the usual comments were made about how Christians in other countries suffer much more than we do in developed countries, and are therefore more spiritually blessed. It came to my mind that if persecutions and suffering for the faith are necessary things for a stronger Church, how can an optimistic eschatology be true? If things get better and better, wouldn't the Church become proportionately weaker and weaker?

Does that have any impact on eschatology or not? Why or why not?

Again, Brad, the term "pessimism" is misapplied. That's not what it's referring to. In part, yes, it is referring to times getting tougher, but it is not referring to a lesser hope for the gospel. Don't confuse it. Amils see history worked out differently, not less gloriously. 'Pessimism' refers to a view of future history, and it is not a term that you find within a proper defence of Amillennialism; you would more likely find it in how Postmillennialists describe Amillennialism, rather than in how Amillennialists describe themselves. They don't see it as pessimistic; if they didn't believe in view with optimism it wouldn't really be a millennial view at all, would it?

 

[Mushroom]

Understood, John. The question was in reference to that view of future history, not in any way to a lesser hope for the gospel. It just seems that if the Church needs adversity to be strong, then adversity will be with us until the end of the age, perhaps even increasing in intensity the closer we are to that end. I was wondering how that affects an optimistic eschatology. It would seem to suggest something different if that is the right take. I was also wondering if that is the right take, that suffering is necessary for Christians.

 

[Roldan]

Understood, John. The question was in reference to that view of future history, not in any way to a lesser hope for the gospel. It just seems that if the Church needs adversity to be strong, then adversity will be with us until the end of the age, perhaps even increasing in intensity the closer we are to that end. I was wondering how that affects an optimistic eschatology. It would seem to suggest something different if that is the right take. I was also wondering if that is the right take, that suffering is necessary for Christians.

Good observation I like it

 

[rjlynam]

It just seems that if the Church needs adversity to be strong, then adversity will be with us until the end of the age, perhaps even increasing in intensity the closer we are to that end. I was wondering how that affects an optimistic eschatology. It would seem to suggest something different if that is the right take. I was also wondering if that is the right take, that suffering is necessary for Christians.

I don't know that the church needs adversity to be strong. What about the following instead:

"Active obedience to Jesus Christ invites adversity."

Take a look at the church in ACTS and the opposition faced for obedience to Christ. I think the adversity came in response to a strong church.



Hope this helps.

 

[Roldan]

It just seems that if the Church needs adversity to be strong, then adversity will be with us until the end of the age, perhaps even increasing in intensity the closer we are to that end. I was wondering how that affects an optimistic eschatology. It would seem to suggest something different if that is the right take. I was also wondering if that is the right take, that suffering is necessary for Christians.

I don't know that the church needs adversity to be strong. What about the following instead:

"Active obedience to Jesus Christ invites adversity."

Take a look at the church in ACTS and the opposition faced for obedience to Christ. I think the adversity came in response to a strong church.



Hope this helps.

I think Brad is speaking of Adversity in general not sure if he is concerned on how it comes but that we are not above our Master and will suffer like him making us stronger as James 1 and Rom. 5 tells us.

 

[JohnV]

Understood, John. The question was in reference to that view of future history, not in any way to a lesser hope for the gospel. It just seems that if the Church needs adversity to be strong, then adversity will be with us until the end of the age, perhaps even increasing in intensity the closer we are to that end. I was wondering how that affects an optimistic eschatology. It would seem to suggest something different if that is the right take. I was also wondering if that is the right take, that suffering is necessary for Christians.

It is not that the Church needs adversity to be strong, but rather that the Church is promised strength even in adversity.

There are adverse things that we have to face not because of sin that is in the world but because of sin that is in us. Because we are fallen we often will not face up to sin until forced to, and even then often miss the true impact of what the Word is telling us about holiness. The forces of evil have been turned by Christ so that it is to our advantage when they exaggerate the evil, thus making it all the more obvious to the elect. This forces us to face up to our own sins, because humility teaches us that we are no better, except for the grace of God.

Yet even in all this, it is not sin that strengthens the Church, but Christ who strengthens the Church even through adversity. We need adversity to face up to those things we are unwilling to face up to, but not to be strong in the Lord; for that we need the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work. So it is holiness that strengthens the Church, not adversity.

 

[Gryphonette]

I have never understood the whole "optimistic" versus "pessimistic" descriptive.

No matter what one's eschatological persuasion, so long as the end result is what the LORD has foreordained and desires surely precludes any possible "pessimistic" condemnation.

Which is probably not particularly germane WRT your OP. Sorry.

I must say, though, that's certainly an angle I've oft wondered about. Not only the fact that the Church has historically tended to grow best during persecution and hard times, but wouldn't that tend to make Scripture sound quaint toward the end? All those verses about how Christians must reject the world?

If "the world" is almost wholly given over to Christ prior to His coming back, I'd think that'd make those verses not make much sense to the people living in the postmil's vision of halcyon last days. "The devil's prowling around like a lion looking to devour us? Really? Where's that happening?"

In light of the threads on bad news about our society, I had a question about eschatologies.

I have tended towards an optimistic eschatological view for some time, more towards post- rather than a- millenialism, but not completely decided. In Sunday School last Lord's Day we were studying 1Peter 4:

1Pe 4:12-13 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

We also looked at other scriptures that speak of suffering being necessary for our sanctification and the glory of God, and the usual comments were made about how Christians in other countries suffer much more than we do in developed countries, and are therefore more spiritually blessed. It came to my mind that if persecutions and suffering for the faith are necessary things for a stronger Church, how can an optimistic eschatology be true? If things get better and better, wouldn't the Church become proportionately weaker and weaker?

Does that have any impact on eschatology or not? Why or why not?

 

[Peairtach]

Good point

I tend to be amill-postmill in my orientation, although I believe that the binding of Satan started during our Lord's ministry and is progressively going on apace as the Gospel spans the globe. There is progress in Satan's being dealt with by Christ in Revelation 20.

He seized the dragon

bound him for a thousand years

He threw him in the Abyss

locked it

sealed it over him

Even when the "Golden Age" of the millennium is at its height, there will still be problems in life. The Devil will be severely restricted and those who are unconverted will be at a minimum, but we will still have the flesh. Medical science may have advanced so that people live longer and war will be at an end, but we will still have to die.(e.g. Isaiah 65:20-25)

Even today, some Christians have it much easier than others, e.g. do not have long term illnesses, unemployment and poverty, physical persecution, but all Christians have to face the world, the flesh and the devil and God's chastisement in addition to the problems that humans generally face.

Another point is of course that postmils don't believe the world will be in good shape when Jesus returns, because there will be a falling away when Satan is released. But there must be something to fall away from.

Richard.

 

[Roldan]

:
Even when the "Golden Age" of the millennium is at its height, there will still be problems in life. The Devil will be severely restricted and those who are unconverted will be at a minimum, but we will still have the flesh. Medical science may have advanced so that people live longer and war will be at an end, but we will still have to die.(e.g. Isaiah 65:20-25)

Brother Richard, the Isa. passage you presented has nothing to do with an intermediate age between this present age and the Eternal state but refers to the Eternal state aka the New Heavens and New Earth, may I refer you to this thread specifically the second page and my fourth post if you would like to share your thoughts...


http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/thinking-about-millennial-views-34953/index2.html

 

[davidsuggs]

This is unrelated but thought-provoking: G.K. Chesterton's definitions-

Optimist- One who believes everything to be good except the pessimist.
Pessimist- One who believes everything is bad except himself.

 

[Iconoclast]

:
Even when the "Golden Age" of the millennium is at its height, there will still be problems in life. The Devil will be severely restricted and those who are unconverted will be at a minimum, but we will still have the flesh. Medical science may have advanced so that people live longer and war will be at an end, but we will still have to die.(e.g. Isaiah 65:20-25)

Brother Richard, the Isa. passage you presented has nothing to do with an intermediate age between this present age and the Eternal state but refers to the Eternal state aka the New Heavens and New Earth, may I refer you to this thread specifically the second page and my fourth post if you would like to share your thoughts...


http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/thinking-about-millennial-views-34953/index2.html

Do you think there will be unsaved sinner's and death in the eternal state then? as spoken of in Isa 65:20

20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

 

[Roldan]

:
Even when the "Golden Age" of the millennium is at its height, there will still be problems in life. The Devil will be severely restricted and those who are unconverted will be at a minimum, but we will still have the flesh. Medical science may have advanced so that people live longer and war will be at an end, but we will still have to die.(e.g. Isaiah 65:20-25)

Brother Richard, the Isa. passage you presented has nothing to do with an intermediate age between this present age and the Eternal state but refers to the Eternal state aka the New Heavens and New Earth, may I refer you to this thread specifically the second page and my fourth post if you would like to share your thoughts...


http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/thinking-about-millennial-views-34953/index2.html

Do you think there will be unsaved sinner's and death in the eternal state then? as spoken of in Isa 65:20

20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Nope. This is apocalyptic language sir.

Do you believe that people will always die at only 100yrs old? Will snakes eat dirt? No infant will ever die in their infancy? No more pain in in childbearing? Lions will stop eating meat? No more weeping in the golden age? These sure sound like the Eternal State of the NH and NE of Rev. 21

Please click on the link I provided to the other thread since it answers you question.

Its post #69 and on.


Thanx brother

Roldan

 

[Puritan Sailor]

In light of the threads on bad news about our society, I had a question about eschatologies.

I have tended towards an optimistic eschatological view for some time, more towards post- rather than a- millenialism, but not completely decided. In Sunday School last Lord's Day we were studying 1Peter 4:

1Pe 4:12-13 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (13) But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

We also looked at other scriptures that speak of suffering being necessary for our sanctification and the glory of God, and the usual comments were made about how Christians in other countries suffer much more than we do in developed countries, and are therefore more spiritually blessed. It came to my mind that if persecutions and suffering for the faith are necessary things for a stronger Church, how can an optimistic eschatology be true? If things get better and better, wouldn't the Church become proportionately weaker and weaker?

Does that have any impact on eschatology or not? Why or why not?

The whole debate really comes down to how you define "victory." Post-mil's think the world will become more "Christian" to the point that all that is left to defeat is death by the return of Christ. Amil believes the Church will be in conflict with the world until Christ returns to settle it once and for all, and that he will sustain his Church and gather in all his elect in spite of all the opposition of hell. For them the good and the evil both ripen together until harvesting time, thus there will always be suffering in the Christian life until the end of the age. So again, there is much in common for both views. They just have different standards by which to measure their optimism (which also filters into understanding their present experience).

 

[Roldan]

Do you think there will be unsaved sinner's and death in the eternal state then? as spoken of in Isa 65:20

Allow me to go into further detail with your question. I am re-posting a response from another message board I am a member of called HOLYCULTURERADIO.COM where a friend of mine who is a posty asked me the same question. My words will be in bold


Holy Culture Community Forum

Originally Posted by BondServant

So, we have people dying in the eternal state? Hmm...interesting. I thought that in your view death was defeated, so why, in Heaven, would we have people dying?

Again, this passage in Isaiah is using language in terms of what was considered most pleasant and astonishing in that day, to get across what words with their present limitations are incapable of correctly expressing in other words apocalyptic language.

Amil's do not interpret this passage literally as do dispensational hermeneutics but realize the symbolic character of prophetic texts as needed and all depends on the grammatical nature of the text, this is reformed hermeneutics.

So no I do not have death in the eternal state. BUT allow me to ask you a question now, if you don't mind.

Do people actually die at 100yrs old literally? There will be no weeping in the golden age? Lions will cease to eat other animals and chill with the lambs and just eat straw like horses? Snakes will eat dirt?

I should have made my point by now but I will continue.


But let me consider your first request but to be clear you believe that when the scriptures speak of the New Heavens and the New Earth is is referring to the golden age, right? But please consider Rev. 21 as a parrallel passage with Is. 65 both speaking of NH and NE again symbolic language is being used to describe the utopia of our final state in God's redemptive plan. Always remember the NEW Test. interprets the OLD Test.

The verses and or words that are referring to the same thing are colored the same to parallel them more clearly

Rev. 21:1-4

21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Is. 65:17-25

17 “For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in that which I create;
for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy,
and her people to be a gladness.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and be glad in my people;
no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping
and the cry of distress.20 No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat;
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy [3] the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain
or bear children for calamity, [4]
for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord,
and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are yet speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
and dust shall be the serpent's food.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.

The New interprets the Old and there is no reference whatsoever to a golden age pre- the parousia.

Again I reiterate...

The New Testament knows absolutlely nothing of IMPERFECT golden-age preaching. While there is a consistent appeal to look for the PERFECT golden-age of heaven, nothing can be found about an imperfect interim. Everywhere the eternal state is held out as the future hope of the church militant. The millennium is never preached as such. The only satisfactory explanation is that the millennium is a present reality not a future hope.



Hope this helps a little more...

 

[Peairtach]

Dear Roldan

I think one of the major points here, is when does the New Heavens and New Earth commence.

I believe - in principle - it commenced with the resurrection of Christ. I'll provide reasons in another post. This being the case, the NH&NE, straddles the Second Coming and End of the World. Obviously many of the blessings of the NH&NE, e.g. no more death, are delayed until the Parousia. The only dispute between postmils and amils, is what will be achieved between now and the Parousia.

Since the NH&NE commenced on Easter Sunday - the first day of the New Creation and the first day of the New Redemption - can we exclude the possibility of Isaiah's promises, in measure, coming about before the Second Coming?

 

[Roldan]

I think one of the major points here, is when does the New Heavens and New Earth commence.

I believe - in principle - it commenced with the resurrection of Christ.

Richard, that sounds good but there is no biblical evidence to ally that position, not that I'm aware of anyways and I'm open to correction but when the NH&NE is spoken of it is always in reference to "our hope" the Eternal State our final redemption and never to any form of an intermediate state that is progressively taking us to that final consumation.

Since the NH&NE commenced on Easter Sunday - the first day of the New Creation and the first day of the New Redemption -

But this is your presupposition not mine so I can't accept this premise.

can we exclude the possibility of Isaiah's promises, in measure, coming about before the Second Coming?

Even though I have rejected your above premise, I can still answer this question because Isaiah's promise is the Second Coming/The Consumation/Eternal State/New Heaven's and New Earth.

So yes we can exclude any measure of this promise coming about before the actual promise, its like using a symbol to symbolize the symbol.

 

[Roldan]

bumped