Spirit Of The Times

Irony Of The Times

I just can't help but think about how terribly funny (and simultaneously sad) it is, that at the end of the year 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future.

Sound like another of my articles? This one is thanks to Gary DeMar (go figure). . .

At that time, "Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science, and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through the study of the pagan past.Islam was now expanding at the expense of Christendom. . .The Ottoman Turks, after snuffing out all that remained of the Byzantine Empire, had overrun most of Greece, Albania and Serbia; presently they would be hammering at the gates of Vienna."

That information was taken from Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942), 3.

Anyway: the intent of this article is to point out that the prevailing attitude of the times was a pessimistic one, similar to the attitude of many Christians today, and yet...the end has STILL not come.

Think of the wasted hours many may have spent in anxious worry over the advance of the Turks, the spiritual state of the Empire, or the fact that the refigerator had yet to be invented.

What can we learn from all this?

Post-Post Millennialists

The falacy of the complete Millennium

The Germans have a word which describes most arm-chair theologians, especially where Eschatology is concerned: zeitgeist.

It means, The Spirit of the Times.

In this respect, each generation in Christendom has formed and re-formed its own respective Eschatological views.

But what is the true answer? How are we to know what is true, without being affected by the influences of our own generational near-sightedness?

One solid answer is to glean the truths of each preceding age. Dispensationalism, for instance, grew out of the heritage of Medieval Catholic Eschatology. The Protestant Reformation, however, marks a break with the Roman Catholic Church. And even though some of its theology continued to draw from Medieval thought, much of it was a return to Biblical theology, the area of Eschatology included.

The death of John Knox in 1572 set the stage for a shift in the development of English apocalyptic interpretation. During his last year, Knox preached a series of dynamic sermons at St. Andrews University on the prophecies of Daniel. James Melville, who was a student at that time, wrote: "he maid me sa to grew and tremble, that I could not hold a pen to wryt." From that point on, prophetic studies dominated the theological discussions at St. Andrews for decades to come.

However, while many of these circumstances may have far-reaching results in our own century, it would be - of a certainty - very far-fetched to assume that the direct result of Medieval and Puritan Eschatological studies is our own day's hyper-dispensationalism, or even our day's post-post millennialism.

In order to claim that a post-post's view of the millenium is legitimate because it had its inception in the Medieval ideologies of the seven dispensations, etc., one would have to also accept the whole system.

The first problem with this (for Protestants) is that it means re-aligning with a Catholic idealogy, which has long since been abandoned.

The second is that, since the system is built upon the Middle English idea of

"The World shall last sixe thousand yeeres;

Two thousand thereof shall be a vacuitie

Two thousand the Law shall continue;"

(Daniel Featley's Clavis Mystica by R. Bauckman, Tudor Apocalypse (Appleford: Courtenay Classics, 1978), 2-283.),

one has to also accept this thought to accept the rest. Becaus as many earlier (Catholic) theologians believed, the earth would only last for about 6,000 years. (Six days of creation / six thousand years of History.)

But the system is fouled up. It would have been convenient for those who lived pre-15 or 1600. For us, however, it is obvious that the Tudor Apocalypse is not the end, nor the beginning of the end.

Once again, this belief is a result of a generational near-sightedness, one which is proved incorrect when placed against the test of time. To truly understand the whole "dating system," take it ALL the way back to Christ, who said, "this generation shall not pass, until all these things have been fulfilled."

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."

"But we fear that the dispensationalist method of interpretation does violence to the unity of Scripture and to the Sovereign continuity of God's purposes, and cavalierly leaves out of account a major portion of the apostolic teaching - that, chiefly, of the Acts and the Epistles - as unrelated to the perspective of the Old Testament authors."
Philip E. Hughes, Interpreting Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 104.

Worse & Worse?
Claiming the Promise of the Kingdom

Modern Evangelical America tells us that times for the Church are getting darker. They purport the message that things are getting worse and worse, and that soon, the End shall come, and the Antichrist shall rule (*let the lightning crash*).
The popular idea is that all is spiraling downward toward the final moment when the "Great Tribulation" shall come, and the church will be "raptured" away.

I'll bet some folks thought similarly, that things were getting grim for Christians on October 30th, 1517. However, the next day, a fellow named Martin Luther surprised them by nailing his 95 thesis to the door of the Castle Church.
Funny how - in the midst of all that darkness - he sparked a Reformation, shaking the whole of Chirstendom forever.

I'll bet some doom-n-gloom folks thought that things were nearing the end for the Protestants when George Wishart was tried by the Catholic Church and burned for "heresy."
Until this funny little fellow who had been following Wishart around, acting as his bodyguard (holding a double-bladed sword) decided to take up the cause and became a Protestant Minister. His name was John Knox.

American Evangelicals today are aggravated because their attempts to "evangalize" American culture have been frustrated. A lesson in History shows us that Christians in America and England felt a similar frustration in 1730.

As G. R. McDermott points out, "They, too, had failed to reform their societies after decades of political and social effort. Preaching endlessly for moral reformation elicited boredom and contempt; reducing standards for church membership brought in more people but few conversions; and political leaders paid lipservice to...religion while furthering the secularization of society."

Rough times? It was for Jonathan Edwards when he was refused admission to preach in a Northampton church. If Hal Lindsay had been there, he might have told us it was the end. Jonathan Edwards, however, stepped onto his Father's tombstone (yes, he really did) and began to preach.
Imagine it: standing there on the tombstone, the rain begins to fall, and two or three people passing stop to listen to this man speak. Is he drunk? They wonder. What is he doing out here in the graveyard? Then two or three more are motioned over. Someone pokes their head out of the church; Is that really John out there preaching?
His pages begin to curl in the rain, his clothes are soaked, his voice is muffled by thunder, but the crowd gathers...
Enter stage right: The Great Awakening.

So, the next time some premillenialist tells you that things are getting "worse and worse," or that evil is just a "sign of the times..."
Remember, that all it takes for things to go from worst to best, is a rainy place to speak. Perhaps an unknown follower. Or how about one little fellow with a hammer, a thesis, and a devotion to God?

The Reasoning of Evangelical America

I'll admit it upfront: I am not what we might consider a modern "evangelical." This means that you probably won't find me pounding on your door on any given day, to instruct you to pray the Roman's Road Prayer. (Doesn't mean, however, that I don't believe in being a witness.)
The situation in my mind is - however - one that concerns the inconsistencies in Evangelical Theology. The problem lies when they try to cross over from (abstract) Theology into (corporeal) Practicality.
Here's a for-instance or two...

Evangelical: "Jesus is coming soon."
Me: "Bet you invested in your company 401k."

Evangelical: "The end is near."
Me: "Planning for your child's college? Bet so."

Evangelical: "The Signs of the Times are everywhere. We should be ready."
Me: "Been out to eat lately?"

Evangelical: "He is at hand!"
Me: "Re-roofing your house, eh?"

In otherwords - The Premillenialist philosophy (theology) says one thing, and practically, they do another; because it simply wouldn't be reasonable or comfortable to live as if tomorrow, the Antichrist were coming.
My temptation was to stop writing here...to leave the hypocrisy splayed wide open, and point the righteous finger at the Evangelical world, however, I would not be doing my duty as an honest theologian if I did.
Therefore I must confess that the hypocrisy is not one-sided. Amillinial proponents (as well as us Posts) often run a-foul of this sort of hypocrisy as well.
In our case, it is the reverse:

We say: "Usher in the Kingdom."
Problem: We live like Premillenialists.

We say: "The Golden Age is dawning."
Problem: We could care less about Dominion.

Ultimately, the situation looks like this: The Premils ought to either act on their end-times doom and gloom, or change their theology to match ours.
And we ought to either change our theology (which we shouldn't), or we ought to begin to live with Dominion in mind. This means taking a fresh look at how we live, how we work, how (and why) we water our yards and rake our leaves.

The Scriptures say: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion..."
We say: "It's time to get to work."