Medieval Roots of Dispensationalism?
Seven dispensations, the Church, future conversion of the Jews & the invasion of Gog and Magog
Edward E. Hindson, the Dean of the Institute of Biblical Studies (Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia) has written that,
"Dispensationalism grew out of the heritage of Medieval (Catholic) eschatology...

A typical early English version reads:

The World shall last sixe thousand yeeres;
Two thousand thereof shall be a vacuitie;
Two thousand the Law shall continue.

Eventually the Six Ages were popularly distinguished as:

1. Adam to Noah
2. Noah to Abraham
3. Abraham to David
4. David to the Captivity
5. Captivity to Christ
6. Christ to last Judgment.

This concept of distinguishing specific ages of biblical and contemporary history became entrenched in medieval theology. It was later paralleled to the six days of creation. Thus, it was observed that man was created on the sixth day and that Christ came in the sixth age. Eventually, the concepts of the Three Eras and the Six Ages were conflated (since they both totalled 6,000 years) by Martin Luther in the title page to his Supputatio Annorum Mundi (1541):

ELIA Propheta
Sex milibus annorum stabit mundus.
Duobos milibus inane.
Duobos milibus Lex.
Duobos milibus Messiah.
Insti sunt Sex dies hebdomadae coram Deo.
Septimus dies Sabbatum acternum est.
Psalm 90. Et 1 Pet. 2
Mille anni sicut dies unus."

Many Catholic thinkers accepted the popular Medieval concept that the "Prophecy of Elijah" limited human history to six thousand years. The belief that the six days of creation corresponded to the six ages of human history was established as early as Isidore of Seville (560-636) and Bede (673-735). Bede even paralleled the morning and evening of the days of creation to the six ages. All of this figurative imagery was based, of course, on pure hypothesis and conjecture, as much of the early Catholic (and dare I say, LATER Catholic) theology.

By the twelfth century, commentators such as Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075-1129) and Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173) interpreted the Apocalypse as outlining all of church history. As the Catholic church strayed from orthodoxy, others viz., Otto of Freising (1111-1158) began to view the Book of Daniel as predicting the rise of the Roman Empire (fourth monarchy) and Revelation as predicting the struggle of the Roman Church. They forsook an Historic stance on the Apocalypse, and emphasized the literal interpretation of prophecy and its relevance to universal history. Otto also introduced the idea that the 1,000 year binding of Satan began with Constantine's legalization of Christianity (325) and would end in about 1325, when Satan would be loosed to deceive the world prior to his ultimate destruction.
The concept of Satan's binding from 325-1325 was thereafter commonly accepted by Medieval writers. It led to the idea that the Antichrist would appear in the fourteenth century.

Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202) became the most influential Medieval scholar in the area of apocalyptic eschatology. Joachim viewed the seven seals of the Apocalypse as predictive of seven ages of Church history, an idea that was also popular with early dispensationalists. He saw the last stage as the "Age of the Spirit," followed by the final cataclysm. He also viewed Mohammed as the False Prophet and the Turks as Gog and Magog.

One scholar noted that "The widespread popularity of his views held sway over European scholars until the time of the Reformation."

I respond by saying, "How true. When the light of the gospel shines in upon the imaginations of men, their foolishness ceases, and they accept the doctrines of God."

A Revival Of Logic
Why Protestants Are Thinking (The Neo-Thomistic Doctrine)

"Early in the 19th century in Italy certain Catholic professors of philosophy began to see in Thomas Aquinas's teaching basic principles that might resolve the problems associated with Kantian and Hegelian Idealism, British Empiricism, current Rationalism, Skepticism, and Liberalism. By 1850, neo Thomism or neoscholasticism began to be heard through the writings of Gaetano Sanseverino in Naples, Matteo Liberatore in Rome, and the Jesuit periodical Civilita Cattolica founded in Naples in 1850. These efforts were brought to a head by Josef Kleutgen in Germany, Henri LaCordaire in France, Zeferino Gonzales in the Philippines and Spain, and Tommaso Zigliara and Pope Leo XIII in Italy. The charter of this neo Thomism was Leo's Aeterni Patris (1879). Through subsequent encyclicals, Leo exemplified the applicability of Thomistic ideas to contemporary problems. All subsequent popes, including John Paul II, reiterated the need for a Christian philosophy based on Thomistic principles.

The rise of Modernism in the Roman Catholic church after 1900, however, resulted in a multiplicity of ecclesiastical condemnations, a legislated Thomism, and a failure to realize the hopes of Leo XIII. Despite this and two world wars, much fruitful work was accomplished by outstanding scholars, numerous periodicals, and editors of historical texts, including the critical edition of the works of Aquinas (the Leonine Edition). Among the great number of modern scholars who called themselves Thomists (but not neo Thomists or neoscholastics) were Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Martin Grabmann, and Yves Congar."

With the rise of Hyper-Fundamentalism, a reaction against Aquinas and neoscholasticism occurred in the 1960s. While some have erroneously pointed to the the Second Vatican Council, which turned people's minds toward social rather than doctrinal issues, the true culprit was the Voluntaristic style emphasized by fundamental zealots.

This brings us to the ray of light which I have been itching to write about: Neo-Thomism.
This twentieth century revival of Thomas Aquinas' thoughts differs from the original philosophy, in that it undergirds Protestant theology more firmly, while not at the expense of much Roman theology (only in some areas of ecclesiology.)

"The metaphysical distinctive of neo Thomism may be found in its insistence on the maxim that 'existence precedes essence.' For that reason (it has been claimed) that Thomism is the original existentialism. Put simply, this means that one has to know that something exists before one knows what it is, and before one knows that something exists, one has to accept that anything exists. This latter conviction is not the result of a rational deduction; it is an immediate awareness. Thus the act of being, apprehended in a direct intuition, precedes its various modalities.

This apprehension of being leads the Thomist to posit the existence of God via the cosmological argument. For even though the reality of being is an inescapable fact, it is not a logically necessary truth. Being exists, but need not exist. Thus being is inherently contingent, and its contingency makes it finite. If it exists in view of having no inherent necessity to do so, it must be caused to exist. Also, the very forms which being assumes are due to the interplay of various causes; and the fact of change, so characteristic of being, must be the result of causal actions as well. Thus being is bounded by causes wherever it appears.

However, since it is a logical absurdity for anything to cause itself, there must be an external cause of being. Now if that cause is also finite, we have not grounded finite being yet, and it still should not exist. A chain of finite causes would carry the same problem with it. Hence the Thomist posits an original uncaused cause of all being, viz. God. It must be noted that this argument is based on the metaphysical necessity for a cause of being, not on a need for explanation, as would be the case with Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason.

The understanding of God as unconditioned necessary existence goes far in providing the basis for Thomistic natural theology. For if God is uncaused, he is unlimited. Then he contains all perfections infinitely; e.g., he is all - good, omnipresent, omniscient, all - loving, perfect person, etc. There can be only one such God, since a God who possesses all perfections cannot differ from any other God who would also possess all the identical possessions. Thus Thomists feel confident that their philosophical arguments concern the same God whom they worship in church.

Thomism understands the relationship between God the Creator and the created order to be analogical. God is the source of all being, and finitude participates in his being, but only with limitations. In the matter of applying language to God, predication proceeds analogically as well. Language is derived from the finite world. But then it is applied to God with the understanding that he is the source of all named properties and that he posseses all those properties without limitation. For example, one may apply the word "love" to God, even though it is a word learned within human finite relationships, because God is pure love and the originator of all human love.

The insistence on being over essence also makes itself felt in Thomism's understanding of the human person. Thomism avoids both a Platonic mind - body dualism and a reductive materialism. With the understanding of the soul as the form of the body, the human is seen as a unit, composed of soul and body in mutual dependence. Thus, for instance, cognition combines both the physical / empirical (sensation) and the spiritual (abstraction). Thomistic writings have consistently defended the dignity and integrity of human personhood, particularly against totalitarian ideologies."

While some argue that Thomism (even Neo-Thomism) is a purely Catholic doctrine, we at the WBI Study Centre would disagree.

"In theology Thomism has usually been linked to conservative expressions of orthodox doctrines, partially due to the close dependence on Aquinas's own formulations. Since the Second Vatican Council it has lost much ground in Catholic circles to philosophies of more recent origin, e.g., phenomenology or process thought, due to a certain impatience with Thomism's supposedly outmoded Aristotelianism. At the same time there has been some movement in evangelical Protestantism to adopt Thomistic philosophical principles for purposes of apologetics and theological enhancement, e.g., by Norman L Geisler."

W Corduan
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

The Pillar & Ground of Truth
Nominalism, Voluntarism, & Thomism continued...

If you have not read the article entitled Catholic Protestantism, you should check it out before reading this article.

The purpose of this article (Pillar & Ground of Truth) is to emphasize that Thomistic doctrines were not suppressed by the doctrine of the Reformation.

When I speak of Thomistic doctrine, I do not point to clearly established Catholic doctrine or dogma, but rather, the idea laid down by Thomas Aquinas which attempts to comprehend Christian doctrine through a realistic & comprehensive intellectual sense. Aquinas incorporated much of Aristotle's logic into his efforts to either elucidate or simplify his Theology.

This same concept, I argue, is seen in the writings and practices of the Reformers, although we may be tempted to misinterpret their stance, since they were fighting the sensless doctrines of their time, and attempting to elevate the importance of Faith (Sola Fide).

It has been argued by some that, among the various doctrinal implications of the Reformation was the influence of Voluntarism, however I think that those who truly hold to the key doctrines of the Reformation (i.e., those who call themselves Reformed) would disagree.

For instance, Matthew Henry, when commenting on God's love for the "Gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob," says that His love was, in particular, for His "Houses of Doctrine." (Not the Voluntaristic style of Modern Evangelicals, who purport God's supposed love for all men.) Here, the distinctives of discernable doctrine are elevated and respected.

Charles Spurgeon, a definite proponent of Reformed Theology, when speaking on the same passage (Psalm 87:2) speaks of the doctrine of the Church, and how she is the Ground & Pillar of Truth. He argues that the authority of this position hinges on particular doctrines, not some voluntaristic "feeling" with no legitimate foundation.

Clearly, these are not men who would seek to root out the theological or intellectual implications of the doctrine of the Church.
It was certainly said of John Gill that there was no "greater learned man in all of England" while he lived. In "A Tercentennial Appreciation" of John Gill (Edited by Michael A.G. Haykin) it is said of Gill that he was the "doyen of High Calvinism in the transatlantic Baptist community of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."

As we look at some of the highlights of Gill's theological career, we quickly realize the extent of his Intellectual prowess and the theological nuances which composed his person. For instance, if we were to peruse his extensive published works, we would immediately be made aware of his trinitarian theology, soteriological views, Baptist ecclesiology, and his use of Scripture.

Time would fail me to speak of the Puritan views of doctrine and intellectual illumination, while clearly following established Reformation Theology.

Certainly, then, it is illogical to claim that the Reformed Tradition engenders or encourages Voluntarism, but seems, indeed, to do quite the opposite.

For a defense of Gill's scholasticism, I suggest clicking this ARTICLE.

Catholic Protestantism
Fundamentalists Linked to Reformers?

I read an article on Nominalism & Voluntarism recently. The article argued in favour of what it called "Catholic Protestantism."
Sound like an oxymoron? It did to me too, although the author attempted to make it sound plausible. This is basically what was argued (I won't say who did the arguing):
'The original postulates of the Reformation have severed the link of Faith & Reason where man & God are concerned. This is why Evangelicals today deny any Intellectual Discernment & push only the will, only Spirit-leading, or some other spiritualized intution rather than the capacity to rationally discern.'

I am revolted. Let me rant for a moment and then I'll calm down and stop breaking things.

Here is the problem with this thought: they are attempting to link the Reformation to the universal concept (intentio secunda).
However, the Universal Concept has as its object internal representations...which means that the role of the universals is to serve, merely as a label; i.e., to hold the place in the mind of a multitude of things to which it can be attributed.

So, while - resultantly - I agree that Evangelicals (what I might call hyper-fundamentalists) probably ignorantly derive their contempt of Biblical Scholarship or Intellectual Discernment from some deviation of the Reformation (the urge that each individual know God personally), I would also say that Occam's Conceptualism applied here becomes very subjective.

Why? Because, when the abstract concepts reach the individual thing itself (as it exists in nature) the Universal no longer applies.
Ergo; voluntarism MAY be a RESULT of the Protestant Reformation, but the fundamental postulates could not have been what they may have inadvertently produced.

So, while I agree that Nominalism and Voluntarism are not the same thing (as the author tries to prove), and that Thomism was encouraged directly by several Reformers, as well as indirectly by others (Martin Luther once said: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason..."). I think that the ultimate conclusion falls short of the truth. The principles guiding the Reformation did not themselves (on the whole) encourage Voluntarism.

John Calvin, for instance, has been accused of total denial of philosophy. While it is true, that this reputation is rather well-earned, in another way, Calvin's consideration, knowledge, and use of philosophy in his own work refutes an obscurantist representation left by a surface-level reading.
A closer reading of Calvin's magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, along with his commentaries and treatises demonstrates that instead of denying the importance of philosophy, Calvin generally seeks to set philosophy in what he regards as its proper place.

In this sense, there is no need to "re-visit" Catholic Protestantism (or visit it in the first place), since the Reformers weren't attempting to pull away from Thomism. They had strong affinity with Aquinas, and in many respects, with Aristotle himself. However, I wholeheartedly agree that Fundamentalist Evangelicals need to re-evaluate their approach to Biblical Scholarship/intellectual discernment.

Galileo once said something to the effect of: 'I do not believe that the Creator who endowed us with the faculties of reason and intellect intended us to forgo their use.'

Ignorance of the Law: no excuse?

Reformed Protestants hold to the line of thought which says that men will die condemned if God does not regenerate their heart through the Holy Spirit. This means, even if they die on some backwater island with no knowledge of Salvation or the Scriptures, they are still condemned.

Armenien brethren would argue (not all, of course - let's be fair) that if they had never heard the gospel, they would be spared, else; how could they be held accountable for something they were never privy to?

Sound intelligent? It does to the Catholics.

The 1538 Questions and Answers on Catholicism And Protestantism [St. Paul: Radio Replies Press] claims to be “Invaluable for the uninformed Catholic - the educated and uneducated lapsed Catholic and prospective Convert.” Lets take a look at question #536.

536. Do you maintain that one is obliged to join your infallible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic, indefectible Church, if he wishes to be saved?

If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.

Elsewhere Rumble and Carty point out, “…[R]emember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him.”

Now Carty and Rumble are saying that if one has been presented with the “claims of the Catholic Church” and rejects them, one may be lost. Rumble and Carty want one to look at the evidence for Roman Catholicism and then make a decision on whether or not to believe it. If one rejects it, one is probably doomed to hell.

So my question is this: If the Catholic church wants more souls in Heaven, wouldn't it just be better to never mention the Catholic church at all? This way, no one would know, & they'd never have the option of declining membership; thus saving their souls.
See...& you thought we should be telling people.

“A man with God is always in the majority.” - John Knox
Tolerance, or Grace?

John Knox: a man who once told the Catholic clergy that they were "gluttons, wantons and licentious revelers, but who yet regularly and meekly partook of the sacrament."
He was not afraid of opposition. In ways, it has been argued (see How The Scots Invented The Modern World) that Knox saved Scotland from being overrun by English forces, as well as instituting the first modern form of democracy.

Mary, Queen of Scots (and a Papist) once remarked, "I fear the prayers of John Knox more than all the assembled armies of Europe." (Could have had something to do with the book he wrote with Mary in mind: The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women)

When it came to mapping out a plan or laying down the law, Knox never hesitated. His plan for a working Theocracy was one of the few which survived for any length of time in the modern day world.

He once said, "The repentance of England requireth two things: First, the expulsion of all dregs of popery and the treading under foot of all glistering beauty of vain ceremonies. Next, no power or liberty must be permitted to any, of what estate, degree or authority they be, either to live without the yoke of discipline by God's word commanded, or to alter one jot in religion which from God's mouth thou hast received. If prince, king or emperor would enterprise to change or disannul the same, that he be the reputed enemy to God, while a prince who erects idolatry must be adjudged to death."

So much for "live & let live," eh?
I think Knox knew something about Christian grace...nothing about tolerance. A lesson we could all learn.

These Things We Hold...
Tradition & The Word of God

Which is most important? Scripture, or Traditions of men?
Each time we ask that question, a problem rises: Some claim that Ecclesiastic Traditions are instituted by the Holy Spirit, and thus on equal footing with Scripture. Read the words of the Catholic Confession, Second Ed.:

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
"As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Then we ask the question in response; if both Tradition & Scripture must "be accepted & honoured with equal sentiments of devotion & reverence," ... what if the two contradict one another?

For instance, as Luther pointed out, that the Third Lateran Council contradicted the decree of Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, concerning EXTRA ECCLESIUM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside The Holy Roman Church), who - in turn - contradicted the the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, by Pope Boniface VIII, 1302 (which said that all had salvation who directly fell under jurisdiction of a Roman Pontiff), while the Second Vatican Council declared that all believers constituted the Universal Church, even those outside of Rome...however, many of the Early Church Fathers, as well as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Pius XII, & the Vatican II held the notion that whether or not one had implicit or explicit Faith (i.e., proper knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church), a sort of Salvific Grace covered the entire body of believers.

Ummm...so, what were we talking about? Oh yeah! The harmony of Traditions (of men) & the Scripture...yeah...well, maybe not HARMONY, but...
Ok, ok. It would take a far stretch of the Orthodox imagination to make believe that these traditions were inspired, since they contradict one another so often. It would almost tempt me to wonder whether or not one would have to be a heretic to believe in the inspiration of Tradition...
oops; did I just say that? :)