We have been taught that the various "ologies" (studies/knowledge/logics) are to be categorized under a main heading, such as soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology all being under theology.  Then we are taught to order these ologies in degrees of importance, but rather we should consider which ology more impacts the others.

Most people would say soteriology should be the first in our order, because how a person is saved is of utmost importance.  Next, we might say ecclesiology is second because it is secondarily important how a person worships and approaches God in the various ordinances/sacraments of the “church”.  Lastly, people will say eschatology is least important because this ology merely speaks of the closure or consummation of all things.

We treat these various biblical sciences as disconnected parts that have little impact on each other.  Some people will have an immense knowledge of one of these sciences and little of another.  We tend to compartmentalize our interest and understanding of these branches.

Further, we can and do often mix and match these sciences, such as having a calvinistic congregationist or a semi-pelagian presbyterian.  Then, when we add eschatology we may have a dispensational Anglican or a preteristic Baptist.

But lets think about this some more.  A person’s view of soteriology does not much impact his ecclesiology, for he could hold that a person is “saved” in the Arminian sense or the Calvinist sense and yet be in a congregation with a single pastor model, or a plurality of elders. The same is true in reverse.

It is eschatology that has been ignored as a vague and the least important of the ologies.  To be sure, many people love to write books about the so-called “end times” but ultimately most people will say it really doesn’t matter what you believe eschatologically as long as your soteriology is correct. 

It is then odd when we look to the Bible and find that Jesus and the Apostles’ message was primarily eschatological rather than soteriological.  Jesus and the Apostles spoke primarily of the soon coming “end”.  Thus, having an improper understanding of what Jesus and the Apostles meant on eschatology greatly impacts the other ologies.

For example, Calvinism is based upon the “elect” being the focus of their soteriological model.  What if the “elect” were confined to those first-century Jews and Gentiles that were showing themselves to be the “called out ones” – which in turn affects a person's ecclesiology as the “called out ones” would no longer be “called out”.

We might also consider how Arminianism is affected by an eschatological understanding.  If all mankind was being condemned by the sin of Adam, thus in by Adam death passed to all and in Christ life passed to all, then it is possible to see universalism in regards to salvation. Please keep in mind I am not advocating for Calvinism, Arminianism, universalism or any other ism at this time – I am merely making the case how a person’s eschatology really impacts all the other logics of a person’s Christianity.

It is always interesting when you come across a person who claims to have no eschatological view or that they claim they really don’t care about it when contrasted with the other ologies.  As was stated before, Jesus’ and the Apostles’ message was mainly eschatological in nature, so it should concern a Christian when another says eschatology is not important.  But also, such a person who says they have no view on the issue is often found to have a view but will not interact with others upon it.

Usually the reason for the hesitancy to interact is due to the fact that a clear cut eschatological view greatly impacts the other ologies the person thought they had nailed down tightly.

So, I submit that the proper order of the ologies of biblical studies ought to be:

• ESCHATOLOGY – doctrine of the last things or consummation
• SOTERIOLOGY -- doctrine of salvation
• ECCLESIOLOGY – doctrine of the church or assembly

To be sure there are sub-topics to each of these but this should be sufficient to start.

To conclude the point, let us say that much of the soteriology and ecclesiology of the N.T. was framed around the eschatology – that is Jesus and the Apostles, as they spoke of the “end times” and the consummation were directing their soteriological and ecclesiological teaching toward a specific group and for a specific purpose.

Now, some people object to this reasoning, saying that such reasoning will lead to a very narrowly defined audience.  They will claim then that the N.T. really has nothing to do with the modern Christian.  To that we could respond yes and no, being that the N.T. was written TO a specific people for a specific purpose yet we (modern day Christians) benefit from those to whom and about whom the N.T was written.  This should immediately raise questions like:  Then how are we saved and how and why should we congregate?

If it is true that Christ was going away for a little while and then returning in a little while wherein He would judge and redeem – then we have no business applying some of the very specific encouragements and admonishments to ourselves.  For, which of us was ever accused in the synagogues?  For which of us were ever fellow partakers in THE Tribulation? For which of us were ever enduring and overcoming until the end of the age?

Until a person understands how eschatology really drives their other ologies, they can and will simply compartmentalize and mix and match their soteriology and ecclesiology.  Christianity has had its defining moments about soteriology and ecclesiology.  That is the reason for the Roman Catholic and Protestant split.  I advocate that Christianity is about to have a defining moment on eschatology and it will sweep aside many of the lines that were drawn over the other ologies.  It will impact all denominations, all soteriological and ecclesiological alliances and differences as has never been before.  Those alliances and differences will fade and it will primarily matter where a person stands in reference to their eschatological views.