Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

Schweitzer called attention to the fact that the eschatological teachings of Jesus were far
more important in His scheme of thought than His ethical precepts, which after all
represent only an “Interimsethik.” And Karl Barth also stresses the eschatological
element in divine revelation.
C. THE RELATION OF ESCHATOLOGY TO THE REST OF
DOGMATICS.
1. WRONG CONCEPTIONS WHICH OBSCURE THIS RELATION. When Kliefoth wrote his
Eschatologie, he complained about the fact that there had never yet appeared a
comprehensive and adequate treatise on eschatology as a whole; and further calls
attention to the fact that in dogmatical works it often appears, not as a main division
uniform with the others, but merely as a fragmentary and neglected appendix, while
some of its questions are discussed in other loci. There were good reasons for his
complaints. In general it may be said that eschatology is even now the least developed
of all the loci of dogmatics. Moreover, it was often given a very subordinate place in the
systematic treatment of theology. It was a mistake of Coccejus that he arranged the
whole of dogmatics according to the scheme of the covenants, and thus treated it as a
historical study rather than a systematic presentation of all the truths of the Christian
religion. In such a scheme eschatology could only appear as the finale of history, and
not at all as one of the constitutive elements of a system of truth. A historical discussion
of the last things may form a part of the historia revelationis, but cannot as such be
introduced as an integral part of dogmatics. Dogmatics is not a descriptive, but a
normative science, in which we aim at absolute, rather than at mere historical, truth.
Reformed theologians on the whole saw this point very clearly, and therefore discussed
the last things in a systematic way. However, they did not always do justice to it as one
of the main divisions of dogmatics, but gave it a subordinate place in one of the other
loci. Several of them conceived of it merely as dealing with the glorification of the saints
or the consummation of the rule of Christ, and introduced it at the conclusion of their
discussion of objective and subjective soteriology. The result was that some parts of
eschatology received due emphasis, while other parts were all but neglected. In some
cases the subject-matter of eschatology was divided among different loci. Another
mistake, sometimes made, was to lose sight of the theological character of eschatology.
We cannot subscribe to the following statement of Pohle (Roman Catholic) in his work
on Eschatology, or the Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: “Eschatology is anthropological
and cosmological rather than theological; for, though it deals with God as the
Consummator and Universal Judge, strictly speaking, its subject is the created universe,
735