ABOUT US

Documented Calls for a Solution

Noē’s desire for this solution of synthesis was for it to be a therapeutic and healing approach, capable of fostering and advancing discussions, resolving differences, and eventually ending the Church’s divisive end-time dilemma. During this process he cited numerous scholars admitting that the Church lacks a unified voice and is trumpeting an “uncertain sound” (see 1 Cor. 14:8) in the area of eschatology.  Many were calling for a solution, and some a solution of synthesis.  

For Noē, no one better epitomized our current eschatological dilemma and his hope and heart for this synthesis approach than Frances A. Schaeffer in his 1984 book, The Great Evangelical Disaster with this profound insight: 

The history of theology is all too often a long exhibition of a desire to win. But we should understand that what we are working for in the midst of our difference is a solution—a solution that will give God the glory, that will be true to the Bible, but will exhibit the love of God simultaneously with his holiness.² 

Noē uncovered more credible documentation that no comprehensive works of synthesis was known to exist. 

In 1937, Louis Berkhof in his book, The History of Christian Doctrines, viewed “the doctrine of the last things . . . [as] one of the least developed doctrines.” He further believed that “it may be . . . we have now reached that point in the history of dogma in which the doctrine of the last things will receive greater attention and be brought to further development.³ Berkhof also concluded that “eschatology is even now the least developed of all the loci of dogmatics.”⁴   

In 1973, in the preface of J. Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, Payne quotes Dwight Pentecost in noting that “there has been little attempt to synthesize the whole field of prophecy . . . and there is a great need for a synthetic study and presentation of Biblical prophecy.”⁵  

In 1998, Millard Erickson in his book, A Basic Guide to Eschatology, still identified eschatology as “the one remaining undeveloped topic of theology.”⁶ Erickson also referred to J. Barton Payne’s previous attempt “to synthesize the major strengths of the three methods of prophetic interpretation: historical, futurist, and preterist.”⁷ Payne’s treatment, nevertheless, was cursory and shallow. Even Payne himself admitted:

. . . any of the three methods if used rigorously . . . is productive of confusion. Actually, there are not a few alleged antecedents to Christ’s return that may better be understood as having attained their fulfillment in the ancient past and hence as of no continuing prophetic significance whatsoever. Space forbids an exhaustive treatment of Biblical prophecy in reference to these three methods of approach.⁸ 

Unfortunately, Payne’s book did not accomplish much of a synthesis. Hence eschatology remains “an object of criticism.”⁹ But in Noē’s proposed dissertation, and in his subsequent book, Unraveling the End, “space” would not “forbid” doing what Payne proclaimed but fell far short of accomplishing.  

Also conspicuous, Noē discovered that no creedal council during the early centuries of Christianity ever debated or discussed eschatology. Even the 16th-century Reformers spent little time with it and paid it scant attention.  

Nowadays, growing numbers of theologians are feeling that the embarrassing and perplexing arena of end-time biblical prophecy, or eschatology, is the next major area of Christianity ripe for reform.  

The renowned theologian George Eldon Ladd maintained:  “the easiest approach . . . is to follow one’s own particular tradition as the true view and ignore all others, but intelligent interpreters must familiarize themselves with the various methods of interpretation that they may criticize their own views.”¹⁰ 

John Warwick Montgomery further and wisely advised that “the search for truth can never be limited to the categories of a single modern school of thought.”¹¹  

Even the chairperson of Noē dissertation committee, David L. Turner, a progressive  dispensationalist, in a 1989 article in the Grace Theological Journal titled, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41,” advocated that “some combination of the two (preterist-futurist views)” offers “the most promising solution to the exegetical difficulties of this passage.”¹²

In a 1999 Christianity Today magazine article titled, “Is Revelation Prophecy or History?”, David S. Dockery, President of Union University in Jackson, TN,  recommended that the Book of Revelation be approached on a synthesis basis. Here’s how he put it:

Both the futurist and preterist views have their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of choosing only one or the other, a ‘both/and’ approach that applies the strengths of each is a better option. . . . Combining the preterist and futurist views allows us to understand both that the message of Revelation spoke directly to John’s own age and that it represents the consummation of redemptive history. . . . The preterist position by itself fails to understand that Revelation confronts the modern reader with promises, challenges, and choices that are similar, if not identical to those faced by the book’s original readers. The futurist position by itself is prone to see Revelation as a crystal ball with a literal timetable of events that will happen in the future.¹³

Lastly, Stanley J. Grenz, in another Christianity Today article certainly grasped the validity of a synthesis concept. Although he did not mention the preterist view, he did discern that “we would be mistaken if we merely weighed the evidence, chose one, and ignored the other two. The Spirit has something important to tell us in each of the three traditional views of the millennium.”¹⁴ 

While Noē has basic agreements and disagreements with each of the above synthesis suggestions, they are, indeed, steps in the right direction. For that he applauds them. But all are too limited in scope and fell far short of a full synthesis. 

² Frances A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 1984), 176-177.
³ Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, c1937, 1959), 267.
⁴ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1939), 664.
⁵ J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1973), vi. From J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Findlay, OH.: Dunham Pub. Co. , 1958), viii.
⁶ Millard Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1977, 1998), 11.
⁷ Ibid., 179.
⁸ J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1962), 106.
⁹ Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Carlisle, PA.: The Banner of Truth, 1948, 1975), 287.
¹⁰ George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1974), 670.
¹¹ John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology (Newburgh, IN.: Trinity Press, 1970), 177.
¹² David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments,” Grace Theological Journal 10.1 (1989): 3, 26.
¹³ David S. Dockery, “Is Revelation Prophecy or History?” Christianity Today, 25 October 1999, 86.
¹⁴ Stanley J. Grenz, “The 1,000-year Question: Timeless truths behind the debates over Christ’s return,” Christianity Today, 8 March 1993, 35.