Were the early Church Fathers premillenial?

The answer to the question is simple: They expected a literal earthly kingdom because of OT teaching.

I think Jim, with due respect to someone I consider a friend, has it backwards. It is not that dispensationalists approach the OT with the prescience of an earthly rule/kingdom. It is that they approach the OT with the prescience that the text means exactly what it says and that there is no reason to make the text mean anything else. The a priori has nothing to do with a kingdom, but rather with the nature of revelation and language.

That is why the disciples asked Christ about the establishment of his kingdom ... they expected one based on the OT and on Christ's teaching. And we must remember, as I have often pointed out, that Christ did not correct their idea of a kingdom by telling them it was already here or it was spiritual. He simply let them believe in the literal kingdom and told them it was not for them to know the time of it. Should we really believe that Christ allowed his church to be founded on the basis of teaching that he failed to correct when he could have? I find that inconceivable.

There may in fact be an aspect of the kingdom "already." I remain somewhat agnostic on that point. But we can say with certainty that there is an aspect of the kingdom that is "not yet." And because God is truthful, that kingdom will come.

And we won't be differing about it then.

 

Brother Larry, never fear that I would allow any dispute over doctrine, to become a fence over which we would disfellowship.

Over my years I have enjoyed great friends of all schools of thought, including great dispensationalists as G. Campbell Morgan and the PB's who showed me loving fellowship when I left the Church of England. My fellowship is now and will always be in Christ.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

 

Topic: Were the early Church Fathers premillenial?

the apostle Paul was premelinnealist and so was John.

 

Nope.

 

Nope. </font>[/QUOTE]says You

give me som scripture to back up that Nope.

 

I think it is ridiculous in theological debate for any side to claim that God, Paul, Peter, John, et al, in the Bible was a premill, postmill, etc., etc., etc.

All sides provide Scipture to make their claims.

Oh well, I guess all of these theological debates keep folks off the streets at night and out of trouble.

 

I guess one day (assuming you are a Christian)
you will find out the pre mils were right as you are taken off the planet and given a glorified body in the twinkling of an eye and you meet Paul and John as they shake their head at you for youre disbelief
I promise I wont rub it in by saying I told you so

 

I ain't worried about the possiblity that you may be correct theologically...because you ain't.

 

I remember the days with all the fancy charts, overhead pictures and Clarence Larkin's books and I still have my 1945 Scofield Bible...but thankfully, a great light came over me and the voice said,,,,"Awe-mill....Awe-mill,,,,amill&gt;"
"forgive my unbelief, Lord. When you said you would reign over the earth as You ascended upon David's throne at the right hand of the Father.....I believe.."

Cheers,

Jim

 

Eusebius was amil if I remember correctly. But he acknowledge that Papias and other saints in the circles associated with John were millinealists. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, stated his belief that Christ would return and set up His kingdom in Jerusalem and the saints and the prophets would be there.

From what I can understand, millinealism or millinarianism was the earlier belief which gradually fell out of favor over time as some of influential figures who liked allegorical interpretation promoted amillinealism.

The Jews got their idea of a Messianic kingdom on earth from interpreting the Old Testament.

 

Interpretation here, interpretation there. No wonder we Christians never agree. We all have our own interpretations.

 

The thing is if you read alot of stuff by Justin, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp etc you find that they were not necessarily definite milenialists. For lack of a better word Justin, well, waffled!

Irenaeus and Papias were fairly certainly millenarian but the others made statments seemingly supporting a direct ascension to heaven without any millenium, in addition to making statements seemingly supporting a literal millenium.

So what we have is about what we have today - men wrestling with tough theological issues.

 

David's throne is not at the right hand of the Father. That is one of the major errors that amills make. They relocate David's throne, and the meaning of that, to heaven. David's throne is Jerusalem, not heaven. Right now, Christ is not on David's throne. He is at his Father's throne (Rev 3). These kinds of distinctions often get missed because they fly by easily without adequate thought about what they mean.

 

Absolutely correct. 1Thess 4 and 1Cor 15, Phil 3:20 and 2Thess 2:1-8 show Paul to expect the 2nd coming as the next big event after the apostacy of the RCC.

Rev 16, 19, 20 show that John explicitly orders events as 7 last plagues, second coming, millenium.

(BTW - this is the only place in all of scrpture where the millenium is explicitly sequenced, timelined and detailed -- so you have to "want" to reject it -- not to "get it" here).

In Christ,

Bob