How many of The Church fathers held A partial/Full Pretierist Viewpoint of Theology?

[HankD]

I don't know of anyone who says he wrote before AD 70. It was clearly years after.


Please take another look at the quote I gave. The people whose bodies were raised were the prophets. This is the context.

And also take note of the PAROUSIA-related word, that I mentioned.

I know, the passage in Matthew is still viable as it gives no names.

HankD

 

[thomas15]

....Please take another look at the quote I gave. The people whose bodies were raised were the prophets. This is the context. Were the ones raised in Matthew prophets?

And also take note of the PAROUSIA-related word, that I mentioned.

You are getting the second coming of Christ as described in the Holy Bible in detail and with all of it's implications out of your vague passage that you quote by Ignatious, which then went undetected for approx 1800 years and has no secular or church historical record to back it up?

Question: do you offer this information up with a straight face?

 

[asterisktom]

You are getting the second coming of Christ as described in the Holy Bible in detail and with all of it's implications out of your vague passage that you quote by Ignatious, which then went undetected for approx 1800 years and has no secular or church historical record to back it up?

Question: do you offer this information up with a straight face?

No, I was responding to the OP.

Thomas, do one of two things:
1. Read the OP and ask yourself: "Do I have something that is pertinent to contribute here?"
2. If not, go find a thread that is to your interest and respond on that thread.

The original post has to do with the ECF. I responded on that topic.

Don't be puerile and annoying.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, I was responding to the OP.

Thomas, do one of two things:
1. Read the OP and ask yourself: "Do I have something that is pertinent to contribute here?"
2. If not, go find a thread that is to your interest and respond on that thread.

The original post has to do with the ECF. I responded on that topic.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:.

Well said Tom....

 

[asterisktom]

Well said Tom....

Thank you. Aah, but you don't know what I erased. It gets aggravating.

 

[thomas15]

Tom,

I was responding to your posts #15 and #17 so actually I'm on topic.

 

[JesusFan]

Tom,

I was responding to your posts #15 and #17 so actually I'm on topic.

Interesting...

Even MOST fervant supporter of hyper pretierism here on the BB can find one ECK who "might" have made some vague references to idea of Second Coming/spiritual resurrection already happen, yet others like Allan and yourself can quote literally all other ECF teaching pretty much a pre Mill eschatological viewpoint?

says something, Eh?

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,

I was responding to your posts #15 and #17 so actually I'm on topic.

Oh come on, those posts of mine were also responding to the OP. You just can't admit that you overstepped, and were rude as well.

Not to worry. You have the honor of being only the second person on my blocked list. For all I know, come to think of it, you two are the same person, seeing that your monikers both end with numbers.

 

[asterisktom]

Interesting...

Even MOST fervant supporter of hyper pretierism here on the BB can find one ECK who "might" have made some vague references to idea of Second Coming/spiritual resurrection already happen, yet others like Allan and yourself can quote literally all other ECF teaching pretty much a pre Mill eschatological viewpoint?

says something, Eh?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you also unclear on what OP means?

 

[JesusFan]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you also unclear on what OP means?

Don't know, as I was the one who originally posted it, so should know what it would mean!

 

[asterisktom]

Don't know, as I was the one who originally posted it, so should know what it would mean!

I know you posted it. Is it more my fault than yours that you forgot your own question? Or was it even a legitimate question to begin with?

 

[thomas15]

Oh come on, those posts of mine were also responding to the OP. You just can't admit that you overstepped, and were rude as well.

Not to worry. You have the honor of being only the second person on my blocked list. For all I know, come to think of it, you two are the same person, seeing that your monikers both end with numbers.

Impressive response Tom.

...monikers both end with numbers...

No Tom, no. This debate with you over preterism is at best a hobby for me. I guess though if I went ahead and painted myself into a corner in such a style as you have I would be prickly so I do understand your dilemma.

But I ask the question, does thomas15 (no relation to any other poster on this or any other Christian forum) getting the above mentioned honor make up for the loss of you know, reliable theological information? But I guess your actions will get you off the hook with little old me.

PS: Somebody needs a nap.

 

[JesusFan]

I know you posted it. Is it more my fault than yours that you forgot your own question? Or was it even a legitimate question to begin with?

Yes it was..

As there stil seems to be either little to no Biblical/extra biblical support for the notion of pretierism, especially that of the Hyper/Full version!

As seen by the responses to this OP!

 

[asterisktom]

Yes it was..

As there stil seems to be either little to no Biblical/extra biblical support for the notion of pretierism, especially that of the Hyper/Full version!

As seen by the responses to this OP!

This response of yours reminds me of Sgt. Schultz in the Old Hogan's Heroes (probably before your time) saying, "I see nothing!"

Proof is not proof against those who won't see it.

 

[thomas15]

This response of yours reminds me of Sgt. Schultz in the Old Hogan's Heroes (probably before your time) saying, "I see nothing!"

Proof is not proof against those who won't see it.

Actually Tom, I think the Sgt. Schultz quote was "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"

The question has to be asked Tom, why is it that you insinuate that readers of the Bible who take Jehovah God at his word and thus disagree with your liberal and highly subjective take on those words are blind, not able to see the truth of the matter because we (those you consider blind) are simply trusting in the Word of God?

 

[asterisktom]

I need to backtrack here a bit. I had mentioned Ignatius as being seriously wrong in eschatology, but it wasn't him that I was thinking of but a later writer. (Sorry, Ignatius!)

Ignatius did, in fact, write a number of times from the Preterist perspective.

Here are some excerpts from Ignatius along these lines:

To the Ephesians, chapter 2
2:2 May I have joy of you always, if so be I am
worthy of it. It is therefore meet for you in every
way to glorify Jesus Christ who glorified you; that
being perfectly joined together in one submission,
submitting yourselves to your bishop and presbytery,
ye may be sanctified in all things.

Admittedly, the above past tense ("glorified"), is not conclusive in itself, seeing that Paul did the same in Romans 8.

To the Magnesians, chapter 9
9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient
practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after
the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through
Him and through His death which some men deny -- a
mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this
cause we endure patiently, that we may be found
disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher --

9:2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live
apart from Him? seeing that even the prophets, being
His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher
through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they
rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the
dead.

This phrase "when He came" is from the Greek PARWN, which is a verb form of PAROUSIA. Ignatius is looking back at Christ's Parousia. The ones who had been raised (past tense) are the Old Testament prophets.

His use of PARWN in a spiritual application is the same use that Paul employs in 1 Cor. 5:3:

"For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit [PARWN DE TW PNEUMATI], have already judged (as though I were present[HWS PARWN]) him who has so done this deed."

Back to Ignatius.

Magnesians, CHAPTER 10
10:2 Therefore put away the vile leaven which hath
waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new
leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him,
that none among you grow putrid, seeing that by your
savour ye shall be proved.

10:3 It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to
practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in
Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every
tongue believed and was gathered together unto
God. (Italics are quoting Isa. 66:18)

Smyrnaeans, chapter 1
[Christ was] "truly born of a virgin and baptized by John
that _all righteousness might be fulfilled_ by Him,

1:2 truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under
Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit
are we -- that is, of His most blessed passion); that
He might set up an ensign unto all the ages through
His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people,
whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of
His Church." (Italics are quoting Isaiah 5:26 and 9:22)

This last verse shows that Ignatius saw that the ensign of Christ - the Cross - was to Jews and Gentiles of all ages. That is, there is no age in the future where there will be a return to the shadows of those deprecated OT sacrifices, such as is postulated by millennalists.

[bumpity bump]

 

[Allan]

[bumpity bump]

Noting in the above speaks to preterism, at all.
Nothing speaks to Christ already having come, nothing speaking to the complete of all future prophet events of scripture, nothing.

In fact these states go hand-in-hand with the pre-mil view, of which Ignasius held and in fact encouraged believers to keep 'watching' for Christ's return.

"Maintain thy position with all care, both in the flesh and spirit. Have a regard to preserve unity, than which nothing is better. Bear with all, even as the Lord does with thee. Support all in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to prayer without ceasing. Implore additional understanding to what thou already hast. Be watchful, possessing a sleepless spirit. . . . Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes" - Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp, "short" Greek version, ch.1 & 3 (here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...tm#P2314_385111 )

Doesn't sound close to your view but in fact supports Futerism.

Or this one:

Chapter XI.—An exhortation to fear God, etc.

Chapter XI.—An exhortation to fear God, etc.

The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, that it tend not to our condemnation. For let us either stand in awe of the wrath to come, or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed— one of two things. Only let us be found in Christ Jesus unto tue life.Apart from Him, let nothing attract you, for whom I bear about these bonds, these spiritual jewels, by which may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ.

He speaks as Paul did.. the last days (times).. the wrath of God which is TO COME.

Also. His use of PARWN in a spiritual application is the same use that Paul employs in 1 Cor. 5:3: .. Same usage but your understanding if VERY flawed.
This has NOTHING to do with your view.. this is speaking to what happened during His death and at His Physical Resurrection (remember when all the tombs opened up and the dead rose -PHYSICALLY from the graves). H

You conjure aspects to his statements that he not only does NOT say, but in fact is contrary to what you are ad-libbing for him about no 'future' aspects.
Again, Iggy states .. watch and weigh the time.. the wrath was still to come and that the last days were upon them.. not prior to them.

 

[asterisktom]

Noting in the above speaks to preterism, at all.
Nothing speaks to Christ already having come, nothing speaking to the complete of all future prophet events of scripture, nothing.

In fact these states go hand-in-hand with the pre-mil view, of which Ignasius held and in fact encouraged believers to keep 'watching' for Christ's return.

First of all, I bumped this post for a different purpose. I know that Ignatius's comment is not definitive proof of Preterism (and it definitely isn't proof of any sort for futurism). I bumped this post to show someone else that there were notices of the AD 70 event, your interpretation notwithstanding.

However, I am game to follow your comments as well.

Your merely saying "nothing speaks to Preterism" does not make the case at all. Lets look at the particulars. First of all his call for watching is neither futurist nor Preterist. The term he uses (GREGOREO) is just basic Christianity. It does not mean "watching for Christ", or "watching for signs". It means we are to watch ourselves. Big difference. And Preterists still say that we are to do this watching. My impression is that you saw that word "watching" and immediately gave it an eschatological slant.

Here is an in-depth study on this word "watching" as used in the New testament, as well as the other eight NT "watching" terms. I wrote this before I left futurism, so there are some sentences I would have written differently, but the word study should still prove helpful:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/730108752/watching-for-what/

Doesn't sound close to your view but in fact supports Futerism.

Or this one:

The rest of this will have to wait.

 

[Allan]

First of all, I bumped this post for a different purpose. I know that Ignatius's comment is not definitive proof of Preterism (and it definitely isn't proof of any sort for futurism). I bumped this post to show someone else that there were notices of the AD 70 event, your interpretation notwithstanding.

But there are none.

The term he uses (GREGOREO) is just basic Christianity. It does not mean "watching for Christ", or "watching for signs". It means we are to watch ourselves.

While the word is fairly simple the context in which the passage was written is where we derive understanding for it's application and intended use. While it 'can' mean just being watchful of your walk.. his statement continue regarding having 'a restless spirit'.. one that does not get satisfied. Yet that is still not enough to get a proper definition or understanding of his usage as we must also go the context in which it was written in conjunction with the surrounding passages.. this is where the next lines come into play.. "weighing the times".. You state there is no 'times' as all are fullfilled.. Yet he states weigh or judge the times.. and then he adds.. "Looking for Him..." These three statements which are directly linked and form the context of His statement, establish the very fact that 'watching' is linked to next sentence of 'weighing the times' which is connected to the next sentence.. 'looking for Him'. Why.. cause in his estimation they were 'In the last day' and the 'Wrath of God' was STILL TO COME, not that it had ALREADY come.

Big difference. And Preterists still say that we are to do this watching. My impression is that you saw that word "watching" and immediately gave it an eschatological slant.

Here is an in-depth study on this word "watching" as used in the New testament, as well as the other eight NT "watching" terms. I wrote this before I left futurism, so there are some sentences I would have written differently, but the word study should still prove helpful:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/730108752/watching-for-what/


The rest of this will have to wait.[/QUOTE]

 

[asterisktom]

But there are none.

While the word is fairly simple the context in which the passage was written is where we derive understanding for it's application and intended use. While it 'can' mean just being watchful of your walk.. his statement continue regarding having 'a restless spirit'.. one that does not get satisfied. Yet that is still not enough to get a proper definition or understanding of his usage as we must also go the context in which it was written in conjunction with the surrounding passages.. this is where the next lines come into play.. "weighing the times".. You state there is no 'times' as all are fullfilled.. Yet he states weigh or judge the times.. and then he adds.. "Looking for Him..."

I looked all over in the Greek of my copy of Ignatius. I saw no "looking for Him". It is apparently a loose translation at this point.

I did not state "there are no times". See, this is why it gets tiresome debating this topic with some of you. You put words in our mouths.

And you wrote that GREGOREO "'can' mean just being watchful of your walk" and then went on to justify your futurist nuance.

Well, it is not a case of "can" mean "watching our walk".
It does mean it.
Every time.
In all twenty (20) New Testament verses.
That was the very point of my article. Did you even read it?

These three statements which are directly linked and form the context of His statement, establish the very fact that 'watching' is linked to next sentence of 'weighing the times' which is connected to the next sentence.. 'looking for Him'. Why.. cause in his estimation they were 'In the last day' and the 'Wrath of God' was STILL TO COME, not that it had ALREADY come.

I wish that you would have examined the NT verses that I presented with half the care that you devoted to Ignatius. But, yes, they are all connected in Ignatius. But that is all moot because you are arguing against - I don't know what - some universalist or something? I certainly believe the wrath of God is a real thing. And that it is still to come - at the end of every unbeliever's life the wrath of God will come personally on them. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God. And yet I also believe in God's judgment in the world. That has already happened.

Big difference. And Preterists still say that we are to do this watching. My impression is that you saw that word "watching" and immediately gave it an eschatological slant.

No. Like I said, I wrote the above article while I was still a futurist. I just studied out the words as they occurred in the NT. I saw how they were used and wrote of what I saw. If you doubt that this is thew case show me from the article where I started doing this "eschatological slant" - 9 years before I was a Preterist, 5 years before I was a Calvinist.