Thread: Church of Sardis seen as the Reformation church

So I started attending this Bible study on the Book of Revelation. My parents attend an AoG church. Although I am not a big fan of it the church has not been too charismatic, so I thought it wouldn't be bad to see what they had to say.

Well this Wednesday night the study was from the beginning part of Revelation, and the pastor started covering the churches and what they are. Even though we only covered the first church - the church of Ephesus, he gave us a quick over-view of the other churches. He stated that the church of Sardis is considered the "church of the Reformation." I never really looked in depth in Revelation studies (I have read the book on my own, but I never participated in a Bible study or anything of that nature to hear what other people have to say about it) so this was the first time I have heard that.

Anyways, I googled: "church of sardis the reformation church" and the first hit I got was The Church At Sardis so I guess there are more people out there that believe this.

Have any of you guys ever heard of this teaching on Revelation, where the church of Sardis is considered the church of the Reformation?

There are folks who believe that the churches listed in Revelation are a historic outline of history. That is, church history epochs are described by the various descriptions. Hence, Sardis comes amid-times, representing the Reformation centuries, followed by Philadelphia weakness and persecution, followed by a final age of apostasy, Laodicea.

Personally, I find this way of reading the churches unhelpful. It seems far more sensible to recognize them all as being just as common "types" (which can't exhaust them) of churches not only in John's period (the first age of the church), but EVERY age! And most of the churches at one time or another exhibit some characteristics of ALL those churches. Probably more than a smattering during any given pastorate or decade.

In his tapes on Revelation, Dr Greg Bahnsen, whom I assume had looked into this idea of the churches representing different epochs of church history, said that it was just a fanciful (external to the Bible) idea, which didn't fit anyway.

I believe the notion started among dispensational scholars.

Of course starting from a denominational base of:

Armininian-influenced + dispensational + no confession of faith

(and centered on seeking new revelation outside of Scripture), it might be interesting to know how this individual views his own church amongst the seven.

(I'm assuming he is also acknowledging these are seven types of churches throughout the ages)

It might also be interesting how he would square the "church of the Reformation" historically since its purpose was to bring the church back to the centrality of the gospel and the authority of Scripture- the Christianity of the first century church. So, when he looks at "reformed churches" today that seek that... why isn't he reformed?

I recall coming across this a number of years ago. It stems from dispensational thinking but I find it fanciful and would agree with Bruce that there are churches like the seven of Rev 2-3 in every age.

Ok guys, thanks for the input.
I was thinking along the same lines: that the churches have existed through all ages, and are meant to show different characteristics that are found among churches. For example, a church leaving its first love.

In the end, IMO, it does come from the dispensational thinking. Especially, as you guys have mentioned, it is a "fanciful (external to the Bible) idea."

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 11:52:19 EST-----

Originally Posted by Scott1

Of course starting from a denominational base of:

Armininian-influenced + dispensational + no confession of faith

(and centered on seeking new revelation outside of Scripture), it might be interesting to know how this individual views his own church amongst the seven.

(I'm assuming he is also acknowledging these are seven types of churches throughout the ages)

It might also be interesting how he would square the "church of the Reformation" historically since its purpose was to bring the church back to the centrality of the gospel and the authority of Scripture- the Christianity of the first century church. So, when he looks at "reformed churches" today that seek that... why isn't he reformed?

Thats what I was thinking. The purpose of the Reformation was to move towards "the centrality of the gospel and the authority of Scripture- the Christianity of the first century church."

The argument I heard, between the lines, was that the church started off good, but ultimately died down. That today the churches left behind from the Reformation are died. Also, he mentioned that the following churches (such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) have died in their formalism. Thats what really got to me.

So far that was only the intro, we should be covering that section in a couple weeks. When we cover it it will be in more detail, and I will be able to get more of what he is getting at.

I would recommend More than Conquerors by William Hendriksen. It is a great commentary on Revelation and does a good job discussing the 7 churches.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

I would recommend More than Conquerors by William Hendriksen. It is a great commentary on Revelation and does a good job discussing the 7 churches.

Thanks for the recommendation

cecat90
The argument I heard, between the lines, was that the church started off good, but ultimately died down. That today the churches left behind from the Reformation are died. Also, he mentioned that the following churches (such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) have died in their formalism. Thats what really got to me.

Recently, it has become more clear how one's eschatological view can affect perceptions like this. If one believes everything is trending down because God is not in control of His creation, and its up to us as independent thinkers and church goers to discern the whole of creation and separate from the world because after all its hopelessly corrupt, it's easy to think like this.

If one believes at least that good and evil are going to grow side-by-side but always within the framework of God working all things together for His purposes, it will profoundly affect your view. It may not make you an optimist- but it won't make you a pessimist either.

Yet when one begins to understand the deeper truths of Scripture- that God actually takes bad things and is working them together toward His own good ends, it changes everything. Knowing that, as Dr. Sproul has said, there is not even one maverick molecule in this universe outside of the control of God in His Sovereignty puts a very different view forward.

You might also challenge the simplicity of this (in regard to the reformation) that it formed a long term positive biblical change that was exported around the world and changed whole countries, cultures and societies.

You might ask him where he thinks Arminian-influenced, dispensational theology without a binding confession has done that. And add to that theology that prioritizes seeking after signs and wonders. Not to tweak him, but to challenge him, you might also ask where the first century church of Corinth, which was so out-of-order in many ways, fits into his historical schema.

I think this line of thinking is much older than dispensationalism.

The dominant method of interpreting Revelation at the time of the Reformation was Historicist. The Reformation era church of Protestantism was not above finding itself in the pages of Revelation. They may have even used the letters to the seven churches as a timeline (seems I read that someplace).

However, they would probably have "placed" themselves as someplace other than Sardis. But, maybe Rome would have been Sardis?

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

There are folks who believe that the churches listed in Revelation are a historic outline of history. That is, church history epochs are described by the various descriptions. Hence, Sardis comes amid-times, representing the Reformation centuries, followed by Philadelphia weakness and persecution, followed by a final age of apostasy, Laodicea.

Personally, I find this way of reading the churches unhelpful. It seems far more sensible to recognize them all as being just as common "types" (which can't exhaust them) of churches not only in John's period (the first age of the church), but EVERY age! And most of the churches at one time or another exhibit some characteristics of ALL those churches. Probably more than a smattering during any given pastorate or decade.

Much more useful, much more likely.

Ok I stand corrected. Today the Pastor covered the Church of Sardis. What he meant when he said that it was the Reformation church was actually what he stated tonight as the "Reformation Era." By that he means that the Catholic Church was the one that was dead, and the Reformation Era was the revival of the church.

When he was giving the over-view it sounded differently. I felt it was only right to correct my first assumption about what he said.

However, with that said, there are still people out there who think the church of Sardis is the Reformation church. Even worse is the fact that people look at the churches in Revelation as periods in history, when in my opinion they are churches that have been about through all the ages.

Used tobelieve that Sardas was the Refromation Church when I was a Dispensationalist Clarnce Larken taught that.