Fourfold premise

The solution of synthesis presented in this series is based on my completed Ph.D. dissertation, which was subtitled, “An Evaluation (and Synthesis) of the Four Major Evangelical Views of the Return of Christ.” My premise was simple, straightforward, and fourfold:

God is not the author of our confusion in eschatology (1 Cor. 14:33, KJV). We are. I assumed that it was not and is not God’s character or nature to have included in his Word any content that would create the amount of confusion, conflict, divisiveness, and/or ambivalence we see among Christians in this area of eschatology. Personal interpretations have “muddied the waters” for everyone.I further assumed that we are the ones who have misconstrued the whole thing, and that this impasse could be resolved—scripturally.
Each of the four views centers on the return of Christ as the central, pivotal and controlling end-time event. So get this one right and the others events will fall readily into place.
Each view has principal strengths and weaknesses that can be identified through a scripturally disciplined approach grounded upon what the text actually says and does not say. Eschatology is an area filled with problems caused by both additions and subtractions to the text.These are necessitated by the traditions of men and will not stand up to an honest and sincere test of Scripture. Yet more often than not, we are unaware of the weaknesses inherent in our own view, until someone points them out to us. They are blind spots. And unlearning is the hardest form of learning. I also knew I’d have to be both objective and gracious in exposing these weaknesses for each view.
The solution would be a solution of synthesis—discarding the weakness, keeping the strengths, and synthesizing the strengths into one meaningful, coherent, and consistent view that is more Christ-honoring, Scripture-authenticating, and faith-validating than any one view in and of itself.Since each view has grasped a portion of the biblical truth regarding the end times, I proposed a synthesis treatment that would meet all hermeneutical and exegetical demands and not contradict itself. This approach was significant because no one had ever done this before—i.e., to the degree and scope I was proposing—and none of the four views themselves meets this criterion.

Next, are recaps of the strengths and weaknesses for each view.

Sources:

1 “Unraveling the End” MPC series by John Noe – listen to podcasts on this website

2 Unraveling the End by John Noe