Thoughts on John Bunyan’s Chart
You remember John Bunyan—author of Pilgrim’s Progress and other works. Well, I’m sitting here looking at a full-page, 11x14 inch (my version of it) chart drawn by Bunyan entitled “A MAP SHEWING THE ORDER & CAUSES OF SALVATION & DAMNATION.” It’s a fascinating piece of work.
The title appears in scrollwork festooned with streamers at the top of the page. Centered directly beneath is a triangle representing the Godhead. From that point, the chart divides into two sides, separated by a long center column labeled “The Passage Into and Out of the World.” At the top of this column (“Beginning”) is a circle with Adam above, then Abel on the left side and Cain on the right. At the bottom of the column (“The End”) is another large circle divided between the glory of paradise on the left and the flames of hell on the right.
The left side of the chart is devoted to the covenant of grace. This covenant rests upon election and leads to effectual calling, the operation of the Holy Spirit, the conviction of sin, and many other steps. Each step is detailed in its own circle on the chart, and the circles are connected (rather like a flow chart) with a white “line of grace.” Banners contain biblical proof texts, and at the bottom of the chart the elect soul is welcomed into glory by an angel who declares,
Come, weary saint,
Come into light;
Thou didst not faint:
Walk thou in white.
Correspondingly, the right side of the chart depicts the covenant of works, which rests upon reprobation (defined by Bunyan as being “left out of God’s election”). Steps in the execution of this covenant (also detailed in circles) are connected by a black “line of justice.” On this side of the chart is the law, which produces legal conviction of sin. Such conviction leads to false security and eventual impenitency. In the end, hell (depicted as a dragon) opens its mouth to receive the reprobate sinner, announcing,
Come, sinner, come,
Thou art my right;
I am thy home,
Grace thou didst slight.
Taken as a whole, Bunyan’s chart makes an admirable theological statement that ties together several complex themes. Covenant theology is obviously part of the picture, literally as well as figuratively. Calvinism plays a significant role, as does the Reformed theory of sanctification. Whether one agrees with Bunyan’s emphases or not, his “map” must be recognized as an imaginative visual tool for the communication of a complicated theology.
One ought to appreciate the explanatory power and coherence even of those theologies with which one disagrees. Systems such as covenant theology and Calvinism have a beauty and symmetry that is often missed due to their complexity. A chart such as Bunyan’s provides a ready means of grasping the contours of the system and the relationships between the various parts. It exposes the coherence of the system. While it includes detail, its chief virtue is that it provides a ready, visual representation of the main ideas.
Bunyan was not the last Reformed theologian to make use of such charts. Indeed, new charts are still being drawn. For example, on the website “A Puritan’s Mind,” C. Matthew McMahon offers more than a dozen charts that help the viewer visualize the core categories and historical development of his theology. Among his charts is one that overviews covenant theology and another that depicts McMahon’s understanding of the ordo salutis.
Thanks to Google, one can locate a variety of theological charts on the internet. More than a few of these are Reformed in nature. One is even labeled the “Amillennial Eschatology Chart.”
That one is particularly relevant, but perhaps not for the reasons one might think. Since the 1930s, Reformed theologians have set themselves rather decidedly against a particular system of understanding the Bible and especially the prophetic passages. That system is called “Dispensational Premillennialism.” They have voiced many complaints about dispensationalists, some more justifiable than others. One of the least justifiable complaints, however, is one that gets repeated pretty regularly. It is that dispensationalists use charts to explain their system.
The charge is true, of course. Dispensationalists do use charts to explain their system. I grew up in a church in which the pastor had a huge dispensational chart—probably four feet high and perhaps twenty or twenty-five feet long. It was painted on canvas and could be hung up like a curtain. Every few years he would string it across the front of the church auditorium. He would take weeks to teach through the entire chart.
As a child, that chart fascinated me. I loved to look at the pictures: the huge serpent that stretched across the top, the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, the painting of the church building in the circle that represented the present age. The order of the chart was logical. It made sense even to my childish mind. It provided a coherent way of understanding God’s dealings with the world.
(Incidentally, that chart is now in my possession, and I still enjoy looking at it now and then. I would actually like to find more like it. These charts, produced during the first half of the 20th Century, are not merely theological statements but a form of religious folk-art. I would like to see them preserved, if possible.)
In short, that chart did for dispensationalism pretty much the same thing that Bunyan’s chart did for covenant theology. Both charts rather neatly summarize their respective doctrinal systems. Those systems, while historically related (both are branches of Reformed theology), are probably incompatible. Naturally, adherents of each will raise objections against the other.
One of those objections should never be that teachers of one system employ charts to communicate their views.
Sweet Death
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)
The sweetest blossoms die.
And so it was that, going day by day
Unto the church to praise and pray,
And crossing the green churchyard thoughtfully,
I saw how on the graves the flowers
Shed their fresh leaves in showers,
And how their perfume rose up to the sky
Before it passed away.
The youngest blossoms die.
They die and fall and nourish the rich earth
From which they lately had their birth;
Sweet life, but sweeter death that passeth by
And is as though it had not been:—
All colors turn to green;
The bright hues vanish and the odors fly,
The grass hath lasting worth.
And youth and beauty die.
So be it, O my God, Thou God of truth:
Better than beauty and than youth
Are Saints and Angels, a glad company;
And Thou, O Lord, our Rest and Ease,
Art better far than these.
Why should we shrink from our full harvest? why
Prefer to glean with Ruth?
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 8 views
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kintzertorium/3131529996/sizes/z/in/photos…
[img=355x500] /sites/default/files/images/11_04/3131529996_d183fe84f5.jpg
There’s a copyright on it but they provide a download link, so…
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
http://www.reformationtheology.com/Parousia_Concurrent.jpg
However, the chart fails to resolve the accusation commonly made by the millenarians (whether predispensational, historic or chiliast), which is that an interpretation (or, this being a chart, an illustration) of Revelation 20:1-10 that employs consistent hermeneutics is lacking.
In addition to that, my main problem with amillennialism is that - to the best of my reading, such as in Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book in the Bible” by Merrill Tenney and elsewhere, amillennialism was largely developed by Roman Catholics - and the Catholics prior - to suit their political purposes. You had Augustine’s work to defend the church-state while the Roman Empire’s political, economic, military and social fortunes were declining, and you had Alcazar, who developed preterism solely for the purpose of opposing the (albeit symbolic and allegorical) use of Revelation by the Reformation leaders. Alcazar in particular took the position that Revelation had little to no application beyond its original audience. It is also very fair to say that both Augustine and Alcazar basically followed the doctrinal groundwork of Eusebius, who while making some important contributions to church history, was ultimately a servant of - and propagandist for - Constantine.
Whatever the problems with premillennial dispensationalism, it represents an attempt at Protestant eschatology for theological purposes as opposed to Catholic eschatology for political purposes. Unless I am mistaken, first, there were the attempts to keep Revelation out of the canon altogether because it emphasized the kingdom of Jesus Christ to come instead of exalting the imperial church-state as the kingdom of heaven on earth. Then, you have eschatologies that largely accomplish the same goal by marginalizing or reinterpreting the apocalypse. This is especially distressing when most of the apocalypse consists of material given earlier in the Bible that the apocalypse restates, enlarges, explains, and/or ties together in a single framework. So, how can there be such a cavalier treatment of Revelation without being similarly dismissive of the earlier material that Revelation references? And if we do this to Revelation with regards to eschatology, can or should the same be done to Romans and Hebrews (with their abundance of Old Testament and gospel references) regarding soteriology and Christology?
Now I do not presume to be a church historian, but the best evidence that I have seen is that the chiliast, or one could say historic premilliennial, view came first (see Polycarp and Irenaeus) to be rejected later for being “too Jewish”, and also when the allegorical hermeneutic began to rise in influence. It is one thing to say that this position is wrong because early Jewish Christians - and those influenced by them - made an error similar to that of the disciples in Acts 1:6 (although one should point out that in Acts 1:7, Jesus Christ did not say that they were WRONG, only that it was not yet time for their request in Acts 1:6 to be fulfilled). It is quite another to reject the various millennium views because of what the Roman imperial church - and later the Catholics - decided best suited their interests.
So, we need another chart that explains “when were these eschatological views adopted, by whom, and for what purpose.” I suppose that such a chart would be as challenging to the modern (i.e. “Christian Zionist”) premillennial dispensationalist as it would be to those adhering to what is basically Catholic eschatology.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
First, as far as historical evidence goes, neither chiliasm nor non-chiliasm came first. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are both chiliasts, but both of them remark that there are other orthodox Christians that are non-chiliast. So, at least as early as Justin Martyr, and we don’t have much earlier, there was a difference of opinion.
Second, the sort of chiliasm espoused by the proponents in the early church had some bizarre elements in it that distinguish it sharply from modern “historic” premillenialism. (In my opinion, “historic” premillennialism is not historic at all, except in holding to a single resurrection.) Chiliasts did not believe that Christian souls ascended to heaven at death. Rather, they were kept in the ground. The millennium was supposed to be a time of purification, a stepping stone getting souls ready for heaven. Really, chiliasm was purgatory before purgatory. Also, many chiliasts held to a 7-day/7,000-year view of history, and some see the 7th year as figurative, as an eternal day. So, in essence, they put the millennium more on the side of eternity than on the side of history, which is strangely amillennial-sounding. By the way, probably the best monograph on chiliasm and non-chiliasm in the early church is Regnum Caelorum by Charles Hill.
Third, even though I’ve already addressed the early origin of non-chiliasm, it’s a bit disingenuous to describe the major proponents as “Roman Catholics.” What does that mean? Many of the proponents of non-chiliasm were the same people who gave us the Nicene and Chalcedonian faith. Motive judging is difficult here. Modern day cults would say that Roman Catholics developed the Trinity to suit their political purposes, and the political involvement in the Trinitarian and Christological debates is far stronger than anything ever exercised toward eschatology. (See, for example, Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years by Philip Jenkins.)
Since I am, at the moment, an Augustine specialist, I very strongly disagree with your caricature of Augustine. The basic point of City of God is that the church is NOT coterminous with the Roman Empire or any earthly power, and that while Christians commingle with non-Christians in this age, they are distinguished as a community by their ultimate love, God. The idea that early church Fathers were custom-fitting their eschatologies to support particular political regimes is entirely fictitious.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie, your arguments are not based upon mocking people who use charts, so you are really addressing a different topic.
Dr. Bauder has clearly won the “inconsistency” argument. But solidly reasoning people would not include or exclude a view simply because it has charts. That is crazy — but I have heard it time and time again.
I, personally, do not use charts. As a PD, my concern is not so much distinctions over the millennia in general but the distinction between God’s promises to ethnic, genetic Israel and the Body of Christ. But I cannot fault anyone for using a chart to explain their views. Soon the debate will move to power points. :)
"The Midrash Detective"
If you are getting your ideas about what the early church fathers believed about the millennium as a purgatory and souls staying in the ground from Hill’s volume, then I am not so impressed with his ideas. First, it is true that Justin Martyr said that orthodox Christians disagreed with him on the millennium. But no writer prior to Clement of Alexandria said anything other than that Christians and Israel would live for 1000 years here on earth. Clement, AD 95, describes the Kingdom only as future. The Epistle of Barnabas likewise describes the Kingdom as literal, future, and 1000 years. Papias is the most explicit about the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. Irenaeus quotes Papias approvingly. Eusebius says the writings of Papias are not to be believed for the very reason that he taught a literal 1000 year kingdom on earth. Eusebius also rejected the book of Revelation as canonical. Irenaeus and Justin both say that the prophecies of Ezekiel will be fulfilled literally here on earth. Irenaeus said that the premillenial view was THE orthodox view (Against Heresies 5.32)
As to souls in the earth, Justin Martyr says that the wicked are now in everlasting punishment, and that at the time of the resurrection, men’s spirits would be joined to their bodies. (First Apology, 7). He likewise argues that men’s souls experience sensation after death (Apology,18). Ireneus interprets Jesus’ story about the rich man and Lazarus very literally: thus the wicked are now in torment and the righteous are in bliss (Against Heresies 2.34).
Nor did they look at the Millennium primarily as a time of purification, but rather of blessing, salvation, and joy. Irenaeus calls it “the commencement of incorruption.” So much for a chiliastic purgatory!
As to millennial interpretation fitting political scheme, I will not comment on Augustine. Eusebius, however formed his eschatology around the idea that with the adoption of the Christian faith by Constantine, the Kingdom of God had literally come. He called the Roman monarch in Constantinople the viceroy of God in His kingdom. The Roman Church did not fully accept this scheme.
Modern premillennialism is very much the same as the premillennialism of the early Church Fathers.
Jeff Brown
1. The souls of Christians remain in the earth, and do not proceed to heaven upon death.
In the middle of an argument for the bodily resurrection, Irenaeus takes the time to chide the heretics for believing in an immediate entrance into heaven. Apparently, they do not understand “the plan of the resurrection.”
[Against Heresies 5.31.1-2] For the heretics, despising the handiwork of God, and not admitting the salvation of their flesh, while they also treat the promise of God contemptuously, and pass beyond God altogether in the sentiments they form, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned. Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man (universam reprobant resurrectionem), and as far as in them lies remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme] , how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection? For they do not choose to understand, that if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth. But the case was, that for three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were …. And on His rising again the third day, He said to Mary, who was the first to see and to worship Him, “Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to the disciples, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and unto your Father.”2. The millennium serves, in part, as a training ground to prepare people for the presence of God. The Christian’s final grade or level in eternity will be determined by a judgment at the end of the millennium.
… the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day “in the lower parts of the earth;” then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father …. For as the Lord “went away in the midst of the shadow of death,”(10) where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven] , it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. “For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.”(11) As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven] , but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege].
[AH 5.32.1] Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature; and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards.After the kingdom:
[AH 5.36.1-2] But when this [present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually] , always holding fresh converse with God. And since (or, that) these things shall ever continue without end, Isaiah declares, “For as the new heavens and the new earth which I do make, continue in my sight, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.” And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.Now, the real punch in Hill’s work is that he identifies a consistent connection between these ideas (1. no immediate entrance into heaven 2. millennium as time of further preparation) and chiliasm, whereas in the early church there is a consistent connection between an eschatology of immediate ascent to heaven and non-chiliasm. Since Hill is both an evangelical and an Oxford scholar, I think he deserves your attention.
…There is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, “In My Father’s house are many mansions.” For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy.
BTW, most (I think) scholars believe that Irenaeus was arguing primarily against Valentinian heretics, but at certain points also against otherwise orthodox Christians who denied the millennium. Even the Schaff translation reflects this assumption in its insertion of “orthodox persons” at 5.32. Justin explicitly tells us that there are orthodox Christians who do not believe in the millennium. So, it’s disingenuous for anyone to look to Origen or Eusebius for the roots of non-chiliasm. Obviously, they did much to promote it.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I don’t think that anyone answering has suggested that non-chiliasm began with Origen. I have little doubt that Christians believed in amillennialism before Origen, particularly since Justin Martyr says they did. However, since no Fathers wrote advocating no literal millennium on earth prior to Origen, it would be very hard to defend the idea that it was a majority position.
Jeff Brown
If you grew up in the IFB movement in the 70s and 80s, you saw your fair share of Larkin charts and pointing that out is mildly amusing (and nostalgic).
2) The association of the amiil position (I’m premil, by the way) with Catholicism is a worse error. That is a guilt-by-association tactic and it is in poor taste, in my opinion. We’ve all heard stories about the origins of futurism and Jesuit scholars Ribera and Lacunza. You would not think those stories are fair, so accusing amils of Romanism is not fair, either.
Still another pre-millennial critique on the book directly is done by David Larsen, as a part of his paper, “Some Key Issues in the History of Pre-Millennialism.” It treats Hill’s conclusions from another perspective. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Larsen-SomeKeyIssuesInTheHis.pdf
Jeff Brown
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion