Eschatological Scattergories

I've been doing some reading and thinking regarding the whole millennial debate. Trying to come to a personal conclusion as to what seems to be the best position from a Biblical standpoint, as eschatology is an area that I have not spent much effort on developing my own views. It's a complicated subject with a lot of passionate supporters of the various positions. At this point I have to say that I lean towards the classic premillennial view. That being that Christ will return at the end of the tribulation period, resurrect believers that have died, bind Satan and reign for a literal thousand years before releasing Satan for a final battle and the final judgment of resurrected unbelievers. I don't see much if any Biblical support for the popular view that believers will be "raptured" prior to the tribulation, though. So the classic premillennial position seems to be the most consistent with my readings of the Biblical texts and the arguments for & against this and other positions. The amillennial position, even though it does have some points that seem logical, seems to me to be a bit too loose with the literal interpretation of Revelation 20 and some other texts. And the postmillennial view simply seems illogical. So I continue to read, think, study and consider. If you disagree with me, that's OK. Lots of very smart people do. We have to remember that eschatology is a secondary doctrine that should never get in the way of unity over primary doctrines like the deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc.

Confident or Arrogant?

Should a Christian be confident of the truth of the gospel and the truth of the Word, and communicate these truths with confidence? What level of confidence in doctrines and truths is appropriate for a teacher of the Bible? At what point does confidence cross over into arrogance? These are questions that have been floating around in my head, and which I think the modern church struggles with greatly.

Let's start with the first topic. If I am a Christian, then I have believed the gospel and received Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The term believe is a consistent one in the NT for receiving Christ. It is the objective of much of the writings of the NT. For example, John 20:31 states a purpose for his gospel: "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." To believe is to trust, to place confidence in. Therefore if we have truly believed in the gospel and in Christ, then we have placed our confidence in the truth of the gospel and the person of Christ. Therefore, is it not logical that if we have sufficient confidence in these truths for our eternal destiny, that we should also express and communicate them to others with at least equal confidence?

So how about a teacher or preacher? I have seen and heard some teachers of the Word that seem to spend more time qualifying their statements and giving disclaimers for their positions than actually proclaiming truth. They do so in many cases as an expression of humility. But is this appropriate. I think it is false humility. As a teacher of the Word, I must be fully convinced of the truths and doctrines and interpretations if I am to effectively communicate them. And if I am not so convinced, why would I be teaching these things? Yes, I must always exercise humility in my approach to God's Word and the communication of it, but lack of confidence in the message is not humility. And confidence in the message is not arrogance.

To some extent I think this is an error of the emerging movement, labeling as arrogant those that would express with certainty any type of truth claim. In reality, this is exactly what a minister of the gospel of a teacher of the Bible must do. Certainty, tempered with humility, is a mark of the well-prepared and properly motivated communicator of Biblical truth. To be otherwise is to be disqualified as a teacher.