March 8, 2010  

Torrance on Two-Ages and the Point of “Eschatology”

Here is something TF Torrance has to say that dovetails a bit with my points on “two-ages,” previously:

When the church came to relate the kingdom of God to history, idealism took the place of eschatology. The church cannot live or work without an ideal, a goal, and end or telos, and without having some idea of the eschaton, the final end. But there is a vast difference between an ideal end in the Greek sense and the New Testament eschaton, the end that has in Christ broken into time, for all the formal similarity that they may bear. The difference between the two conceptions is precisely the core of the Christian gospel. The Greek end is always and ideal end. As human beings, we are not what we ought to be, but no matter how much we try individually or in history to be what we ought to be, the end is still ideal and beyond our grasp. In the Christian gospel, this end has broken into the present and is even now operative in the world through the message of the gospel. Because it has actually entered history, the whole of Christian thought and action can no longer be conceived in terms of idealism. The Christian’s end remains the final end, but because that end has broken into time and yet transcends time we are conscious of it here and now. (Thomas F. Torrance, “Incarnation,” 304)

This is a problem that could potentially plague all “systems” of eschatology. The only one that I can think of that explicitly follows the idealism that TF describes is Classic/Revised Dispensationalism; although there are forms of even amillennialism that collapses the “ideal” into the fabric of history so that the “end” is realized by way of realizing the potential of the human spirit (or geist of history). The point, to take away, is that if we don’t see God’s life as eschatological, we will locate the point of human history and the kingdom of God into the far off future; when in fact all of scripture’s perspective is thoroughly dripping with eschatology. Thus the tension of the “now and the not yet;” which, for example the Apostle Paul constantly appeals to in his writings (cf. II Cor 4:10; 5:5, 17; etc.). The “Classic Dispensationalist” necessarily reads the “kingdom” language of scripture in this idealist way, in a way that, coincidentally, or not took shape in a world wherein the theories of Marx and Darwinianism (of human “progression” to an ideal utopia) were very popular at the time — just something to think about.

Advertisement

4 Responses to “Torrance on Two-Ages and the Point of “Eschatology””

  1. Heather says :

    This is helpful. Thanks.

    It is so true that one’s eschatological understanding frames the way he lives in today. I was lengthily chastised once by a postmill dominionist woman because I stated that the current earth is “dying” and we should expect unpleasantness until Jesus returns. She included a list of human achievements that supposedly offset the increase in pollutive factors, disease and overall yuckiness of this life and she assumed I was a dispensational “defeatist” who expects that Jesus will simply step off His throne for the last 7 years of the current dispensation. That’s not what I think and she seemed to accept my explanation that I do believe Christians, regardless of circumstances, are to live as though we have already won victory through Christ.

    What I understand of amillenialism allows for the wicked to continue in wickedness and the redeemed to become increasingly more bright as Christ’s love shines through them.

    At any rate it is possible to allow the framework to veer off the highway of Christ alone and into some human-focused by-path. Some of the more disturbing language in scripture (such as “he who endures to the end will be saved”) becomes less so when I remember that Jesus said “I have overcome the world”. He already endured to the end, and He’s been given everything, so the logical thing for us to do is be reconciled with Him today.

  2. Bobby Grow says :

    Good, Heather!

    There is quite a bit to amil, but yes part of it includes the righteous living righteous and the wicked living wicked until the LORD returns; of course every approach would include this in their framework — because it’s what scripture clearly says.

    Just remember, Heather, salvation is God’s life; you are in Him, and thus your life is as secure as His life! I think you have to many Arminians hanging around your site ;-) ! Our reconciliation to God is grounded in Christ’s reconciliation to the Father for us in His humanity by the Spirit. OUr standing is the same as His, we are joint-heirs; stand strong in that hope, Heather . . . there is no need to strive for something that has already been won!!

  3. Heather says :

    I think you have to many Arminians hanging around your site ;-) !

    LOL!

    Maybe. Although only one that I know of professes to be such. The rest would probably be what you call federal Calvinist or “undecided”. The Calvinists don’t seem to have any issues with pushing works.

    I really don’t have too many commenters, actually, but seem to have become anxious enough to keep 5 people unsure of their security in Christ.

    Probably I’m the real culprit, looking too much at “me”. Just keep forwarding the EC perspective. I expect the reality will eventually sink in. :D

  4. Bobby Grow says :

    It will, Heather. The subjective takes time to catch up to the objective, at points; but it will, keep reading the Word (this is how the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are His). Also keep thinking, you’re definitely on the right track (well you read here after all ;-) ).