When I began to write this essay, I had it in mind to look into various “Christian” movements arising during or soon after the 2nd Great Awakening. This would cover a historical period of roughly half a century - between approximately 1790 and 1840. I wanted to look at the various groups, organizations, and even cults that resulted from, or grew out of, this period. As I studied and researched these topics, it became apparent this would be a huge undertaking and much more than I could cover in this short article. While I will mention some of these subjects, it will barely scratch the surface. I will not be going into any degree of detail but rather suggest that these may be topics the reader might wish to research further. A part of my focus will be on the cultish developments stemming from this time period.
It seems there was a series of religious awakenings or revivals which began in the early 18th century. These revivals or movements are often identified and divided into four. A substantial number of today's evangelical denominations, religious movements, groups and even cults have roots that go back to movements rooted within that time period. I believe this is especially true of the span of time which has come to be called, “The Second Great Awakening.”
“The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant religious revival during the late 18th to early 19th century in the United States. It spread religion through revivals and emotional preaching and sparked a number of reform movements. Revivals were a key part of the movement and attracted hundreds of converts to new Protestant denominations.”
As I was researching ideas which arose as part of the 2nd awakening, I found some very mixed reviews with less than charitable comments. Allow me to quote just a couple:
Pr Mark Rogers [https://www.9marks.org/article/forgotten-real-revivals-of-the-second-great-awakening/] said of this period:
“Many see the First Great Awakening as controlled, orderly, robustly theological, and Calvinistic, epitomized by the theology and leadership of Jonathan Edwards; conversely, the Second Great Awakening is viewed as emotional, wild, atheological, and Arminian, epitomized by frenzied camp meetings on the frontier or Charles Finney’s manipulative “new measures.” The First is seen as a genuine work of God, while the Second is described as a work of man-centered manipulation. The First is seen as revival, while the second as revivalism. These sharp contrasts fit when focusing on certain aspects of each era. But these generalizations neglect large and important spheres of the Second Great Awakening. By naming the entire movement a result of man-made revivalism, we fail to recognize many examples of true revival between 1798 and 1820 that we can rejoice in and learn from....”
and Dr. Stephen J. Nichols [https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/05/second-great-awakening/] said the following:
“Princeton was born out of the revivals of the First Great Awakening. That leads us to ask what changed from the 1740s to the 1820s and beyond. The answer, as mentioned above, is that the theology changed. And when the theology changed, the preaching changed. And when the preaching changed, the results were injurious.
Revivals come during times of declension, times of “backsliding.” There was a hunger, a famine in the land. Along comes the unadorned preaching of the gospel. Along comes the nourishment of God’s Word through the ordinary means of the preaching of God’s Word, and the soul awakens to God. Revivals move from declension and great lows to ascension and great heights. That is what happened in the First Great Awakening as the Word was preached and the Spirit of God moved. It was God’s work.
The problem with the Second Great Awakening is that it took people in declension even further down. But the solution to our problem of sin and being under the wrath of God is not to depend on ourselves to inch our way back to God....”
Along with a spiritual hunger, several additional factors are thought to have been behind, and thus driving this awakening. Following the American Revolution (and the resulting emergence of a new country) there was a lot of uncertainty about the times we were living in and what we might expect next. Coupled with that uncertainty, there was a growing desire for what might be thought of as a more “pure” form of Christianity. Such a form would, in a way, be more primitive by its nature - reflecting more closely the early church that we read of in Acts 2.
Quoting from an article on the 2nd great awakening:
“To immigrants in the early 19th century, the land in the United States seemed pristine, Edenic and undefiled – "the perfect place to recover pure, uncorrupted and original Christianity" – and the tradition-bound European churches seemed out of place in this new setting.”
Concurrently, in Britain and other western European countries, new movements were being seen as well – especially as certain restrictions were being lifted on religious freedom. For instance; the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ are features of something called “Socinianism.” Because of restrictions on religious freedom in Britain, those with unorthodox views (such as Socinianism) had generally remained within the mainstream, ‘accepted’ churches. However, in 1813 the “Doctrine of the Trinity Act” was passed and the penalties, for denying the Trinity, were removed.
So, out of all the above, several influential “New Movements” emerged that were either a part of, or followed directly on, the heels of the Second Great Awakening. From what I’ve studied, it seems those movements are usually divided (with a lot of overlap) into three categories:
1) The Restoration Movement,
2) The Holiness Movement, and
3) The Advent Movement.
It is my view that some combination of these three are very much present in many if not most denominations and sects today. Like any other time in history, what emerged from these movements was a real mixture and variety of outcomes. While some of the outcomes could be said to truly represent real positive revival (within segments of the church), not all were necessarily either “good” or desirable.
During this period, many new converts were added to the various Protestant denominations. At the same time a variety of new religious/spiritual groups also emerged – especially within the USA. It would be fair to say that not all outcomes were necessarily “good.” Frankly, some of these movements were quite cultish in nature – indeed, several groups (generally regarded as cults) did emerge and remnants of them remain to this present time.
It seems that often the determining factor (of whether or not a given religious group is actually a cult) depends on whether or not one happened to be a member of that group. This was of particular interest to me because the denomination I grew up in, and subsequently left, was sometimes labelled a cult – and that denomination seemed equally determined to show that they are not. So with respect to the so called “awakenings,” and especially the second one, there is no doubt that some of the distinctives and doctrines that emerged during this time period were/are perhaps peculiar. This, in and of itself, does not earn a group the title of cult – though it is often included in a larger list of characteristics by which cults are defined.
The thing about Cults: The word cult is often a pejorative or derogatory term in today’s English-speaking world. While there are actual definitions for the word, its use has often been subjective by the average layperson. When used as part of an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices, it can often mean nothing more than, “a religion I don't like.”
“Beginning in the 1930s, cults became an object of sociological study within the context of the study of religious behaviour. Since the 1940s, the Christian counter-cult movement has opposed some sects and new religious movements, labelling them "cults" because of their unorthodox beliefs.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult]
Of course there are cults that are completely secular in nature. In fact there have been estimates that the numbers of cults around the world goes well into the thousands. Along with this fact, there is a strong secular anti-cult movement since the 1970s. They have been opposed to certain groups as a reaction to acts of violence and there has frequently been charges of cults practicing brainwashing. However, these secular cults are not the focus of this essay.
The following two paragraphs are from a Wikipedia article:
“In the 1940s, the long-held opposition by some established Christian denominations to non-Christian religions, and supposedly heretical or counterfeit Christian sects, crystallized into a more organized Christian counter-cult movement in the United States. For those belonging to the movement, all religious groups claiming to be Christian, but deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy, were considered cults. Christian cults are new religious movements that have a Christian background but are considered to be theologically deviant by members of other Christian churches.” (emphasis added) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult]
Further on in the article we read:
“The Christian counter cult movement asserts that Christian sects whose beliefs are partially or wholly not in accordance with the Bible are erroneous. It also states that a religious sect can be considered a cult if its beliefs involve a denial of what they view as any of the essential Christian teachings such as salvation, the Trinity, Jesus himself as a person, the ministry of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the crucifixion, the resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming, and the rapture.” (emphasis added) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult]
Other articles I’ve studied have various other criteria for classifying a Christian religious group as a cult… but from just these two paragraphs we’ve already got a significant list. The Christian counter cult movement asserts that cults are all those religious groups that claim to be Christian but hold beliefs:
deemed to be outside of Christian orthodoxy
with a Christian background but are, “considered to be theologically deviant by members of other Christian churches.”
The counter cult movement further asserts that the characteristics, that constitute a cult, are the denial of what are viewed as any of the “essential Christian teachings,” such as:
salvation
Trinity
Jesus himself as a person
the ministry of Jesus
the miracles of Jesus
the crucifixion
the resurrection of Christ
the Second Coming
the rapture (note* here they have split off the “rapture” from the “second coming.” Does this mean they consider any eschatological view which doesn’t hold to their particular view of the “parusia” as cultish?)
In an article on the CARM website, [https://carm.org/minor-groups-issues/cults-an-outline-analysis/] Matt Slick, President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, answers the question, “What is a cult?” thusly:
“Generally, it is a group that is unorthodox, esoteric, and has a devotion to a person, object, or a set of new ideas.
New Teaching – has a new theology and doctrine.
Only True Teaching – often considers traditional religious systems to be apostate and it alone possesses the complete truth.
Strong Leadership – often an individual or small but powerful leadership group holds control of the group’s teachings and practices.
Asset Acquirement – often requires tithing and/or property transfer to the religious system.
Isolationist – to facilitate control over the members physically, intellectually, financially, and emotionally.
Controlling – exercises control over the members. Sometimes this is through fear, threatening loss of salvation if you leave the group. Sometimes through indoctrination.
Indoctrination – possesses methods to reinforce the cult’s beliefs and standards where opposing views are ridiculed and often misrepresented.
Apocalyptic – to give the members a future focus and philosophical purpose in avoiding the apocalypse or being delivered through it.
Experience – various practices including meditation, repetition of words and/or phrases, and ‘spiritual’ enlightenment with God are used as confirmation of their truth.
Deprivation – sleep and food deprivation which weakens the will of the subject.
This is uncommon, though practised by more severe cults.
Persecution – predictions of being persecuted, often combined with claiming any opposing views demonstrated against them as a form of persecution.”
Christian scholar Walter Ralston Martin, defines Christian cults a little differently. In his influential book, “The Kingdom of the Cults” (1965), he cites as cults, groups that follow the personal interpretation of an individual, rather than the understanding of the Bible accepted by Nicene Christianity. By Nicene Christianity he is referencing those groups that do not hold to the Nicene creed. For this definition of cults, he provides as examples:
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Christian Science
Jehovah's Witnesses
Armstrongism
Theosophy
the Baháʼí Faith
Unitarian Universalism
Scientology
minor groups including various New Age and groups based on Eastern religions
Seventh-day Adventists – this is one of the denominations that are sometimes considered a cult by some “experts” but not by others.
Three Movements of the 2nd Great Awakening: At the beginning of this essay, I mentioned three movements that are generally associated with the second great awakening (Restorationism, Holiness movement, and Adventism). It would now be a good time to look a little more closely at those three movements:
Restorationism: Also known as Restitutionism or Christian primitivism, Restorationism is the view which holds that the early beliefs and practices of Jesus followers were either lost or adulterated after his time here on earth. Those seeking to correct such perceived faults and/or deficiencies based their views on their understanding of the “primitive” church. With this understanding in mind, they sought to promote this ideology in branches of Christianity other than their own. This pursuit, they believed, is required to restore the church.
Efforts to restore an earlier, purer form of Christianity are frequently a response to denominationalism. As Rubel Shelly put it, "the motive behind all restoration movements is to tear down the walls of separation by a return to the practice of the original, essential and universal features of the Christian religion.” [“I Just Want to Be a Christian,” 20th Century Christian, Nashville, Tennessee 1984, ISBN 0-89098-021-7]
The relative importance given to the restoration ideal, and the extent to which the full restoration of the early church is believed to have been achieved varies among groups which hold to this ideal.
The term "Restorationism" as it is applied to the eras of the Great Awakenings, is used as a descriptive term for a wide range of unrelated Restorationist groups which formed during that period. Groups such as noted in the following list are just a few of those with roots in this era:
Churches of Christ
Christian churches and churches of Christ
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Latter Day Saint movement (including Mormonism)
Millerites and Seventh-day Sabbatarianism
Seventh-day Adventists
Worldwide Church of God
Advent Christian Church
Jehovah's Witnesses
Plymouth Brethren
Pentecostalism (early)
Holiness Movement: Though its roots are in the First Great Awakening and earlier, the Second Great Awakening brought with it a fresh emphasis on sanctification and just what that means. By the 1840s, a new emphasis on Holiness and Christian perfection had begun within American Methodism. This led to a distinction between Mainline Methodism and various Holiness churches. This movement found a great deal of traction in large part due to the revivalism and camp meetings which were happening in many areas of the country. As this movement grew, there were some splits and offshoot groups which emerged. It should be stressed that the emphasis (on Holiness and Christian perfection) was not restricted to the Methodist groups alone but spread in varying degrees to other Protestant groups as well.
It appears the primary focus of this movement was on human behaviour and sin. Some of the teachings which are attributed to this movement include:
Entire sanctification: “Entire sanctification, also known as Christian perfectionism or sometimes sinless perfection, is the teaching that a Christian can reach such a state of holiness that he or she ceases to sin in this life.” [Definition taken from gotquestions.org]
The Holiness movement believes that the "second work of grace" (also sometimes called the "second blessing") refers to a personal experience that happens after regeneration. The belief is that it is at this point the believer is cleansed from original sin. It was actually upon this doctrine (the attainment of complete freedom from sin) that the movement was built.
Definition of sin: Adherents hold to a distinctive definition of (actual) sin. They believe that "only conscious sins are truly sins." Historian Charles Jones explained, "Believing that sin was conscious disobedience to a known law of God, holiness believers were convinced that the true Christian, having repented of every known act of sin, did not and could not wilfully sin again and remain a Christian." Historian Benjamin Pettit in his book, [“The Great Privilege of All Believers.” p. 170] described the approach of the Wesleyan-Holiness movement as:
1. "The person who sins is not a Christian but a sinner.
2. When a person is saved, he is out of the sin business (may but must not sin)
3. The sinner must repent and be restored to his lost relationship with God.
4. To sin results in spiritual death."
In his study of this question, Caleb Black concluded that "the consensus understanding of sin in the Holiness tradition is that sin is an avoidable, voluntary, morally responsible act that those born of God do not commit."[Black, Caleb. “What About Sin?: An Appraisal of the Nature of Sin in the American Holiness Tradition” (p. 86).]
Dr. Timothy Cooley explained, "If this definition is compromised, victorious Christian living becomes meaningless, and entire sanctification an impossibility." [Black, Caleb. “What About Sin?: An Appraisal of the Nature of Sin in the American Holiness Tradition” (p. 1)] "The definition and consequences of sin are a key theological distinctive of the Holiness Movement as it underlies their entire theological system. To differ on the conception of sin is to destroy the foundation of holiness theology." [p.86]
Lifestyle: “Holiness churches have been distinguished from other churches by their more careful lifestyle. Many churches and denominations in the Holiness movement prohibit smoking, drinking, dancing, listening to inappropriate worldly music, or wearing makeup or flashy clothes." [Ron Rhodes, The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2015)]
Adventism: During this same time period there was a renewed interest in prophecy particularly as it relates to the second coming of Jesus. Throughout the 1800 or so years since Christ had returned to Heaven, there had been numerous predictions of when He would return in the Second Coming. It was from this renewed interest in prophecy that Adventism (as a movement) emerged in North America in the 1830s and 1840s. Advent views were preached by, “ministers such as William Miller, (whose followers became known as Millerites). The name “Adventism,” refers to belief in the soon Second Advent of Jesus (popularly known as the Second coming) and resulted in several major religious denominations, including Seventh-day Adventists and Advent Christians.” [Gary Land, Adventism in America: A History (1998)]
Adventism is a branch of Protestant Christianity that believes in the imminent Second Coming (or the "Second Advent") of Jesus Christ. It started as a movement when Baptist preacher William Miller first publicly shared his belief that the Second Coming would occur October 22, 1844. After Miller's prophecy failed, the Millerite movement split up but those that didn’t return to their original home churches, continued on in a number of Advent groups that held different doctrines from one another. These groups, stemming from a common Millerite ancestor, collectively became known as the Adventist movement.
Basically, the Adventist churches hold much in common with many other mainline Christian groups. However, they do have some theological differences on whether the intermediate state of the dead is unconscious sleep or consciousness, whether the ultimate punishment of the wicked is annihilation or eternal torment, the nature of immortality, whether the wicked are resurrected after the millennium, and whether the sanctuary of Daniel 8 refers to the one in heaven or one on earth.
Other groups whose focus was also intently on the Second Coming of Christ, but who did not accept Millers calculations, were quite plentiful as well. A number of other dates were predicted and theories advanced concerning the return of Christ. Some of those movements and theories (which began in that period) remain up to this day; not the least of which is “Dispensational Premillennialism” and the so called “Secret Rapture” concept.
Allow me to give just a few examples of alternate theories and beliefs that emerged as part of the “Advent movement” during, or soon after, the 2nd great awakening:
Futurist view of the second coming: It is my opinion that many of the theories and belief systems that emerged during this time, did so because they found fertile soil in which to sprout. It was in the soil of the late 18th century that the seeds of futurism first sprouted and then blossomed. From what I’ve read, it seems futurism began to take root in the Protestant church about 200 years ago. With this understanding in mind, I thought it important to briefly touch on the “Futurist view” and a brief overview concerning its development.
It would be very difficult to begin such an overview without bringing a Jesuit priest by the name of “Manuel de Lacunza y Díaz” (1731-1801) into the discussion. It was his work that was key to the introduction of futurism into the field of prophetic eschatology with the belief that the end of the world is imminent, (even within one's own lifetime). This futuristic view became foundational to beliefs which took root and flourished in the early nineteenth century and became very much a part of the Advent movement.
In 1791 he completed this famous voluminous work on the subject that he began around 1775. His work then went on to become very well known in Latin America and Europe. Lacunza’s work had a great impact on the cause and increase of prophetic studies at the beginning of the nineteenth century. His work spoke about the premillennial advent of Christ, and was studied by the British millenarians. His voluminous treatise was in fact, investigated at the Albury Park Conferences and at Powerscourt house; the importance of both Albury and Powerscourt will become quite evident shortly in relation to the advent theories of John N Darby.
“...Furthermore, it has been found that futurism was not the original approach held by the early church, nor by the church of the Middle Ages and the Reformation. Research shows that the early Fathers were not futurists in the modern meaning of the word. In a certain sense, the early church Fathers had futurist views because for them everything was future. The early Christians were convinced that the final age of history had arrived; the new age had already dawned, and the end was imminent. To quote one example, Hippolytus (160-233), who produced the most extensive treatise of biblical eschatology found among the Fathers, argued that the end of the world would come about A.D. 500....
...In their writings, the early Fathers followed the historicist approach as the correct method to interpret the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Irenaeus and Hippolytus both used the historicist approach in their interpretation of the coming antichrist. For them everything was future, and, consequently, they cannot with fairness be cited for the modern futuristic system that holds that most of the prophecies still are in the future, at the end of the Christian era. This rival eschatology, futurism, founded by Francisco de Ribera, whose posture constitutes the groundwork for the whole structure of Roman Catholic futurism concerning the Antichrist, had a tremendous impact on prophetic studies and gradually became more prominent in the nineteenth century. It is crystal clear that the cradle for contemporary futurism was actually constructed by Catholic theologians to counteract the Reformers’ historicist method of interpretation.”
**note: [the above quote, as well as the comments I’ve summarized about Lacunza, were taken from: Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9/1–2 (1998): 71–95. Article copyright © 2000 by David Pio Gullon. “Two Hundred Years from Lacunza: The Impact of His Eschatological Thought on Prophetic Studies and Modern Futurism,” David Pio Gullon, River Plate University https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1342&context=jats]
Out of this move toward Futurism and prophecy came a number of theories, dates, doctrines and peculiar definitions. As examples we have:
- The October 22, 1844: second coming prediction of the Millerite movement.
- 1891 Joseph Smith, (prophet) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a revelation dated 2 April 1843, and published as scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 130:14–17 Joseph Smith wrote: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.”
- 1914 The Jehovah’s Witness organization believe Christ returned (in spiritual form) that year and will be fully revealed (physically) soon.
- 1917 Many within various Pentecostal groups believed this to be earth’s final year. The following quote is from a Masters Thesis by Christopher J. Richmann, “Sanctification, Ecstasy, and War : the Development of American Pentecostal Eschatology, 1898-1950.”
[https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=ma_theses]
“The popular reaction to the events of World War I, shown clearly in the Assemblies’ official organ, ‘The Christian Evangel’ (later known as The Weekly Evangel and The Pentecostal Evangel), reveal the group’s preference for eschatological rhetoric. At the outset of the war, articles on the Second Coming of Jesus appeared weekly for two months. During the climax and final year of the war in 1917, hardly an edition passed without reference to Jesus’ immediate coming, with titles like “Times of the End,” “Signs of the Approaching End,” and “He is Near.”
The war provided for many Pentecostals a concrete example of the “signs of the times,” as they revealed God’s end time plan for human history. The first Pentecostals rallied around the belief in an immediate, premillennial Second Coming of Christ, and this hope was sustained by the First World War. The chaos and tumult caused by the war allowed many Pentecostals to maintain a fervent hope in the Advent of Christ despite increasing organizationalism.
Although most were content to admit that no one would know the day or the hour of Jesus’ arrival, some were more speculative, hinting that 1917 was in fact the cataclysmic year that would bring about the end. Some manoeuvred around the traditional teaching that humans will not know the hour of the Second Coming by pointing out that the disciples were given this injunction prior to receiving the Spirit. “The fault of the disciples was that they were enquiring into future events without the unction and guidance of the Holy Ghost.”
- 1879 Christ returned - as believed by Christian Science - established by Mary Baker Eddy.
“As Jesus' advent marked what may be designated the "first coming" of the Christ, so no less certainly Mary Baker Eddy's discovery of Christian Science fulfilled the prophecy of the "second coming." Thus, the oneness of the Christ now stands revealed in its completeness, for the blessing and salvation of all humanity. The need of humanity is to awake to this sublime fact, to lay hold of and utilize it, thereby gaining the fullness of salvation whereby the perfect man in God's likeness appears.” [https://journal.christianscience.com/issues/1939/11/57-8/the-second-coming]
“To “reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” was the stated purpose of the Church of Christ, Scientist, which she founded with 15 students in Lynn, Massachusetts, in 1879.” [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Baker-Eddy/Work-as-founder]
I’ve already mentioned William Miller. The Millerite movement (which led to “the Great Disappointment” of October 22, 1844) became foundational to the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination... as well as several other Adventist organizations. It is now time to take a look at John N Darby, his theories and the acolytes that accepted and followed his views.
John Nelson Darby was a curate in County Wicklow, Ireland. He, along with three other men (Anthony Norris Groves, a dentist studying theology at Trinity College; Edward Cronin, studying medicine, John Gifford Bellett, a lawyer who brought them together) began, “The Brethren movement.” This movement subsequently became better known as “The Plymouth Brethren,” and they began meeting in 1825 in Dublin Ireland. The movement was to undergo a number of disagreements and splits, but the followers that most closely followed Darby’s theories were often referred to as Darbyites.
An important early stimulus was the study of prophecy – specifically 2nd advent prophecy. This topic was the subject of a number of annual meetings at Powerscourt House in County Wicklow. Lady Powerscourt had previously attended Henry Drummond's prophecy conferences at Albury Park. As mentioned earlier, it was at those conferences that the “Futurist” theory of Jesuit priest Lacunza was studied and and gained much momentum.
As a reminder, this is what was I wrote earlier: “In 1791 he completed this famous voluminous work on the subject that he began around 1775. His work then went on to become very well known in Latin America and Europe. Lacunza’s work had a great impact on the cause and increase of prophetic studies at the beginning of the nineteenth century. His work spoke about the premillennial advent of Christ, and was studied by the British millenarians. His voluminous treatise was in fact, investigated at the Albury Park Conferences and at Powerscourt house; the importance of both Albury and Powerscourt will become quite evident shortly in relation to the advent theories of John N Darby.”
Peter David Lee submitted his dissertation to the University of Wales in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy dated 2010. His topic, “The shaping of John Nelson Darby’s Eschatology” [https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/2235/1/2235 Lee%2C P. Shaping (2010).pdf]. He writes:
“The Albury and Powerscourt prophetical conferences saw the birth of a new form of premillennial dispensationalism that has shaped evangelical eschatology ever since. It owed its debut to John Nelson Darby, who espoused the centrality of the “two peoples of God.”
Dispensationalism affirmed three cardinal doctrines: first, a sharp dichotomy between the two peoples of God—national Israel and the church; second, God’s glory rather than the covenant of grace defining His purpose in history; and third, the hermeneutical principle of a literal interpretation of Scripture.
This dispensationalism was indeed revolutionary, displacing the traditional historicist hermeneutic, with its system of date-setting, in favour of futurism, with its doctrine of imminency. This forced Darby to deal with the problem of what to do with the church so that God could fulfill his redemptive plan regarding national Israel. He resolved this by providing for a rapture of the church and by inserting a gap of an indeterminate number of years in the last part of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy.
The question that arises over this new doctrine of premillennial, pretribulational dispensationalism concerns its provenance, since Darby is widely credited as its originator. There is good reason for this. His influence can be seen in C. I. Scofield’s Reference Bible, as well as such popular novels as Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth and Timothy LaHaye’s Left Behind series. There are two dominant schools of thought regarding Darby and the origin of dispensationalism. One traces his dispensationalism back to the Patristic Writings, and the other sees Darby as “inventing” his system. Both are incorrect, as I will demonstrate by tracing his eschatology to earlier thinkers to show that Darby “adapted” extant doctrines to form his unique system.”
Of Lady Powerscourt and her prophetic conferences Peter David Lee writes:
“She was deeply immersed in biblical prophecy, looking for the end of the world and the restoration of the Jewish nation. A year before her death, she wrote her missive entitled Lady Powerscourt’s Questions for 1835. The narrative included the following rather precise remarks: “Monday, 5 o’clock, September 7th, 1835.—What will be the history of the remnant after the return of the Jews? what the measure of renovation of the earth in the millennium?... Wednesday.—Does each dispensation end in apostasy only? or, is the dispensation revived in a remnant, the rejection of which consummates the apostasy?”
In looking into the doctrinal/prophetic views of the LDS church, I was surprised to learn the dispensational idea of two peoples of God and that the Jews would return to Israel is not dissimilar to a prophetic view held by the Mormons. Their 10th Article of Faith (which was a statement of beliefs composed by their prophet, Joseph Smith) states: "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes." In 1841 the LDS Church sent apostle Orson Hyde to the Holy Land to dedicate the land for the return of the Jewish people. They also believe a third temple is to be built in Jerusalem.
In the section of his dissertation titled, “Conclusions from the Albury and Powerscourt conferences,” Peter David Lee writes:
“One of those that attended Albury 1826 was S. R. Maitland. Such delegates as Frere, Irving, and Drummond were still maintaining historicism; however, as David Bebbington points out:
[In] 1826 there appeared a book arguing strongly for a futurist interpretation of Revelation in order to undermine all millenarian notions. The unintended effect of this work by S. R. Maitland, the future historian, was to inspire an alternative tradition of millennial thought. At Albury, Maitland’s theory that Revelation was yet to be fulfilled, was already being canvassed, and by 1843 half a dozen other writers had taken the field in favour of the same principle.. . . But the most significant figure to adopt a form of futurist premillennialism was J. N. Darby . . . He steadily elaborated the view that the predictions of Revelation would be fulfilled after believers had been caught up to meet Christ in the air, the so called ‘rapture.’
Irving himself was greatly influenced by his translation of Lacunza’s, “The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” (1827) and shifted his view from historicism to futurism.* Thus at Albury there was a tension and division along two distinct lines of interpretation, namely, historicism and futurism. Powerscourt tended to follow more along the line of futurism, as explained by George Eldon Ladd: “It was in these Powerscourt meetings that some of the characteristic doctrines of ‘Darbyism’ can be discovered for the first time. Out of this revival of interest in prophetic truth came two new interpretations: futurism and ‘Darbyism.’” Ladd is also in agreement with Bebbington in ascribing futurism to Maitland: “The rediscovery of futurism is associated with the names of S. R. Maitland, James Todd, and William Burgh.” Bebbington adds his thoughts to those of Ladd: “But the most significant figure to adopt a form of futurist premillennialism was J. N. Darby, the fertile mind behind another adventist sect, the Brethren.” Herbert Douglass offers insight into futurism at Powerscourt: “Hard as it is to believe, several scholars of the famous Powerscourt meetings (much to the protest of their colleagues) advocated this new position as an important ingredient in their developing outline of a brand new premillennialism. It seemed to be the incentive that two other struggling ideas needed: (1) futurism, the concept that the seventieth week of Daniel 9 and the prophecies of Revelation 4 to 22 were yet future events to be completed during the seven years immediately preceding the return of Jesus in judgment and (2) Darby’s dispensationalism.” David Faust, quoting from the Dictionary of Premillennialism, states that “The Powerscourt Conferences of 1831 to 1833 most probably moved Darby from his earlier historicist premillennialism to futurist premillennialism....’
...Both Irving and Darby parted company with the church but for different reasons. Irving was ousted by both the London and Annan presbyteries because of his acceptance of speaking in tongues by others, whereas Darby’s secession was due to his understanding of the ruin of the church. (*note: The Church of Ireland is what is being spoken of here) Scott Gibson, in speaking of both Darby and Irving, supports this thesis: “Irving was the rejected Church of Scotland minister who advocated premillennial views and the regaining of apostolic gifts of tongues .. .” While there was much ecclesiology that found mutual acceptance between Irving and Darby, the apostolic gift of tongues remained a source of division. In speaking of the rapture of the saints, Martyn Lloyd-Jones comments: “Only J. N. Darby and certain of his followers accepted it, though they entirely disassociated themselves from Edward Irving when he began to talk about the tongues, the visions, the apostles and so on.’”
As can be clearly seen, it is impossible to look at the second great awakening without recognizing the importance of the Advent movement as one of the significant factors driving this period of history. During my lifetime I’ve already spent time in two different advent camps. I was born into and raised in one advent camp and more recently I briefly believed and endorsed (for about a year) the teaching of an alternate, 2nd great awakening, advent view. Let me be as clear as I possibly can be; I do not accept either of those two views BUT I do believe in the second coming. I believe Jesus is coming back as he promised. However, when it comes to the two camps that I’ve been a part of, well, quite frankly I think each one was just as mistaken (dare I say deceived?) as the other in their theology. I believe each group reads their belief system into the text of scripture rather than gleaning it from scripture.
Conclusion: How does one retain the benefits gained from our past, without having to repeat all the past mistakes? It seems we should know the answer to this question and yet fail in applying this knowledge. History should be our greatest teacher and a reminder of the trouble we can get into when we fail to learn and observe the lessons of the past. Indeed, it has been said, and frequently repeated, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them!”
Is it because of our human propensity to forget the lessons of the past… or perhaps the desire to rewrite history (which many seem to possess) – that we need to be reminded to remember so frequently? The Bible is full of passages where God’s people are told to remember or sometimes it is phrased as the command do not forget!
Paul, in his letter to the Philippians writes: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13). I have read different thoughts and ways of understanding this passage and I do believe there is much to be taken from these two verses. As I look at it (and in particular the portion I’ve underlined) a question comes to my mind. What was Paul worried or concerned about with respect to them working out their salvation with fear and trembling, in his absence? Might he be concerned they would fail to remember what he had taught them? When the church (in this case it’s at Philippi) are in the process of working out their salvation, and Paul is no longer there to teach or direct them, they are cautioned to do so carefully with humility and respect.
Throughout history God’s people repeatedly got themselves into trouble by failing to remember. Needless difficulty and pain was the consequence of failure to remember either what God had done for them in past circumstances, or forgot the painful lessons they had needed to go through for disobedience and breaking faith with God in the past. This I believe can be demonstrated in Israel’s past and can also be seen at times within the history of the church.
In the “Wisdom” literature of scripture we have this passage in Ecclesiastes 1:9 – 11:
9 “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new?” It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them.”
It seems to me that the devil does not (indeed can not) employ new strategies in attacking individuals or the people of God collectively. He has been very successfully running the same scam over and over again. He is not a creator rather the devil is a repurposer whose aim is to lie, kill and destroy. If we were faithful in preserving our history and remembering the lessons of the past, I believe the devil would not be nearly as successful.
Only God can (and does) claim to do anything new. Isaiah 43:19 says: “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come!”
So how does this relate to the periods of awakenings – and the 2nd great awakening in particular? I suspect at least part of the answer is that people had gotten careless, failed to remember lessons of the past and many had fallen away. This, in turn precipitated consequences which were worrisome and unpleasant which created the fertile soil for the revivals which then followed. As part of this process, many old debates ended up needing to be re-argued, much that had been learned in the past had to be revisited and many lessons needed to be repeated.
I believe that God, who is ever patient with us, was present in this time period and prepared to guide us through it yet again. The forces of darkness, evil and confusion were also present and not standing idly by. They also had influence in some of the outcomes – as they have each time there has been a revival. Out of this period came a significant number of peculiar, I might even say crazy and cultish ideas. These were a part of the process of having to repeat old (and unfortunately forgotten) lessons. It is unfortunate that some of these ideas have become distractions which persist to this day.
*** Note: Nicene Christianity includes those Christian denominations that adhere to the teaching of the Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and amended at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. The modern wording goes as follows:
“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spihe became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN.”
I think this is a very good foundational statement and I think we must be very careful about anything we might want to add to that creed or anything we might wish to change within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment