Dr. Bob:No it was not. Since Cyrus Scofield included them in his 1909 edition of a study bible (the year Branham was born!) this is not feasible!
I STAND CORRECTED! ! Branham did NOT start this theory! I went to my library while my wife checked out the Net so I could both acknowledge your correction and post the CORRECT info.
The first ENGLISH reference I can find for this idea is from Joseph Seiss, "The Apocalypse"(1900). I cannot find if HIS source is from what I've written below or not.
The first reference from ANY source I can find on one days' notice(I still hafta work and tell my wife she loves me) is from Joachim of Fiore, a Catholic monk of Sicily, born C.1135 in Calabria. he believed he was living in the Laodicean period then; he believed Saladin, who re-conquered Jerusalem during Joachin's his lifetime, to be the forerunner of the Antichrist, and he believed in three overall church ages, the Old testament period being that of God The Father, the NT period being that of Jesus, and a third period, that of the Holy Spirit, soon to come.
The first reference I can find for anyone systemizing this theory and assigning dates to its periods is about Nicholas of Lyra, a French Catholic Franciscan monk (1270-1349) who wrote the first known Bible commentary. The RCC soon abandoned the church age idea, but it popped up again in some Reformation churches, and has continued into this time, with its "biggest" advocate being the aforementioned Branham.
I find that Scofield got the church age idea from John Nelson Darby(1800-1882) who founded the "Plymouth Brethren" & formed his own ideas about the church ages between 1830 & 1835. By 1838, his whole set of ideas became known as "dispensationalism". Scofield wrote his Bible edition with the intention of making "Darbyism" easily understood by the average layman. But Darby also believed HIS time was the Laodicean period, as have almost all exponents of this idea also believed!
Both on the net and in my public library, there are about a gazillion works about the church ages and the 7 churches in general. Some are from cults such as the JWs or the aforementioned Branham spinoffs such as "Latter Rain", some are from independent nondenominational preachers, and many are from TURKISH TOURIST AGENCIES, as the 7 ancient cities were/are located in what is now Turkey.
My opinion of that theory isn't changed, however; I believe it's WRONG, and should NOT be advocated by Baptist preachers or teachers. Why do I believe it's wrong? First, all 7 churches existed at the same time, and Jesus commands John to write to each of them at the same time. Second, types of all 7 exist simultaneously today, along with several other "types" not named in Revelation. Third, the facts of history don't necessarily jive with the umpteen hundred different time periods named in umpteen hundred articles advocating this theory. Seems as if the times most of those later folks call the "Philadelphia" age, roughly from the American revolution to just before or just after WW1, was one of the most corrupt times in American and European history, with many of today's cults such as LDS, SDA, JW, & Christian Science, were formed.And the exponents of the church age idea such as the above-mentioned Darby, who formed his theory right in the middle of today's "Philadelphia" period theory, taught that HIS times, in the 1830s, were the Laodicean times.
While I accept SOME Dispensationalist points, I absolutely DO NOT BELIEVE God has TWO churches, one for Israel and one for Gentiles. Both Jew and Gentile are saved by the same Jesus Christ, in the same manner, according to the same Gospel. However, God has made some promises to both Israel and Judah, and some of them are now fulfilled in the establishment of the Jewish sovereign nation, and its great military power and growing wealth.
The Church Age theory, like KJVO, is just another man-made theory that has no real Scriptural support, and is something to be disregarded by Baptists.
