Origins and End Times beliefs -- connected?

[jereth]

I believe that anti-evolution [and] millennialism ... are principles not of the visible church but of a part of it-->fundamentalism.

I have oft wondered just how closely YECism and millennialism (in particular, the dispensationalist pre-tribulationist variety) are related. By the same token, I'm curious to know if TEists are more likely to be amilennialists, or if they are just as likely to have a milennialist understanding of the end times.

In other words, does literalism apply at both ends of the Bible?

I look forward to the results of this poll.


Belief set A
- Many events of the 20th and 21st centuries suggest that we are now living in the unique period of the end times
- Israel will play a special part in world events at the end of time
- I believe that there will be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth
- I believe that Christians will be removed from earth prior to the great tribulation
- A literal antichrist will arise and lead the entire world astray near the end of time
- Current events in the middle east are very significant for biblical history
- Revelation is a book that speaks of mainly literal events that are yet to happen (or are currently happening)

Belief set B
- The 21st century is as much the end times as the 2nd century was
- National Israel is no longer uniquely relevant to God's plans; all God's promises to Israel have now been conferred on the Church (i.e. spiritual Israel)
- There will not be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ prior to the final events of history; the millennium is symbolic of Christ's victory
- I believe that Christians will remain on earth until Jesus returns visibly in glory
- There will not be one single literal antichrist, but there are many antichrists throughout history
- Current events in the middle east aren't all that important to biblical history
- Revelation is mainly a symbolic book

 

[laptoppop]

I think what you may find is belief set A tends to align more with a "literal, conservative, historical, written by God" style of scriptural interpretation, while belief set B tends to align more with a "spiritual, partially historical, non-literal, more liberal, partly legend or mythological, written by men" style of interpretation. Please look past the wording and insert whatever set of words you feel most comfortable with -- I'm not trying to make a judgement on a style of interpretation here, just to suggest why there might be some alignment. Of course, the alignment would be statistical with individual variations.

 

[theFijian]

I am more of belief set B although I disagree with the 2nd statement therein. Paul would gladly have been cut off for the sake of his own race, Romans 9.

 

[Redneck Crow]

I'm closest to "A" although I believe that many of the endtime prophesies are yet unfulfilled and don't appear to be going to be fulfilled anytime soon.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm a good Lutheran, therefore, I'm amillenial.

 

[jereth]

I think what you may find is belief set A tends to align more with a "literal, conservative, historical, written by God" style of scriptural interpretation, while belief set B tends to align more with a "spiritual, partially historical, non-literal, more liberal, partly legend or mythological, written by men" style of interpretation. Please look past the wording and insert whatever set of words you feel most comfortable with -- I'm not trying to make a judgement on a style of interpretation here, just to suggest why there might be some alignment. Of course, the alignment would be statistical with individual variations.

Yes, that's my hypothesis. I would guess that there is an underlying hermeneutic principle which ties YECism to millennialism, and TEism to amillennialism (in general).

In addition, I think there may be a cultural reason for the association -- as rmwilliamsll suggested, it is something to do with Western (and, specifically, American) perspectives. The church in Europe or Asia might look at these things very differently.

If we could pin down these hermeneutic and cultural discrepancies more precisely, it might help us understand why there is such a gulf of understanding between YECism and TEism. The division is often described in terms of belief in science vs. belief in the Bible, but I think that is extremely simplistic, and the roots of the division are in fact far more complex and probably very little to do with science.

I am more of belief set B although I disagree with the 2nd statement therein. Paul would gladly have been cut off for the sake of his own race, Romans 9.

Thanks for pointing this out. I've added the word "uniquely" to the 2nd statement as clarification.

 

[Redneck Crow]

I think what you may find is belief set A tends to align more with a "literal, conservative, historical, written by God" style of scriptural interpretation, while belief set B tends to align more with a "spiritual, partially historical, non-literal, more liberal, partly legend or mythological, written by men" style of interpretation. Please look past the wording and insert whatever set of words you feel most comfortable with -- I'm not trying to make a judgement on a style of interpretation here, just to suggest why there might be some alignment. Of course, the alignment would be statistical with individual variations.

Could be in a lot of instances..

In my case, I'm closest to A because I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist and A is closer to my eschatological beliefs. I'm also a TE, and don't believe that the creation account is literal. I might be the exception.

 

[chaoschristian]

jereth, how do you expect me to answer a poll with an 'other' option?

actually, through your careful wording of the poll options in the OP I think you've come as close as you can to allowing me to respond one way or the other

 

[chaoschristian]

If we could pin down these hermeneutic and cultural discrepancies more precisely, it might help us understand why there is such a gulf of understanding between YECism and TEism. The division is often described in terms of belief in science vs. belief in the Bible, but I think that is extremely simplistic, and the roots of the division are in fact far more complex and probably very little to do with science.

I agree.

 

[laptoppop]

If we could pin down these hermeneutic and cultural discrepancies more precisely, it might help us understand why there is such a gulf of understanding between YECism and TEism. The division is often described in terms of belief in science vs. belief in the Bible, but I think that is extremely simplistic, and the roots of the division are in fact far more complex and probably very little to do with science.

I would tend to agree with this. I might add "presuppositions" or "assumptions", but you could also include that as part of "cultural". Of course, one of the ongoing problems is that you and I could probably pin it down precisely for the two of us, but there is a range of opinion and positions for the different people in the forum -- some more informed/developed, others more inherited from teaching they've heard. Each person seems to prefer a particular set of terminology as well. Perhaps if we used altogether new terminology it would not have the "baggage" associated with particular words. For example, I'm a strong proponent of the "blue" school of biblical interpretation.

 

[chaoschristian]

For example, I'm a strong proponent of the "blue" school of biblical interpretation.

Blue!

No, green!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

think what you may find is belief set A tends to align more with a "literal, conservative, historical, written by God" style of scriptural interpretation,


only since the early 20thC.

dispensationalism starts in English with Darby in the 1840's
postmillennialism in the US weakens greatly with the destruction of the Civil War. amill begins to be an acceptable view. premill likes gains a foothold in the US, following England.

premill's form much of the opposition to evolution, high criticism and the social gospel beginning about 1885 and reaching a peak in 1912. WW1 effectively silents most postmill's until the 1960's and Rushdoony's theonomy.

there seem to be several parallel developments, i'm working on the social gospel now.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps if we used altogether new terminology it would not have the "baggage" associated with particular words. For example, I'm a strong proponent of the "blue" school of biblical interpretation.

I think most TEs would actually subscribe to the Blue School's literal interpretation of the Song of Solomon.

 

[ACADEMIC]

think what you may find is belief set A tends to align more with a "literal, conservative, historical, written by God" style of scriptural interpretation,


only since the early 20thC.

dispensationalism starts in English with Darby in the 1840's
postmillennialism in the US weakens greatly with the destruction of the Civil War. amill begins to be an acceptable view. premill likes gains a foothold in the US, following England.

premill's form much of the opposition to evolution, high criticism and the social gospel beginning about 1885 and reaching a peak in 1912. WW1 effectively silents most postmill's until the 1960's and Rushdoony's theonomy.

there seem to be several parallel developments, i'm working on the social gospel now.

Yes, this is accurate.

I find it ironic that people in "A" are viewed as the more orthodox ones while their beliefs are recent developments concurrent wih the rise of fundamentalism.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, this is accurate.

I find it ironic that people in "A" are viewed as the more orthodox ones while their beliefs are recent developments concurrent wih the rise of fundamentalism.

Or it due to the fact the church for a long time didn't deal with prophecy like the book of Revelation. As we become closer to the end time Revelation will been more clear. We know a lot more today than Daniel did in his day or even those a couple centries ago. For example, while it would be take a huge amount of resources, Today China alone could possible round up an army of 200 million men and still have plenty to spare.

 

[Jadis40]

I'm an amillennialist. I've noticed that in the church I attend, the topic of the end times never comes up. I think that what matters most is not focusing on what could happen in the future, but how we as Christians can make a difference in the here and now, letting your light shine before men, so to speak.

Also, something else came to mind, it seems like there's a connection of belief for amillennialism which spans from the Roman Catholic Church to the Episcopal Church to the Methodist Church. John Wesley never meant it to be a seperate denomination, it just happened that way.

 

[knownbeforetime]

I asked this same question a long time ago... I wasn't nearly as concise and didn't get half the response you did....

And I chose YEC; Belief set A

And I believe one influences the other. There are parallels between Genesis and Revelation.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm more closer to A.

Belief set A
- Many events of the 20th and 21st centuries suggest that we are now living in the unique period of the end times

Only unique as it the end of the church age. Also unique in the sense in Daniel the perdiction "knowledge shall increase". (more knowldge to understand Daniel and Revelation more clearly)

- Israel will play a special part in world events at the end of time

I agree 100% with this but after the church age is over. In chapter 3 and 4 of Rev the church is mention 19 times. After chapter 4 It's not mention again except in Rev.22:16 where Jesus referres back to John's day. After chapter 4 Isreal and the 12 tribes once again enter into the picture and God's plan.

- I believe that there will be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth

Agreed 100%. Christ himself will show he will succeed where all human governments have failed. If God doesn't keep his promises to Isreal (an earthly kingdom) then why should we expect Him to keep the promises to the church.

- I believe that Christians will be removed from earth prior to the great tribulation

Agreed due to how Revelation is divide : Rev. 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen (chapter 1), and the things which are (church age chapter 3 & 4) , and things which shall be hereafter (after the church age chaper 4 and on)."

- A literal antichrist will arise and lead the entire world astray near the end of time

partly agree. Actually there two men to make the anti-christ , a political leader and a religious leader. Also the political anti-christ obviously doesn't fool everyone since there's a great war from the North and East.

- Current events in the middle east are very significant for biblical history

Maybe/ Maybe not. Isreal doesn't come back into play in prophecy until the church is removed. "

- Revelation is a book that speaks of mainly literal events that are yet to happen (or are currently happening)

Of course Revelation uses symbols which uses phrases like : "{Jesus} eyes were as a flame of fire." or "his feet like unot fine brass.
There are many symbols in Rev which we are told exactly what they represent like the 7 stars were the 7 churches, etc. So I agree Rev speak of literal events even when it uses symbols to express them.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Today China alone could possible round up an army of 200 million men and still have plenty to spare.



the PLA is roughly 2.5 million people.
1.25% of this number you made up. or about .2% of total population.
where did you get such a statistic?


887.93 million persons in the age group of 15-64
653.55 million persons or 51.63 percent were males, while 612.28 million persons or 48.37 percent were females

means men between 15-64 = 458 million
to get 200 million man army would mean to draft 1 out of every 2 men in China between 15 and 64, hardly a possibility.
let alone have plenty to spare.

now is it reasonable to think you can draft 50% of a target population? compare to US during WW2.



numbers from:
http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/e5cendata1.htm


compare to US during WWII

From 1940 until 1947—when the wartime selective service act expired after extensions by Congress—over 10,000,000 men were inducted.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act

population of US in 1940 was 132M
using same % as china 458M/1.3B=35%
means pool of men 15-64 roughly 46.2M
means at the height of WW2 the US over 4 years drafted about 21% of the total available men.



now why can't you work out rough statistics like this before making something up.

your statistic is wrong.
why do people make up stuff like this?
does it really increase your credibility here to make such wild claims?

 

[theFijian]

For those who chose YEC belief set A, why is revelation symbolic and not literal?