Baptist Eschatology

[Ed Edwards]

THE ALMANAC OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD,
1991-1992 Edition (Tyndale house, 1990)

Chronology of World Evangelization from AD30 to 1990
(pages 305-347)

c. 180 Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (c120-203)
documents recent charismata (exorcisms,
visions, prophecies), and teaches that Antichrist
will be a Jew of the tribe of Dan,
also Christ will inaugurate a liltaeral
millennium of 1,000 years

 

[Ed Edwards]

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (KJV1873):
Now we beseech you, brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him,

Two events mentioned here:
1) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
2) our gathering together unto him

Titus 2:13 (KJV1873):
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Two events mentioned here:
1) blessed hope
2) the glorious appearing of the great God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ

These two events are mentioned seperately
throughout the Bible. The Rapture, which
was a mystery in the O.T. is now mentioned
in the N.T.

Rapture Passages (the gathering, the blessed hope):

Matthew 24:31-44 (in the Mount Olivet Discourse
---/mod/ and parallel passages in Mark 13 & Luke 21)
John 14:1-3
Romans 8:19
1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 15:51-53, 16:22
Philippians 3:20-21, 4:5
Colossians 3:4
1 Thessalonians 1:10, 2:19, 4:13-18, 5:9,23
2 Thessalonians 1:7, 2:1, 2:3
1 Timothy 6:14
2 Timothy 4:1,8
Hebrews 9:28
1 Peter 1:7,13, 5:4
1 John 2:28-3:2
Jude 1:21
Revelation 2:25

Second Advent Passages
(Jesus comes again in power and glory
to defeat the antichrist and set up the
millinnial kingdom):

Daniel 2:44-45, 7:9-14, 12:1-3
Zechariah 12:10, 14:1-15
Matthew 13:41
Matthew 24:15-30, 26:64
Mark 13
Luke 21
Acts 1:9-11, 3:19-21
1 Thessalonians 3:13
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2:8
1 Peter 4:12-131
2 Peter 3:1-14
Jude 1:14-15
Revelation 4-19

 

[webdog]

You have to be on your toes or the Web will get you.......... :laugh: :laugh:

Look like the least you could do is wish me a Happy Birthday seeing I am still around at 68 today!

Just seen this...happy belated b-d, BB!

 

[Brother Bob]

Thanks Web....... I really don't like birthdays anymore. I keep telling my wife that, but she gives me one every year.

 

[Brother Bob]

THE ALMANAC OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD,
1991-1992 Edition (Tyndale house, 1990)

Chronology of World Evangelization from AD30 to 1990
(pages 305-347)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 1992 Almanac
c. 180 Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (c120-203)
documents recent charismata (exorcisms,
visions, prophecies), and teaches that Antichrist
will be a Jew of the tribe of Dan,
also Christ will inaugurate a liltaeral
millennium of 1,000 years

Hi Ed; The other Ed also posted some who had advocated the Mill in the 2 and 3 century, Justin Martyr being one of them, but was rejected by the church for hundreds of years afte that, until around the 18th Century.

By the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus used the four canonical Gospels, 13 letters of Paul, I Peter, I and II John, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas (a work later excluded from the canon), and Acts. Justin Martyr (died c. 165), a Christian apologist, wrote of the reading of the Gospels, “the memoirs of the Apostles,” in the services, in which they were the basis for

Apparently Irenaeus would not use the OT what soever or anything in the NT that contained quotes from the OT.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Interesting, millennial was born around 1830,
many cults were appeared like, Mormons,
Seventh Day Adventist, Armstrong, etc.
Even, pretribulationism was born during that period.

Interesting, not true but it is interesting.

Here are some true or partialy true stuff:
-1. Mormons and the whole Latter Day Saint (LDS)
movement did begin about 1830.
-2. Seventh Day Adventism didn't get established
until about 1870; but the Adventist movement did
begin about 1830.

Some untrue stuff:
-3. The Armstrong offshoot of
the 7th Day Adventist church didn't get started
full bloom until about 1950
-4. I teach 'pretribulation' from the KJV1611 Edition
of the Holy Bible.
-5. How could the 'millenial' be "born around 1830"?
in the The Latin Vulgate Translation of Revelation 20:5 of
about 460AD we read

ceteri mortuorum non vixerunt donec consummentur
mille anni haec est resurrectio prima

'mille' is the Latin word for 'one thousand (1,000)
'anni' is the Latin word for year
The 'millennial' in English means thousandth year
The 'millenniam' in English means athousand years

Till 19th Century, John Darby was the first person
taught that, there is distinction of Church and Israel,
that how dispensationalism was born.

Here is what the 1769 Edition of the KJV says about
'dispensation'
(this is before the 19th century)
--------------------
Dispensation in the NT, KJV1769 version:

1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward:
but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10 (KJV1769):
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might
gather together in one all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

BTW, if Christ is going to gather all things
as one in himself - has that happened yet?
(I don't think so: He doesn't have the commies or
the Islamic, etc)
--------------------
The Bible does speak of a different Church and
Jewish/Israel:

1 Corinthians 10:32 (KJV1769 Edition):
Give none offence, neither to the JEWS,
nor to the GENTILES, nor to the CHURCH OF GOD.

Is Paul talking about when he wrote?
the Tribulation? the Physical Millinnial
Messanic Kingdom (MMK)? the Literal/non-physical
MMK? the Spiritual-up-in-heaven MMK?
The with-you-right-now MMK?

Caveat: Nowhere is the term 'MMK = Millinnial
Messanic Kingdom mentioned AS SUCH in the
Bible. However, both the Old Testament
and New Testament speak of the MMK.

I also use MMK to distinguish between the
three Kingdoms of God:

1. the MMK = Millinnial Messanic Kingdom of God
(physical & future)
2. the 'among you right now' Kingdom of God
(spiritual & right now)
3. the Eternal Universal Order
(spiritual & future)

 

[EdSutton]

Apparently Irenaeus would not use the OT what soever or anything in the NT that contained quotes from the OT.

Bob, that's hogwash and not a particular pricey version, at that. The very fact that Irenaeus taught that there would be a literal kingdom, as I have posted, was a teachng that came directly from the OT.

Waht you said is not even close to what the author was saying, here about "canonicity", but was only referring to the 'formation' (actually recognition) of the NT canon.

FTR, all four Gospels, Acts, Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians all have OT quotes, and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head (and where they are found, mostly, or at least quote them) without looking any of them up.

Where are you, as a 68 year old man, with only half your heart working (I'll resist the jokes about that, including the half-hearted ones - well, I tried, anyhow) finding the energy to make some of the great leaps of logic you have been posting of late??

Ed

 

[npetreley]

Hi Ed; The other Ed also posted some who had advocated the Mill in the 2 and 3 century, Justin Martyr being one of them, but was rejected by the church for hundreds of years afte that, until around the 18th Century.

Apparently Irenaeus would not use the OT what soever or anything in the NT that contained quotes from the OT.

I must not understand what you mean. If Irenaeus used the Gospels, he used books that were packed with OT quotes. Did he just rip out the quotes?

 

[Brother Bob]

Where are you, as a 68 year old man, with only half your heart working (I'll resist the jokes about that, including the half-hearted ones - well, I tried, anyhow) finding the energy to make some of the great leaps of logic you have been posting of late??

Ed

You think this is
Humorous
??

 

[EdSutton]

You think this is
Humorous
??

Nothing humorous about heart problems, or surgery as I have had four bypasses, myself, already, have fluid problems from the effects of the surgery, and had carotid artery (where one was 95-99% blocked) and cancer surgery, as well.

There is, however, simultaneously the threefold amazement, sadness, and humor in the "great leaps of logic." And to a referring of someone as 'heartless' or only having "half a heart" by their responses I would hope. When I did have the blockage in my carotid, the crack was made, that I was only using half my brain. I agreed and said that even with that, I was using more brain power with that they were with all of theirs. :laugh:

But certainly not in the physical sense, and I would never suggest there is, in that vein, and I guess I'll have to add here, "No pun intended!"

But I do wish you would think through some of the things you post, sometimes, and not just repeat something someone else said, just because it seems to agree with your own position, including the dumb statement someone made about Irenaeus. I do not know if it was original with you or quoted from someone else. Nevertheless it is a dumb and ignorant statement someone, somewhere, sometime made, and deserves to be treated as such.

Had you or another made that similar statement about Marcion, the Heretic, who did, in fact, refuse to use the OT, and literally mutilated the Scriptures by "cutting out any OT references" from the parts of NT he would accept, it would have been an accurate and historical statement. BTW, Marcion was another "champion" of amillenialism, as if that should surprise anyone!

Oh yeah! Irenaeus' most famous work is Against Heresies. Marcion was not exactly a huge fan of Irenaeus, as you might expect. again!

While I do not often suggest Wikipedia to anyone (in fact, I believe, if my memory is not completely failing , this is the first time I have ever done so), I will, in this instance, suggest that you read this article I am providing a link to. It gives a fairly good capsule about Irenaeus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

Please read it, and respond back to me.

Ed.

 

[Brother Bob]

While I do not often suggest Wikipedia to anyone (in fact, I believe, if my memory is not completely failing , this is the first time I have ever done so), I will in this case suggest that you read this article I am providing a link to. It gives a fairly good capsule about Irenaeus.

As a matter of fact, that is where I got the other posting.
Maybe I should wait until I see what you post before I do any research and post. Then we both could believe whatever you found and posted, for I know you did not live back then, so you are as me, dependant upon others writings. We both may be wrong, so I really don't think because you copy and paste someone else, that I should take it as gospel. Irenaeus also believe that Christ lived to be an "old Man", have you read that and do you agree with Irenaeus on that?

 

[EdSutton]

As a matter of fact, that is where I got the other posting.
Maybe I should wait until I see what you post before I do any research and post. Then we both could believe whatever you found and posted, for I know you did not live back then, so you are as me, dependant upon others writings. We both may be wrong, so I really don't think because you copy and paste someone else, that I should take it as gospel. Irenaeus also believe that Christ lived to be an "old Man", have you read that and do you agree with Irenaeus on that?

{Sigh!} That is not what Irenaeus believed, (nor said, in context) and, in fact, that claim is a caricature from one who is an admitted skeptic. As you, no doubt, well know, you can take something out of context and 'prove' about anything. Give the guy who attempted this some credit. He almost "got away with it." Key word here is "almost."

The good apologetics site "Tektonics" has an article that goes a long way toward debunking his 'interpretation.' Here is the site:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

It is not difficult to get to the sources, these days, Bob. One can find (at least some of) the translated works of a host of the church fathers, on-line, fairly easily. Just type in "Ante-Nicene Fathers". And you can get the information from the right end of the horse, in this way. In fact I will provide you with a site to read these actual translated works. (Granted, these works were translated by others, since they actually wrote in either Greek or Latin.)

http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/

Here you can find (some of the) works by various 'fathers' such as Ignatius, (references to) Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Tatian, Cyprian, Origen, two Clements, Dionysius, Novatian, and a whole host more. Justin's Apologies are there, as are Against Heresies by Irenaeus, Tertullian's books against Marcion, Origen's Against Celsus, and Hermas, just to name a few. And these are just the ones that predate the Council of Nicea. One notable by his absence here, unfortunately, is Papias, who does not seem to have any works that survived, intact, as far as we can tell, but is noted to have written extensively, by others. Also Polycarp has few works that (may) have survived, to be translated, or he simply may have not written as many as some. But nonetheless, here is some good information, minus "spin", such as the 'spin' about Irenaeus, from an athiest skeptic.

Gotta' get to the hayfield.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Ed; I went to your site! You should be careful calling what I post as hogwash.

The good apologetics site "Tektonics" has an article that goes a long way toward debunking his 'interpretation.' Here is the site:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

So, I went to your site and they too stated that Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to be in His fifties and got it directly from direct apostolic succession.





Irenaeus is one of the main sources of how the early church thought, isn't it scary? Jesus lived to be fifty? This early witness to gospel authorship clearly wasn't talking about any gospel that YOU have ever read. It makes you wonder whether anything else the church fathers said was similarly way out in left field.

Irenaeus insisted his doctrine that Jesus lived into his fifties, not dying in his thirties, came by direct apostolic succession. That's an example of how the early Fathers "carefully preserved" their oral traditions, unfortunately for Holding.

I never searched for the first statement I made but will later. Being that the last statement seems to be true, makes it more likely the first statement I posted is true.




​

Quote by Irenaeus, Against



Heresies, 2:22:4-6)

"So, likewise, he was an old man for old men … Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends

onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline

towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher … those who were

conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. …

Some of them [i.e., those who teach this, PS], moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard

the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. (Irenaeus, Against

Heresies, 2:22:4-6)


​

 

[EdSutton]

Ed; I went to your site! You should be careful calling what I post as hogwash.

So, I went to your site and they too stated that Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to be in His fifties and got it directly from direct apostolic succession.





Irenaeus is one of the main sources of how the early church thought, isn't it scary? Jesus lived to be fifty? This early witness to gospel authorship clearly wasn't talking about any gospel that YOU have ever read. It makes you wonder whether anything else the church fathers said was similarly way out in left field.

Irenaeus insisted his doctrine that Jesus lived into his fifties, not dying in his thirties, came by direct apostolic succession. That's an example of how the early Fathers "carefully preserved" their oral traditions, unfortunately for Holding.

I never searched for the first statement I made but will later. Being that the last statement seems to be true, makes it more likely the first statement I posted is true.




​

Quote by Irenaeus, Against



Heresies, 2:22:4-6)

"So, likewise, he was an old man for old men … Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends

onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline

towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher … those who were

conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. …

Some of them [i.e., those who teach this, PS], moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard

the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. (Irenaeus, Against

Heresies, 2:22:4-6)


​

Bob, please re-read the tektonics site, and you can (hopefully) differentiate between what Irenaeus actually said, the skeptic misquoted (or re-wrote), and the 'tektonics' commentater's comments. What you are 'quoting' is the 'conclusion' of the skeptic, here, attempting to re-write Christian history, by the use of a partial quote, and that completely out of context.

IOW, read it, not just 'scan' it. It was not hogwash that you posted something you copied. (It may or may not have been accurate, but that does not make it hogwash in itself.) However, the 'jumped to' conclusion, that Irenaeus would not use the OT, because of some article, was and is hogwash, and flies in the face of his (Irenaeus') own writings, completely. I do not necessarily blame this on you. But it is a 'warning' that the 'Net contains anything anyone may want to hear, valid or not.

BTW, it is not "my site" at all. I do not have (or desire) one, in any way. You must have me confused with someone else, such as 'spamderson' or Lou Martuneac, or Brother Bo... :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed; I went to your site! You should be careful calling what I post as hogwash.

So, I went to your site and they too stated that Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to be in His fifties and got it directly from direct apostolic succession.





Irenaeus is one of the main sources of how the early church thought, isn't it scary? Jesus lived to be fifty? This early witness to gospel authorship clearly wasn't talking about any gospel that YOU have ever read. It makes you wonder whether anything else the church fathers said was similarly way out in left field.

Irenaeus insisted his doctrine that Jesus lived into his fifties, not dying in his thirties, came by direct apostolic succession. That's an example of how the early Fathers "carefully preserved" their oral traditions, unfortunately for Holding.

I never searched for the first statement I made but will later. Being that the last statement seems to be true, makes it more likely the first statement I posted is true.




​

Quote by Irenaeus, Against



Heresies, 2:22:4-6)

"So, likewise, he was an old man for old men … Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends

onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline

towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher … those who were

conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. …

Some of them [i.e., those who teach this, PS], moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard

the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. (Irenaeus, Against

Heresies, 2:22:4-6)


​

This is the actual quote of Irenaeus that is being spoken of: [(BTW, it is still somewhat out of context, as there is an ellipses in teh citted quote; and as I did not hunt up what immediately precedes and follows, not wanting to stay up another hour just to find it.) my emphases are underlined]

Being a master, therefore, he also possessed the age of a master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in himself that law which he had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to himself. For he came to save all through means of himself-all, I say, who through him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age … So likewise he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect master for all, not merely as regards the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, he came on to death itself, that he might be 'the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence,' the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.

He did argue against setting an exact age for the death of the Lord Jesus. I agree. 33 is an arbitrary figure, and is derived from a Scriptural statement that Jesus was "about thirty years of age", when he began His public ministry. My own idea would be when one is generalizing, as the Gospel writer here was, as he used a 'round number', in the exact same way that we do, I add, is that, generally speaking, Jesus could have been anywhere from His middle twenties to middle thirties, at that time. He could just as well have been 28 or 32, as 30, and have been "around thirty years", and the writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did not choose to give us an exact age, here.
"Why?", you may ask. Here's why, IMO.
Jesus' exact birthday is inconsequential to His life and work. His being offered on Passover (Nisan or Abib 14) is precisely and specifically consequential (although the exact year of that is not, and is still debated vigorously in some areas), as He is "Christ, our Passover", and "the Lamb slain", "according to the Scriptures".

Ed

 

[blackbird]

Find us an amilennialist on the net or on this board who says "the world just gets better and better until we usher in Christ's eternal kingdom",

I got in an argument with a fella once(He must have been Amil)---anyhow, he made the comment

"Mankind is getting better and better"

I returned with---"No, mankind is getting worse and worse!"

Better and better

No, worse and worse

Better and better

No, worse and worse

BETTER AND BETTER

Since the dude was a whole lot smarter than I was---and since the Bible says we are to "agree with our adversary quickly"---I made the comment then

"OK, Man!! I agree!! Mankind IS getting better and better!! Mankind is getting better and better at getting worse and worse!!!!":laugh: :laugh:

Premil preacher I am that!!!

 

[Brother Bob]

Jesus' exact birthday is inconsequential to His life and work. His being offered on Passover (Nisan or Abib 14) is precisely and specifically consequential (although the exact year of that is not, and is still debated vigorously in some areas), as He is "Christ, our Passover", and "the Lamb slain", "according to the Scriptures".

Ed

I agree that probably the post of him not using the OT was not correct, but for some reason he did believe that Jesus was older even to the point of "old man". What age exactly, I don't know and like you don't feel like reading the material anymore. He seemed to be a good man, no doubt, but for some reason felt Jesus had to actually be all things to be able to teach all things.

 

[EdSutton]

I agree that probably the post of him not using the OT was not correct, but for some reason he did believe that Jesus was older even to the point of "old man". What age exactly, I don't know and like you don't feel like reading the material anymore. He seemed to be a good man, no doubt, but for some reason felt Jesus had to actually be all things to be able to teach all things.

Just can't let go of something we choose to hold dear, can we, be it you or me or anyone else? :laugh: :laugh:

BTW, Jesus is God, and I see that God is spoken of as "the Ancient of Days" (KJV). Does that count?

22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Ancient of Days, kingdom? In the same verse?? Hmmm!

Ed

 

[Logos1]

I'm a Southern Baptist and a full preterist--all bible prophecy is fulfilled including the return of Christ.

 

[brucebaptist]

I'm a Southern Baptist and a full preterist--all bible prophecy is fulfilled including the return of Christ.

you might be southern baptist but you have a catholic view of the end times... the antichrist church of rome created preterism, to take the heat off of themselves... they know they are mystery babylon as many of their own historians point out.

so they created much false doctrines so Bible Believers would focus on the future or the past and would not focus on the very present anti-christ sitting on the throne of satan in rome..

check out:

http://www.historicism.com/misc/preterism.htm
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XIV/14-6.htm
http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

believe absolutely nothing that comes out of rome.