Posted on 06/22/2011 7:24:05 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
Well to be honest, once I realized that you were simply posting your replies to a debate that you held with marbren, I simply stayed on that thread and finished reading the debate. What I found was that you rely more upon what the Early Church Fathers say than what Scripture says and, frankly, the sources you're using aren't exactly unbiased.
Take post #147 on that thread for example. In it, you try to provide support for your idea that Cerinthus was labeled a heretic for preaching a literal Millennial reign of Christ, yet all you do is set up a straw man argument. Here's a quote from that post.
As before stated, Cerinthus was the first to attempt to introduce this doctrine under Christianity. Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:"But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."This is the true origin of the Millennium theory. The reader will observe how lightly our author speaks of Cerinthus's idea of the kingdom of Christ being set up on earth after the resurrection. He says this doctrine was "something which he [Cerinthus] pretends was shown to him by angels." Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming. Observe also that Caius calls Cerinthus "an enemy to the scriptures of God," and one who was "wishing to deceive men." This language he uses with special reference to the one thousand years Cerinthus claimed would be spent in sensuality. Notice also that Cerinthus believed in an earthly kingdom.Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John. We will now call your attention to the attitude of the beloved apostle toward this Millennial teacher. Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John, [Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., V. 24], states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28). Let this be a rebuke to modern Millennial advocates. They claim their doctrine is well founded in the Apocalypse of John. But John called the founder of their theory "that enemy of the truth."
I would point out a few things here. Caius is disagreeing with Cerinthus over the idea that Believers will again be subject to desires and pleasures of the flesh. That, not the idea of a Millennium, is the heresy. Furthermore, Caius hammers away again at this same idea because he points out that Cerinthus believes that the 1000 years are for marriage festivities. That, not the Millennium itself, is the heresy.
Then, to make matters worse, you inject your own theology into the writings by stating
"Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming."
No where can you draw the conclusion that orthodox teaching states that Christ's Kingdom was set up at His first coming from what is written here. You assume that to be the case, but you do not show proof.
Furthermore, you attempt to link an apocryphal quote attributed to John by Eusebius as not only being true, but also being in relation to Millennial beliefs. No evidence exists that John made this remark, no evidence exists that John regarded Millennial belief as heretical and no evidence exists to show that Cerinthus' heresy was related to the Millennium rather than to his Gnostic beliefs.
In short, you have provided no evidence to support your claim that Millennial beliefs are heretical, yet you persist in claiming that they are heresy.
So I ask you, who's being deceitful here? Millennial beliefs are based upon interpretation of Scripture by other Scripture. Your accusations against it are based upon apocryphal quotes from John, quotes from Church Fathers taken out of context and disinformation. My question would be, why are you so opposed to Millennial beliefs?
One other thing, the link you provided contained a link which you used to support your allegations. As that post is from 2005, the imbedded link is broken and I'm getting a 404 error from the Dave MacPherson article. As you were using that as a portion of your attack on the Pseudo-Ephraem document, claiming that there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth, I thought it would be best if you could provide a working link so I can examine it for myself. Without it, I cannot either accept or reject the quote you provided.
You replied: "I couldn't agree more. I don't know if this means I'm a Predestined Freewill Baptist or a Freewill Predestined Baptist, but it works..."
Yes. Those who have a problem with the idea of "predestination" don't understand the fact that God has given everyone libertarian free-will and would in no way stop anyone from choosing or rejecting him. Of course there are extremists who attempt to say that he does, and that he "predestines people to hell", as if people haven't already chosen to go there, themselves.
Really?
"Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:
"....And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."
Normally yes, but I don't like to try to Google up quotes in a situation like this. There's too much information out there, on both sides, for me to make the assumption that I've retrieved the correct article.
Anyway, I'll begin reviewing the links again and see what I think.
"....And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."
The idea that the Millennium is for physical pleasure is a Gnostic idea. That is the heresy, not the idea of a Millennium itself. The idea of a Millennium is found in Scripture in Revelation 20. The idea of it being for physical pleasure is explicitly against Scripture. That, not the Millennium itself, is the heresy.
Deceitful?
Scofield's "Notes" aren't Scripture.
Again, all the "Scriptual" and historical references (that back them up) to just about any of the questions you could come up with are contained in my links in #30 above.
Also Here
:)
Paladin, I withdrew from this thread because I quickly realized I was over my head. I invited Alamo Girl and betty boop, here because I knew they could better appreciate it and make positive contributions.
In my youth my Bible reading was pretty much confined to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, thinking getting as close to what Jesus actually said and did had the greatest validity. I figured, and still do, that if I learn and follow the instructions and examples in those books, take Jesus and the Holy Spirit into my life, therefore being saved by the Grace of God, seek God’s will for my life, then prophecy and the happenings in the future are unimportant. I blissfully allow God to take care of those things. I care not when He comes because I know he is. When is his business.
As a result, I am amused by the efforts to read the tea leaves and solve the puzzle. Who cares?
Here's someting else you might like to review when you have the time and/or the interest.
Thanks for the link. Wow, that was a long thread, although I only read the reply you directed me to.
You’re welcome.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Remember those religion trolls you were talking about the other day.......
Having bought and read your book your book and having years of experience with you on FR, I know that is true. Just keep sharing for the rest of us.
That was the purpose of my comment that those of you who like reading the tea leaves in the Bible and trying to solve the puzzle of Revelations, I wish you luck. To me, it is Christian Astrology/
But what if Jesus commands Christians to know the season of His return and to know the signs He gave for His return and recognize when those signs are occurring and those who obey that command aren’t actually “reading tea leaves” but doing what Christ told us to do? And what if the book of Revelation isn’t really a puzzle but a clear description of the seven-year Tribulation?
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.