Know that darby and his followers are looked at bringing in the concept of a pre trib rapture into the Church, but isn't it true that a solid majority of the early Church fathers, first 2-300 hundreds years were strongly pre mill in their eschatlogical theology, and that the Church shifted away from this during beginnings of modern Roman catholic Church?
So "Historic/Apostolic" Theology would have been pre mill?
Were the early Church Fathers pretty Much pre Millianillists?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Apr 21, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
In the 3rd century we find the first person of only 4 recorded (Origen the basic founder of the growing view) who sought to spiritualize scripture but his main reasoning was due to his belief that nothing physical can be holy and good - stemming from his Aristotelian studies. He even denied (if I remember correctly) the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus because of this. Thus he denied any literal Godly Kingdom.
Therefore we note historically that the teachings of the apostles was passed on their disciples, and theirs to theirs.
It can not be proven to any extent that the apostles taught there will be no literal kingdom, not literal personal anti-christ, no Kingdom restored again to Israel. We 'know' this because the early church, and more specifically those of John (the writer of Revelation) own disciple and the disciple of that disciple NEVER
taught such a doctrine. That is also why Premil and not Amil (postmil or preterism) was ever considered the orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church for nearly 400 years after Christ ascended.
Here we can note church historian George N. H. Peters' presentation of Justin Martyr's (100AD-168AD) declaration:
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The disciples of Jesus taught their disciples and they, theirs.. ect..
Therefore, what was the common view - futurism, which came directly from the apostles, and their teachings came from Jesus.
Now we both understand that the writings we have do not encompass all there is to know of scripture (IOW - do not give us an exhaustive understanding as they did not need to write it down at the time), but we do know, from them what was the orthodox teachings of the church at that time. -
-
-
Especially since they also held to a literal physical reigning of Christ from Jerusalem for 1000 years, a literal physical Kingdom for Israel from whence Jesus will rule, a literal personal Anti-Christ, and a literal physical resurrection. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Remember John (the writer of Revelation), his own disciple Polycarp stated this view. John, better than anyone alive then or now, knew what the book of the Revelation of Jesus was about. And we find that Polycarp taught the Premil view. We know that Polycarp was one of John's disciples because both Irenaeus and Tertullian that he was. Also both of these also held to the Premil view.
So should we not take these seriously and believe what a group of people more than 500 years later say instead? -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
In the earliest writings, Clement of Roma, the Didache and fragments of Hegesippus we get no inkling premillenniarianism.
I still think that you have an overly artificial transition from apostolic doctrinal purity to "corruption". The corruption that you seem to posit more down the centuries Paul saw as looming even among his present hearers on the shore near Ephesus. -
According to [Grant]:
... he [Clement] employs the Didache only in Stromata I,100,4 - and there he does not name the work. (p. 167)
"Grant, Robert M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1965."
It is only postulated that Clement thought the Didache was scripture because he quoted the first few lines of it.
Secondly, why not cite what they said so it can be validated. Especially since no Church historian I can find states what you are implying.
It should also be noted that these do not speak to the Mil view on way or the other.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I'd have to look at Clement, but I don't recall that he even mentioned the millenium. Furthermore, "critics are generally agreed in fixing the date of it at about 96 AD" (The Apostolic Fathers, tr. by Maxwell Staniforth, p. 17). -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Notice especially the following:
Clem 5:1 - 6
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest [ENGISTA] to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
He goes on to describe the exemplary testimonies and martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Notice that he uses the word "nearest". If he was writing in the 90s, a generation later, he would not have used that term. But, on the contrary, he refers to them as "belong[ing] to our generation."
In Clem 40:1 - 5 speaks of the Jewish ministrations as still being current. The Temple is still standing. Note especially the last section.
They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the Levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman's ordinances.
The next section has this. Note here, once again, we have a series of present tenses:
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been inspected for blemishes. They therefore who do any thing contrary to the seemly ordinance of His will receive death as the penalty. Ye see, brethren, in proportion as greater knowledge hath been vouchsafed unto us, so much the more are we exposed to danger.
There are other indicators but these should do for now.
I understand that no mention of the Millennium is given. It is my contention that that teaching was a much later one, resorted to when the overwhelming majority of Christian writers in earlier decades were no longer around to give their voice. The teaching on the Millennium is just one of several teachings that were creeping into the church. -
The best direct link to the Apostles, first and second centuies of early church DOES support the idea that they viewed God as having a distinct pre Mill plan for eschatology, and many of them also viewed Isreal as still having a part in the Plans of God for end times...
So it would appear that the early Church fathers, received by the Apostles themselves, believed that Jesus would one day return, set up the Kingdom of God upon the earth at that time, and would rule over eartrh from Jerusalem, fulfilling OT prophecies made to Isreal..
And that view changed later on, after the Cathoic Church start teaching that the Kingdom and the RC were one and same, ushering in belief in almill theologies... -
Virtually everyone was premillenial until augustine. Then he developed amillenialism that latere became postmillenialism.
Premillenialism is the eschatology of the bible and the early church. -
wasn't that when the Church taught that Church was the Kindgom of God on the earth?
also started to plant 'seeds" for replacement theologies, that Isreal had forfeited her position with God by rejecting Messiah, so Church is now "Spiritual Isreal?"
the reformers in Middle Ages were attacking mainly the doctrines of salvation. and so did little to refute the cathoic almil that was spread throughout the Church? Nor refute Replacement Theology? -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
By the way, you do know that both Clement and the Didache expected a literal, imminent coming of Christ, right? -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I am not convinced that historical present is what is employed here. If you want to go that way, go for it.
You glossed over my other points - but I pretty much expected this. I see also that you just state facts as if they are true, just because you found an author that asserted it, like the dates from Clement. Well, where did Moyer find out that Clement lived from 30 to 100? Don't be so gullible, relying on OPS (Other People's Scholarship). I suppose I should ask you what you asked of me: Have you really read and studied out this epistle of Clement's? I don't think you have.
Page 1 of 2