Eschatology That Rewrites Christianity
What Counts as Acceptable Eschatology?
Many people say that eschatology (the doctrine of “last things”) is a non-essential area of theology. After all, sincere Christians disagree about the millennium or the tribulation. They point out that even many denominations allow differences like amillennialism versus postmillennialism within the church. So why not allow even more variation? For example, hyper-preterists (also called full preterists) will accuse mainstream churches of hypocrisy: “You agree with us on many points. If eschatology is non-essential, why not allow our view too?” They argue that since we treat some end-times views as permissible differences, any view of eschatology should be tolerated.
This is a fair question. Where do we allow disagreement on eschatology, and which differences are so serious that they become heresy? How do we answer someone who says, “Eschatology is non-essential, as long as we all love Jesus, it shouldn’t matter what we believe about prophecy”? Also, what if you encounter an eschatological view that is not one of the familiar options (not amillennial, not postmillennial, not premillennial)? How should you evaluate it? Does the Bible itself support drawing lines and saying some variations are acceptable while others are not? This framework grew out of my own study after leaving hyper-preterism, and it is meant to help others navigate these questions with a balanced and biblical approach.
Before diving into two key principles for evaluating eschatological views, it is helpful to frame the issue within the bigger picture of Christian doctrine. Doing so will help us see why some errors in eschatology are more dangerous than others.
The Seven Loci of Theology: Keeping Eschatology in Context
In traditional systematic theology, Christian doctrine is organized into seven primary loci (categories or topics). Understanding these categories shows how eschatology fits into the whole tapestry of truth, and how an error in one area can affect others. The classic seven loci are:
Prolegomena – The word comes via Latin from Greek and means “to say beforehand.” It involves preliminary observations or foundational matters: our starting principles, including the doctrine of Scripture and how we approach theology (for example: What is the Bible? How do we know truth? How do we interpret Scripture?).
Theology Proper – The doctrine of God Himself: God’s nature and attributes, the Holy Trinity, God’s eternal decrees, and God’s works of creation and providence. (Who is God, and what has He decreed and done in creating and sustaining the world?)
Anthropology – The doctrine of humanity: our creation in God’s image, human nature, the fall into sin, and its consequences. (Who are we, and what is our condition before God?)
Christology – The doctrine of Christ’s person and work: the identity of Jesus (fully God and fully man, the Son of God) and His redemptive work through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. (Who is Jesus Christ, and what has He accomplished to save us?)
Soteriology – The doctrine of salvation: how Christ’s work is applied to us by the Holy Spirit, covering election, calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. (How do we as sinners receive salvation and experience the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives?)
Ecclesiology – The doctrine of the church: the nature of Christ’s Church, the means of grace (Word and Sacraments/ordinances), church government, and the mission and community of God’s people. (What is the Church, and how does God work in and through her?)
Eschatology – The doctrine of last things: the consummation of God’s plan, including Christ’s return, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the age to come (heaven, hell, and the eternal state in the new heavens and new earth). (How will God’s plan of redemption be completed, and what is our future hope?)
As an aside: Some theologians have expanded this schema, for instance, by treating Pneumatology (the doctrine of the Holy Spirit) as its own category rather than subsuming the Spirit’s work under Soteriology. If we included Pneumatology separately, we would have eight loci instead of seven. For our purposes here, we will stick to the traditional seven categories listed above.
This framework reminds us that our beliefs are interconnected. Theology is not a buffet where you can pick unrelated bits and pieces at will; it is more like a tapestry or a roadmap. Eschatology, in particular, does not stand in isolation from the rest of what we believe. What we conclude about “last things” will be shaped by, and will in turn shape, our understanding of God’s character, Christ’s work, salvation, the nature of the church, and so on.
Consider an analogy: imagine two people start in the same city (for example, Lakeland, Florida) but take different road routes. They drive north on Florida Avenue to reach I-4. After two hours, one ends up far to the west (in St. Petersburg) while the other is far to the east (in Orlando). How did they end up in opposite directions after starting together? At some earlier point, one of them took a different turn. One went west on I-4, the other went east.
Similarly, when two Christians end up with very different conclusions about the end times, it’s often because somewhere earlier in their theological journey, there was a “fork in the road”: a difference in how they interpreted Scripture or understood a key doctrine that led them onto a different path. In other words, a wrong turn in one area of theology can lead to a wrong destination in another.
With that in mind, the question of acceptable vs. unacceptable eschatology can be approached from two angles:
Within eschatology itself: Distinguishing essential doctrines from non-essential speculations (i.e. what must every Christian affirm about “last things,” and where can we legitimately disagree?).
Across the broader theological map: Evaluating how a particular end-times view affects or arises from other doctrines (i.e. does this eschatology remain consistent with the foundations laid in the other loci, or does it force a “wrong turn” into error elsewhere?).
By applying both of these considerations, it becomes clear why certain eschatological differences are treated as acceptable diversity in the church, while other views are rejected as serious error. Let’s examine each approach in turn.
Essential vs. Non-Essential Eschatology (Staying True to the “Blessed Hope”)
When Christians call some doctrine “non-essential,” it does not mean it is unimportant. All of God’s Word carries weight and is given for our instruction. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16–17 that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” So, again, calling something “non-essential” does not mean it is trivial or insignificant.
Rather, non-essential means it is not essential to the heart of the gospel. It is not something required for a person to trust in Christ for salvation. In eschatology, there are many questions that Christians have debated for centuries while still recognizing each other as fellow believers. For example, Bible-believing Christians have different interpretations about the nature of the millennium in Revelation 20 (is it a future golden age on earth, or a symbolic description of the church age?), about the sequence of events surrounding Christ’s return, or about how to understand the book of Revelation’s imagery. These differences, as long as they stay within biblical bounds, are non-essential differences. We can discuss and debate them, but we do not consider someone a heretic for holding amillennial, postmillennial, or historic premillennial views. These views all fall within the family of orthodox Christianity. Many such debates are in-house disagreements among believers. We can vigorously discuss, for example, what “666” means or who the “man of lawlessness” is (a particular person? an office? past, present, or future?). These are valid questions, but they do not define the gospel.
However, within the study of eschatology there is a core of essential doctrines. These are the truths that define our “blessed hope” as Christians (Titus 2:13). These truths are so central that to deny them is to undermine the gospel itself. Paul wrote in Titus 2:11–14:
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Based on Scripture, the historic church has identified at least four non-negotiable eschatological doctrines that all orthodox Christians must affirm. We see these taught clearly in Scripture and reflected in the great creeds and Reformation confessions:
The Bodily, Visible Return of Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ will personally come again at the end of the age in glory. His return will not be an invisible or merely spiritual event, but a literal coming that every eye will see. As the angels told the apostles at Christ’s ascension: “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” Christ’s second coming is a prominent promise in Scripture (see Matthew 24:30; John 14:3; Acts 1:11; Revelation 1:7). We are commanded to watch for it and long for it. Paul calls it our “blessed hope” — “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). Any view that says Jesus is not coming back personally and bodily in the future contradicts Scripture directly and robs believers of that blessed hope. Such a teaching cannot be treated as a friendly difference; it strikes at the very promise of Christ.
The Bodily Resurrection of the Dead: At Christ’s return, there will be a literal resurrection of human bodies, both of believers (to eternal life) and of the unbelieving (to judgment) (John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15). Paul affirmed this hope, saying, “there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust”(Acts 24:14–15). The physical resurrection of the body is a cornerstone of Christian hope. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul stresses that “If the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.” Our gospel collapses without the resurrection! Moreover, Jesus’ own resurrection is “the firstfruits” and guarantee of the future resurrection of those who belong to Him (1 Corinthians 15:20–23). Scripture promises that when Jesus comes, “the dead in Christ will rise” and “the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout… and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). Believers who are alive at His coming will also be transformed (1 Corinthians 15:51–52). This hope of a glorified, risen body is essential to the Christian view of salvation. God is redeeming not just our souls, but our bodies and indeed creation itself (Romans 8:21–23). Therefore, any eschatology that denies a future bodily resurrection (claiming, for instance, that the resurrection is only “spiritual” or that it already happened in the past) is a serious heresy. The Apostle Paul considered such teaching absolutely unacceptable. He warned that Hymenaeus and Philetus were “upsetting the faith of some” by saying “the resurrection has already taken place.” Paul said this kind of talk “will spread like gangrene.” In fact, Paul earlier “handed over” Hymenaeus to Satan for his blasphemous teaching (likely referring to excommunication – see 1 Timothy 1:19–20). Scripture calls the denial of a future resurrection a destructive, faith-wrecking error, not a minor disagreement.
The Final Judgment: The Bible consistently testifies that history is heading toward a final day when God, through Jesus Christ, will judge all humans (and even angels). Jesus will return as Judge. Numerous passages speak of this coming “Day of the Lord” or Day of Judgment. For example, “He (God) has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Hebrews 9:27 says, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Jesus Himself described the final judgment in Matthew 25:31–46 (the separation of the sheep and the goats). On that day, all secret things will be brought to light (Romans 2:16), and each of us must give an account before Christ’s judgment seat (2 Corinthians 5:10). Eternal destinies will be pronounced: eternal life in the kingdom for Christ’s redeemed, and eternal punishment (hell, described as the “lake of fire” in Revelation 20:15) for the unrepentant. This doctrine of final accountability and ultimate justice is tightly linked to our understanding of God’s holiness, the problem of evil, and the necessity of salvation. Denying a future judgment usually goes hand-in-hand with denying the resurrection (since Scripture often ties them together). Any eschatology that says “there is no future Day of Judgment” (or that it’s all only metaphorical and already past) is rejecting clear biblical teaching and effectively saying that God will not ultimately set all things right. That would undermine both the urgency of the gospel call to repent (Acts 17:30–31) and the comfort that God’s justice will finally prevail. So this doctrine, too, is non-negotiable. As the Apostles’ Creed succinctly states, “He shall come to judge the living and the dead.”
The Consummation of All Things (New Heavens and New Earth): Finally, the Bible holds out a wonderful promise of the world to come, the renewal of creation. We are taught to look beyond this present fallen world to “a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). When Christ returns, He will “make all things new” (Revelation 21:5). The curse will be fully lifted, death will be no more, and God will dwell openly with His people (Revelation 21:3–4). This ultimate future is sometimes called the consummation or the eternal state. It includes the defeat of all God’s enemies (including death itself) and the final fulfillment of all God’s promises to redeem creation (see 1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Romans 8:19–21). Our hope is not for some disembodied spiritual existence, but for a resurrected life in a renewed cosmos. This “new heavens and a new earth,” in which “the dwelling place of God is with man” (Revelation 21:3), is the beautiful climax of the biblical storyline. Therefore, any teaching that says this world will just continue forever as it is (with sin and death ongoing indefinitely), or that the promised new creation has already arrived in its fullness, is out of step with Scripture. The Apostle Peter warned us about scoffers who say, “Where is the promise of His coming? … all things continue as they were” (2 Peter 3:3–4). But Peter insists that God’s plan is on track. The apparent delay is mercy, not failure. The day of the Lord will come, and “we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth” by God’s promise (2 Peter 3:10–13). To claim that the age to come has already fully arrived, so that there is no future glory to await, is to rob believers of the hope that Scripture encourages us to hold. It is, in essence, a spiritualized denial of our promised inheritance. The New Testament says we have “tasted … the powers of the age to come” (Hebrews 6:5), but we still look forward to the glorious fulfillment of God’s kingdom in the future.
These four areas, namely Christ’s visible second coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the renewal of creation, are bedrock essentials of biblical eschatology. They are plainly taught in Scripture and have been confessed by the church in all ages. They shape our hope as Christians. Any view that denies or nullifies these doctrines is not just a harmless variant; it destroys the core of the Christian faith and the hope that we cherish. We cannot call such a view “Christian” in any meaningful sense, because it overthrows what Scripture calls the blessed hope.
For example, if someone comes along and says, “Jesus already returned (in the past), so there is no future second coming; the resurrection is only spiritual, with no future bodily resurrection; the final judgment is over; and the world as it is now (still full of sin, suffering, and death) is the ‘new heavens and new earth,’” that person is not presenting a permissible Christian view at all. They are effectively preaching a different religion. Yet this is exactly what hyper-preterism (also called full preterism) teaches. Full preterists claim that all biblical prophecies about the end were fulfilled by 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. They say Christ “came” invisibly, in judgment, in 70 A.D., the resurrection is past, and the final judgment already happened. As a result, they must redefine the resurrection to mean something like a spiritual new birth or a past corporate event, and they suggest we are now living in the realized kingdom with Satan bound and everything. In essence, they assert that this present world, still under the curse, is the afterlife. Such a view flatly contradicts the apostolic gospel. Paul says that if the resurrection has already happened, the false teachers “destroy the faith of some.” He even equates the denial of our future resurrection with a denial of Christ’s resurrection, meaning that if the full preterists were right, Christ would still be in the grave and our faith would be empty. No wonder Paul calls this teaching a gangrene that spreads (2 Timothy 2:17–18) and says Hymenaeus’ blasphemy deserved excommunication (1 Timothy 1:19–20). In short, any eschatology that takes away the church’s blessed hope in Christ’s coming, resurrection, and judgment is fundamentally unacceptable. We cannot agree to disagree about those points, because losing those truths means losing the faith.
On the other hand, if an end-times view upholds all those essentials, then we have room to allow it as a legitimate, though different, interpretation even if we might think it is incorrect on secondary details. For instance, consider amillennialism versus postmillennialism. One expects a steady growth of Christ’s kingdom leading to a glorious era on earth before Christ returns. The other expects the church age to continue with conflict between good and evil until Christ returns to consummate the kingdom. These are different expectations about how history will unfold, but notice that both views still firmly believe Christ will return personally, the dead will be raised, Christ will judge all people, and He will usher in the final state of a new creation. Those essentials are not in question, so both views fall within orthodox Christianity. These are in-house debates. We can even extend charity to historic premillennialism, where Christ returns before a millennial kingdom on earth, as long as that premillennial view does not introduce ideas that negate the essentials. Historic premillennialists also affirm the same core end events; they simply posit an additional millennial era in between. So we label those debates as non-essential issues. Are they important? Yes. Our conclusions on those matters will affect how we anticipate the future and even how we live now. But they are not essential in the sense that faithful Christians can disagree and still recognize one another as brethren in Christ.
To recap this first principle, the idea that eschatology is non-essential is only true up to a point. We treat many eschatological details as secondary and open for friendly discussion only because all sides in those orthodox debates agree on the essential bottom lines. Jesus will come again in glory, the dead will be raised, Christ will judge the world in righteousness, and His kingdom will be fully realized forever. Those are essential doctrines, thoroughly supported by Scripture and reflected in the historic creeds and confessions. They guard what Paul calls our blessed hope. Any view that cancels out any of those doctrines is no longer a minor matter. It destroys the Christian faith at its core.
So the first way we discern acceptable versus unacceptable eschatology is by asking this: Does this view preserve the fundamental Christian hope taught in Scripture, or does it nullify it? If it nullifies that hope, we must reject it. If it preserves it, then the remaining differences, though sometimes sharp, can be handled with charity and open Bibles. As the early church father Augustine famously urged, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” We need wisdom to tell which issues are which, and Scripture gives us that clarity on the essentials.
Someone might respond, “Okay, I see that some extreme views, like full preterism, blatantly contradict core doctrines. But what about views that do affirm those basics and yet are still considered problematic by some? Isn’t it just personal preference at that point?” This leads us to the second evaluative lens.
Theological Coherence: How One Doctrine Affects Others
Christian truth is a unified whole. You can imagine the seven loci of theology as parts of a framework, like the beams of a house or the pieces of a puzzle. If one piece is twisted or misplaced, it can throw the whole structure off balance. Therefore, when evaluating any particular doctrine (including an end-times view), we must ask: How does this doctrine impact other areas of belief? Does it fit harmoniously with the foundation of sound teaching laid in Scripture, or does it knock something else out of alignment?
As mentioned earlier, a wrong turn early on can lead you far off course down the line. In theology, sometimes a seemingly small interpretive decision can have large consequences. For example, an unusual eschatological theory might stem from a hermeneutical error (a wrong way of interpreting Scripture, which is a Prolegomena issue). Or it might imply a different understanding of God’s kingdom or God’s people (an Ecclesiology issue), or alter the perceived nature of salvation (a Soteriology issue). Thus, even if an eschatological view claims to affirm the “big four” essential doctrines we listed, we should examine whether holding that view forces compromises in other doctrinal areas. If adopting a certain end-times view logically pushes someone to revise or deny some other biblical doctrine, that is a red flag. It suggests that somewhere a wrong turn was taken.
Let’s consider a few examples to make this concrete.
Dispensationalism. Dispensational premillennialism affirms Christ’s future return, a future resurrection, and a final judgment. On the surface, it holds to those essential eschatological doctrines. Yet many churches in the Reformed tradition do not accept dispensational theology. Why? Because the system often distorts other areas of doctrine, especially soteriology and ecclesiology.
Classic dispensationalism draws a sharp divide between Israel and the Church in God’s redemptive plan. In its more extreme historical forms, this led to the idea of two distinct covenants or even two ways of salvation, one for Israel under the Law and one for the Church under grace. Most modern dispensationalists deny teaching two paths of salvation, but the structure of the system often implied that Old Testament saints were saved under a fundamentally different arrangement than New Testament believers. Even in milder forms, dispensationalism traditionally teaches that the present Church age is a “parenthesis” in God’s plan, and that after the rapture, God will resume dealings with Israel under a Mosaic-type economy. This often includes the expectation of a rebuilt temple and renewed animal sacrifices in a future millennial kingdom, even if those sacrifices are described as merely memorial. That expectation directly conflicts with the New Testament’s insistence on the once-for-all sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Hebrews 10:14 teaches that by one offering Christ has perfected His people forever, and Hebrews 10:29 warns that returning to temple sacrifices amounts to trampling the Son of God underfoot. If someone’s eschatology anticipates a return to animal sacrifices, a serious theological alarm should sound because it undermines the finality of Christ’s atonement.
Additionally, the rigid Israel and Church distinction in dispensationalism clashes with the biblical teaching that Christ has broken down the dividing wall and made Jew and Gentile one body (Ephesians 2:14–16). This affects ecclesiology at a fundamental level and can lead to confusion about the nature of the Church and how we apply Scripture. Some dispensationalists have even argued that portions of Christ’s teaching, such as the Sermon on the Mount or even the New Covenant itself, are “for Israel, not the Church,” which profoundly alters Christian ethics and discipleship.
These are not minor disagreements; they touch on how we understand redemptive history, salvation, and the unity of God’s people. For this reason, many confessional churches do not treat dispensationalism as simply one acceptable option among others. Although dispensationalists do affirm Christ’s return and the resurrection, the system introduces interpretive and theological turns that disrupt the coherence of the gospel. The destination, which is Christ reigning in a millennial kingdom, may appear orthodox, but the route taken introduces errors in hermeneutics, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Thus, churches often steer people away from dispensationalism, not because dispensationalists are necessarily unbelievers, but because the system’s overall doctrinal effect is judged to be harmful.
Hyper-Preterism (Full Preterism). We have already noted that full preterism explicitly denies essential eschatological doctrines and therefore falls outside of orthodoxy. But even beyond those obvious errors, consider how thoroughly it distorts the rest of theology.
Full preterism requires a radical reworking of hermeneutics. Promises and prophecies that Christians throughout history have understood as future are reinterpreted as past events, often fulfilled invisibly. This undermines the clarity of Scripture. Ordinary believers read Scripture and see promises of Christ’s coming and a bodily resurrection. Hyper-preterism insists that these already occurred in a way no one could see. To sustain this claim, it must adopt a highly novel or allegorical interpretive method that effectively overrides the plain meaning of the text. This directly challenges the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture.
Full preterism also undermines anthropology and soteriology. Scripture teaches that death is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26) and that believers await the redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:23). But if the resurrection is past, death remains undefeated, since believers still die. Full preterism is forced to imply that believers before A.D. 70 received some form of resurrection, while believers after 70 do not. Glorification, a vital component of salvation, is effectively abandoned in that scheme.
Christology is also affected. The church confesses that Christ remains forever incarnate, having risen bodily, ascended bodily, and promised to return bodily. If Christ’s “coming” was completely fulfilled in A.D. 70 through an invisible judgment, then Jesus will never return in His glorified human body. That contradicts Acts 1:11, which promises that “this same Jesus” will come again. This introduces a subtle but serious drift toward minimizing the significance of Christ’s bodily incarnation and humanity.
Ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) and the sacraments are likewise impacted. If all prophecy is fulfilled and the church now exists in the “eternal state,” practices such as the Lord’s Supper become problematic, since the Supper is intended to proclaim the Lord’s death “until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). In fact, some full preterists have even abandoned observing the Lord’s Supper for this reason. Recently, in a debate, false teacher Michael Sullivan was asked about observing the Lord’s Supper. As a hyper-preterist, he responded that he can take it or leave it. Let that sink in! A means of grace being considered as something optional! That is the kind of doctrinal erosion full preterism produces.
In short, one doctrinal error radiates outward, affecting Scripture, salvation, Christology, and the church. Full preterism is not merely a mistaken eschatology. It represents a fundamentally different theological system. It fails on every front by denying essential doctrines and destabilizing the rest. That is why it must be plainly identified as heresy.
By contrast, partial preterism (sometimes just called “preterism”) affirms that some prophecies were fulfilled in events like A.D. 70, while maintaining the future return of Christ, a future general resurrection, and a future final judgment. Partial preterists remain within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. We may disagree with some of their interpretations, but they have not abandoned the framework of sound doctrine. The contrast between partial and full preterism makes the issue clear. Those early interpretive turns determine whether a view arrives at a faithful destination or veers into doctrinal collapse.
Now consider a scenario: someone approaches you with a brand new end-times theory, something you have never heard before. How should you handle it?
You can evaluate it using two complementary tests:
First, measure it against the essential doctrines of eschatology. Does it affirm the future, bodily return of Christ? The resurrection of the dead? The final judgment? The new creation to come? If the answer to any of those is “no” (or even a hesitant “maybe not”), then the view is already outside acceptable bounds. Scripture is clear on these points, and denying them places a view in very dangerous territory.
Second, even if a theory claims to affirm those essentials, trace it backward and outward for theological coherence. Ask what assumptions about God, Scripture, or redemption are required to reach this theory’s conclusions, and what consequences it has for other doctrines. This is where the broader theological “map” matters. A view may claim to retain the resurrection or judgment in name, but only by redefining them so radically that biblical interpretation collapses and core doctrines are emptied of their meaning. In such cases, the conclusion might sound orthodox, but the route taken reveals that it is not truly in line with biblical truth.
On the other hand, some disagreements involve speculative details that do not overturn any foundational truth. Questions about the identity of certain figures in Revelation or the ordering of particular end-time events may be unpersuasive or odd, but they don’t necessarily rise to the level of heresy. We handle those by returning to Scripture together, urging humility, and refusing to let speculative ideas eclipse clear teaching. We allow diversity where the faith itself is not threatened.
The apostles themselves modeled this balance. Paul tolerated differences on secondary matters such as food laws and holy days (see Romans 14), but he was uncompromising when the gospel itself was at stake. In Galatians 1:8–9 he famously pronounced a curse on anyone who preached a different gospel. In 1 Corinthians 15, he treated denial of the resurrection as a direct assault on the faith, calling the resurrection of Christ and of believers “of first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4, 12–19). Likewise, the Apostle John could urge believers toward love and hospitality (3 John) in minor disagreements, yet he also wrote, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching (the true doctrine of Christ), do not receive him into your house” (2 John 1:10). The “teaching of Christ” in John’s context included fundamental truths about Jesus’ identity (for example, that He came in the flesh, 2 John 1:7) and, by extension, all that Christ taught. Scripture consistently distinguishes between differences that can be tolerated and errors that must be firmly resisted.
Eschatology follows this same pattern. The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes Christ’s return, the resurrection, and the final judgment as central components of our hope. Paul reminds believers that the Lord’s Supper itself proclaims Christ’s death “until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Peter insists that the apparent “delay” of Christ’s return is not a failure of promise but a merciful opportunity for repentance, because the coming judgment and new creation are certain (2 Peter 3:7–13). At the same time, Scripture leaves mystery regarding the timing and details of these events. Jesus Himself said that the times and seasons are not for us to know (Acts 1:7). Christians may differ on how the future unfolds, but not on what will happen in the end.
This understanding also answers any charge of inconsistency in what we consider “essential.” We allow disagreement between, say, amillennialism and postmillennialism because those views agree on the essentials and do not disrupt other core doctrines. We reject full preterism because it denies those essentials and destabilizes the faith as a whole. In other words, eschatology is a “non-essential” area only up to the point that it doesn’t contradict what Scripture places at the heart of the gospel. When an eschatological view crosses that line, it becomes heresy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, eschatology may come last in the theological outline, but it completes the structure. If the “end” is distorted, the rest of theology will eventually be pulled out of shape. The New Testament treats Christ’s return and the resurrection not as optional ideas but as sources of endurance, holiness, and hope for believers. For example, after explaining the certainty of resurrection, Paul concludes, “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:58). That confidence, that our labor is not in vain, comes directly from the truth of the resurrection (see the entirety of 1 Corinthians 15).
If you take away the future resurrection, suddenly suffering for Christ or grieving lost loved ones is emptied of hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13–14). Likewise, Titus 2:12–13 says we are to live uprightly “in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope.” If you remove that blessed hope, what incentive and comfort are lost! These things really matter for how we live and persevere in faith.
At the same time, we approach secondary matters with humility and charity. The fact of Christ’s return is revealed; the exact timing is not. The promise of a new creation is certain; many details about the end times remain debated. We handle those discussions as brothers and sisters, not as enemies. One day we will all have perfect eschatology. Until then, we unite around what Scripture makes absolutely clear.
Where Scripture speaks plainly, we must be firm. History shows that major errors about the resurrection or Christ’s coming can overthrow people’s faith. The church is called to guard the flock, not out of harshness, but out of love for the gospel hope entrusted to us.
These truths matter because they are promises from our faithful Savior. Jesus is coming again for His people. The dead in Christ will rise. Evil will be judged. Creation will be restored. God will dwell with His people forever. This is our blessed hope, and we must never exchange it for any theory that diminishes Christ or empties His promises.
So let us distinguish carefully between minor differences and major departures. We can debate the former with patience. We must stand united against the latter. And in all things, let us return to Scripture, holding fast to the hope that magnifies Jesus Christ, from the cross and empty tomb all the way to the new heavens and new earth.