Posted on 03/13/2019 6:40:19 AM PDT by Antoninus
It has been noted that rightly or wrongly it was the universal expectation of the Jews that the kingdom promises would be literally fulfilled. What does the New Testament have to say about this expectation? In Luke 1:32-33, Mary is told by the angel, in relation to the child Jesus, He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. In view of the common Jewish expectation, how would Mary interpret such a prophecy? It should certainly be clear that she would consider it a confirmation of the literal interpretation and literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. She would naturally expect that her child Jesus would sit on an earthly Davidic throne. In spite of the disobedience of Israel in the Old Testament, and the long years in which no one sat on the throne of David, here was confirmation of the precise expectation common among the Jews. Did Mary for one moment hold the amillenarian view? Would she spiritualize this passagethe throne of David is Gods throne in heaven; the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom; Israel is synonymous with the church? Certainly not! It was totally foreign to her thinking. If the amillenarians are right, Mary was sadly deceived. The prophecy of the angel could hardly have been better worded to confirm the ordinary Jewish hope as well as the exact essentials of the premillennial positionthe literal and earthly fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. It is, of course, true that Christ taught much concerning the spiritual aspects of Gods kingdom. The Messianic kingdom on earth following the second advent by no means exhausts kingdom truth. The important point is, however, that whenever the precise kingdom promises of the Old Testament are introduced, these promises and their literal fulfillment are never denied, corrected, or altered, but are instead confirmed.
There is much positive evidence in the New Testament for premillennial teachings. It is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as their King and Messiah, not as their Savior, and in so doing fulfilled literally those prophecies dealing with His rejection and death. His rejection did not alter the kingdom promises, however. When the mother of James and John sought special privilege for her sons in the kingdom (Matt 20:20-23), her request was not denied on the ground that she had a mistaken idea of the kingdom, but rather that the privilege she requested was to be given to those chosen by the Father. Again Christ the night before His rejection and crucifixion told His disciples that they would sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom (Luke 22:29-30). In Acts 1:6, when the disciples wanted to know when the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel, they were not told that they were in error, that the kingdom would never be restored to Israel, but only that it was not for them to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power (Acts 1:7). When Paul raises the question concerning the future of Israel, in Romans 9-11 , and considers the possibility of God rescinding His promises to them as a nation and casting them off forever, he exclaims, God forbid (Rom 11:1). The whole tenor of Romans 9-11 is to the point that while Israel for the present is cut off the olive tree of blessing, Israel is scheduled to be restored at the second advent, when the Deliverer will come out of Zion. It is expressly stated in this regard that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance (Rom 11:29), i.e., that God will fulfill His purpose regarding the nation Israel.
The book of Revelation is, of course, the classic passage on premillennialism. Revelation, while subject to all types of scholarly abuse and divergent interpretation, if taken in its plain intent yields a simple outline of premillennial truthfirst a time of great tribulation, then the second advent, the binding of Satan, the deliverance and blessing of the saints, a righteous government on earth for 1000 years, followed by the final judgments and the new heaven and new earth. The only method of interpretation of Revelation which has ever yielded a consistent answer to the question of its meaning is that which interprets the book, however symbolic, as having its general revelation plain, one to be fulfilled literally, and therefore subject to future fulfillment.
One of the most eloquent testimonies to premillennial truth is found in the absolute silence of the New Testament, and for that matter the early centuries of the church, on any controversy over premillennial teaching. It is admitted that it was universally held by the Jews. It is often admitted that the early church was predominantly premillennial. Yet there is no record of any kind dealing with controversy. It is incredible that if the Jews and the early church were in such a serious error in their interpretation of the Old Testament and in their expectation of a righteous kingdom on earth following the second advent, that there should be no corrective, and that all the evidence should confirm rather than deny such an interpretation. The general context of the New Testament is entirely in favor of the premillennial viewpoint. The amillennial interpretation has not one verse of positive testimony in the New Testament and can be sustained ony by spiritualizing the prophecies of the Old Testament as well as the teaching of the New.
Extra-Biblical Premillennialism in the First Century
The available evidence in regard to the premillennialism of the first century is not extensive by most standards, but such evidence as has been uncovered points in one directionthe premillennial concept. Peters in his classic work, The Theocratic Kingdom, cites no less than fifteen advocates of premillennialism in the first century.7 While his classification in some cases no doubt is debatable, in others it is undisputed. The notable testimony of Papias, who was associated with the Apostle John, is of special weight. Papias who lived in the first century and the beginning of the second lists as adherents of premillennialism Aristio, John the Presbyter and the Apostles Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew. He certainly was in a position to know their views, and his testimony is an important link in sustaining the fact that the disciples continued in the Jewish expectation of a kingdom on earth. Peters also lists as premillenarians Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. In previous discussion of amillennialism, it was shown that the prevailing opinion of both amillenarians and premillenarians that Barnabas is premillennial in his views is fully justified. Hermas also is conceded by practically all parties as premillennial. In other words, there are clear and unmistakable evidences of premillennialism in the first century. Further, this viewpoint is linked extra-biblically with the apostles themselves. In contrast to these clear evidences, not one adherent, not one line of evidence is produced sustaining the idea that any first-century Christians held Augustinian amillennialismthat the interadvent period was the millennial. Further, there is no evidence whatever that premillennialism was even disputed. It was the overwhelming-majority view of the early church.
Premillennialism in the Second Century
The second century like the first bears a sustained testimony to the premillennial character of the early church. Even the amillenarians claim no adherents whatever by name to their position in the second century except in the allegorizing school of interpretation which arose at the very close of the second century. Premillennialism was undisputed for the first ninety years of the second century. Among those who can be cited in this century as holding premillennialism Peters names Pothinus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Hegesippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Apollinaris.8 Of these Justin Martyr (100-168) is quite outspoken. He wrote: 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.9
While even modern premillenarians might not accept the details of Justins interpretation, the notable fact is that he clearly states the essentials of premillennialismthe second advent, followed by a thousand-year reign and the separating of the resurrections before and after the millennium. Further, Justin declares that this view which he advocates is generally accepted as the orthodox view of the church. Peters accordingly cites the conclusion of Semisch in Herzogs cyclopaedia, Chiliasm constituted in the sec. century so decidedly an article of faith that Justin held it up as a criterion of perfect orthodoxy.10 The testimony of Justin is by no means unsustained by others, as Peters shows. Pothinus taught his churches at Lyons and Vienne premillennial doctrine which was continued by Irenaeus his successor. Melito, the bishop of Sardis, is declared a premillenarian by Shimeall in his Reply, based on Jerome and Genadius. Tertullian is generally regarded as a premillenarian. Others are less certain but the evidence, such as it is, seems to point to their holding similar positions.
In general, the second century, then, has a similar testimony to the first. All characters who have anything to say on the subject are premillennial and this is set forth as the orthodox opinion of the church. Those who may have denied it were classified as heretics, not simply for being opposed to premillennialism but for other reasons. The first opposition to premillennialism did not become vocal until the opening of the third century. Amillenarians and postmillenarians have not only no positive evidence in favor of their position but no evidence that there was even a reasonable minority in the church contending against premillennialism. Apparently no one of the orthodox Fathers thought of challenging this important doctrine in the first two centuries.
Are you trying to tell me that the Apostle Paul is self-contradictory now? Is that your argument?
"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."
Catholiciism has taught you that what God seals you can unseal and the priests can rerseal. THAT IS BLASPHEMOUS. In the Greek 'are sealed' is a once done not changing verb meaning.
You know, I can't think of anyone who would deny that Scripture consistently teaches us that the believer should surrender to the Holy Spirit and live in holiness of life that shows gratitude for God's matchless love, mercy and grace. But when the boastful and proud get it in their heads that it is BECAUSE of their good works they deserve to be saved, sadly, they have really fallen from grace and will never know the assurance of salvation God means for us to have. It's why they lash out at others who disagree with their accursed gospel. I keep praying for them anyway.
And STILL no one replies to Ephesians 2 when I present it to them.
Best that he did was try to change the subject... of course, taken to its logical conclusion it’s more or less accusing the Apostle Paul of being a liar.
Just like another guy calling the Apostle a heretic on the other thread.
Which he did, despite all protestations to the contrary.
But... we shouldn’t be surprised. It was the ‘holy’ people who crucified Jesus after all.
It's no surprise since their religion has made it a practice to usurp the authority of the TRUE word of God and replace it with their "magisterium". Only they can tell everyone what God MEANT to say and the riff-raff aren't permitted to read it for themselves nor question how it is that they directly contradict God's word by their traditions. It gets so bad they insist when words say one thing they really mean the exact opposite! For example, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. He is the "down payment" for God's promise, that He WILL do what He promised:
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, the day. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1:13,14)
But they deny it, insisting we can break God's seal and exorcise the Holy Spirit! As if! God is at work within us conforming us into the image of Christ. Some believers are further along than others, but it is STILL God's work within us. He says He will never cast us out NOR lose even one. He holds onto us, not the other way around.
And as always, we point to what Scripture actually says and they outright ignore it half the time and try to change the subject the other half.
The SEAL is not a symbol. It is a real imprinting upon the spirit of the born from above. That imprinting is the Power of God such that satan cannot break it. I understand why a catholiciism adherent cannot comprehend this truth. Strive on to obtain eternal life ... Hell isn’t half full.
Thank you for the passage. The earnest is a real payment, but to catholiciism it is only a symbol.
placemarker
You ask me?... Son, you read into everything what the catholiciism dogma tells you. You have not a clue regarding the Truth of the Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ.
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I am anti CATHOLICISM because it has 'evolved' since the first centuiry into another religion, not Christianity.
Not the Nicene Creed specifically but what changed in its interpretation of what is meant by:
At one time, ALL Christians understood that we are saved by the grace of God through faith and not by our works/merits/deeds. It was understood and taught that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification. We can only receive the gift of God by faith, believing in Him as our Savior. Even the churches in Rome once taught that, as well. Over time the Roman church came to believe and teach that THEY alone possessed the mantle of St. Peter's authority and could rule above all Christendom mandating what everyone SHOULD believe. So, MHGinTN is correct, Roman Catholicism has changed and the gospel they preach is the accursed one the Holy Spirit warned us about.
Your penchant for fabricating responses you wish I made so you can justify your ignoring Truth I share with you is duly noted.
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.