Eschatological Decline 1865-1925: The Rise of Premillennialism

"The sixty-year period following the War Between the States was a noteworthy period of doctrinal decline. This segment of American history witnessed a cultural and doctrinal shift from Calvinism to pietism, from the church to the parachurch, from optimism to pessimism, and saw biblical worship erode into a free-for-all of sentimentalism, retreatism, and anti-intellectualism. The next several "Eschaton" articles will address the subject of how Christianity changed from 1865-1925, why Christianity changed, and how that doctrinal shift affects the Church today. They will seek to explain the events that led to the development of the modern and unbiblical phenomena of a pessimistic worldview.

"Until the 1860s, American evangelicalism was so influential it was essentially a religious establishment. Almost all Protestants thought of America as a Christian nation whose faith was part of a normative creed. Northerners, in particular, believed their victory to have been an expansion of God's kingdom among men. The worldwide acceptance of the gospel was more than a hope, it was an expectation. Professor Samuel Harris of Yale in 1870 declared, "The sublime idea of the conversion of the world to Christ has become so common as to cease to awaken wonder."

"Christianity, however, had strayed from the historic Reformed doctrines that the human mind was blinded by depravity. Rather, a more man-pleasing view of human nature, called Common Sense philosophy, had begun to influence Christian thinking. This increasingly popular philosophy affirmed the sinfulness of man but held that all humans were endowed with the potential to know God's truth. Men, it was held, were moral agents capable of free choice. The Common Sense view of reality was believed to provide a rational and scientific confirmation of the Bible and the Christian faith. One historian noted, "In an age that reverenced science, it was essential that this confidence in Scripture not be based on blind faith alone. God's truth was unified, so it was inevitable that science would confirm Scripture."1 In essence, perceptions became a more sure proof, more authoritative than the truth of God's Word. This humanistic confidence was a recipe for disaster.

"The departure from historic Reformed Christianity to self-assured, self-centered thinking caused a crisis that rattled the weakened faith of many Christians. They were unprepared for the idea that "science" might be at odds with the Bible. Darwin's theory of evolution was an attack on the Bible which blind-sided a church that had drifted into Common Sense thinking."

...

"Historian Ernest Sandeen wrote, "[T]he most widely known author [of prophetic studies] was William Cuninghame of Lainshaw, an odd, cantankerous layman who never seems to have rested from a labor of vigorous attacks upon fellow millenarians whose opinions or motives he questioned. Cuninghame eventually built a small nondenominational chapel near his estate and became its minister, a pattern often repeated among millenarians."

"Millenarianism was the belief in a future reign of Christ in a millennium, which differed both in degree and kind from the historic view of the millennium. Millenarians had a pessimistic worldview and believed in an imminent return of Christ. Early millenarianism appeared among radical fringe groups during the English Civil War of the mid-1600s and included the Ranters, Muggletonians, Diggers, Quakers, and the violent Fifth Monarchists. Sandeen notes that the violent excesses, especially by the latter group, "served to damn the whole movement" until the French Revolution. Millenarian doctrine was more fully developed during the 1800s, and ultimately evolved into dispensational premillennialism."

Five part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

.....Eschatological Decline 1865-1925: The Resurrection of Premillennialism?

ie. premillennial,...pre-Tribulation RAPTURE,.....ongoing Biblical Prophetic continuity....!!!

Ephesians 1:11

.....................Israel is NOT the church, and the Church is NOT Israel

.....bottom line:

.....the LAND belongs forever to Israel,....and NOT to the church,....any church!

Romans 10:17

"The Resurrection of Premillennialism?
More like the beast from the sea ..."

Topcat thinks he's doing us a favor, but the above arrogant, ignorant, smirking post is becoming more and more typical of his offerings.

My2Cents: "I'm getting a tad tired of seeing posts on FR, both Catholic and Reformed posts, that have a lot of verbiage, but hardly ever, if at all, make reference to Jesus Christ."

My2Cents' complaint is pointing us in the right direction; Topcat's material is looking more and more like an attempt at self-agrandisement, rather than an infusion of knowledge.

To attack the 'resurection' of premil truths on the basis that the early reformers didn't understand them would be akin to rejecting modern high-tech weaponry on the basis that Attila didn't have them in his arsenal.
Luther and Calvin are to be commended for their contributions to the climb out of the pit of papism, but to assume that their primitive understanding of prophecy is the apex can only limit our spiritual growth.

Premillenialism is a part of an unsealing of prophecy, and a restoration of truths that were well understood by the first apostles. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, and these attacks on it are pestilance.

Premillennialism goes back to the Early Church Fathers. ... HOWEVER, the premillennialism they believed is far different than that of the "Left Behind" series.

Do you subscribe to the same brand of premillennialism as the Early Church Fathers (ECF)? Or do you favor the nouveau, dispie version?

For example, the ECF were universal in their understanding that the church was the successor to national Israel, and that the millennium was a time when Christ would be reigning with His church, without all the Jewish trappings. They spiritualized most the OT prophecies that modern dispie premils tell us are to be taken "literally". E.g., Justin Martyr, see his Dialog with Trypho.

Were they right or wrong?

The point of the article is that eschatology morphed into something unfamiliar to the ancient church fathers due in large part to many (semi-)cultic influences e.g, the Millerites, etc. What we have with us today, at least in the pop arena, is mainly the cultic version, not the historic version. The cultic version is radically disconnected from the historic version.

You see, you can't just claim that modern premillennialism is the "resurrection" of ancient premilliennialism ala maestro. While there is some superficial resemblance, the pedigree is very different. They would take a look at dispie premils with their bifurcated theology and chuckle.

Like I said, they might have had a more historical premil understanding. The difficulty of that, of course, is assigning historical events to the biblical prophecies.

There is some level of dispensationalism that we all might subscribe to since "dispensation" is a bible word. There is at least a dispensation of of the fullness of time. From that dispensation, one would think there had been a dispensation prior to that, and that there'd be one after that. Some will argue for a "dispensation of grace," and I think they have a point, but Paul could be saying that God has given him an overseer's charge to preach the gospel.

In the Eph verse, however, we are speaking of an "administration period."

1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Luther and Calvin are to be commended for their contributions to the climb out of the pit of papism, but to assume that their primitive understanding of prophecy is the apex can only limit our spiritual growth.

Very, very well said. Pastor John Robinson said much the same to the Mayflower Pilgrims right before they left for the New World: “For it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick antichristian darkness, and that the full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”

Those with a Reform eschatology tend to ignore several facts:

1) Premill was undeniably the belief of the ante-Nicean Church fathers; amill didn't appear until around the time of Origen and wasn't popularized until Augustine.

2) Historicism, the preferred Reform eschatology, was a novel idea in its time and was driven as much by politics as by exegesis. In fact, to use the amill expression, they were undeniably guilty of "newspaper exegesis," reading their own times and struggles into every prophecy.

3) Historicists have no room to complain about the occassional premill date-setter, since it was a spate of false predictions as to the time of the Second Coming during the 1800s, almost all based on the so-called day/year conversion, that caused a mass disillusionment with historicism in the first place, making room for premill (and unfortunately IMHO, pretrib with it) to rise to prominence.

It was Sir Isaac Newton who, though mostly historicist in his views, wrote, "About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."

Perhaps we should celebrate him for a prophet as much as for a scientist.

There is some level of dispensationalism that we all might subscribe to since "dispensation" is a bible word.

Perhaps.

"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture." (Scofield Reference Bible)

The Bible does not teach seven "dispensations" ala Scofield. In fact it teaches the opposite.

"nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration (oikonomia) of God which is by faith." (1 Tim. 1:4)

Paul's use of oikonomia in Eph. 1:10 is no different in substance than the words covenant and testament. The historic distinction is between what we call the old testament and the new testament. The "fullness of time" is the obvious indicator.

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law," (Gal. 4:4)

This one place is the only, possibly identifiable "dispensational" distinction in the Bible.

If you want to say that there are only two "dispensations" (covenants), one before the cross and one after the cross, then that is fine. In fact it will bring you closer to the historic teaching of the Church. But really there is only one "administration of God" and that is by faith (cf. Hebrews 11).

One can have a time before, a time of, and a time after....at a minimum.

I believe Ryrie or Walvoord had actually gone in that direction, except for an insistance that the words Church and Israel be looked at broadly...which is correct. The Church can be viewed as all believers of all times, it can be viewed as those who bear testimony of Jesus in this "fulness of times," and it can be viewed as the "Israel of God."

Israel can be viewed as the covenantal people who arose from Jacob and to whom was given the law, it can be viewed as those "fulness of times" believers of Christ who also are genetic Jews, and it can be viewed as the "Church -- the Israel of God."

That broad definition of each term can be scripturally supported. The difficulty, of course, in terms of prophesy, is to determine which is meant in any given passage if it isn't obvious from the context.

One can have a time before, a time of, and a time after....at a minimum.

Not acording to the language of Eph. 1:10 (cf. Gal. 4:4). The only "administration" spoken of is related to "in the fullness of time". By analogy with Gal. 4:4 that can only refer to the time of Christ appearance in the world, "born of a woman, born under the law".

Now you can argue that if there is an "administration" related to the "fullness of time", the time of Christ's appearing, then logically there is also an "administration" for the entire time prior to Christ's appearing. But there is no explicit language in the Bible that speaks of the old covenant in this way. And you are only left with two administrations; not three or seven or ten.

Israel can be viewed as the covenantal people who arose from Jacob and to whom was given the law, ...

However, the word "administration" is never used to divide the people of God the way that it is done in dispensationalism. Rather, there is a continuing of one people of faith from the older covenant to the new (cf. Hebrews esp. chapters 11 and 12). The entire thrust of the NT is that we are all God's people because of the faith of our father Abraham. There is but one "holy nation" and "royal priesthood", covenantally speaking. The only difference is that one half looked forward to Christ in anticipation, and one half looks back at the fulfillment.

One need only look at the image of the Bride/Church in Revelation 21, built around the 12 gates/tribes and 12 foundation stones/apostles, to appreciate this (non-dispensational) reality.

That broad definition of each term can be scripturally supported.

As an "administration"? I don't think so. However, if one abandons a "literal" approach to the subject then perhaps one can "discover" these types of "administrations" all over the Bible ala Scofield.

"Luther and Calvin are to be commended for their contributions to the climb out of the pit of papism, but to assume that their primitive understanding of prophecy is the apex can only limit our spiritual growth."
Very, very well said. Pastor John Robinson said much the same to the Mayflower Pilgrims right before they left for the New World: “For it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick antichristian darkness, and that the full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”
Those with a Reform eschatology tend to ignore several facts:

1) Premill was undeniably the belief of the ante-Nicean Church fathers; amill didn't appear until around the time of Origen and wasn't popularized until Augustine.

Well, which is it? Was the amil/postmil view a move "out of such thick antichristian darkness" of the earlier premillennialism, or are those who take a "latter day saints" approach to eschatology (dispie premil) the correct ones?

You will note that it is not the Reformed folks who are trying to argue two different positions at the same time.

BTW, Robinson was Reformed so I doubt he ever argued for nouveau, non-Reformed eschatology.

Eh? Do you even understand the issue at hand?

Premill was the position of the earliest Church. Of particular note, it was held by Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle who penned the Apocalypse in the first place. It was also held by Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Victoranius, and several others. Amill, in contrast, does not appear until the fourth century--interestingly enough, right about the time the Church started prostituting herself to the state, but that's another discussion.

In a similar vein, salvation by grace received in faith was also undeniably the position of the ECF. It was later that it was wrapped in legalism so tightly that it was nearly lost. When Robinson and others speak of the anti-Christian darkness, they are speaking not of the ECF, but of the papacy that followed it and smothered the Gospel in the traditions of men. The Reformers did not invent sola gracia, they rediscovered it.

In like fashion, the modern premills did not invent their eschatology, but have rediscovered the faith of the ECF.

That's not to say that the rediscovery happened all at once. In the case of salvation by grace, Luther and Calvin (and especially the latter) all but idolized Augustine--hardly a surprise, given their Catholic upbringing and teaching--and much like Augustine, overemphasized God's sovereignty over His character. That, like continuing the practices of infant baptism or antisemitism or denying the gifts of the Spirit, was an error on their parts that they carried with them from their Catholic backgrounds that later generations needed to correct as their understanding of the Scriptures grew.

In all cases, however, the goal has been not to come up with something new, but to return to the teaching of the Apostles and the very early Church, to before the corruption of the Gospel of later centuries. Which is what we premillennialists have done.

Eh? Do you even understand the issue at hand?

Yep.

In like fashion, the modern premills did not invent their eschatology, but have rediscovered the faith of the ECF.

When you use the phrase "modern premills", of whom are you speaking? Certainly you are not claiming that dispensaitonal premils are directly related to the ECF premils, now are you? Their bifurcated theology is at best a far distant relative of what the ECF taught.

Who would you say today are the inheritors of the position of the premil ECFs? Can you name names? Can you demonstare a familiarity with the ECF in the writings of, say, Edward Irving or JN Darby? Or is this appeal to the ECF on the part of modern premils really a bit of sleight of hand?

Can you demonstare a familiarity with the ECF in the writings of, say, Edward Irving or JN Darby?

Premillennial writer, D.H. Kromminga, The Millenium in the Church:
So far as the available evidence goes, there is no ground for ascertaining that Millenarianism was prevalent in the church during the apostolic period, ending with the year 150 A.D. Not only was there very little of it, so far as the literature indicates but what there was can be traced rather definitely to un-christian Jewish apocalyptic sources.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.