Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Recurso digital |
| Lenguaje: | |
| Publicado: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Acceso en línea: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18162888 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866901958894288896 |
|---|---|
| author | SAYLES, S C |
| author_facet | SAYLES, S C |
| contents | <p><span>Modern Christian eschatology is frequently dominated by explanatory frameworks that seek to stabilise meaning through historical sequencing, predictive coherence, and interpretive architecture. Premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial, and preterist traditions differ substantially in content, and many representatives within each tradition explicitly resist speculative mastery; nevertheless, modern debate often proceeds as though eschatology’s central task were to secure explanatory closure. This paper argues that when <strong>explanation functions as court</strong>—claiming final adjudicative authority over meaning—it becomes a principal source of eschatological stalemate. Drawing on juridical reasoning, biblical theology, and propositional method, the paper advances a jurisdictional account of eschatology in which the end is understood primarily as <strong>judgment enacted and disclosed</strong>, authority rather than mere sequence, and disclosure rather than informational completion. It contends that eschatology is jurisdictional before it is temporal, that revelation is the indispensable medium by which the end is known as judgment, and that Scripture functions as authorised testimony that governs interpretation rather than raw material that awaits interpretive sovereignty. The paper further argues that Christ is not a participant within an autonomous eschatological programme but the eschatological authority by whom judgment is exercised; that the cross and resurrection are historical acts that function juridically as judgment enacted and vindicated; and that delay is best understood as restraint and mercy under established authority rather than absence of verdict. The study concludes by arguing not that all eschatological articulation collapses, but that any framework claiming <strong>explanatory sufficiency or immunity from judgment</strong> mislocates jurisdiction. Propositional eschatology is therefore offered not as a new system, but as a methodological reordering that marks the end of explanation as court and restores eschatology as verdict under Christ’s authority.</span></p> <div> </div> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18162888 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Propositional Eschatology: Authority, Judgment, and the End of Explanation SAYLES, S C <p><span>Modern Christian eschatology is frequently dominated by explanatory frameworks that seek to stabilise meaning through historical sequencing, predictive coherence, and interpretive architecture. Premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial, and preterist traditions differ substantially in content, and many representatives within each tradition explicitly resist speculative mastery; nevertheless, modern debate often proceeds as though eschatology’s central task were to secure explanatory closure. This paper argues that when <strong>explanation functions as court</strong>—claiming final adjudicative authority over meaning—it becomes a principal source of eschatological stalemate. Drawing on juridical reasoning, biblical theology, and propositional method, the paper advances a jurisdictional account of eschatology in which the end is understood primarily as <strong>judgment enacted and disclosed</strong>, authority rather than mere sequence, and disclosure rather than informational completion. It contends that eschatology is jurisdictional before it is temporal, that revelation is the indispensable medium by which the end is known as judgment, and that Scripture functions as authorised testimony that governs interpretation rather than raw material that awaits interpretive sovereignty. The paper further argues that Christ is not a participant within an autonomous eschatological programme but the eschatological authority by whom judgment is exercised; that the cross and resurrection are historical acts that function juridically as judgment enacted and vindicated; and that delay is best understood as restraint and mercy under established authority rather than absence of verdict. The study concludes by arguing not that all eschatological articulation collapses, but that any framework claiming <strong>explanatory sufficiency or immunity from judgment</strong> mislocates jurisdiction. Propositional eschatology is therefore offered not as a new system, but as a methodological reordering that marks the end of explanation as court and restores eschatology as verdict under Christ’s authority.</span></p> <div> </div> |
| title | Propositional Eschatology: Authority, Judgment, and the End of Explanation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18162888 |