What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Setting the Stage - Patristic Premillennialism

J

JM

Member
I found the following helpful.

Quote: Decade after decade, dispensationalists have endured the charge by their opponents that there are no historical antecedents for their doctrine prior to John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and the Plymouth Brethren. Millard J. Erickson, for example, asserts flatly that “No trace of this theology can be found in the early history of the church.†And Clarence B. Bass declares that “No dispensational writer has ever been able to offer . . . a single point of continuity between what is today known as dispensationalism and the historic premillennial view.â€Â

Quote: In order to evaluate the writings of the fathers for dispensational concepts, it is necessary to briefly set forth the main features of “classic†or “normative†dispensational theology as presented by men like C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Ryrie. Perhaps the best recent definition of dispensationalism which incorporates the essential features of 1) the distinction between Israel and the church, 2) the hermeneutical principle of literal or normal interpretation, and 3) the purpose of God in history as the glorification of Himself, is that formulated by Robert P. Lightner. He defines dispensationalism,". . . as that system of theology which interprets the Bible literallyâ€â€according to normal usageâ€â€and places primary emphasis on the major biblical covenantsâ€â€Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, Newâ€â€and sees the Bible as the unfolding of distinguishable economies in the outworking of God’s major purpose to bring glory to Himself."

The page is detailed, with plenty of quotations taken from the early Fathers who were believed in Chiliasm/literal millennium.

http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/articles/early1.html

Also see: Theocratic Kingdom.

George N. H. Peters' presentation of Justin's declaration is reproduced in full: "Our doctrine [of the Kingdom] is traced continuously from the Apostles themselves, see that (Prop.72, Obs. 3, note 1) the first fathers, who present Millenarian views, saw and conversed either with the Apostles or the elders following them. So extensively, so generally was Chiliasm perpetuated, that Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld it. Justin's language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec.2); for after stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts: "it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many -- even those of that race of Christians who follow no godly and pure doctrine -- do not acknowledge it. For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound" etc. He adds: "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17) 'Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,' etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and, in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God." -- The Theocratic Kingdom, I, 480

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 1st Century:
1. Andrew
2. Peter
3. Philip
4. Thomas
5. James
6. John
7. Matthew
8. Aristio
9. John the Presbyter
10. Clement of Rome A.D. 40-100
11. Barnabas A.D 40-100
12 Hermas A.D 40-150
13 Ignatius A.D. 50-115
14 Polycarp A.D. 70-167
15. Papias A.D. 80-163

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 2nd Century:
1. Pothinus A.D. 87-177
2. Justin Martyr A.D. 100-168
3. Melito A.D. 100-170
4. Hegisippus A.D. 130-190
5. Tatian A.D. 130-190
6. Irenaeus A.D. 140-202
7. The Churches of Vienne and Lyons - a letter A.D. 177
8. Tertulian A.D. 150-220
9. Hippolytus A.D. 160-240
10 Apollinaris A.D. 150-200

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 3rd Century:
1. Cyprian A.D. 200-258
2. Commodian A.D. 200-270
3. Nepos A.D. 230-280
4. Coracion A.D. 230-280
5. Victorinus A.D. 240-303
6. Methodius A.D. 250-311
7. Lactantius A.D. 240-330

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/premil.shtml

Enjoy!
 
Brother Beza, have you read Ultimate Things? It's listed in the bibiography. I have, it's an excellent read, if you get the chance to pick it up, pls do.

The bib also included a couple references to Augustine's City of God.

Quote: Amillennialism views the thousand years not only an arbitrary amount of time, but also as a time that is right now currently underway. Amillennialism views the figurative thousand years as the time between the two advents of Christ.

Quote: The amillennialist must start with the assertion that it’s an arbitrary amount of time, because more than a thousand years have passed since the first advent. The premillennialist, who believes the thousand years to be in the future, does not have this problem.

Quote: The amillennialists hold that Christ was never talking about the earthly rule that the Jews believed the Messiah would have. Amillennialism holds that “Kingdom of Heaven†is always a spiritual kingdom. Premillennialism, on the other hand, views the Kingdom of Heaven as today spiritual, but literal and natural in the future.

The Reformation had it's problem leaving the Latin Catholic idea of Christendom alone for a more NT view, the imperial christology which won out during the fourth century as with it's sacralized vision of patriarchal, hierarchical and a euro-centred Church remained in the teachings of Luther and Calvin. The problem with a non-literal view is deep, and has it's roots in the Christendom ideal of a state/Church relationship.

Peace,

j
 
J.,
I am leaving town to visit my elderly mother for a week or so, but I will get back with you on what you would like for me to read. Though I am a staunch Amillennialist and partial Preterist, after much thought and reading.
In Christ, Beza
 
beza said:
J.,
I am leaving town to visit my elderly mother for a week or so, but I will get back with you on what you would like for me to read. Though I am a staunch Amillennialist and partial Preterist, after much thought and reading.
In Christ, Beza
Click to expand...

I look forward to your return.

I'm a staunch pre-millennalist after studying the Reformed faith via the WCF and the LBCF 1689, I've put much thought into it as well.

Isn't it funny how things work out?

Peace

JM
 
Did I miss something or was their no quotes in your article that show that the father's that are listed were pre-mill. Some claim could be made for Justin Martyr being pre-mill, though there is no evidence he believed in pre-trib rapture. NOONE before Darby's time believed in this scheme that denies the cross. As far as the "dispensationalism" of the Fathers, there is an element of what might be considered "dispensationalism" in Catholicism and the writings of the fathers can easily be understood under the Catholic framework. Anyone can handwave and say the fathers were this or that but I want to see the evidence and it is really lacking in the article as far as I can see. The 12 apostles listed and their view is what is in dispute. There is little evidence that they were outright "dispensationalists". Perhaps you could show me proof that andrew for instance was.
 
Jason said:
Amillennialism holds that “Kingdom of Heaven†is always a spiritual kingdom.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. In fact, it is the pre-millenialists who spiritualize the Kingdom to the exclusion of the present.
The parousia is not just the return, it is the Presence.

Besides, the classical Byzantine view was exactly that- God's kingdom on earth, in a very literal sense. Too literal, for the Byzantine Emperors viewed themselves as Chrits's vicar, and thus felt free to meddle with the Church hierarchy.

As for allegorizing the scriptures too much, if this criticism is leveled against the interprtation of Revleation, then it must also be leveled aginst the Christian reading of Hebrew prophecy fulfilled in Christ.

I digress

Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand- this means now. At the conclusion of the 'millenium,' Satan shall be released for a while (great tribulation) and then the comes the Lord and His Holy angels, the trumpet shall sound, the dead will rise, and we who are still in flesh shall be caught up with Him in the air, and so shall we ever be.
 
Thessalonian said:
Did I miss something or was their no quotes in your article that show that the father's that are listed were pre-mill. Some claim could be made for Justin Martyr being pre-mill, though there is no evidence he believed in pre-trib rapture. NOONE before Darby's time believed in this scheme that denies the cross. As far as the "dispensationalism" of the Fathers, there is an element of what might be considered "dispensationalism" in Catholicism and the writings of the fathers can easily be understood under the Catholic framework. Anyone can handwave and say the fathers were this or that but I want to see the evidence and it is really lacking in the article as far as I can see. The 12 apostles listed and their view is what is in dispute. There is little evidence that they were outright "dispensationalists". Perhaps you could show me proof that andrew for instance was.
Click to expand...


There is little evidence that they were outright "covenantalists."
http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/articles/early2.html
 
I wonder if one who "uses" the Church father's to attempt to show that they were pre-mill, would like to "use" them to show their views on the Lord's Supper, baptismal regeneration, or looking to Rome to settle disputes among many other thrings. One can twist the fathers and the Bible to prove anything, taking quotes out of context.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
Jason said:
Amillennialism holds that “Kingdom of Heaven†is always a spiritual kingdom.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. In fact, it is the pre-millenialists who spiritualize the Kingdom to the exclusion of the present.
The parousia is not just the return, it is the Presence.

Besides, the classical Byzantine view was exactly that- God's kingdom on earth, in a very literal sense. Too literal, for the Byzantine Emperors viewed themselves as Chrits's vicar, and thus felt free to meddle with the Church hierarchy.

As for allegorizing the scriptures too much, if this criticism is leveled against the interprtation of Revleation, then it must also be leveled aginst the Christian reading of Hebrew prophecy fulfilled in Christ.

I digress

Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand- this means now. At the conclusion of the 'millenium,' Satan shall be released for a while (great tribulation) and then the comes the Lord and His Holy angels, the trumpet shall sound, the dead will rise, and we who are still in flesh shall be caught up with Him in the air, and so shall we ever be.
Click to expand...

OC I am always amazed at how close we are theologically. This of course makes it obvious that the Tradition of our two wings of Christianity has far earlier roots than 1054, and in fact makes foolishness out of anyone who claims that these things were "invented" by one Church or another after 1054. I echo your comments about amil. The statement is nonsense.
 
J.M.,
Several years ago, I had a pastor once who challenged me to look up every passage of Scripture that had to do with the “2nd Coming, Rapture, Judgment Day, Last Day, Day of the Lord, New heavens and Earth, the Last Trump and any other term for the end of things†and show where there is a thousand year period mentioned other than Rev. 20. Not only was I not able to find the mentioning of a thousand year period, I found that each event happened on the very day of our Lord’s return.
Beza
 
Clement of Rome combined premillennialism with a clear belief in the imminency of Christ's return.

He wrote:
Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, Speedily will He come, and will not tarry; and, The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.
 
JM,
How does he believe that, if there is a 1000 year period and the devil again is released from his chains to reek havoc on the earth, unless he believes in more then one 2ND Coming? In respect to eschatology, I really do not have much problem with historic premillennialism and postmillennialism, I struggle with dispensationalism though. So, basically since it is not a saving issue, I extend grace to your differences.
George
 
beza said:
JM,
How does he believe that, if there is a 1000 year period and the devil again is released from his chains to reek havoc on the earth, unless he believes in more then one 2ND Coming? In respect to eschatology, I really do not have much problem with historic premillennialism and postmillennialism, I struggle with dispensationalism though. So, basically since it is not a saving issue, I extend grace to your differences.
George
Click to expand...

Thanks brother, I have many Reformed friends and have read and studied with the ARP presby's. I see thinks in the dispensational light, even when I tried my best to 'change' my theological outlook to the WCF.

As to the two phases of His coming, I'll send you a pm.

peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top