Continuing the eschatology

Toodleoo, everyone. I have to leave now, and we don't have Internet access at home, so this thread will probably be done by the time I get back to it on Monday. (The subject is pretty well cooked anyway.)

 

Those "replies" are very superficial. I wrote in detail, with Scripture support showing that the Polycarp & Clement citations are consistent with Scriptural amil teaching concerning the present Gospel age, an age ended by the return of Christ in glory for resurrection & judgment. They make no mention of a future intermediate millennial kingdom.

Thanks for the article. It seems to rely on the circular argument that John (Apostle) taught the premil doctrine (which I would question); that Polycarp & Papias knew John personally; that Irenaeus refers to P & P as premil (without quoting their writings) therefore they held premil doctrine as taught by John.

It seems too that the writer thinks John's supposed millennial teaching overrides Paul's eschatological teaching, even though he admits that -

Ignatius ..... throughout his epistles suggest(s) an eschatology more Pauline than Johannine .....​

No, John, the article is NOT convincing. And if it were robustly argued & documented, it would not override the Scriptures I quoted.

 

The attempt of claiming the post as “very superficial” is troubling.

To WHOM was the statement of the Lord directed?

Was it not those of the closest followers?

The Lord’s statement was directed toward the organization and politics of the believers TOWARD ONE ANOTHER.

Therefore, your use of the verse is NOT consistent with your desire to show Scriptural support.

Either you must look to another place, or you must change the view. For to think this verse is supportive is “very superficial” at best.

 

I am not a big cut/paste person, however this was online and perhaps is helpful in the discussion.

The only reason to place it on the forum is to show that there is missinformed.

There are other early church leaders not included in the cut /paste that can be found at:
The Millennial Voice of the Early Church Fathers


"Among the Apostolic Fathers Barnabas is the first and the only one who expressly teaches a pre-millennial reign of Christ on earth. He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of six ages of labor for the world, each lasting a thousand years, and of a millennium of rest; since with God 'one day is as a thousand years.' The millennial Sabbath on earth will be followed by an eighth and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord's Day (called by Barnabas 'the eighth day') is the type."49 While the seventh millennial day theory is not taught in Scripture, it is significant that the basic understanding of this early writing is that of a literal thousand-year reign on earth at the end of the age.50

"Irenaeus wrote the following concerning the blessings of the future Kingdom of God foretold in the Scriptures: 'The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times.'"54 "Irenaeus stated in even stronger terms than Justin that the premillennial doctrine was 'traditional orthodoxy.' He spoke of 'certain orthodox person' whose opinions were 'derived from heretical sources,' and asserted that 'they are both ignorant of God's dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom.'"55 "Irenaeus, on the strength of tradition from St. John and his disciples, taught that after the destruction of the Roman empire, and the brief raging of antichrist (lasting three and a half years or 1260 days), Christ will visibly appear, will bind Satan, will reign at the rebuilt city of Jerusalem with the little band of faithful confessors and the host of risen martyrs over the nations of the earth, and will celebrate the millennial sabbath of preparation for the eternal glory of heaven; then, after a temporary liberation of Satan, follows the final victory, the general resurrection, the judgment of the world, and the consummation in the new heavens and the new earth."56

Taken from:The Millennial Voice of the Early Church Fathers

 

It is good one does consider the millennium as The Scriptures present it. Prophecy in both the OT and NT would be shattered as unreliable if it is not true.

Most folks are so quick to see the first coming prophecy acknowledged by the OT prophets, but are just as easily (sometimes) and willing to cast a shadow of doubt about the millennial reign.

It is just fine to question the Darby presentation. As great a scholar as he was, he and I wouldn't agree on everything, either. Few do agree with me. I even find myself disagreeable.

The prophets do indicate that there is a specific tribulation time. One that the Lord spoke of as occurring as different than all the troubles of before, yet unlike the Hollywood presentations of tribulation, life goes on with buying and selling, marriage... There is a great rejoicing that the two witnesses have been killed and left for dead in the street, because of the trouble they were to the ungodly. The paradox of the tribulation is so much evil, so much destruction, so much personal hurt, yet the people have no desire for God.

I do think that the presentation of the last church, as so shamefully weak and lacking the truth that Christ is not even present in the assembly, is revealed as honest and emerging in this time. There is little truth in the popular modern assemblies, and very few people honestly worship in a manner other than self serving emotionalism. The manipulation level of the gatherings is so complete that great deception allows for embracing anything that sounds right even it is in direct conflict with the Scriptures.

There is little doubt of the antiChrist, for even one of the letters of John gives warning of antiChrists in his day, and the Revelation is highly specific that the ultimate antiChrist will be a world influence.

I really don't expect the Lord to lead you into that which would place doubt upon the reliability of all Scriptures.

The two systems of thinking you mention must, by their own nature, call for far more rendering by categorizing Scriptures as allegorical, metaphorical, hyperbole...

Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone who holds to covenant theology is amillennial. There are those that are not but are premillennialist.

Covenant theology is to be taken as a tool, just as dispensation and archeology terms are a tool in which to show the natural outline of the Scriptures.

 

Really?? What do you think Amils do with texts like 1 Corinthians 6:2 or 1 Timothy 2:12? Do you think we cut them out of our Bibles??

 

Martin, I'm not certain what amills do with those texts.

At the final judgment of God as pictured in Revelation, the believers do not sit in judgment of the people, so when is the world to be directly judged by believers who are rulers of the world?

Not certain what women keeping silent in the assembly has to do with the question other than as a believer the women will also rule and reign with Christ during the millennium.

 

The sprits of those Christians who die during this present age go to be with the Lord. It is clear that they 'live and reign with Christ' (Rev. 20:4) in heaven until He returns at the end of the age. There is also nothing in Revelation 20:11-15 that says that believers do not share in the judgement of the wicked at the end of the age.

Whoops! Sorry! 2 Timothy 2:12.

 

Ok, look at the setting of exactly when the believers rule with Christ. It is taken from the very area of the Scriptures that YOU refer. Rev. 20.

4Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.​

So, Martin, it looks like the rule by believers is in fact stated as taking place on this earth during the millennium.

This is also that which Paul quoted from the faithful saying:
2 Timothy 2:12,

If we endure, we will also reign with Him;​

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

The verses you appoint do not support the Amill view. Just the opposite. They do support the Pre-Millennial view of Christ's return and establishment of a millennial rule.

 

This seems pretty desperate stuff to me. When our Lord went up to heaven He was going; when He returns He will be coming. How could He say to the chief priests, 'You will see the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven' (Mark 14:62) if the 'coming' was into heaven??? They weren't going to see Him there! And if anyone saw Him around Jerusalem in AD 70, they never told anyone. They will see Him when the dead are raised as He returns in glory.

The text doesn't discuss trumpets; it only speaks of the Lord Jesus returning in the same manner as He left. He had just left visibly; He will return visibly QED.

 

That is what I believe. I just believe the millennium is now. Amillennialism is really better described as 'Realised Millennialism.'

It suits Amil just fine!

 

Well I understand but disagree because of two basic reasons.

The events prior to the return are yet incomplete, and more, I am still in this old nature body.

The prophets mark the 1000 year millennium with events such as no islands or mountains, Jerusalem is a sea port, the emptied Dead Sea, the Saints, no conflict among the animal kingdom, a huge amount of the earth destroyed, teams going about to mark dead bodies with flags for other teams to bury, and so forth.

Would it not seem there are no indicators of that sort being part of the “realized millennium?”

 

Return? Or coming? What about the 'coming' before the day of the Lord in 2 Thes. 2? And is that 'coming' a special coming against this generation of Israelites, or Jesus final coming?

And why are there so many opinions?

Off to play tennis ...

 

I would like you give a reference for Clement of Rome. I have his letter to to the Corinthians (or I had till a few months ago, when I was clearing out stuff as we are hoping to move to a much smaller place. My grandson came and begged some of my books and as I will not be likely to need them much longer due to my age and health, I said he could help myself. He took quite a few, but the only one I noted was all eight volumes of John Foxe Acts and Monuments (aka Book of Martyrs) 1846.

There was a post on another, now defunct, Forum where somebody quoted Clement as predicting a future temple when he said "Christ will come to His Temple." My answer was that the temple Clement meant was the Church', Which is the temple today. But if you do give a reference, mke sure it is from the Epistle to the Corinthians as other writings supposed to be by him are reckoned to be spurious.

One thing I noticed while reading Clement was that he seemed to be what today you would call Calvinist.

 

I support the late date.

Not only Irenaeus, but many other early writers, up to Eusebius, but then he did quote Irenaeus. I believe that the so called early date is a falsehood made to fit a theory.

 

I am not sure when Clement wrote his letter to the Corinthians, He was mentioned by Paul in Romans. He is said to be the third Bishop of Rome after Linus, the first, Cletus (reputed to be ) the second then Clement, the third. Some believe he may have been Bishop twice, once after Linus (another one mentioned by Paul) So unless you have some evidence that it was written pre AD 70,I would say that is doubtful.

 

I would say the same as that for futurists.