In the recent threads on end times, I attempted to insert a bit of historical view that would hopefully impact the thinking of some on the BB (not that I really expect that to happen - but to give such at least a chance).
Because the Apostle John lived a full life and died toward the end of the first century, there were outstanding teachers, preachers, martyrs which had direct and were first hand witnesses to and in some cases disciples of the Apostle John.
One of the most outstanding items is that EVERY one of them were Pre-mil.
Now, if John was an Apostle (and he was) then it would seem as though he would have diligently corrected the "error" and teaching of end times these people did. There is absolutely NO RECORD that he did.
So, here then is the problem.
On the BB there are those who would contend for a view of the Revelation that the Apostle did not teach.
On the BB there are those who would contend for a view of the prophets that the Apostle did not teach.
On the BB there are those who would attempt to dispute with the actual writer of the Revelation in desire to preach and teach what the Apostle John would dispute.
How then can such ones make claims that those that teach and preach what the Apostle John taught and handed down to those he taught claim that John is "bewitched?"
And to think that some of the BB actually find it amusing!
Can ANYONE name a single disciple of John or one that John had direct contact with that was NOT pre-mil?
Teaching of the Apostle John
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, Sep 26, 2015.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
How many people connected to the Apostle John do we even know their views on of end times?
-
The burden is on the author of the OP to produce an exhaustive list of direct disciples of the Apostle John who were Chilists.
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
According to Acts 20:30, Paul was expecting some of the elders in Ephesus whom he had taught to go rogue in one way or another. Why should John fare any better?
-
The earliest ones I know of is Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Neither directly taught by John. Irenaeus was close to Polycarp though. So if we want to say since Irenaeus learned from a disciple of John, that his millennium view must be correct, we must also embrace that water baptism brings new life and start baptizing infants. That was also the belief of Irenaeus
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk -
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk -
Do I have to do all the work for you?
I will give you this statement from here.Premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church. Philip Schaff has said, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age (A.D. 100-325) is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius." (History of the Christian Church, Scribner, 1884; Vol. 2, p. 614) bold emphasis mine.Papia(s) was a pastor in a near city to the Apostle John in Ephesus. He often traveled to visit the apostle to get first hand accounts of what the apostles said and the words of Jesus.
Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D. (see here) wrote:
"Irenaeus was also a strong believer in premillennialism. In fact, premillennialism was a major a weapon in Irenaeus’s battle against Gnosticism and its unbiblical dualism between matter and spirit."
Iranaeus states of Polycarp, "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." ( Adv. Haer., III.3.4.)
Polycarp statedPolycarp 11:2How do the saints judge the world if the there is no place and time of that justice to be met?
"But he who cannot govern himself in these things, how doth he enjoin this upon another? If a man refrain not from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the Gentiles who know not the judgment of the Lord, Nay, know we not, that the saints shall judge the world, as Paul teacheth?"
Another source of good information on this topic is found here. It gives a very factual report as to the historical position of the early church and the shift to a-mil and post-mil that were actually considered heretical views. How that when the popularity of those views grew the pre-mil view(s) were then considered heretical.
That shift was done as a direct affront to the apostles and those directly taught by them. -
I find some of the same information that agedman does. Premillennialism goes right back to the apostles. Virtually all the anti-nicene fathers believed. Schaff being quoted by Ice states:
Certainly we don't maintain that their beliefs were exactly the same as ours.
But what are they:
A belief in a Millennial Kingdom on earth.
A belief in a pre-millennial second coming.
A belief in the judgment after the millennial Kingdom.
Believe it or not, if one is objective they will admit that the above three eras are "dispensations," and hence "dispensationalism." Just because it doesn't fall into the "Darby-defined interpretation" of dispensationalism doesn't mean it isn't dispensationalism. It has dispensations. It has order. It fits the basic definition of what dispensationalism is. One cannot dismiss this so lightly.
Here is another point that Ireneus believed in (from the same article) :
Notice the last statement of the previous quote:
This is exactly what we find in the early church in regards to premillennialism before allegorical interpretation began to dominate.
Allegorical interpretation was "invented" by Origen. It did not exist before the fourth century. As another biased source provided by Icon claimed: "a literal approach to the Bible is a novel characteristic of dispensationalism." Obviously such a statement if blatantly false. The early church took the scriptures very literally. -
The legend is that Papais and Irenaeus traveled to learn from the Apostle himself. If that is true, then surely they(including Justin Martyr) are right about infant baptism and that water baptism is the source of salvation. Do you believe Irenaeus on that one?
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk -
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk -
Even though early church members did hold to pre mil view. That doesn't make them pre-trib-dispensationalists
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk -
-
Infant baptism has more to do with the a-mil folks than those who hold pre-mil views. -
See BOTH of them (pre-mil and disp) are Pre-mil.
So making such a claim as you did, only supports the fact that the Apostles taught Pre-mil view as accurate and Scriptural. -
But again, they are BOTH pre-mil.
So, what is the problem some have with accepting the Pre-mil as the truth?
Discussions of Baptismal regeneration is just a distraction and not germane to the truth of the Pre-mil view. -
Shall I point out that Calvin was baptized as an infant, saw his infant baptism as a valid baptism accepted by the Lord and went on to persecute those who baptized by immersion after having made a confession of faith in Christ--the Anabaptists. Totally unscriptural. -
-
I'm not a big fan of gulping down 2nd-3rd century doctrine without comparing what they said to scripture.
It just seems to me that pretty early on the church started veering from apostolic teaching. Is Eschatology one of those areas?
We should compare historic teaching to scripture at every point. Otherwise we might be building error upon error -
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk -
Page 1 of 3