This is an excellent article by Piper on fighting lust. I have copied it in its entirety below.
A N T H E M Strategies for Fighting Lust
By John Piper November 5, 2001
I have in mind men and women. For men it's obvious. The need for warfare against the bombardment of visual temptation to fixate on sexual images is urgent. For women it is less obvious, but just as great if we broaden the scope of temptation to food or figure or relational fantasies. When I say "lust" I mean the realm of thought, imagination, and desire that leads to sexual misconduct. So here is one set of strategies in the war against wrong desires. I put it in the form of an acronym, A N T H E M.
A – AVOID as much as is possible and reasonable the sights and situations that arouse unfitting desire. I say "possible and reasonable" because some exposure to temptation is inevitable. And I say "unfitting desire" because not all desires for sex, food, and family are bad. We know when they are unfitting and unhelpful and on their way to becoming enslaving. We know our weaknesses and what triggers them. "Avoiding" is a Biblical strategy. "Flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness" (2 Timothy 2:22). "Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (Romans 13:14).
N – Say NO to every lustful thought within five seconds. And say it with the authority of Jesus Christ. "In the name of Jesus, NO!" You don't have much more than five seconds. Give it more unopposed time than that, and it will lodge itself with such force as to be almost immovable. Say it out loud if you dare. Be tough and warlike. As John Owen said, "Be killing sin or it will be killing you." Strike fast and strike hard. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" ( James 4:7).
T – TURN the mind forcefully toward Christ as a superior satisfaction. Saying "no" will not suffice. You must move from defense to offense. Fight fire with fire. Attack the promises of sin with the promises of Christ. The Bible calls lusts "deceitful desires" (Ephesians 4:22). They lie. They promise more than they can deliver. The Bible calls them "passions of your former ignorance" (1 Peter 1:14). Only fools yield. "All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter" (Proverbs 7:22). Deceit is defeated by truth. Ignorance is defeated by knowledge. It must be glorious truth and beautiful knowledge. This is why I wrote Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ. We must stock our minds with the superior promises and pleasures of Jesus. Then we must turn to them immediately after saying, "NO!"
H – HOLD the promise and the pleasure of Christ firmly in your mind until it pushes the other images out. "Fix your eyes on Jesus" (Hebrews 3:1). Here is where many fail. They give in too soon. They say, "I tried to push it out, and it didn't work." I ask, "How long did you try?" How hard did you exert your mind? The mind is a muscle. You can flex it with vehemence. Take the kingdom violently (Matthew 11:12). Be brutal. Hold the promise of Christ before your eyes. Hold it. Hold it! Don't let it go! Keep holding it! How long? As long as it takes. Fight! For Christ's sake, fight till you win! If an electric garage door were about to crush your child you would hold it up with all our might and holler for help, and hold it and hold it and hold it and hold it.
E – ENJOY a superior satisfaction. Cultivate the capacities for pleasure in Christ. One reason lust reigns in so many is that Christ has so little appeal. We default to deceit because we have little delight in Christ. Don't say, "That's just not me." What steps have you taken to waken affection for Jesus? Have you fought for joy? Don't be fatalistic. You were created to treasure Christ with all your heart – more than you treasure sex or sugar. If you have little taste for Jesus, competing pleasures will triumph. Plead with God for the satisfaction you don't have: "Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days" (Psalm 90:14). Then look, look, look at the most magnificent Person in the universe until you see him the way he is.
M – MOVE into a useful activity away from idleness and other vulnerable behaviors. Lust grows fast in the garden of leisure. Find a good work to do, and do it with all your might. "Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord" (Romans 12:11). "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58). Abound in work. Get up and do something. Sweep a room. Hammer a nail. Write a letter. Fix a faucet. And do it for Jesus' sake. You were made to manage and create. Christ died to make you "zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14). Displace deceitful lusts with a passion for good deeds.
Fighting at your side,
Pastor John
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Train Wreck
[Please note this this is much longer than a blog post should be. I thought it was important to post the entire essay for the sake of continuity. Thanks for your patience]
I think at some point and time we have all seen, or for some of us even drawn the following diagram:
For some of you this is an old favorite. Others of you may have never even seen this diagram, so let me explain it. The thought process behind the diagram is that right thinking leads to right behavior (actions) which leads to right feelings, and in that particular order.
The diagram is most often used by biblical counselors and pastors when they encounter someone who is making decisions by letting their feelings lead them. For example, someone may say, I don’t “feel” love for my wife anymore. Therefore I am going to divorce her and marry another woman who makes me “feel” more loved. We would say that person is basing their decisions completely on their feelings. They aren’t considering biblical truth, the welfare of the other person or anything other than the way they “feel”. This is indeed a tragedy, and we need to point that person to a change in thinking and certainly a subsequent change in behavior. As you can see in the diagram, the feelings are a “caboose” that follows after the thinking and acting. They may or may not come along. After all, a train can run without a caboose.
In an effort to help change the man’s thinking about leaving his wife, the pastor or counselor will often give him scripture to read and memorize about pleasing God and not being selfish. The hope is that if the man is a believer, once he sees what God has to say about the situation he will change his thinking, resulting in a subsequent change in behavior. Then the pastor or counselor might say something like this “I know that you don’t feel like doing this and that this isn’t necessarily going to make you happy, but this is what God says and you must obey. The good feelings that accompany obedience will come along someday as you continue to obey. Even if they never come you still need to continue to be obedient.”
Let me say one thing before I move forward. All of the statements in the above paragraph are true. The methodology isn’t flawed. We must send people to scripture in order for God to renew their mind resulting in behavior change. However, in my humble opinion, the methodology, as well as the counsel given is incomplete. I think that the reason that they are incomplete is because the train diagram is incomplete, and the train diagram represents our theology of obedience. I consider myself to be a biblical counselor and work for a biblical counseling ministry. I see people everyday that are shackled to a feeling oriented life and need to change. I think that a revisitation of our theology of obedience will refocus us in a way that will glorify God and help people to change for His glory.
Exegetically I have never been able to embrace the train diagram shown above. It just seems like all too often in the Scripture God attaches feelings and emotions to our obedience, so that it seems inappropriate to simply consign them to the “caboose”. Since the train has been a staple of pastoral and counseling nomenclature for decades, I decided not to through out the train, but simply to modify it. I will show you my modified train diagram below, and then attempt to biblically defend why I think it represents a more God honoring view of obedience. (You may have to actually click on the train and open it to read everything clearly)
Here are the changes I made:
1- I added a visible furnace (the heart) so that we can see what is actually making the engine go. I don’t think that we can isolate thinking from the heart. Proverbs 23:7 says: As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.
2- I added a coal car called Godward Affection. You could change the name to Religious Affection or Delighting in God, etc.
3- I added an arrow showing that the coal from the coal car of Godward Affection is being placed into the furnace of the heart and this is what is resulting in the motion of the train. As you can see, when there is Godward Affection in the heart, it results in joy and gladness (which you can see coming out of the smokestack). This is what fuels the train and enables it to pull the car of obedience.
I know, I know, I can hear the question that you are asking. Why did you wreck the train? Well I had to. As I mentioned above I truly think that this represents a more God honoring and biblical theology of obedience. Let’s take a look at some of the Scriptures that have driven me to this conclusion:
Deut 28:47-48
Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you.
It seems clear in this text that God commanded more than just obedience. In this case it wasn’t okay for the feelings/emotions to be consigned to the caboose. It didn’t say that these bad things would happen simply because they didn’t serve God, but because they didn’t serve God with joy and a glad heart. I think that in this case they would be lacking joy and gladness coming out of their smokestacks!
Ps 100:2
Serve the LORD with gladness; Come before Him with joyful singing.
Serve the Lord with what? Once again, in this passage you can’t just hope the gladness would come along, and say even if it doesn’t just obey. God commands glad obedience.
2 Cor 8:1-3
Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord,
Take a look at the example that the Macedonians are for us. Paul says that their abundance of joy…overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. You see the joy they had in God, even in the midst of great affliction, preceded their actions and was a causative factor in their obedience. The affection for God and joy came first. Then came the action. The liberal giving was an overflow of joy.
2 Cor 12:9-10
And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
In Philippians 3 Paul says that we should consider him an example. Let’s do that for a moment. Look at the progression of the passage. As Paul think about the amazing grace of God which is completely sufficient for him, it results in him not just exalting Christ in his weakness, but gladly exalting Christ.
Heb 10:32-34
But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.
As the Hebrews meditated on the truth that they had a better possession and a lasting one, it resulted in them accepting joyfully the seizure of their property. They didn’t just accept it, they accepted in with joy as a result of meditating on the future grace of God in Jesus.
Heb 12:2
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Christ is our ultimate example. We see clearly in this passage that the joy that was set before was the motivation to endure the cross. He didn’t just think, then act, then hope for some joy. He clearly new the Father was accomplishing his will, and even in the midst of sweating blood, his meditation on that truth produced joy. That delight in the father and joy was what carried Him to the cross.
So those are just some of the biblical reasons why I could never totally embrace the original train and had to create a modified version. I earnestly think that failing to teach people to obey in this way can lead to the following problems.
1. Duty driven obedience that can result in legalism
2. Hopelessness in the Christian walk.
3. Ultimate trust in the flesh to change based on “positive” thinking.
Now let’s unpack how these three problems can practically flesh themselves out if we fail to pursue Godward affection.
1. Duty driven obedience that can result in legalism
I can hear what you are saying…But it IS our duty to obey God. I completely understand that. Christ says “If you love me, keep my commandments”. We must obey God; it is a non-negotiable in the Christian life. The problem is when the motivation for obedience is completely based on duty. Maybe this quote from Dr. John Piper in Desiring God will help clarify what I am trying to say:
Consider the analogy of a wedding anniversary. Mine is on December 21. Suppose on this day I bring home a dozen long-stemmed red roses for Noel. When she meets me at the door I hold out the roses, and she says, “O Johnny, they’re beautiful, thank you,” and gives me a big hug. Then suppose I hold up my hand and say matter-of-factly, “don’t mention it; it’s my duty.”
What happens? IS not the exercise of duty a noble thing? Do not we honor those we dutifully serve? Not much. Not if there’s no heart in it. Dutiful roses are a contradiction in terms. If I am not moved by a spontaneous affection for her as a person, the roses do not honor her…The fact is, many of us have failed to see that duty toward God can never be restricted to outward action…The real duty of worship is not the outward duty to say or do the liturgy. It is the inward duty, the command – “Delight yourself in the Lord!” (Psalm 37:4). “Be glad in the Lord and rejoice!” (Psalm 32:11)…
If I take my wife out of the evening on our anniversary and she asks me, “Why do you do this?” the answer that honors her most is, “Because nothing makes me happier tonight than to be with you.”
Remember the children of Israel were not threatened curses in Deuteronomy simply for disobedience, but for not serving the Lord with joy and a glad heart. God does not get the glory that is due him when we obey him simply because we want to avoid a curse, or don’t want to be punished. We must labor and plead with God to kindle affections in our heart that makes our delight in Him the motivation for all of life.
Presenting flowers to your wife on your anniversary simply because it is your duty can quickly turn into legalism. You do it because you know that you have to and so you can check that box off this year. Think about how the same principle might apply to our devotional life, serving our spouse, etc. If the thinking in the original train is simply about what we must do and what could happen to us if we don’t do it; then beware, legalism might be creeping up behind you.
2. Hopelessness in the Christian walk.
What if the train does just keep going without the caboose? What if the feelings never come? Where is joy? We must help our counselee’s distinguish between the affections for God and the warm and fuzzy feelings that we don’t want them to live by. If they are thinking about the right things and then subsequently doing the right things, but their motivation is wrong (not founded in affection for God and a desire for Him to be glorified) then they will probably be living a miserable obedient life. Motivation is so important that we must illustrate it for ourselves and for those that we are trying to help.
Let’s go back to our earlier example of the man who doesn’t “feel” love for his wife to flesh this out a bit. Let’s say that after confronting the man about leaving his wife he agreed that it would be unbiblical to leave her for another woman. He even agreed that he should begin serving her. Unfortunately his wife isn’t much of a wife. He writes her a love poem every morning and places it on the nightstand so that she will see if when she wakes up. Every morning his wife wakes up and sees the folded paper, crumples it up and throws it in the trash. If this poor man is simply writing the poems because that is what he feels like he is supposed to do, and he is hoping that his own warm and fuzzy feelings will be coming along sometime soon, he is going to fall into despair. In that scenario, if the wife persists, the feelings are never going to come along.
However, if this man has embraced the modified train up front, and if his poem writing is born out of an overflow of delight in God, and a desire to see His amazing God glorified even through difficult circumstances, then he can have joy even as he is rejected (James 1:2-4, Hebrews 10:32-35, Acts 5:41). If his circumstances don’t change then we can assume that in themselves they will never produce joy. His joy must start and end in God. As he becomes more satisfied in God and sees how God continues to give him grace and joy even as his wife is rejecting him, then the caboose might just come. He might feel an additional happiness that God is enabling him to persevere in his circumstances The circumstances don’t make him happy, but seeing God’s grace in the midst of them do (2 Corinthians 12:9).
3. Ultimate trust in the flesh to change based on “positive” thinking.
I’m afraid that the original train can result in a sort of behavior modification that leaves the worship of the Father, reliance on the Son, and enabling of the Spirit off to the side somewhere. Unfortunately, all too often I think we are inclined to use the Bible as a cognitive therapy manual. Cognitive therapy is defined as “a form of psychotherapy that emphasizes the import role of thinking in how we feel and what we do”. They even use homework to help the client change during the week. Oh, how I fear that all too often we substitute a Freudian textbook with the sacred scriptures and help people change their flesh without addressing their heart and affections.
I would imagine that a cognitive therapist could use the original train illustration very effectively in their counseling and would help people change with it. We MUST not settle for behavior change. We must exhort with tears our brothers and sisters to fall in love with Jesus Christ. We must do everything in our power to show them the majesty of God and the beauty of Christ and pray and fast that God would set their heart aflame with delight in Him and affection for Him.
If that is our goal, and their subsequent motivation for change, then the actions car and feelings car will fall into place just fine.
I think at some point and time we have all seen, or for some of us even drawn the following diagram:
For some of you this is an old favorite. Others of you may have never even seen this diagram, so let me explain it. The thought process behind the diagram is that right thinking leads to right behavior (actions) which leads to right feelings, and in that particular order.
The diagram is most often used by biblical counselors and pastors when they encounter someone who is making decisions by letting their feelings lead them. For example, someone may say, I don’t “feel” love for my wife anymore. Therefore I am going to divorce her and marry another woman who makes me “feel” more loved. We would say that person is basing their decisions completely on their feelings. They aren’t considering biblical truth, the welfare of the other person or anything other than the way they “feel”. This is indeed a tragedy, and we need to point that person to a change in thinking and certainly a subsequent change in behavior. As you can see in the diagram, the feelings are a “caboose” that follows after the thinking and acting. They may or may not come along. After all, a train can run without a caboose.
In an effort to help change the man’s thinking about leaving his wife, the pastor or counselor will often give him scripture to read and memorize about pleasing God and not being selfish. The hope is that if the man is a believer, once he sees what God has to say about the situation he will change his thinking, resulting in a subsequent change in behavior. Then the pastor or counselor might say something like this “I know that you don’t feel like doing this and that this isn’t necessarily going to make you happy, but this is what God says and you must obey. The good feelings that accompany obedience will come along someday as you continue to obey. Even if they never come you still need to continue to be obedient.”
Let me say one thing before I move forward. All of the statements in the above paragraph are true. The methodology isn’t flawed. We must send people to scripture in order for God to renew their mind resulting in behavior change. However, in my humble opinion, the methodology, as well as the counsel given is incomplete. I think that the reason that they are incomplete is because the train diagram is incomplete, and the train diagram represents our theology of obedience. I consider myself to be a biblical counselor and work for a biblical counseling ministry. I see people everyday that are shackled to a feeling oriented life and need to change. I think that a revisitation of our theology of obedience will refocus us in a way that will glorify God and help people to change for His glory.
Exegetically I have never been able to embrace the train diagram shown above. It just seems like all too often in the Scripture God attaches feelings and emotions to our obedience, so that it seems inappropriate to simply consign them to the “caboose”. Since the train has been a staple of pastoral and counseling nomenclature for decades, I decided not to through out the train, but simply to modify it. I will show you my modified train diagram below, and then attempt to biblically defend why I think it represents a more God honoring view of obedience. (You may have to actually click on the train and open it to read everything clearly)
Here are the changes I made:
1- I added a visible furnace (the heart) so that we can see what is actually making the engine go. I don’t think that we can isolate thinking from the heart. Proverbs 23:7 says: As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.
2- I added a coal car called Godward Affection. You could change the name to Religious Affection or Delighting in God, etc.
3- I added an arrow showing that the coal from the coal car of Godward Affection is being placed into the furnace of the heart and this is what is resulting in the motion of the train. As you can see, when there is Godward Affection in the heart, it results in joy and gladness (which you can see coming out of the smokestack). This is what fuels the train and enables it to pull the car of obedience.
I know, I know, I can hear the question that you are asking. Why did you wreck the train? Well I had to. As I mentioned above I truly think that this represents a more God honoring and biblical theology of obedience. Let’s take a look at some of the Scriptures that have driven me to this conclusion:
Deut 28:47-48
Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you.
It seems clear in this text that God commanded more than just obedience. In this case it wasn’t okay for the feelings/emotions to be consigned to the caboose. It didn’t say that these bad things would happen simply because they didn’t serve God, but because they didn’t serve God with joy and a glad heart. I think that in this case they would be lacking joy and gladness coming out of their smokestacks!
Ps 100:2
Serve the LORD with gladness; Come before Him with joyful singing.
Serve the Lord with what? Once again, in this passage you can’t just hope the gladness would come along, and say even if it doesn’t just obey. God commands glad obedience.
2 Cor 8:1-3
Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord,
Take a look at the example that the Macedonians are for us. Paul says that their abundance of joy…overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. You see the joy they had in God, even in the midst of great affliction, preceded their actions and was a causative factor in their obedience. The affection for God and joy came first. Then came the action. The liberal giving was an overflow of joy.
2 Cor 12:9-10
And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
In Philippians 3 Paul says that we should consider him an example. Let’s do that for a moment. Look at the progression of the passage. As Paul think about the amazing grace of God which is completely sufficient for him, it results in him not just exalting Christ in his weakness, but gladly exalting Christ.
Heb 10:32-34
But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.
As the Hebrews meditated on the truth that they had a better possession and a lasting one, it resulted in them accepting joyfully the seizure of their property. They didn’t just accept it, they accepted in with joy as a result of meditating on the future grace of God in Jesus.
Heb 12:2
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Christ is our ultimate example. We see clearly in this passage that the joy that was set before was the motivation to endure the cross. He didn’t just think, then act, then hope for some joy. He clearly new the Father was accomplishing his will, and even in the midst of sweating blood, his meditation on that truth produced joy. That delight in the father and joy was what carried Him to the cross.
So those are just some of the biblical reasons why I could never totally embrace the original train and had to create a modified version. I earnestly think that failing to teach people to obey in this way can lead to the following problems.
1. Duty driven obedience that can result in legalism
2. Hopelessness in the Christian walk.
3. Ultimate trust in the flesh to change based on “positive” thinking.
Now let’s unpack how these three problems can practically flesh themselves out if we fail to pursue Godward affection.
1. Duty driven obedience that can result in legalism
I can hear what you are saying…But it IS our duty to obey God. I completely understand that. Christ says “If you love me, keep my commandments”. We must obey God; it is a non-negotiable in the Christian life. The problem is when the motivation for obedience is completely based on duty. Maybe this quote from Dr. John Piper in Desiring God will help clarify what I am trying to say:
Consider the analogy of a wedding anniversary. Mine is on December 21. Suppose on this day I bring home a dozen long-stemmed red roses for Noel. When she meets me at the door I hold out the roses, and she says, “O Johnny, they’re beautiful, thank you,” and gives me a big hug. Then suppose I hold up my hand and say matter-of-factly, “don’t mention it; it’s my duty.”
What happens? IS not the exercise of duty a noble thing? Do not we honor those we dutifully serve? Not much. Not if there’s no heart in it. Dutiful roses are a contradiction in terms. If I am not moved by a spontaneous affection for her as a person, the roses do not honor her…The fact is, many of us have failed to see that duty toward God can never be restricted to outward action…The real duty of worship is not the outward duty to say or do the liturgy. It is the inward duty, the command – “Delight yourself in the Lord!” (Psalm 37:4). “Be glad in the Lord and rejoice!” (Psalm 32:11)…
If I take my wife out of the evening on our anniversary and she asks me, “Why do you do this?” the answer that honors her most is, “Because nothing makes me happier tonight than to be with you.”
Remember the children of Israel were not threatened curses in Deuteronomy simply for disobedience, but for not serving the Lord with joy and a glad heart. God does not get the glory that is due him when we obey him simply because we want to avoid a curse, or don’t want to be punished. We must labor and plead with God to kindle affections in our heart that makes our delight in Him the motivation for all of life.
Presenting flowers to your wife on your anniversary simply because it is your duty can quickly turn into legalism. You do it because you know that you have to and so you can check that box off this year. Think about how the same principle might apply to our devotional life, serving our spouse, etc. If the thinking in the original train is simply about what we must do and what could happen to us if we don’t do it; then beware, legalism might be creeping up behind you.
2. Hopelessness in the Christian walk.
What if the train does just keep going without the caboose? What if the feelings never come? Where is joy? We must help our counselee’s distinguish between the affections for God and the warm and fuzzy feelings that we don’t want them to live by. If they are thinking about the right things and then subsequently doing the right things, but their motivation is wrong (not founded in affection for God and a desire for Him to be glorified) then they will probably be living a miserable obedient life. Motivation is so important that we must illustrate it for ourselves and for those that we are trying to help.
Let’s go back to our earlier example of the man who doesn’t “feel” love for his wife to flesh this out a bit. Let’s say that after confronting the man about leaving his wife he agreed that it would be unbiblical to leave her for another woman. He even agreed that he should begin serving her. Unfortunately his wife isn’t much of a wife. He writes her a love poem every morning and places it on the nightstand so that she will see if when she wakes up. Every morning his wife wakes up and sees the folded paper, crumples it up and throws it in the trash. If this poor man is simply writing the poems because that is what he feels like he is supposed to do, and he is hoping that his own warm and fuzzy feelings will be coming along sometime soon, he is going to fall into despair. In that scenario, if the wife persists, the feelings are never going to come along.
However, if this man has embraced the modified train up front, and if his poem writing is born out of an overflow of delight in God, and a desire to see His amazing God glorified even through difficult circumstances, then he can have joy even as he is rejected (James 1:2-4, Hebrews 10:32-35, Acts 5:41). If his circumstances don’t change then we can assume that in themselves they will never produce joy. His joy must start and end in God. As he becomes more satisfied in God and sees how God continues to give him grace and joy even as his wife is rejecting him, then the caboose might just come. He might feel an additional happiness that God is enabling him to persevere in his circumstances The circumstances don’t make him happy, but seeing God’s grace in the midst of them do (2 Corinthians 12:9).
3. Ultimate trust in the flesh to change based on “positive” thinking.
I’m afraid that the original train can result in a sort of behavior modification that leaves the worship of the Father, reliance on the Son, and enabling of the Spirit off to the side somewhere. Unfortunately, all too often I think we are inclined to use the Bible as a cognitive therapy manual. Cognitive therapy is defined as “a form of psychotherapy that emphasizes the import role of thinking in how we feel and what we do”. They even use homework to help the client change during the week. Oh, how I fear that all too often we substitute a Freudian textbook with the sacred scriptures and help people change their flesh without addressing their heart and affections.
I would imagine that a cognitive therapist could use the original train illustration very effectively in their counseling and would help people change with it. We MUST not settle for behavior change. We must exhort with tears our brothers and sisters to fall in love with Jesus Christ. We must do everything in our power to show them the majesty of God and the beauty of Christ and pray and fast that God would set their heart aflame with delight in Him and affection for Him.
If that is our goal, and their subsequent motivation for change, then the actions car and feelings car will fall into place just fine.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Overview of Historic Premillenial Eschatology - Links for Distinctives
I don't know that I am going to try and recreate the wheel regarding the distinctives of historic premillenial eschatology. It seems that many other brothers far more educated than I have labored to create charts showing the disctinctives of the various eschatological systems. I will provide links to the best ones that I ran across below and then provide some clarifying comments.
Here is one from Fide-O's blog
Here is a nice overview created by Kim Riddlebarger
Here is probably the most detailed one from Reformed Reader
Here are some nice timeline charts created by Mark Vander Pol
One thing that you will notice as you look through the various charts and graphs is that there is disagreement among them regarding the question of rebuilding the temple in Israel. Because George Eldon Ladd is the undisputed forerunner in this century on Historic Premillenialism I decided to let him have the last say on the temple issue. In his book An Eschatology for Laymen Ladd writes:
Before we leave the millennial question, we should note another form premillennialism has taken, that of Dispensationalism. This is probably the most popular form of premillennialism in America. It holds that the millennium is primarily for the Jews. Israel will be restored to her land, will rebuild the temple, and will reinstitute the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this time all of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as a nation will be fulfilled literally. This is deduced from the conviction that God has two distinct and separate peoples:Israel and the Church, with two different programs and different blessings. God's program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God's purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.
Although he was brought up in this theology, the present author can no longer accept it. The reader is referred to chapter two of this book where the future of Israel is discussed. Hebrews 8 says clearly that the age of types and shadows -- the Old Testament cultic system -- has been abolished since the reality pictured in the cult has come in Christ. Romans 11 says clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved, but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church. Today the church is spiritual Israel, and literal Israel is yet to be regrafted back into the olive tree and be included in the true Israel of God. Therefore, it is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character.
After the millennium when the Age to Come has been inaugurated, John sees a new heaven and a new earth, unto which the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descends. Here is an important fact: the ultimate scene of the Kingdom of God is earthly. It is a transformed earth to be sure, but it is still an earthly destiny. Scripture everywhere teaches this. Paul says that "the creation itself will be set free from bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21) . Corresponding to the new creation is the resurrection of the body, discussed in another chapter of this book.
I also thought that this link from Spurgeon.com was interested regarding where they thought he came down on the eschatological issues.
This has been a great discussion and I hope that the sharpening can continue.
Here is one from Fide-O's blog
Here is a nice overview created by Kim Riddlebarger
Here is probably the most detailed one from Reformed Reader
Here are some nice timeline charts created by Mark Vander Pol
One thing that you will notice as you look through the various charts and graphs is that there is disagreement among them regarding the question of rebuilding the temple in Israel. Because George Eldon Ladd is the undisputed forerunner in this century on Historic Premillenialism I decided to let him have the last say on the temple issue. In his book An Eschatology for Laymen Ladd writes:
Before we leave the millennial question, we should note another form premillennialism has taken, that of Dispensationalism. This is probably the most popular form of premillennialism in America. It holds that the millennium is primarily for the Jews. Israel will be restored to her land, will rebuild the temple, and will reinstitute the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this time all of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as a nation will be fulfilled literally. This is deduced from the conviction that God has two distinct and separate peoples:Israel and the Church, with two different programs and different blessings. God's program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God's purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.
Although he was brought up in this theology, the present author can no longer accept it. The reader is referred to chapter two of this book where the future of Israel is discussed. Hebrews 8 says clearly that the age of types and shadows -- the Old Testament cultic system -- has been abolished since the reality pictured in the cult has come in Christ. Romans 11 says clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved, but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church. Today the church is spiritual Israel, and literal Israel is yet to be regrafted back into the olive tree and be included in the true Israel of God. Therefore, it is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character.
After the millennium when the Age to Come has been inaugurated, John sees a new heaven and a new earth, unto which the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descends. Here is an important fact: the ultimate scene of the Kingdom of God is earthly. It is a transformed earth to be sure, but it is still an earthly destiny. Scripture everywhere teaches this. Paul says that "the creation itself will be set free from bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21) . Corresponding to the new creation is the resurrection of the body, discussed in another chapter of this book.
I also thought that this link from Spurgeon.com was interested regarding where they thought he came down on the eschatological issues.
This has been a great discussion and I hope that the sharpening can continue.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
An Overview of Historic Premillennial Eschatology - History Q &A
A question that was brought up in the comments to Part 2 made me think that one more historical post might be appropriate to provide an answer. The question was “Did you dig in any more to see how many of the early church fathers were amill? I guess you addressed this here, but Waldron says that the church fathers were split on the issue between amill and hist premill. Does that seem fair to say based on what you have seen?” My answer wound up being much too long for a comment so the additional post seemed appropriate.
In order to determine if that statement (that the church fathers were split on the issue between amill and hist premill.) was fair, I'd have to gather more data.
1. What fathers in what era is he referring to?
2. Define what is meant by split.
Without knowing exactly what is intended by those two items, I don't know that I can give a "fair" answer, but I'll give it a shot. First off, lets take a look at this statement from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it.
In the first sentence you will note that he describes the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age as “prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism”. The council of Nicaea took place in 325 AD. So according to Schaff, up until that point the eschatology of the Fathers was primarily premillennial. I would agree with that statement. I think Schaff does a fair job of listing the proponents and the opposition to premillennialism as well. One thing that is notable though, as you look at the dates is the early absence of noted opposition to the premillennial position.
Lets take a look at the proponents. Barnabas was obviously first century. Papias as discussed in the previous post was also first century (around 60-135 AD). Justin Martyr was early second century (110-165). Irenaeus was mid-second century (130-202). Hippolytus then, who isn’t mentioned by Schaff, was a pupil of Irenaeus in the late second to early third century (170-236). Tertullian, mentioned above, was a contemporary of Hippolytus (155-230). Methodius a contemporary and opponent of Origen and died in 311 (I couldn’t find year of birth). Lactantius was a contemporary of Mehtodius and Origen and almost lived to see Nicaea (240-320).
Interestingly enough, the first ante-Nicene opponents mentioned are Caius and Origen and we don’t see them emerging onto the scene until the third century. I couldn’t find the dates for Caius but I did find that some of his writings appear to be dated around 199-217. Origen was also third century (185-254). Dionysius the Great and Eusebius were mid to late third and early fourth centuries respectfully.
This information is consistent with the research that I did as I was studying for these posts. So what does this tell us? Well it seems that from the time of the apostles up until the beginning of the third century (approx. 60-200 AD) there was not much notable opposition to the premillennial viewpoint of Barnabas, Papias, Martyr, and Irenaeus. So, to say that the earliest church fathers were split (if split means 50/50) I don’t think would be fair. I do think when discussing the earliest fathers, however, we must keep in mind the statement of Justin Martyr:
I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to your formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
This statement is telling. Its shows that many contemporaries of Martyr were premillennial, but many true Christians disagreed. If split means that some believed one way, and some a different way, then the statement is fair. But the church fathers seem to be leaning premillennial.
It seems that the historical transition from a predominantly premillennial eschatology began with the heresy of the Montanist movement. This was a heretical sect of what would be described in today’s terms as Pentecostals. Their leader, Montanus, claimed to be receiving direct revelation from God and that resulted in very strange ecstatic speech and visions, as well as many other strange things. Regarding Montanus’ distortion of the premillennial view, Schaff says,
The Montanists substituted Pepuza in Phrygia for Jerusalem, as the centre of Christ’s reign, and ran into fanatical excesses, which brought chiliasm into discredit, and resulted in its condemnation by several synods in Asia Minor.
Schaff then goes on to say that a combination of the opposition to the Montanists and the triumph of Christianity in the Roman empire was the “crushing blow” to premillennialism in the fourth and fifth centuries;
The opposition [to chiliasm] began during the Montanist movement in Asia Minor. Caius of Rome attacked both Chiliasm and Montanism, and traced the former to the hated heretic Cerinthus. The Roman church seems never to have sympathized with either, and prepared itself for a comfortable settlement and normal development in this world. In Alexandria, Origen opposed chiliasm as a Jewish dream, and spiritualized the symbolical language of the prophets. His distinguished pupil, Dionysius the Great (d. about 264), checked the chiliastic movement when it was revived by Nepos in Egypt, and wrote an elaborate work against it, which is lost. He denied the Apocalypse to the apostle John, and ascribed it to a presbyter of that name. Eusebius inclined to the same view.
But the crushing blow came from the great change in the social condition and prospects of the church in the Nicene age. After Christianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman empire, and was embraced by the Caesars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine and the downfall of paganism, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial state-church. Augustin, who himself had formerly entertained chiliastic hopes, framed the new theory which reflected the social change, and was generally accepted. The apocalyptic millennium he understood to be the present reign of Christ in the Catholic church, and the first resurrection, the translation of the martyrs and saints to heaven, where they participate in Christ’s reign. It was consistent with this theory that towards the close of the first millennium of the Christian era there was a wide-spread expectation in Western Europe that the final judgment was at hand.
In conclusion, it seems that the majority of ante-Nicene fathers in the first and second century were premillennial. Amillennial opposition started in the early third century, however it seems that the majority of church fathers were still primarily premillennial until around the mid-late third century, when you could argue that they were “split”. Moving past Nicaea into the fourth and fifth century there was definitely a shift from premillennial to amillennial.
In order to determine if that statement (that the church fathers were split on the issue between amill and hist premill.) was fair, I'd have to gather more data.
1. What fathers in what era is he referring to?
2. Define what is meant by split.
Without knowing exactly what is intended by those two items, I don't know that I can give a "fair" answer, but I'll give it a shot. First off, lets take a look at this statement from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it.
In the first sentence you will note that he describes the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age as “prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism”. The council of Nicaea took place in 325 AD. So according to Schaff, up until that point the eschatology of the Fathers was primarily premillennial. I would agree with that statement. I think Schaff does a fair job of listing the proponents and the opposition to premillennialism as well. One thing that is notable though, as you look at the dates is the early absence of noted opposition to the premillennial position.
Lets take a look at the proponents. Barnabas was obviously first century. Papias as discussed in the previous post was also first century (around 60-135 AD). Justin Martyr was early second century (110-165). Irenaeus was mid-second century (130-202). Hippolytus then, who isn’t mentioned by Schaff, was a pupil of Irenaeus in the late second to early third century (170-236). Tertullian, mentioned above, was a contemporary of Hippolytus (155-230). Methodius a contemporary and opponent of Origen and died in 311 (I couldn’t find year of birth). Lactantius was a contemporary of Mehtodius and Origen and almost lived to see Nicaea (240-320).
Interestingly enough, the first ante-Nicene opponents mentioned are Caius and Origen and we don’t see them emerging onto the scene until the third century. I couldn’t find the dates for Caius but I did find that some of his writings appear to be dated around 199-217. Origen was also third century (185-254). Dionysius the Great and Eusebius were mid to late third and early fourth centuries respectfully.
This information is consistent with the research that I did as I was studying for these posts. So what does this tell us? Well it seems that from the time of the apostles up until the beginning of the third century (approx. 60-200 AD) there was not much notable opposition to the premillennial viewpoint of Barnabas, Papias, Martyr, and Irenaeus. So, to say that the earliest church fathers were split (if split means 50/50) I don’t think would be fair. I do think when discussing the earliest fathers, however, we must keep in mind the statement of Justin Martyr:
I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to your formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
This statement is telling. Its shows that many contemporaries of Martyr were premillennial, but many true Christians disagreed. If split means that some believed one way, and some a different way, then the statement is fair. But the church fathers seem to be leaning premillennial.
It seems that the historical transition from a predominantly premillennial eschatology began with the heresy of the Montanist movement. This was a heretical sect of what would be described in today’s terms as Pentecostals. Their leader, Montanus, claimed to be receiving direct revelation from God and that resulted in very strange ecstatic speech and visions, as well as many other strange things. Regarding Montanus’ distortion of the premillennial view, Schaff says,
The Montanists substituted Pepuza in Phrygia for Jerusalem, as the centre of Christ’s reign, and ran into fanatical excesses, which brought chiliasm into discredit, and resulted in its condemnation by several synods in Asia Minor.
Schaff then goes on to say that a combination of the opposition to the Montanists and the triumph of Christianity in the Roman empire was the “crushing blow” to premillennialism in the fourth and fifth centuries;
The opposition [to chiliasm] began during the Montanist movement in Asia Minor. Caius of Rome attacked both Chiliasm and Montanism, and traced the former to the hated heretic Cerinthus. The Roman church seems never to have sympathized with either, and prepared itself for a comfortable settlement and normal development in this world. In Alexandria, Origen opposed chiliasm as a Jewish dream, and spiritualized the symbolical language of the prophets. His distinguished pupil, Dionysius the Great (d. about 264), checked the chiliastic movement when it was revived by Nepos in Egypt, and wrote an elaborate work against it, which is lost. He denied the Apocalypse to the apostle John, and ascribed it to a presbyter of that name. Eusebius inclined to the same view.
But the crushing blow came from the great change in the social condition and prospects of the church in the Nicene age. After Christianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman empire, and was embraced by the Caesars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine and the downfall of paganism, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial state-church. Augustin, who himself had formerly entertained chiliastic hopes, framed the new theory which reflected the social change, and was generally accepted. The apocalyptic millennium he understood to be the present reign of Christ in the Catholic church, and the first resurrection, the translation of the martyrs and saints to heaven, where they participate in Christ’s reign. It was consistent with this theory that towards the close of the first millennium of the Christian era there was a wide-spread expectation in Western Europe that the final judgment was at hand.
In conclusion, it seems that the majority of ante-Nicene fathers in the first and second century were premillennial. Amillennial opposition started in the early third century, however it seems that the majority of church fathers were still primarily premillennial until around the mid-late third century, when you could argue that they were “split”. Moving past Nicaea into the fourth and fifth century there was definitely a shift from premillennial to amillennial.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
An Overview of Historical Premillennial Eschatology - Part 2
I appreciate the comments and the learners spirit that resulted from the previous post. I pray that learners spirit will continue to be present among all of us as we work to define or to defend our eschatological system. With that in mind let’s start off with a quote by one of the church fathers that we heard from in the previous post. In Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr writes:
I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to your formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that man who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
It does us good when discussing this type of thing to keep Justin’s words in mind. Lest we think of ourselves as more pure, more pious, having a stronger faith, and being truer Christians simply because we have a different eschatological understanding that someone else.
With that being said, let’s jump back into the examination of Historic Premillennialism.
Historical Background, cont.
In the previous post we noted that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were two of the first prominent men in the early church to adhere to premillennialism. We established a fairly clear case for the based on their writings. We also noted the potential linkage of Irenaeus to the Apostle John, which requires us to at minimum sit up and take notice.
While Martyr and Irenaeus were the most prominent and were the earliest church fathers to write about chiliasm (millennialism), they were not the earliest church fathers who we know to have ascribed to it. One of Polycarp’s contemporaries named Papius (70-155) was bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis. Historians tell us that the Apostle John discipled Papius, along with Polycarp and Ignatius. There are none of the full works of Papius that have survived, we only have fragments from him that are found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. We do know that Papius embraced a premillennial view and in the International Bible Commentary Fredrick Bruce says that “he embellished his descriptions of it with features drawn from Jewish sources”.
Following in the linage of Polycarp and Irenaus was Hippolytus, bishop of Portus. He carried on the work of attacking heresey after the death of Irenaus. As extensively as Irenaeus and Martyr wrote on eschatology, Hippolytus’ work was even more extensive. Historic premillennialsts would quickly point out the fact that this is an unbroken linage starting with the Apostle John to Polycarp, to Irenaus, and then to Hippolytus. Other pre-Nicean premillennialists were Tertullian, Victornius, Lactantius, Melito, Theophilus and Commodianus. So it seems that is very clear that the pre-Nicene western fathers were for the most part premillennial.
To be fair to the early fathers, we should point out that the Alexandrian fathers rejected premillennialism. For example Origen (185-254) said that the literal interpretation of the chiliasts was “Jewish”. Clement of Alexandria also interpreted Revelation with a more mystical or spiritual understanding. Eusebius (270-340) and Tyconius (c.390) carried on the allegorical interpretation. Tyconius’ interpretation of Revelation seems to have played a large roll in convincing Augustine to shift from premillennialsim to amillennialism. This allegorical interpretation that Augustine published in the City of God, set the stage for not only the middle ages, but also the reformers view of eschatology.
For sake of time we will simply say that while it was consistently embraced by the early church fathers, premillennialism was virtually abandoned in the middle ages and by the reformers. During the middle ages premillennialism was sometimes considered heresy and during the reformation it was considered “fiction” by John Calvin.
Fastforward to the Puritans. While many puritans continued to embrace the allegorical view of the reformers Increase and Cotton Mather both believed in a literal millennium. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation Explained and Applied Increase Mather wrote:
“That which presseth me so, as that I cannot gainsay the Chiliastical opinion, is that I take these things for Principles, and no way doubt but that they are demonstrable. 1. That the thousand apocalyptical years are not passed but future. 2. That the coming of Christ to raise the dead and to judge the earth will be within much less than this thousand years. 3. That the conversion of the Jews will not be till this present state of the world is near unto its end. 4. That, after the Jews’ conversion there will be a glorious day for the elect upon earth, and that this day shall be a very long continuance.”
Many of the reformers understood Rome to the be the antichrist. So for approximately two centuries after the reformation, Protestants saw any type of futurism or literal interpretation of the millennium as the papcy’s self-defense against the attack of the reformers. This was because in the mid 1500’s Spanish Jesuits came up with two alternatives to the historicism of the reformers. One of these alternatives was a form on preterism and the other saw the antichrist as an actual future person and Babylon as a future state of Rome, not the one currently under the papacy.
In the 17th century a view of premillennialism was adopted by the Fifth Monarchy Men who attempted to establish a kingdom of God on earth, and then in the 19th Century by the Plymouth Brethren. The official entrance of premillennialism into Protestant churches was through Samuel R. Maitland during 1826-1830. Maitland was the Librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Edward Irving and J.N. Darby then embraced premillenialism, but took it in a direction where it hadn’t been before. Maitland introduced the secret rapture, and Darby incorporated it into his Dispensational theology. Scholars such as Stern and Bisping became to embrace premillennialism in the United States during this time while Isaac Williams was a premillennialist in England. In 1909 J. A. Seiss released Lectures on the Apocalypse which was one of the most influential presentations of the premillennial view in the 20th century. Charles Schofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer were strong proponents of Darby’s Dispensational premillennialsim moving through the 20th century.
The reaffirmation of Historic Premillennialism among evangelicals and reformed theologians in our present day is due in large part the influence of George Eldon Ladd. Ladd was a Baptist pastor and a professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Reformed theologians appreciated his scholarship and felt that he had the “right appreciation of the redemptive-historical significance of the first coming of Christ and of the NT age”. Ladd was not dispensational but his understanding of the already/not yet aspect of the kingdom of God played a large role in the inception of progressive dispensationalism. Many of Ladd’s essays and articles on the millennium can be accessed here.
Currently there are many very prominent theologians on the scene who embrace Historic Premillennialism, including the likes of John Piper, Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Mark Dever. The late James Montgomery Boice was also a Historic Premillennialist.
Historical Conclusion
The initial agreement among most of the pre-Nicean church fathers as well as the possible linage from the Apostle John to Papius and Polycarp, to Irenaeus, to Hippolytus cannot be ignored. While exegesis MUST be our primary means of developing our eschatological understanding, we should also at least consider the interpretation of the early church fathers when trying to understand some of these difficult passages.
I don’t believe that the abandonment of the premillennial position in the middle ages and by the reformers requires us to say that the interpretation was in any way invalid. It does however, help us see the magnitude of the influence that Augustine had on church history. As Alister McGrath observed “all medieval theology is ‘Augustinian’ to a greater or lesser extent”.
The slow and steady reaffirmation among the Puritans, Anglicans and now reformed evangelicals is evidence that Historic Premillennialism can holds it own as a legitimate exegetical option of eschatological interpretation.
[Coming Soon: Part 3 – The distinctives of Historical Premillennialism]
I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to your formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that man who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
It does us good when discussing this type of thing to keep Justin’s words in mind. Lest we think of ourselves as more pure, more pious, having a stronger faith, and being truer Christians simply because we have a different eschatological understanding that someone else.
With that being said, let’s jump back into the examination of Historic Premillennialism.
Historical Background, cont.
In the previous post we noted that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were two of the first prominent men in the early church to adhere to premillennialism. We established a fairly clear case for the based on their writings. We also noted the potential linkage of Irenaeus to the Apostle John, which requires us to at minimum sit up and take notice.
While Martyr and Irenaeus were the most prominent and were the earliest church fathers to write about chiliasm (millennialism), they were not the earliest church fathers who we know to have ascribed to it. One of Polycarp’s contemporaries named Papius (70-155) was bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis. Historians tell us that the Apostle John discipled Papius, along with Polycarp and Ignatius. There are none of the full works of Papius that have survived, we only have fragments from him that are found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. We do know that Papius embraced a premillennial view and in the International Bible Commentary Fredrick Bruce says that “he embellished his descriptions of it with features drawn from Jewish sources”.
Following in the linage of Polycarp and Irenaus was Hippolytus, bishop of Portus. He carried on the work of attacking heresey after the death of Irenaus. As extensively as Irenaeus and Martyr wrote on eschatology, Hippolytus’ work was even more extensive. Historic premillennialsts would quickly point out the fact that this is an unbroken linage starting with the Apostle John to Polycarp, to Irenaus, and then to Hippolytus. Other pre-Nicean premillennialists were Tertullian, Victornius, Lactantius, Melito, Theophilus and Commodianus. So it seems that is very clear that the pre-Nicene western fathers were for the most part premillennial.
To be fair to the early fathers, we should point out that the Alexandrian fathers rejected premillennialism. For example Origen (185-254) said that the literal interpretation of the chiliasts was “Jewish”. Clement of Alexandria also interpreted Revelation with a more mystical or spiritual understanding. Eusebius (270-340) and Tyconius (c.390) carried on the allegorical interpretation. Tyconius’ interpretation of Revelation seems to have played a large roll in convincing Augustine to shift from premillennialsim to amillennialism. This allegorical interpretation that Augustine published in the City of God, set the stage for not only the middle ages, but also the reformers view of eschatology.
For sake of time we will simply say that while it was consistently embraced by the early church fathers, premillennialism was virtually abandoned in the middle ages and by the reformers. During the middle ages premillennialism was sometimes considered heresy and during the reformation it was considered “fiction” by John Calvin.
Fastforward to the Puritans. While many puritans continued to embrace the allegorical view of the reformers Increase and Cotton Mather both believed in a literal millennium. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation Explained and Applied Increase Mather wrote:
“That which presseth me so, as that I cannot gainsay the Chiliastical opinion, is that I take these things for Principles, and no way doubt but that they are demonstrable. 1. That the thousand apocalyptical years are not passed but future. 2. That the coming of Christ to raise the dead and to judge the earth will be within much less than this thousand years. 3. That the conversion of the Jews will not be till this present state of the world is near unto its end. 4. That, after the Jews’ conversion there will be a glorious day for the elect upon earth, and that this day shall be a very long continuance.”
Many of the reformers understood Rome to the be the antichrist. So for approximately two centuries after the reformation, Protestants saw any type of futurism or literal interpretation of the millennium as the papcy’s self-defense against the attack of the reformers. This was because in the mid 1500’s Spanish Jesuits came up with two alternatives to the historicism of the reformers. One of these alternatives was a form on preterism and the other saw the antichrist as an actual future person and Babylon as a future state of Rome, not the one currently under the papacy.
In the 17th century a view of premillennialism was adopted by the Fifth Monarchy Men who attempted to establish a kingdom of God on earth, and then in the 19th Century by the Plymouth Brethren. The official entrance of premillennialism into Protestant churches was through Samuel R. Maitland during 1826-1830. Maitland was the Librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Edward Irving and J.N. Darby then embraced premillenialism, but took it in a direction where it hadn’t been before. Maitland introduced the secret rapture, and Darby incorporated it into his Dispensational theology. Scholars such as Stern and Bisping became to embrace premillennialism in the United States during this time while Isaac Williams was a premillennialist in England. In 1909 J. A. Seiss released Lectures on the Apocalypse which was one of the most influential presentations of the premillennial view in the 20th century. Charles Schofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer were strong proponents of Darby’s Dispensational premillennialsim moving through the 20th century.
The reaffirmation of Historic Premillennialism among evangelicals and reformed theologians in our present day is due in large part the influence of George Eldon Ladd. Ladd was a Baptist pastor and a professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Reformed theologians appreciated his scholarship and felt that he had the “right appreciation of the redemptive-historical significance of the first coming of Christ and of the NT age”. Ladd was not dispensational but his understanding of the already/not yet aspect of the kingdom of God played a large role in the inception of progressive dispensationalism. Many of Ladd’s essays and articles on the millennium can be accessed here.
Currently there are many very prominent theologians on the scene who embrace Historic Premillennialism, including the likes of John Piper, Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Mark Dever. The late James Montgomery Boice was also a Historic Premillennialist.
Historical Conclusion
The initial agreement among most of the pre-Nicean church fathers as well as the possible linage from the Apostle John to Papius and Polycarp, to Irenaeus, to Hippolytus cannot be ignored. While exegesis MUST be our primary means of developing our eschatological understanding, we should also at least consider the interpretation of the early church fathers when trying to understand some of these difficult passages.
I don’t believe that the abandonment of the premillennial position in the middle ages and by the reformers requires us to say that the interpretation was in any way invalid. It does however, help us see the magnitude of the influence that Augustine had on church history. As Alister McGrath observed “all medieval theology is ‘Augustinian’ to a greater or lesser extent”.
The slow and steady reaffirmation among the Puritans, Anglicans and now reformed evangelicals is evidence that Historic Premillennialism can holds it own as a legitimate exegetical option of eschatological interpretation.
[Coming Soon: Part 3 – The distinctives of Historical Premillennialism]
Friday, May 11, 2007
What a night...
Would you guys believe that I had 7 hour counseling call tonight. That 's right, over 420 minutes. A marriage in crisis. Please pray for the couple. God granted some remarkable breakthroughs in their marriage, but still much work to be done.That being said...part 2 isn't going to make it up tonight...sorry for dragging it out, but God is God. He had other plans than eschatological study tonight...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)