Today’s New Reason To Believe

Kenneth Richard Samples

Someone once asked me, “A friend and I were just discussing different theories on the end times. I was wondering if you had any opinion on what kind of role America has played in God’s plan for the world.”

Some historians think that the emergence of the United States of America is an indirect byproduct of the Protestant Reformation. The theology of that influential era asserted that a divinely grounded liberty had been granted to human beings who are able to appreciate natural law (reason and morality) and are committed to a free-market economy.

In terms of America’s role in the world, historian Stephen E. Ambrose said the following in the American Heritage New History of World War II:

In a world full of hatred, death, destruction, deception, and double dealing, the United States at the end of World War II was almost universally regarded as the disinterested champion of justice, freedom, and democracy.

I think the concept of American exceptionalism is clearly evident in this country’s proud 232-year history. America has never been a perfect country, but it has throughout its history been striving to fulfill its great and unique declarations. In the twentieth century, the United States was the most important power in the world in terms of fighting totalitarianism and promoting human freedom.

Wikipedia defines American exceptionalism as “the belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions.”

In terms of the prophetic future, if America loses its abiding commitment to faith, liberty, justice, and free enterprise then I think it will go the way of the United Kingdom (an important but clearly second-rate power on the world scene).

Since I see civilization and culture moving biblically in a negative and decaying direction (Matthew 24), I think America–as a shining light on a hill–will ultimately lose power and influence.

Nevertheless, backed by my study of church history I remain skeptical of Christian claims that we are definitely living in the end times. We may be, but then again I may die without seeing the Lord’s glorious second coming and so may my children and even grandchildren.

Personally, I am very attracted to St. Augustine’s “Two Cities” metaphor. I have a dual citizenship in the City of God and in the City of Man. I live and work on both tracks simultaneously. My ultimate destiny is to live in Christ’s Kingdom (the City of God). Yet my temporal destiny allows me to strive to promote goodness, justice, and freedom in the United States of America (for me, the City of Man).

As a basic optimist (and in spite of the current economic and political gloom), I hope that my children’s generation will regain some of the greatness of my parents’ generation. My father was a decorated combat soldier in the Second World War and fought at the Battle of the Bulge. Encouragingly, I see similar qualities in my kids that I saw in my parents. My parents, though imperfect and scarred by sin, profoundly shaped me and my world-and-life view. And my wife and I have, I think, profoundly shaped our children and their worldview. My oldest daughter, Sarah, a committed Christian, enthusiastically voted in her first presidential election last fall.

With God’s help, I plan to discharge my responsibilities in both cities. For while I confidently expect to survive the death of my body and dwell eternally in the House of the Lord, I also know that I have only one temporal life and I want to make the most of it. I desire to be found a “good and faithful servant” in both spheres of citizenship.

In difficult times like these, I find great comfort in the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty (Ephesians 1:11). I am directly aware that there is a divine hand of providence that guides my life (Romans 8:28).

In future articles I will explore other issues relating to Christian eschatology.

For an introduction to the topic of general eschatology, see Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things and Robert Clouse ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. For a discussion of Augustine’s “Two Cities” metaphor, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Kenneth Richard Samples

The Christian world-and-life view speaks about both the past and the future–addressing humankind’s origin and destiny.

In part four of this series I began a discussion of the major areas of difference among Christians when it comes to the controversial areas of eschatology (study of “last things”).

Three Major Areas of Christian Eschatological Differences

1. Understanding of the Bible’s Apocalyptic Literature

2. Relationship between Israel and the Church

3. Nature of the Millennium

The word millennium comes from Revelation 20:4-6 and refers to the “thousand-year reign of Christ.” The various millennial perspectives have different understandings of the nature of this era. Some view this era as being a literal one thousand-year period. Others view it symbolically. Millennial perspectives also adhere to different chronological orders of such events as the great tribulation (intense period of earthly trial and suffering), the rapture (the snatching away of the church), and the second coming (the glorious second advent of Jesus Christ).

Here are four major views on the millennium held by Christians throughout the centuries. The viewpoints appeal largely to the same set of Scriptures, but interpret them differently.

a. Historic Premillennialism:

This viewpoint asserts that the second coming of Christ will take place prior to the millennium, but after the great tribulation period (Matthew 24:3, 21, 29-30). The millennial reign consists of a literal one thousand-year period. According to this view, there is no secret rapture of the church. Rather the rapture takes place at the same time as the second coming. The raptured saints usher in the coming of their Messianic King.

b. Dispensational Premillennialism:

According to this perspective, the second coming will take place prior to the millennium. Like historic premillennialism, this viewpoint sees the millennial era as literal one thousand-year period (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). However, this perspective asserts that Christ will come secretly to rapture the church prior to the great tribulation period. Afterward, Christ will return publicly at his second coming to inaugurate his earthly millennial kingdom.

c. Postmillennialism:

Unlike the previously mentioned interpretations, this view asserts that Jesus Christ returns after the millennium (Isaiah 2:2, 4). According to this perspective, the millennium refers to a long period of peace and spiritual advancement made possible through the preaching of the gospel message. A distinctive feature of this perspective is that the Christian church is successful in winning the world for Jesus Christ and moving civilization and culture in a morally positive and peaceful direction.

d. Amillennialism:

This perspective proclaims that there is no literal earthly millennium (Revelation 20:4-6). Rather it is interpreted as being the period of time between Christ’s first and second advents (the church age). Jesus’ second coming takes place after the great tribulation. After Christ returns (an event that corresponds with the rapture), he engages in the works of resurrection and judgment of humankind, and then creates the new heaven and the new earth.

Differences concerning the millennium have been evident throughout Christian church history and remain an area of dispute and debate among Christians today. Therefore it is important that Christians be made aware of the different perspectives held concerning these critical future biblical events.

The nature of the millennium is the third of three broad areas of contention that reflect the essential conflicts that Christians have concerning last things. But, to underscore, it is very important to remember the broad areas of agreement that all Christians share (see parts two and three of this series).

Future articles address other issues relating to this controversial topic.

For an introduction to the topic of general eschatology, see Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things and Robert Clouse ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. For a summary of the millennial positions and their Scriptural support, see John Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts.

Kenneth Richard Samples

Historic Christianity is unique among the religions of the world for its explicit emphasis upon both the origin and destiny of humanity. The Christian faith has much to say about important past events, but it also projects forward concerning critical future things.

In parts two and three of this series I described what might be called “Mere Christian Eschatology.” While important differences are apparent concerning the final events of human history, nevertheless all historical Christian theological traditions affirm essential core orthodoxy when it comes to eschatology (study of “last things”). Secondary differences among believers should always be understood within the context of the overwhelming areas of common agreement.

Still, some of the sharpest differences Christians have amongst themselves come down to eschatology.

Three Major Eschatological Differences

1. Understanding of the Bible’s Apocalyptic Literature

Apocalyptic writings are a genre of literature that is believed to present revelations of the end of the world in deeply symbolic language. Through the centuries Christendom has been divided over just how to understand the Bible’s apocalyptic, or prophetic, literature (primarily Daniel and Revelation).

Today, many biblical scholars remain in disagreement over interpretations of these books. They interpret the Book of Revelation through various approaches (preterist, historicist, idealist, futurist) that contribute to eschatological differences. Many scholars consider the Bible’s apocalyptic elements to be the most challenging and difficult areas to understand.

Interpretive Models of Revelation:

2. Relationship between Israel and the Church

One of the most important areas of biblical study has to do with the question of how the Old Testament (OT) relates to the New Testament (NT). Some conservative evangelical traditions see great continuity between the testaments. However, others emphasize their apparent discontinuity.

An area that directly relates to eschatology is the question of Israel and the Christian church. Is it appropriate to make a distinction between these two groups? Some assert that there is no distinction between Israel and the church. For them, the church is the new Israel. For those who embrace the historic eschatological positions of amillennialism and postmillennialism (both to be discussed in later articles) the church is designated as spiritual Israel.

On the other hand, advocates of premillennialism (also to be discussed) mark an important distinction between Israel and the church. Historic premillennialists make a subtle distinction (between a literal Israel and a spiritual one), whereas with dispensational premillennialists the distinction is much more pronounced. Dispensational theology has historically made a complete distinction between the two groups and even proposed two individual programs (one for Israel and another for the church).

Determining the proper relationship between the OT people of Israel and the NT church remains an area of critical difference in eschatology.

The next article will discuss one more area in which Christians find major differences in eschatology.

For an introduction to the topic of general eschatology, see Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things and George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John.