Posted on 04/06/2002 12:38:05 AM PST by P-Marlowe
The second point was already acknowledged. I had stated that the early church was not strongly dispensational as was developed in the 19th century.
The declarations of Mr. Walvoord as well as Mr. Ryrie have been thoroughly refuted by Dallas Seminary's own Allan Patrick Boyd. Mr. Boyd was attempting to write his master's thesis in support of Mr. Ryrie's and Mr. Walvoord's position. However, once Mr. Boyd studied the actual historical records, he couldn't help but refute his mentors.
They have!!! according to who?
According to Mr. Boyd, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid" [Allan Patrick Boyd, "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr)" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977), page 89] He goes on to say, "These Churchmen were not literalistic; drew no essential distinction between Israel and the Church; did not have a Dispensational view of history; . . . did not hold to imminency and pretribulationism; and their eschatological chronology was not synonymous with Dispensationalism's." [Boyd, Ibid.]
So far, all you are saying is that has been acknowledged with the second point, that the early church fathers were not as dispensational as the dispensationalists today. What they were though were Premillennialists, who believed in a literal, physical reign for a thousand years (unlike Amillennialists)
Mr. Boyd also laments the fact that, while Rylie has now changed his view regarding the historical confirmation of "Pre-Millenialism", he has not corrected his literary works to reflect this.
I did not cite Ryrie, I cited Walvoord, who cited Peters.
A study of the works of Church historians D.H. Kromminga, Ned Stonehouse, W.G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and Philip Schaff will undoubtedly show the 'hopeful claim' of the historicity of 'Pre-Millenialism' is false.
It is Peters work that has to be refuted, since his is the definitive work in the area.
Regarding Schaff, he writes,
It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinquished teachers such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaneus, Tertullian, Methodius and Lactantius while Caius, Origen, Dionysisus the Great, Eusibius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.2,p.614)
Mr. Boyd has declared that the best that can be said is that the early church fathers were 'seminal amillenialists'.
Not according to Schaff as noted above.
Regarding the view being 'popularized' by the great Augustine. Would one claim that the advent of the Nicene Creed was a change in church belief against Arianism? Abviously, the church has always been anti-Arian. However, the threat to orthodox theology was not evident until that time which is why the Council of Nicea formulated the Creed. Likewise, the chilliasts were a relative minority until the time of Augustine at which point his declarations and clarifications of orthodox eschatology were necessary. Because he argued so persuasivly, 'chilliasm' nearly died out.
That chiliasts were in a minority n the 4th century has already been conceded. The rise of the Alexandrian school of interpretation and the combination of church and state made Premillennialism seem to be irrevlant. After all, the 'church' now was in control!
In the first 2 centuries it was Chiliasm which was the dominant point of view, with Amillennial theology coming to the forefront with the advent of Romanism.
Putting the beginnings of 'amillenialism' at the time of Augustine is simply false. Rather, history shows that chilliasm was simply a remnant of the false notion of the O.T. Jews who held hope of a triumphant earthly kingdom and thus their rational for the rejection of the Messiah.
Do you guy ever believe in proving anything? Your assertions mean zero. History shows that it was Premillennial theology that dominated, not Amillennial. It was only with the advent of allegorization of scripture and the rejection of the literal reading that Amillennial theology could gain its dominance.
Of the church fathers you cite, the following can be demonstrated to be non-chilliasts: Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Irenaeus.
Not according to Schaff as already cited. In fact, regarding Barnabas Schaff notes,
He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of 6,000 years of labor ro the world, each lasting a thousand years and of a millennium of rest...The millennial sabbath on earth will be followed by and 8th and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord's day...is a type (Ibid,p.615)
These names can be added to the following names of church fathers who opposed chilliasm: Mathetes, Hermas, Didache, Hegesippus, Victorinus of Pettau, Coracion, Methodius, Eusebius, Augustine.
for not against, what era were the rest in? After the 3rd century Premillennialism waned as the Alexanderian school gained dominance (Origen, Eusbius)
Quotations from all of the above can be supplied upon demand. Due to brevity concerns, they will not be posted here.
No need, since they were not the ones that I had cited from the 1st and 2nd century (other then Barnabas which as I have cited was strongly Premillennial)
Regarding the 'chilliast' view: Little resemblence to today's 'Pre-millenialsim'. Primarily, the chilliast view held that the entire history of earth was to be 7000 years coordinating with the 7 days of creation. Now, quite obviously false.
Except for Barnabas which did hold that view. Moreover, the issue is not how closely they adhered to dispensational views, but did they believe that a literal thousand year Kingdom would be set up with the return of the Lord. That runs counter to Amillennial theology.
Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that many of even the 'chilliasts' were anything but 'dispensationalists' as the term is understood today:
Again, you are beating a 'dead horse'. I had stated when I first posted that these men could not be regarded as strongly dispensational, only Premillennial.
According to Dispensationalist Alan Patrick Boyd "The Majority of the writers/writings in this period (70-165 A.D.) completely identify Israel with the church." He specifically cites Papias, I Clement, 2 Clement, Barnabus, Hermas, the Didache, and Justin Martyr. Boyd notes that in the case of Barnabus, ". . . he has totally disassociated Israel from the precepts of the Old Testament. In fact he specifically designates the Church to be the heir of the covenantal promises made to Israel ."
I just wonder if you guys are such sloppy thinkers by accident or purpose. The issue was not whether they were dispensational but whether they believed in a visible return of Christ to set up a physical Kingdom, as opposed to the Amillennial view.
Elsewhere he writes Papias applied much of Old Testament to the Church. Of Hermas he notes the "employment of the phraseology of late Judaism to make the Church the True Israel." Of Justin Martyr he claims that the Church is the true Israelitic race, thereby blurring the distinction between Israel and the Church: Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew "even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ are the true Israelitic race."
Regarding Justin Martyr, Schaff writes,
Represents the transition from the Jewish Christian to the Gentile Christian chiliasm. He repeatedly of the second parousia of Christ in the clouds of heaven, surrounded by the holy angels. It will be preceded by the near manifestation of the man of sin who speaks blasphemies against the most high God and will rule three and half years. He is preceded by heresies and false prophets. Christ will then raise the patriarchs, prophets, and pious Jews, establish the millennium, restore Jerusalem, and reign there in the midst of his saints, after which the second and general resurrection and judgment of the world will take place. He regarded the this expection of the earthly perfection of Christ's kingdom as the keystone of pure doctrine....After the millennium the world will be annihilated or transformed. (Schaff, Hist.p.616-17)
So, if the early church's 'chilliast' version so unresembles todays 'dispensational pre-millenialsim', how and why are you attempting to use this 'chilliast' view as support of your dispensational heresy?
The issue was never dispensationalism, but that fact that one, a literal hermenutic must lead to conclude that the Lord is returning to set up a real Kingdom. Two, that was the dominate view of the first 2 centuries when the literal hermenutic dominated. When the spiritualization of Scripture began (with Origen, then Augustine) then the Amillennial view became prevelant.
RE: The Apostles Creed I'm not quite sure of what your point is (especially your highlighting of "of whose kindom shall be no end") The fact of the matter is the revisions you cite as well as the original version quite obviously refer to one resurrection and one and only one judgement of the world: I believe in God the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day He rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, being seated at the right hand of the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, holy church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh. [Origianl Text as quoted from A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918, p61] You will notice the quotation "whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead". Quite obviously, the authors of the Creed see Christ coming not to set up a 1000 year literal kingdom after resurrecting and judging only believers. Rather, this is a direct quote from (probably) the second century regarding the purpose and events surrounding Christ's (only) second coming. He comes to judge the living and the dead. If your 1000 year literal kingdom was of such the importance you claim, I'd expect to see it evidenced in the Creeds.
You do? How come there is nothing about election and predestionation in any of the early creeds? Also, Irenaeus (A.D.170) wrote in his Creed, and his coming from heaven to the glory of the Father to comprehend everything under one head...and to execute righteous judgement over all Moreover,as I have already noted the creeds were not coming into being until the 3rd century,after the Pre-Millennial system was dominate. It was not until the 3rd-4th centuries that Creeds became an issue, as scripture was taken less seriously and the Church united with the State.
You should also note that the Nicene Creed of 325AD supports this belief in a nearly word for word statement. Also, the ancient (until about the 17th century erroneously credited to Athanasius) Athanasian Creed states "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
Note the date, is it in the 4th century?
History testifies,
History testifies that Premillennialism was the dominate view in the first two centuries.
the creeds testify,
I will gladly give you the creeds
but most importantly, the Scriptures undisputedly testify to the rejection of 'Dispensational Pre-Millenialism'
Only if you accept the bizare allegorization of scripture, where anything can mean anything as long as you want it to (2Pet.3:16)
The following uncredited sources were used (some re-wordings for a smooth flow and some click and paste): The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial Amillennialism: A Word Direct From The Scriptures -by Tony Warren The Kingdom of Israel -by John Shepard Please read and parouse the above sources as they offer far more information and evidence than is proper to place here.
As I noted with another Calvinist (but not Amillennial), you guys are very long on rhetoric but short on facts
The works I would recommend reading are:
George N. Peters (3Vol.) The Theocratic Kingdom
John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom
For a view of all the major views on the Millennium a good work is The Meaning of the Millenium, edited by Robert G.Clouse. In it there are discussions by George Ladd, Herman Hoyt (the Premillennial view), Loraine Boettner and Hoekema.
A) Mr. Walvoord who is one of the leading Dispensational Pre-Millenialists was attempting to claim historical identification for 'dispensational pre-millenialism'. Since 'dispensational pre-millenialism' and it's pre-tribulation rapture (no where taught in scripture, I might add) only resembles Historical Pre-Millenialism to a small degree (i.e. Hist. Pre-Mil is not dispensational and does not teach pre-tirbulational rapture), it is highly misleading to try to claim such historicity. There simply are no examples of what we now know as Dispensational Pre-Millenialism until 1800 years after Christ's ascension.
B) The claim that the early church was predominantly pre-millenial has been refuted by a pre-millenial -convincingly enough to change the historical view of one of pre-millenialisms leading proponents, Charles Ryrie. Therefore, since you cannot ~prove~ your claims regarding pre-millenialism and since their is historical evidence (i.e. other amillenialists of the same eras and the early creeds) which refutes your assumption, it is highly dishonest for you to continue to claim that pre-millenialism was the predominant view point.
Again, Dispensational Pre-Millenialism isn't the same thing as Historic Pre-Millenialism. So, even if the mass of ante-nicene writers ~were~ Historical Pre-Millenialist (again, there is no proof of this and substantial evidence to the contrary) it is of no bearing on the historicity of the Dispensational monster and it's pre-tribulational rapture.
RE: Barnabas -If we are in disagreement regarding Barnabas, why quote Schaff. Let's just look at Barnabas:
Summary
Barnabas, styled an Apostle in Holy Scripture, and, like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not one of them.There is no compelling reason to assume that Barnabas had the idea that there would be a 1,000 year millennium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnabas
Epistle of Barnabas--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter XV — The False and the True Sabbath
Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue [10 commandments] which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them."
The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it."
Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years."
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished.
"And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.
Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived.
Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.
Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world.
Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.
Implies 1,000 year millennium (but maybe not)
Conditions in millennium:
(1) Judges the ungodly
(2) Changes sun, moon, stars
(3) All things made new
New heavens and new earth is the eighth day (but not a literal 1,000 years)
There are some things to observe which weaken the case that Barnabas is teaching about a 1,000 year millennium:
(1) On the 7th day (the so-called millennium) wickedness no longer exists. Yet in the premillennial viewpoint there is still wickedness — but satan is bound and can't deceive so the effects of sin are lessened. Yet at the end of the millennium there is a global rebellion against Christ.
(2) He throws in the idea of the 8th day at the end but clearly does not intend to mean another 1,000 year period of time.
(3) The reference to the 7th day does not include any reference to 1,000 years. Yet the reference to the first six days mentioned 1,000 years many times. It seems he abandons the "day = 1,000 year" formula after the discussion about the six days.
(4) There is a hint that God skips the 7th day (because "your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me") and goes on instead directly to the eighth day. This eighth day is not 1,000 years but all eternity.
This passage assumes that human history will last exactly 6,000 years. This is false for two reasons:
(1) 6,000 years from 4,004 B.C. (Bishop Ussher's date and the earliest date anyone has ever proposed for the creation of Adam) plus 6,000 years results in the date 1997 A.D (using the solar year) or the early 1900's (using the lunar year of 360 days which is the year usually used for prophetic analysis). Most young-earth proponents usually allow for a date of 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. for the creation of Adam which makes the problem even worse.
(2) The scientific evidence testifies that the earth and the universe are very old. In this case Adam was created somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 B.C.
It seems unlikely that Barnabas believed in a 1,000 year millennium (but it is possible that he did). However, if he did, it is based on the false Jewish idea that human history from the time of Adam would be 6,000 years.
RE: "Literalism" Until you tell me you believe, as the Bible clearly says, that the trumpet in 1 Cor 15:51,52 is indeed the "last trumpent" and not the "last trumpet of the Chruch", or the "last trumpet of this age"...I might just believe you. Since you fail to take the Bible for it's literal word at this passage as well as several other points (the "last day", "the resurrection"...), your claim of "literalism" falls on deaf ears.
Oh, and by the way, an all encompassing spiritual Kingdom ~is~ real, unless of course, you want to argue that the Holy Spirit is not real as well.
Jean
That's not what Amos says though. Read it again:
Acts 15:16-17
'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD. Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.'
The Temple must be rebuilt, so that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD. Even all the Gentiles who are called by His name.
Now this doesn't make sense. For almost 2000 years, we've had gentiles seeking the LORD, yet no temple has been rebuilt. Or has it?
Christ refers to his body as a temple:
John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
Stephen tells the Jews that God does not live in temples made with hands:
Acts 7:48-50 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
’Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the LORD,
Or what is the place of My rest?
Has My hand not made all these things?'”
Paul tells the people of Athens that God does not dwell in temples:
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
Paul tells the Christians in Corinth that they are the temple of God:
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
"I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people."
Paul tells the Ephesians that the Christian community along with Christ (the cornerstone) comes together to form the temple of God:
Ephesians 2:19-22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
The author of Hebrews explains that the earthly tabernacle was only a copy and shadow (dare we say symbol?) or the true tabernacle and that Christ is the High Priest of this true tabernacle:
Hebrews 8:1-6 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Hebrews 9:11-12 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Since Christ is the Mediator between us and the heavenly temple, the earthly temple is no longer necessary (to serve as a symbol of what was to be, since we already have it!).
In fact Paul goes as far as saying that those who are in Christ are already sitting in that true tabernacle:
Ephesians 2:4-6 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
I don’t see how it could be clearer than that.
We need to stop trying to find fulfillment of prophecy in current events. It is fulfilled in Christ.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
That is not what you were dealing with. We were dealing with Premillennial theology, not dispensational theology. I stated at the outset that the early Fathers were not 'strongly dispensational'. This is how you guys love to argue, find a straw man and argue against it. The MA thesis you cited addressed Ryrie's Dispensationalism, not historicalPre-Millennialism. Regarding which in the work The meaning of the Millennial the editor notes,
Although these interpretations have never been without adherents in the history of the church, in certain ages a particular outlook of the Christian era, Premillennialism appears to have been the dominant eschatological interpretation. Among its adherents were Papias, Ireanaeus, Justing Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commondianus and Lactatntius. During the 4th century when the Christian church was given a favored status under the emperor Constantine, the amillennial postion was accepted (p.9)
Moreover, as for Premillennialism being only found in the 19th century, it was reawakened in the 17th century,
Despite his opposition, it was a German Calvinist theologian Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638) who revived the teaching of premillennialism in an acadamic form in the modern world. Alsted's book, the Beloved City(1627) which presented his views, caused the learned Anglican scholar, Joseph Mede (1586-1638) to become a Premillennialist (Ibid,p.10-11)
B) The claim that the early church was predominantly pre-millenial has been refuted by a pre-millenial -convincingly enough to change the historical view of one of pre-millenialisms leading proponents, Charles Ryrie.
Again, the issue was not historical dispensationalism but Premillennialism. Moreover, Ryrie was not the one I was citing, Walvoord was.
Therefore, since you cannot ~prove~ your claims regarding pre-millenialism and since their is historical evidence (i.e. other amillenialists of the same eras and the early creeds) which refutes your assumption, it is highly dishonest for you to continue to claim that pre-millenialism was the predominant view point.
I gave you the historical evidence, you give me a MA Thesis that is addressing dispensationalism not Premillennialism and I'm the one who is dishonest?
Again, Dispensational Pre-Millenialism isn't the same thing as Historic Pre-Millenialism. So, even if the mass of ante-nicene writers ~were~ Historical Pre-Millenialist (again, there is no proof of this and substantial evidence to the contrary)
There isn't proof? I showed you quotes from different authors including Justin Martyr!
it is of no bearing on the historicity of the Dispensational monster and it's pre-tribulational rapture.
No one in any of the posts ever discussed the Rapture or Dispensationalism. We started this discussion over Premillennialism. This is just an attempt to run and hide from the fact that the evidence proves you wrong! The history of the early centuries shows that the first 2 centuries were Premillennial as does the fact that Barnabas was a Premillennialist!
RE: Barnabas -If we are in disagreement regarding Barnabas, why quote Schaff. Let's just look at Barnabas: Summary Barnabas, styled an Apostle in Holy Scripture, and, like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not one of them. There is no compelling reason to assume that Barnabas had the idea that there would be a 1,000 year millennium.
There isn't? Shall we see!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barnabas Epistle of Barnabas Chapter XV — The False and the True Sabbath Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue [10 commandments] which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.
that is the Millennial reign!
Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens. Implies 1,000 year millennium (but maybe not)
No implying about it, it is the Millennial reign.
Conditions in millennium: (1) Judges the ungodly (2) Changes sun, moon, stars (3) All things made new New heavens and new earth is the eighth day (but not a literal 1,000 years) There are some things to observe which weaken the case that Barnabas is teaching about a 1,000 year millennium: (1) On the 7th day (the so-called millennium) wickedness no longer exists.
Now, where does Barnabas say this? He says wickedness is destroyed when the Lord returns, but that does not mean more wickedness cannot develop later. The Premillennial view is that the Lord does destroy all the wicked and the Millennial starts off pure and then degenerates. Barnabas view is totally consistent with the Premillennial view.
Yet in the premillennial viewpoint there is still wickedness — but satan is bound and can't deceive so the effects of sin are lessened. Yet at the end of the millennium there is a global rebellion against Christ.
That is correct because the Old nature is still present in mankind.
(2) He throws in the idea of the 8th day at the end but clearly does not intend to mean another 1,000 year period of time.
Ofcourse not, that begins the eternal state
(3) The reference to the 7th day does not include any reference to 1,000 years. Yet the reference to the first six days mentioned 1,000 years many times. It seems he abandons the "day = 1,000 year" formula after the discussion about the six days. (4) There is a hint that God skips the 7th day (because "your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me") and goes on instead directly to the eighth day. This eighth day is not 1,000 years but all eternity. This passage assumes that human history will last exactly 6,000 years. This is false for two reasons: (1) 6,000 years from 4,004 B.C. (Bishop Ussher's date and the earliest date anyone has ever proposed for the creation of Adam) plus 6,000 years results in the date 1997 A.D (using the solar year) or the early 1900's (using the lunar year of 360 days which is the year usually used for prophetic analysis). Most young-earth proponents usually allow for a date of 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. for the creation of Adam which makes the problem even worse. (2) The scientific evidence testifies that the earth and the universe are very old. In this case Adam was created somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 B.C. It seems unlikely that Barnabas believed in a 1,000 year millennium (but it is possible that he did). However, if he did, it is based on the false Jewish idea that human history from the time of Adam would be 6,000 years.
Well, what has that have to do with the fact that he believed it! Moreover, the issue of the age of the earth is not as definite as you think it is. The earth can still be very old and still only have 6,000 years of human history. Every hear of the Gap interpretation of Genesis?
From: The Kingdom of Israel -by John Shepard RE: "Literalism" Until you tell me you believe, as the Bible clearly says, that the trumpet in 1 Cor 15:51,52 is indeed the "last trumpent" and not the "last trumpet of the Chruch", or the "last trumpet of this age"...I might just believe you. Since you fail to take the Bible for it's literal word at this passage as well as several other points (the "last day", "the resurrection"...), your claim of "literalism" falls on deaf ears.
Well, the 'last trump' could easily mean the final one in a series, not the final one ever sounded. We have trumpets being sounded in Revelation (Rev.8:2).
Oh, and by the way, an all encompassing spiritual Kingdom ~is~ real, unless of course, you want to argue that the Holy Spirit is not real as well.
Yes, the spiritual kingdom is real (the Kingdom of God) and so will be the Kingdom of Heaven be real also, a physical Kingdom with The Lord Jesus Christ ruling as the Son of God on the Throne of David (Ps.2,89,2Sam.7:14)
Hey, Jean next time you post me, bring some facts dealing with the real question, not the one in your mind.
This is what the issue we were discussing was about, Premillennialism vs Amillennialism in the first 3 centuries of church history, not dispensationalism.
Excellent post! Very well written!
This was not on the link you gave me, where did you get if from?
AND,.............?
Very Interesting?!
The tabernacle of David in the days of old, if not the temple of Solomon, would then be the Davidic Kingdom of Israel. What else would have been in the days of old? Certainly there were no Gentile "temples", and there was no "body" of Christ in days of old either.
So let's read on to see if Amos provided another clue as to what he meant and what James inferred by the term "tabernacle of David":
"Behold the days come when . . . I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them . . . and I will plant them upon their land and THEY SHALL NO MORE BE PULLED UP OUT OF THEIR LAND WHICH I HAVE GIVEN THEM " [Amos 9:13-15]
The "tabernacle of David" , according to Amos, is "the nation of Israel" that will be brought back into the land of Israel and rebuilt.
Furthermore, James says this rebuilding will be done so that: "the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my name is called". {Acts 15:17]
In other words, it will be rebuilt so that people around the world can see with their eyes that God keeps his promises and fulfills His word.
Well this is being fulfilled right before your eyes. You may not like it, and all other preterists along with you, but millions of people from all nations, including many people raised in "church". have seen the rebuilding of the nation of Israel and have come to the Word of God because of it. Traditional church services and hymns and stained glass windows and dead sermons did not bring them to the Word of God. What they saw and continue to see in Israel inspired them to seek the Lord who not only promised to rebuild the "tabernacle of David" but is also doing it.
Question: How do you feel about America's support of Israel? Amos 9:8-15: "In that day
No, Allan Patrick Boyd's thesis is dealing with Historical Pre-Millenialism. It is Boyd's, who is Pre-Millenial, conlusion that Historical Pre-Millenialsim was ~not~ the authoritive view of the ante-nicene church. My point regarding Ryrie is this: Ryrie at one point held the similar view as you do -that Pre-Millenialism was the dominant view of the early church. But because of Boyd's work, Ryrie has been convinced that this is not true. In other words, Boyd's study lead him to conlclude that Pre-Millenialism was actually the minority viewpoint -I'm just noting that Ryrie now concurs to lend credibility to Mr. Boyd's work. Mr. Boyd's work has nothing to do with the Dispensational Pre-Millenial monster.
"Moreover, as for Premillennialism being only found in the 19th century, it was reawakened in the 17th century,"
No, Historical Pre-Millenialsim has been found throughout the early church. Dispenasational Pre-Millenialism is the unheard of doctrine which infected the churches 1800 years after Christ's first coming.
"Again, the issue was not historical dispensationalism but Premillennialism."
Yes, I know. However, it is Mr. Walvoords intentions to link Dispensational Pre-Millenialism -which is his theology- to Historical Pre-Millenialism. And that is highly disengenuous.
"Moreover, Ryrie was not the one I was citing, Walvoord was."
your point being?
"I gave you the historical evidence, you give me a MA Thesis that is addressing dispensationalism not Premillennialism and I'm the one who is dishonest?"
yes, I gave you evidence, but as is your tendancy, you simply dismiss any evidence which disagrees with your position.
And help me out here, the fact that Boyd's work is a masters thesis affects the accuracy of his facts by.......???? What does the fact that Boyd discovered this during his research for his Master's Thesis? Are the facts of a Master's Thesis somehow less true than for a doctrinal thesis -or even less true than from a Theologian who received his doctorate 30 years ago? I don't get it. Is the fact that Boyd's work is a Master's Thesis somehow prove it is wrong? Help me out here.
"There isn't proof? I showed you quotes from different authors including Justin Martyr!"
You showed me one quote from one Pre-Millenialist -and this proves your case that Per-Millenialism was the dominant view of the early church how????
"Well, the 'last trump' could easily mean the final one in a series, not the final one ever sounded. We have trumpets being sounded in Revelation (Rev.8:2)."
If 1 Cor 15:51 declares that we will be raised and changed "At the Last Trump" -period. No need to go any further. The Last Trump is the last trumpet! (next you'll probably try to tell me it's the "last trump" -not the "last trumpet") We need not try to add thoughts to this passage, for it is quite clear. No more trumpets after the last trumpet. -it doesn't say anything a series or whatever -it simply says "the last trump"
So -until you can tell me that "the last trump" is indeed the "last trump" as 1 Cor 15 declares without a doubt -your claim of 'literalism' falls on deaf ears.
"Yes, the spiritual kingdom is real (the Kingdom of God) and so will be the Kingdom of Heaven be real also, a physical Kingdom with The Lord Jesus Christ ruling as the Son of God on the Throne of David "
He already is on his throne and currently ruling (Matt 28:18, 1 Cor 15:25, Romans 15:12)
The Kingdom of God ~is~ the Kingdom of Heaven
Matthew 13:11
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
_____________________
Matthew 11:11-12
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. {12} From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.
Luke 7:28
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Jean
Look harder
Jean
I agree with you that the "tabernacle of David" is in a broader sense the house or kingdom of David. But if this is to mean national Israel then we have a problem. Gentiles have been seeking God in great numbers for almost two thousand years.
Acts 15:17 "So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD. Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the LORD who does all these things."
This is obviously talking about the explosion of Gentiles coming to the faith AT THE TIME JAMES IS SPEAKING!! The Jerusalem Council was about whether the gentile should be circumcised when coming to faith. Up until Christ the answer was 'Yes'. But James is using this verse to show that a new era has come in Christ.
You deride me for spiritualizing, but look at the issue of the council. Circumcision was a physical sign that had to be performed, yet we know that the real circumcision is the circumcision of the heart. A spiritual circumcision! Could it be that the physical Israel was a sign of the spiritual people who fear the LORD? (And, yes, a lot of them were and are also a part of "ethnic Israel" throughout the ages.) If that's the case then it makes sense that Paul says, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek". Under your theology there is still that distinction.
Are spiritual things less real than physical things? If anything they're more real because they are eternal! This doesn't mean that I believe that Christ's resurrection is His teaching living on in our memories or some such blasphemy. Christ's true, physical resurrection is what shows us the truth of spiritual things.
Find your hope in Christ, not national Israel.
You may not like it, and all other preterists along with you
I'm not a preterist. I see that many of the signs that Christ has associated with the endtimes have been present throughout "A.D." history.
How do you feel about America's support of Israel?
I feel it's a good thing considering it's the only democracy in that region and it's a thorn in the side of the despotic Arabic regimes that surround it. But I don't put my hope in it.
I know you think this is impossible, but what if in the next few years Israel is overrun and decimated? Will your faith be shaken or will your faith be in Christ?
Amen!
Jean
Nothing in the posts you sent me had to do with Premillennialism, but with Dispensationalism. If Boyd wanted to take on the idea of Premillennialism he would have to address Walvoords work not Ryries and espically Peters. As for Ryrie who you state accepted Boyd's thesis, I cannot find it on the link that you gave me and I do not have the time to 'look for it'
Moreover, as for Premillennialism being only found in the 19th century, it was reawakened in the 17th century," No, Historical Pre-Millenialsim has been found throughout the early church. Dispenasational Pre-Millenialism is the unheard of doctrine which infected the churches 1800 years after Christ's first coming.
First, I gave you a quote from a work. Two, it is clear you are now trying to wiggle out of the fact that you have been proven wrong! You are not addressing what I was saying but are setting up a straw man. So you concede that Pre-Millennialism was found in the early church (not Amillennialism)
Again, the issue was not historical dispensationalism but Premillennialism." Yes, I know. However, it is Mr. Walvoords intentions to link Dispensational Pre-Millenialism -which is his theology- to Historical Pre-Millenialism. And that is highly disengenuous.
Why you phony! This has nothing to do with what Walvoord is doing, but my postion that historically Premillennialism was the early view of the church. I did not say they were strong dispensationalists, only that they believed in a literal return of Christ to set up His real Kingdom for a thousand years. This was opposed to the Amillennial view that no Millennial kindom would be set up. It was you who stated that Premillennialism had not 'historical basis'
"Moreover, Ryrie was not the one I was citing, Walvoord was." your point being?
The point is, Walvoord is dealing with the Historical Premillenial view not Ryrie.
"I gave you the historical evidence, you give me a MA Thesis that is addressing dispensationalism not Premillennialism and I'm the one who is dishonest?" yes, I gave you evidence, but as is your tendancy, you simply dismiss any evidence which disagrees with your position.
You gave me evidence dealing with dispensational Premillennialism, not historical Premillennialism which you conceded to above.
And help me out here, the fact that Boyd's work is a masters thesis affects the accuracy of his facts by.......???? What does the fact that Boyd discovered this during his research for his Master's Thesis? Are the facts of a Master's Thesis somehow less true than for a doctrinal thesis -or even less true than from a Theologian who received his doctorate 30 years ago? I don't get it. Is the fact that Boyd's work is a Master's Thesis somehow prove it is wrong? Help me out here.
A unpublished masters thesis (that I do not have access to) is not going to undo works such as Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, with its massive evidence. It might raise questions but it is not researched enough to handle the necessary questions.
"There isn't proof? I showed you quotes from different authors including Justin Martyr!" You showed me one quote from one Pre-Millenialist -and this proves your case that Per-Millenialism was the dominant view of the early church how????
I showed you Barnarbas (which you source said was not Premillennial) I showed you Martyr who your source also said was not Premillennial. What I showed you ws that your source was a farce! He starts off quoting Eusbius! Gives no evidence at all, just asserts and moves on. Must be an Amillennial trait.
"Well, the 'last trump' could easily mean the final one in a series, not the final one ever sounded. We have trumpets being sounded in Revelation (Rev.8:2)." If 1 Cor 15:51 declares that we will be raised and changed "At the Last Trump" -period. No need to go any further. The Last Trump is the last trumpet! (next you'll probably try to tell me it's the "last trump" -not the "last trumpet") We need not try to add thoughts to this passage, for it is quite clear. No more trumpets after the last trumpet. -it doesn't say anything a series or whatever -it simply says "the last trump"
You know you really ought to start reading your Bible a little more, instead of those useless Creeds. A Trump does not have to be a Trumpet it could also be a voice I was in the spirit on the Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet'(Rev.1:10)
"Yes, the spiritual kingdom is real (the Kingdom of God) and so will be the Kingdom of Heaven be real also, a physical Kingdom with The Lord Jesus Christ ruling as the Son of God on the Throne of David " He already is on his throne and currently ruling (Matt 28:18, 1 Cor 15:25, Romans 15:12)
He is? I read that in Psa. 110 it is the Father ruling not the Son,
The Lord said unto my Lord sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstoolIt is true that the Lord has 'all power' (Matt.28) and the Keys of Hell and Death (Rev.1:8) but right now in this dispensation it is the Father who is bringing this part of history to the close.
And he said unto them it is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power (Acts.1:7)
The Kingdom of God ~is~ the Kingdom of Heaven Matthew 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Matthew 11:11-12 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. {12} From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Well, that was a meanlingless 'cut and paste' job. Not even a comment to explain it. That is the extent of your 'scholarship'.
There say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt.22:43)Thus, the Lord took away Israel's chance to be the Spritual kingdom (the Kingdom of God-Rom.14:7) but did not take away from them the Kingdom of Heaven! That was unconditional (Psa.89)
The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2") , in five respects: (1) The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the Church, or saints of past or future dispensations Luke 13:28,29; Hebrews 12:22,23 while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2") 1 Corinthians 15:24,25. (2) The kingdom of God is entered only by the new birth John 3:3,5-7 the kingdom of heaven, during this age, is the sphere of a profession which may be real or false. (See Scofield "Matthew 13:3") Matthew 25:1,11,12 (3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares, and of the net Matthew 13:24-30,36-43,47-50 are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven Matthew 13:33 is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives. (See Scofield "Matthew 13:33") . (4) The kingdom of God "comes not with outward show" Luke 17:20 but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual Romans 14:17 while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth. (See "Kingdom (O.T.)," Zechariah 12:8, note; (N.T.), ; Luke 1:31-33; 1 Corinthians 15:24, note; Matthew 17:2, note.) (See Scofield "Zechariah 12:8") , Luke 1:31-33 See Scofield "1 Corinthians 15:24" See Scofield "Matthew 17:2" (5) The kingdom of heaven merges into the kingdom of God when Christ, having put all enemies under his feet, "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2")
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.(Pr.26:12)
For that matter, your comments throughout this WHOLE thread are excellent and TO THE POINT.
Thank your for another very interesting commentary!
"But HE (Jesus) answered and said,
'Every plant, which MY heavenly Father hath NOT planted,
shall be rooted up.'".
(Matthew 15:13 etc.)
Thanks again.
m
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.