Eschatology : Death Judgement Hell Heaven

hinault

In Catholic doctrine and dogma, Eschatology are the four things which every living Catholic is required to consider and to contemplate.
By extension through contemplating these four states, the person reforms their thoughts and their behaviour now before the onset of death.

Death Judgement Heaven Hell are the four states that are Eschatology.

This link provides an excellent resource discussing Eschatology and the issues which every person, every Catholic person, needs to consider.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/4last-things.htm

homer911

Not to turn it into a Protestant/Catholic thing, but what about Sinfulness, Grace and Forgiveness, or are these part of the Eschatology?

hinault

From the link in my OP, I reckon that this page should help concentrate the mind upon Eternity.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/4last-things3h.htm

Eternity is something that has no beginning and no end. It is time which is always present and never passes away.

Nick Park

homer911 wrote: »

Not to turn it into a Protestant/Catholic thing, but what about Sinfulness, Grace and Forgiveness, or are these part of the Eschatology?

They would normally be considered under the heading of Soteriology.

homer911

Ah! Terms googled, now it makes sense..

Peregrinus

Eschaton is a Greek work meaning “final” or “ultimate” - not so much in the sense of last in point of time, but in the sense of destiny or destination - whatever it is you are travelling towards, the point or purpose of your journey, that’s the eschaton. Your journey will of course stop when you get there - why would you carry on? - but it’s the eschaton not because it’s the last place you come to, but because it’s the place you're supposed to come to.

Eschatology is the branch of theology which concerns itself with questions about our purpose or destiny. Why are we here? What are we travelling towards? How do we get there?

You can ask this question about yourself as an individual, or about the whole of humanity. The Christian tradition has generally devoted more time and attention to the latter question, but with the rise of individualism in the modern era the individual question gets asked more and more.

The “four last things” is a framework for addressing eschatological questions. It’s a framework that was devised by the theologian Peter Lombard in the twelfth century, but it didn’t receive an enormous popular following until the seventeenth century, when in the context of the Catholic Counter-reformation it was taken up by St. Alphonsus Liguori and promoted by the missionary order he founded, the Redemptorists. With the reformation and the counter-reformation there was a growing interest in “individual” eschatology; the “four last things” framework lends itself quite well to personal reflections of that kind.

In the last century or so it has fallen out of favour, as theological interests are more influenced by the interests of the early church and the patristic period, and less by the preoccupations of the Reformation era. The “four last things” framework has been criticised for, e.g. making no mention of resurrection, which is a fairly glaring omission from any Christian eschatology.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

From the link in my OP, I reckon that this page should help concentrate the mind upon Eternity.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/4last-things3h.htm

Sounds hideous.

MrP

hinault

MrPudding wrote: »

Sounds hideous.

MrP

Why does it sound hideous?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Why does it sound hideous?

Um, because it's a reflection on an eternity in hell? How would that not sound hideous?

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, because it's a reflection on an eternity in hell? How would that not sound hideous?

Hell is eternal punishment without any prospect of parole from that state.

Those in Hell place themselves there.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

Hell is eternal punishment without any prospect of parole from that state.

Those in Hell place themselves there.

As a matter of interest do you consider this to be a version of Pascal's Wager or do you consider it to be something different?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Hell is eternal punishment without any prospect of parole from that state.

And that's hideous.

hinault wrote: »

Those in Hell place themselves there.

And that's hideous too.

Isn't that rather the point?

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

Sounds hideous.

MrP

The bit on hell makes for good reading, not quite Dante, but fun nonetheless in a rather fetishistic kind of way. Bad news in seems for Father Jack, and anyone else who likes a few more drinks than they should.

I'm not sure that the fire and brimstone line garners the same audience among Irish Catholics as it would have fifty years ago.

Andrewf20

If god is all knowing, he would know non believers would be doomed to hell but yet granted their birth all the same. A God of love?

Peregrinus

Well, there's a few assumptions wrapped up in your question, Andrew, not least the assumption that nonbelievers are doomed to hell. Not all Christians would endorse that view.

But you raise a fair point. Is it an act of love to allow a being to come into existence if the destiny of that being is Hell, or something very like Hell?

That actually raises quite challenging questions about what we regard as "good". Is freedom good? As in, the capacity to make choices for oneself? Am I better off being free to make choices which might harm me, or work out badly for me, or make me unhappy one way or another? Or am I better off not having that freedom? Most of us would choose freedom for ourselves; autonomy has a value in itself, even if it jeopardises happiness. And we choose that for others too; we want them to grow up, and become independent adults, even as we hope to God, or whatever version of providence we believe in, that they don't make stupid choices. But that they never grew up to make any choices at all would not be a good outcome, as far as we are concerned.

You raise the stakes even higher when the choice is not between being free and being controlled, but between being free and not existing at all. Are we better off never to exist, rather that to exist in circumstances of freedom and, therefore , of possible self-harm? But, if you think about it, for you not to exist requires an omnipotent God to restrict other people's freedom; your existence is the consequence of choices made by your parents (and by others before them) and for your existence to be impossible requires their freedom to make those choices to be removed.

Basically, you can exist in the condition of a stone or a plant, or you can exist with consciousness, self-awareness, autonomy, will and choice. We can't improve ourselves or anyone or anything else if we can't make the choices that will do that. Freedom is an indispensible precondition to human flourishing. The fact that we might use our freedom to bugger things up for ourselves or others is discouraging, but it doesn't detract from the essential goodness of freedom.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

And that's hideous.

And that's hideous too.

Isn't that rather the point?

Yes.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

I'm not sure that the fire and brimstone line garners the same audience among Irish Catholics as it would have fifty years ago.

And that makes a serious problem all the more serious.

It would appear that for whatever reason the existence of Hell is no longer preached upon.
It's not that the teaching upon Hell and what Hell is that has changed.
Rather it's the apparent decision to simply ignore mentioning the teaching upon Hell, which seems to prevail today.

Peregrinus

Is it any worse than the former practice of not mentioning resurrection?

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is it any worse than the former practice of not mentioning resurrection?

Personally I don't see this as an either/or comparison.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Personally I don't see this as an either/or comparison.

If you're commending the "four last things" framework to us, I think you're framing it an an either/or issue. That framework has fallen out of favour precisely because it's seen as unbalanced; it's individualistic to the exclusion of communitarian, and it's not resurrection-centred. That's why it has been largely abandoned in favour of frameworkds rooted in older traditions. In your advocacy of it, you link to a discussion of Hell (not Death, Judgment or Heaven) interestingly, and we're left with the impression that you like this framework because of its focus on Hell, and are unbothered by its neglect of resurrection. It does look to me like, wittingly or not, you're making a trade-off.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're commending the "four last things" framework to us, I think you're framing it an an either/or issue. That framework has fallen out of favour precisely because it's seen as unbalanced; it's individualistic to the exclusion of communitarian, and it's not resurrection-centred. That's why it has been largely abandoned in favour of frameworkds rooted in older traditions. In your advocacy of it, you link to a discussion of Hell (not Death, Judgment or Heaven) interestingly, and we're left with the impression that you like this framework because of its focus on Hell, and are unbothered by its neglect of resurrection. It does look to me like, wittingly or not, you're making a trade-off.

At the outset, I made mention of the four last things.

The discussion appeared to move to discussing one of those four last things in more recent posts, namely Hell.

Andrewf20

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there's a few assumptions wrapped up in your question, Andrew, not least the assumption that nonbelievers are doomed to hell. Not all Christians would endorse that view.

But you raise a fair point. Is it an act of love to allow a being to come into existence if the destiny of that being is Hell, or something very like Hell?

That actually raises quite challenging questions about what we regard as "good". Is freedom good? As in, the capacity to make choices for oneself? Am I better off being free to make choices which might harm me, or work out badly for me, or make me unhappy one way or another? Or am I better off not having that freedom? Most of us would choose freedom for ourselves; autonomy has a value in itself, even if it jeopardises happiness. And we choose that for others too; we want them to grow up, and become independent adults, even as we hope to God, or whatever version of providence we believe in, that they don't make stupid choices. But that they never grew up to make any choices at all would not be a good outcome, as far as we are concerned.

You raise the stakes even higher when the choice is not between being free and being controlled, but between being free and not existing at all. Are we better off never to exist, rather that to exist in circumstances of freedom and, therefore , of possible self-harm? But, if you think about it, for you not to exist requires an omnipotent God to restrict other people's freedom; your existence is the consequence of choices made by your parents (and by others before them) and for your existence to be impossible requires their freedom to make those choices to be removed.

Basically, you can exist in the condition of a stone or a plant, or you can exist with consciousness, self-awareness, autonomy, will and choice. We can't improve ourselves or anyone or anything else if we can't make the choices that will do that. Freedom is an indispensible precondition to human flourishing. The fact that we might use our freedom to bugger things up for ourselves or others is discouraging, but it doesn't detract from the essential goodness of freedom.

I suppose my questions previously and below revolve round the notion that non believers go to hell, more so than the Pol Pots & Stalins of this world. Hell for them, yes, I can certainly feel little sympathy.

Its a delicate subject - miscarriage, but it is common in nature. Some people feel that a miscarriage, as tragic as it is, is Gods will. Why would God not use this mechanism (or infertility) to ensure only believers be born?

Or why cant God provide enough evidence to each individual on the planet to convince them of believing. Some people struggle to find faith - why cant God give a helping hand to people? In the same way as Thomas, who didnt believe in Jesus's resurrection. Why cant we be shown proof like he was?

You mention free will also, but yet its removed forever once we go to hell.

hinault

Andrewf20 wrote: »

why cant God provide enough evidence to each individual on the planet to convince them of believing. Some people struggle to find faith - why cant God give a helping hand to people? In the same way as Thomas, who didnt believe in Jesus's resurrection. Why cant we be shown proof like he was?

You mention free will also, but yet its removed forever once we go to hell.

Luke 16 verse 31:

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead."

Putting God to the test, "do this for me and then I will believe", goes against every Christian tenet.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

At the outset, I made mention of the four last things.

The discussion appeared to move to discussing one of those four last things in more recent posts, namely Hell.

Actually it moved there in post #3, hinault. And you moved it there, with the link you posted. Mr. :Pudding's "hideous" comment was explicitly a response to that link.

Peregrinus

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I suppose my questions previously and below revolve round the notion that non believers go to hell, more so than the Pol Pots & Stalins of this world. Hell for them, yes, I can certainly feel little sympathy.

I take your point. But I think your assuming a framework in which sins are like crimes, and hell is like a sentence imposed by a judge (who is God, naturally).

But you don’t have to think like that. Think in terms of human development – the process of becoming the person that you are going to be. And think also in terms of free will – the notion that you can change yourself, and can have some control over the kind of person you become, by the choices you make in life. So, if you give yourself over to fear, hatred and despair, you damage yourself. If you put your trust in transient things like money or power and give up more important things to get or keep them, you damage yourself. If you chose love, and care for others, you enhance yourself.

Hell is the condition of total and irrevocable separation from God. The only way anyone can arrive at that point is by becoming the kind of person who irrevocably separates themselves from God. Which, I emphasise, is a choice. It’s not a choice you make simply by being a non-believer and, while you can find Christians who believe that all non-believers go to hell, that’s not an authoritative or mainstream position. It’s a choice you make by embracing fear and hatred and selfishness, and sticking to that until you manage to turn yourself into the kind of person who has no capacity to do anything else.

Hell is the condition of having irrevocably rejected God and, if people are free to irrevocably reject God then, logically, hell must be a possibility, unpleasant though it is to recognise that.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Its a delicate subject - miscarriage, but it is common in nature. Some people feel that a miscarriage, as tragic as it is, is Gods will. Why would God not use this mechanism (or infertility) to ensure only believers be born?

You mean “. . . to deny the birth of people who, if born, would choose to separate themselves irrevocably from God”.

But even if you did mean “to deny the birth of unbelievers” the answer would be the same. For God to do that would be to limit freedom. If God will cause you to be miscarried before you will make a choice that will damage you, you have no freedom to make that choice.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

You mention free will also, but yet its removed forever once we go to hell.

No, it isn’t. The very fact that you’re in hell illustrates that you do have freedom. How else could you get there? As for not being able to “get out of hell” once you are there, you could “get out of hell”, then you wouldn’t be free irrevocably to cut yourself off from God.

Note that God hasn’t decided “oh, I’ll create this really horrible place/state of existence, and send people who irrevocably reject me there”. God has decided “people will be free – even to the point of being free irrevocably to cut themselves off from me”. The possibility that some people will then be in the condition of having cut themselves off from God is a logical corollary, not a special creation.

Andrewf20

hinault wrote: »

Luke 16 verse 31:

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead."

Putting God to the test, "do this for me and then I will believe", goes against every Christian tenet.

But why is God against this skepticism? What harm is there to ask questions and to be skeptical, a healthy trait which we use alot of in other branches in life. Also...

Psalm 118:8 "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man."

Yet the bible is written by man?

Some people claim to have a religious experiences, so why not all? I dont see what good his evasiveness serves.

Andrewf20

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hell is the condition of having irrevocably rejected God and, if people are free to irrevocably reject God then, logically, hell must be a possibility, unpleasant though it is to recognise that.

But why does God place such a massive importance on belief? Anybody can be a good person (charitable, helping others etc) without belief.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But even if you did mean “to deny the birth of unbelievers” the answer would be the same. For God to do that would be to limit freedom. If God will cause you to be miscarried before you will make a choice that will damage you, you have no freedom to make that choice.

But a non believer has no choice in being born or not. If hell is real, im fairly sure any non believer would choose not to be born at all rather than to be born, grow up to be a non believer and ultimately perish in hell for eternity.

It just seems to go against the grain of a merciful, all loving God who appears to sit back with indifference when help is needed to save the souls of non believers. Especially in a world where we know man makes many Gods.

tommy2bad

Yes it's a problem, is God judging us on our faith or guiding us in our faith? Is this a test or a lesson?
I tend towards God as a redeemer of that which is broken and that includes PolPot, Stalin and me. All the broken, filthy, hurtful things the world has produced will be made whole.
On the other hand He could just purge the lot and keep the best bits. The trouble with that is no one is entirely evil, so how dose God deal with the good in people, even the worst people?
Hell, Death and judgment are part of it but not the whole story, theirs redemption, forgiveness and hope.
I suppose it depends whether you prioritise free will, obedience or sanctity.

Peregrinus

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why does God place such a massive importance on belief? Anybody can be a good person (charitable, helping others etc) without belief.

Indeed. But why do you think God places such a massive importance on belief? There is a passage in Mt 25 where Jesus describes how, on judgment day, those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, cared for the sick etc are admitted to paradise because - to their great surprise, because this was not their intention - they are treated as having done these things for God.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But a non believer has no choice in being born or not. If hell is real, im fairly sure any non believer would choose not to be born at all rather than to be born, grow up to be a non believer and ultimately perish in hell for eternity.

It just seems to go against the grain of a merciful, all loving God who appears to sit back with indifference when help is needed to save the souls of non believers. Especially in a world where we know man makes many Gods.

Yes, it does seem to go against the grain. So you need to tell us how you are so convinced that non-believers go to Hell.

hinault

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why is God against this skepticism? What harm is there to ask questions and to be skeptical, a healthy trait which we use alot of in other branches in life. Also...

Psalm 118:8 "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man."

Yet the bible is written by man?

Some people claim to have a religious experiences, so why not all? I dont see what good his evasiveness serves.

The Bible was written by man inspired by God. The Holy Ghost inspired the Bible.

Jesus Christ himself cited what was written in the books that form the Old Testament. So it is fair to say that Christ accepted what the Old Testament teaches.

In the New Testament we're told to love God with all our heart, soul and mind.
I think that the mind reference alludes to one being intellectually convinced of the existence of God.

Andrewf20

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it does seem to go against the grain. So you need to tell us how you are so convinced that non-believers go to Hell.

Heres a few quotes I came across below. Its a fairly frequent theme across alot of the religious websites, implying that a lack of faith will lead to hell. Although in fairness, there are 1 or 2 websites that argue against this point also.

Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Romans 10:13 "For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: “ . . . ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’ ”

Gerry T

What happened to purgatory in all this, can you not move up after a good roasting for a decade or two ?

Peregrinus

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Heres a few quotes I came across below. Its a fairly frequent theme across alot of the religious websites, implying that a lack of faith will lead to hell. Although in fairness, there are 1 or 2 websites that argue against this point also.

Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Romans 10:13 "For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: “ . . . ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’ ”

Well, three of your four quotes assert that believers will be saved, but they don't assert that only believers will be saved, and therefore that unbelievers will not. And the remaining quote, from Rev 21, suggests that the damned share rather more than the characteristic of unbelief - cowardice, murder, lying, idoloatry, etc. The general impression from the quote is that its very much your wicked actions and behaviour in this life which leads to damnation.

EunanMac

Can anyone explain : Post-tribulational Premillennialism, Pre-tribulation Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism, and which mainstream denominations believes in each ?

Peregrinus

EunanMac wrote: »

Can anyone explain : Post-tribulational Premillennialism, Pre-tribulation Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism, and which mainstream denominations believes in each ?

There’s an overarching concept which you need to tackle first of all: millennialism. This is the belief that the end of human history will be marked by a kind of golden age, the “millennium” - so called because, notionally at least, it lasts a thousand years. This period will be marked by the “second coming” of Jesus Christ, who will reign in an earthly paradise until the end of the millennium, which will also be the end of time, when the last judgment will happen.

The belief largely arises out of a literalist reading of the Revelation of St John, which is the last book of the New Testament, which describes in graphic if not always very precise terms the return and reign of Christ, and the last judgment. Because it emerges out of biblical literalism, millennialism is mainly a modern phenomenon. Because of the lack of precision in the text, attempts to read the Revelation literally can produce a number of different understandings about exactly how the millennium will unfold.

Premillennialism: The view that Christ comes at the start of the millennium, and the final judgment comes at the end, with a literal political reign by Jesus Christ in between. This has two further variations:

Post-tribulational premillennialism: The view that before the second coming and the millenium proper there will be a “tribulation” or worldwide period of wars and strife. The advent of this tribulation will be a sign that the millenium is near.

Pre-tribulational premillennialism: The view that before the tribulation will come after the second coming of Christ.

Postmillenialism: The view that the millennium is not a period of political rule at all, but a period inaugurated when the church achieves its objective of converting the world, and the whole world forms part of “Christendom” and lives according to the gospel. The second coming of Christ and the final judgment both come at the end of this period.

Amillenialism: Denies that there will be a millennium at all, whether political or spiritual, except in the rather limited sense that Christ is continuously present in the world through the church.

As for the mainstream denominations, it all depends on what you think is “mainstream”. As for the religious traditions we mostly encounter in Ireland, Catholicism is strongly amillennial, though I don't think that's a matter of formal doctrine. Most of the larger Protestant churches in Ireland do not have an official position, but the predominant theological tradition is again amillennial. You will find individual believers and invididual ministers who adopt other positions, but the predominant opinion is (a) ammillennial, and (b) also holds that the question is unimportant or uninteresting. The various forms of millennialism are most strongly found in American Protestant traditions though, even there, the mainstream protestant traditions are not very interested in the question.

EunanMac

Thank you for explaining that Peregrinus.

The interweb seems to be heavily dominated with all sorts of offshoot American denominational views, which at times can give a skewed picture of what is mainstream Christianity. The tiny Westboro 'Baptist Church' in Topeka, Kansas, being a prime example that the media seem to love promoting and advertising.

Can you explain 'the rapture' and what denominations hold to that ?

Nick Park

EunanMac wrote: »

Thank you for explaining that Peregrinus.

The interweb seems to be heavily dominated with all sorts of offshoot American denominational views, which at times can give a skewed picture of what is mainstream Christianity. The tiny Westboro 'Baptist Church' in Topeka, Kansas, being a prime example that the media seem to love promoting and advertising.

Can you explain 'the rapture' and what denominations hold to that ?

The 'rapture' is a belief that, at the return of Christ, those Christians still alive at that time will be caught up to heaven.

This is based on 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

The word 'rapture' itself does not appear in the Bible, but is derived from the Latin translation of 'caught up' which, in the Vulgate Bible, is 'rapiemur'.

Most Christians throughout history have believed that the Rapture occurs pretty much simultaneously with the general resurrection from the dead. However, in the 1820's John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren movement came up with the idea that there would be an extended period of time between the Rapture and the final resurrection. This developed into a notion that large numbers of Christians would simply disappear, leaving the world to lurch into a time of great tribulation (commonly portrayed as lasting for 7 years).

It has become common among some, but certainly not all, American fundamentalists and provides the basis for the truly awful 'Left Behind' series of novels and movies.

Peregrinus

The rapture is connected with the "tribulation" already discussed. It's based on the idea that, just as the tribulation beings, a group of the saved will be caught up into heaven and so will escape the wars, strife, etc that the tribulation involves. It's a view that was promoted by the Plymouth Brethern in the early nineteenth century, who were once a much more influential Christian denomination (at least in the English-speaking world) than they are today.

Again, this is not a mainstream belief. You'll find it in the less mainstream versions of American Protestantism. It's rare to find Catholics or mainstream Protestants who believe in the rapture in this sense, and it's not the official position of any mainstream denomination.

tommy2bad

Isn't the whole tribulation, rapture thing from some Scottish girl Margaret Macdonald iirc, back in the 1800?

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

Isn't the whole tribulation, rapture thing from some Scottish girl Margaret Macdonald iirc, back in the 1800?

Apparently not, wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

There have been a couple of attempts to locate a “source” for Darby's concept of the rapture. These attempts imply that Darby's concepts originated from a "false" (demonic) source. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles alleged that John Nelson Darby's concept of the rapture was taken from one of the charismatic utterances in Edward Irving's church. Since Tregelles regarded the utterances as “pretending to be from God,” his implication is that Darby's rapture is from a demonic source. Dave MacPherson built upon Tregelles's accusation, and claimed the source for Darby's rapture was from an utterance of Margaret MacDonald.[1][5] However, scholars think there are major obstacles that render these accusations untenable. It is clear that Darby regarded the 1830 charismatic manifestations as demonic and not of God.[4] Darby would not have borrowed an idea from a source that he clearly thought was demonic.[6] Also Darby had already written out his pretribulation rapture views in January 1827, 3 years prior to the 1830 events and any MacDonald utterance.[7] When MacDonald's utterance is read closely, her statements show her to hold a posttribulationist position (“being the fiery trial which is to try us” and “for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus”).[8][9] For these and other reasons, scholars consider MacPherson's alleged connection to dispensationalism as untenable.[10]

tommy2bad

So both ideas are from the same general period rather than one causing the other. Though MacDonald's might have been influenced by Darbys. Just around the end of the Napoleonic era, the rise of Quakerism, the Mormons in America, turbulent times. Not that all times aren't turbulent but it might have seemed especially so then.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

So both ideas are from the same general period rather than one causing the other. Though MacDonald's might have been influenced by Darbys. Just around the end of the Napoleonic era, the rise of Quakerism, the Mormons in America, turbulent times. Not that all times aren't turbulent but it might have seemed especially so then.

Well Quakerism began about 180 years previously. But the 1800's were certainly a period of great innovation and imagination in religious matters.

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

Well Quakerism began about 180 years previously. But the 1800's were certainly a period of great innovation and imagination in religious matters.

Actually I may have been thinking of the Sally Army or the 7'th day Adventists or one of the many offshoots of Christianity from around that time. Of course the Quakers are much older and much more orthodox than the others.

Funny how it caught on though, it's not a nice theology, it's not well supported by scripture without some serious tinted lenses and it offers no insight into faith. The whole idea comes across as more fantasy fiction al la Twilight than theology. I must read up on history now you got me curious about it.