It's true that some believers get bogged down in theological minutiae (hair-splitting) that is, for the most part, pointless.

One of my children reminded me recently that I'm a pretty opinionated guy--and maybe a little bit too much so. There's a part of me that wants everyone to agree with me on everything because, of course, my view is the "correct" one!

So I have to guard against that tendency in my own life. Fortunately, the passage of time has a way of smoothing off some of those rough edges. I'm not nearly as dogmatic and self-assured as I was when I was a young preacher in my 20s and 30s. Back in those days, I was ready at the drop of a hat to debate anyone who dared to question anything I preached or wrote. Today, 40 or so years later, my approach has morphed somewhat. I suppose I'm still opinionated, but I try, nonetheless, to listen more than I talk. I find that I learn more that way. And boy, do I have a lot to learn!

These days, I'm more concerned with making sure that I'm right about my beliefs than I am about making sure everyone else agrees with me.

Eschatology is one of those fields of study where people tend to get bogged down with details. The main point of eschatology is that the Lord is coming back someday and in the meantime, we're here to live holy lives and serve Him faithfully in anticipation of that Day. It's really that simple. Peter says it like this:

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? (2 Peter 3:10-12).

However, one eschatological issue that is not minutiae and does make a difference, believe it or not, is the dating of the Book of Revelation. There are two main theories--the early date (somewhere around AD 65) and the late date (c. AD 95). Almost without exception, premillennial evangelicals (like us) hold to the late date. Preterists (who say the Book of Revelation is past history rather than future prophecy) rely heavily on the early date. In fact, their whole system falls apart if the early date cannot be upheld.

Mark Hitchcock, who stays busy pastoring a church while also teaching at Dallas Seminary, did his doctoral dissertation on this topic (the dating of the Book of Revelation). Dr. Hitchcock debated Hank Hanegraaf ("the Bible Answer Man") a few years ago and a three-part video of that debate on the AD 65 vs AD 95 issue is available on Vimeo: 

http://vimeo.com/25830703 (part one)

http://vimeo.com/25836659 (part two)

http://vimeo.com/25841874 (part three)

In my opinion, Hank is the smoother debater, but he plays fast and loose with selected facts and makes a huge gaffe in Part One when he boldly declares that Norm Geisler is a preterist (in reality, Geisler is a died-in-the-wool, pre-Trib premillennialist, about as far from a preterist as you can get!).

This highlights one of the shortcomings of debates as a tool for settling a disputed issue: that is, very often they're more about deciding who's the better debater than they are about figuring out who is right. In this case, some of us might be willing to concede that Hank was the better debater (style); but we would also say that Mark was right (substance).

But I could be wrong (not likely, but possible--ha). Check it out and let us know what you think!