Idealism: is it Hegelian?

[Reformed Covenanter]

Although most commentaries on Revelation that I have read have been Idealist, I am not convinced of that method of interpretation. Indeed, a thought occurred to me recently (that happens sometimes ); is the whole idea of progressive parallelism similar to the Hegelian view that history runs in cycles?

I am not deliberately trying to misrepresent anyone, just looking for help and correction if necessary.

 

[Zenas]

Uhh, what?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Uhh, what?

The Christian and Biblical view of history is linear: Creation to the Cross to the Consumation - i.e. it runs in a straight line.

The pagan view of history, which has been revived in the 19th century by the German philosopher Hegel (who influenced Karl Marx), is that history moves in cycles. An illustration of this is the Marxist view that Feudalism is followed by Capitalism, Capitalism by Socialism, Socialism by full Communism.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is a clever question by Daniel. Hegelianism, if I may speak oversimply, posits cycles in history (I know I am botching it, but it is similiar). Idealism, to a lesser extent, weakens the historical thrust in the book of Revelation. I have in mind Sam Hamstra Jr., Four Views on the Book of Revelation.

Hamstra writes that Revelation does not depict "particular incidents" (97). He goes even further, "In times like these, you need a word from the Lord. You don't need a history lesson" (98).

Idealism, to be fair, can't be fully identified with Hegelianism because Idealism doesn't necessarily posit thesis/antithesis/synthesis. However, it runs the risk of losing the historical perspective on Revelation.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is a clever question by Daniel. Hegelianism, if I may speak oversimply, posits cycles in history (I know I am botching it, but it is similiar). Idealism, to a lesser extent, weakens the historical thrust in the book of Revelation. I have in mind Sam Hamstra Jr., Four Views on the Book of Revelation.

Hamstra writes that Revelation does not depict "particular incidents" (97). He goes even further, "In times like these, you need a word from the Lord. You don't need a history lesson" (98).

Idealism, to be fair, can't be fully identified with Hegelianism because Idealism doesn't necessarily posit thesis/antithesis/synthesis. However, it runs the risk of losing the historical perspective on Revelation.

Thanks for your answer Jacob; I see what you mean about it not being fully identified with Hegelianism. Perhaps it would be better to ask whether or not it has Hegelian tendencies?

I have the Four Views on Revelation book, been meaning to read it for a while.

 

[Poimen]

No; there is no endless cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. All things 'end' or reach their goal in eternity as all eschatological perspectives teach.

 

[Grymir]

Hi Daniel! My 2cents - in your original post, you asked if the whole idea of progressive parallelism similar to the Hegelian view that history runs in cycles? Especially as it regards the book of Revelation. In progressive parallelism you have a bunch of straight lines of thought that are going from begining to end. From different perspectives if you will. a rehash of how in, like you know, Genesis God will tell a story, then go back and tell it again, with more or different detail. (yea, just listen to the liberals cry "there are two accounts and they don't agree!"). I think they try and apply this to Revelation. Hegelianism would say one line of thought would be added to another and become a new line that is then added to another new one which becomes the new one that is then joined by another which merges with another to become a new one, controlled by the state!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Progessive parallelism is a literary device that John used to communicate the vision. Hegel's parallelism was a philosophy of history.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I don't think Hegel's view of history is a cyclical one, if by that one means something like a cyclical view of time. Through synthesis, *progress* is achieved. One doesn't simply go back to the beginning state of things. History progresses, so in that sense it is linear for Hegel. Take all that with a grain of salt though.