Compare And Contrast Cone's Theory Of Eschatology

Even though Christ is supreme in both of these theologian’s minds, their view on eschatology has a few key differences. Eschatology, according to Cone, is the study of “last things,” which deals with the questions of heaven, hell, and the afterlife. Cone takes a rather pessimistic viewpoint on these last things, and he sees much of white theologian’s work on eschatology as toxic toward true scholarship. Cone states that “black theology cannot reject the future reality of life after death—grounded in Christ’s resurrection—simply because whites have distorted it for their own selfish purposes.” For Cone, the work of white theologians acts negatively toward the meaning of truth, as blacks should not listen to the white theologian’s thoughts
This contrast is a weaker argument by Cone, because Paul states, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18 ESV). While Cone does not explicitly affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, he does affirm the truth of Scripture (there is a slight difference), but he has little basis for this eschatological view. Cone directly responds to this accusation, however, and says that “despite the emphasis on future redemption in present suffering, black theology cannot accept any view of God that even indirectly places divine appeal on human suffering. Cone takes this statement to be not only about the future, but to also be about present reality, and that suffering is also about the present struggle for justice in this
For example, they both affirm that “black theology insists that genuine biblical faith relates eschatology to history” in the sense of what God has done, is doing, and will do. They take a distinctively black approach to this issue, and emphasize the seriousness of the situation. Cone affirms that, “Christians must fight against evil, for not to fight, not to do everything they can to ease their neighbor’s pain, is to deny the resurrection.” For Cone, this means that Christians have a responsibility to not live honorable lives, but to make the lives of their fellow black theologians, whether in flesh or in spirit, more bearable. Roberts, who views heaven and hell as much more actualized, says, “If heaven is eternal blessedness, hell is eternal separation. If God is the source and sustainer of life, think what it must be like to be estranged from God as boundless love, mercy, and grace.” Roberts looks at heaven and hell as a present reality that should be avoided at all costs, and he sees it as something that is of paramount important to those reading this book. As Roberts takes this view more literally, his work comes off as more urgent, while Cone’s work looks at the view from a more hypothetical perspective, and he never clearly takes a stance on the