Brother Bob
New Member
Allan said:Finishing up:
False and refuted through the works and writtings of the early church fathers.
This guy actaully denies there was a division within the church regarding that view?? It is well documented, oh wait, that was back in the 1700's.
I find that hard to believe since he is cited here as stating the doctrine of Premillennialism has strong support in church history. What volume or specific title of his work is it in?? I would like to see the quote in context.
Schaff does state however that Premillennialism was the prevailing millennial view for the first 300 years of church history. As the historian Philip Schaff states,
"In the early church, Premillennialism was well represented by Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactantius. Papias’s belief in Premillennialism is especially significant since he was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John who penned the statements about a 1000-year reign of Christ in his Book of Revelation.
I consider the fragment X of the Roberts-Donaldson collection of fragments to be completely suspect as the alleged words of Papias.
Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):
What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to "the presbyter" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16). Eusebius separates the statements about Mark and Matthew, but they may have originally followed one another and certainly seem closely related. Perhaps the simplest reading of the statement on Mark is that Mark served as Peter's interpreter (possibly in the role of methurgaman, or oral translator) and wrote down what he heard Peter say of the words and deeds of Jesus and that his writing is defective in "order," though not in accuracy or fullness of recollection, because Peter naturally referred to the Lord's logia in a random manner. Some have suspected that Papias did not have in mind the gospel of Mark that we know, but the arguments are tenuous. On another point, Kurzinger has attempted to show that Papias was speaking not of translation from the native language of Peter but of presentation of the reports of Peter (an interpretation which he applies also to Papias' statement about Matthew); but this seems to push a rhetorical approach to Papias' terminology too far (Schoedel 1967: 107; Kortner 1983: 203-4). On the other hand, an interpretation in rhetorical terms is somewhat more likely when it comes to the suggestion that Papias meant to say that Peter spoke "in chria-style" rather than "as needs (chriai) dictated." But the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write "in order." It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made "an ordered arrangement" of the materials) - or perhaps more generally by Papias' own conception of what ought to be included in such an account - and that he had in mind completeness of information as well as "order" in the narrow sense of the term. In any event, Papias is defending Mark in spite of perceived deficiencies.Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also "made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Through the influence of important church fathers such as Eusebius and Augustine, belief in Premillennialism waned significantly around the fifth century. With some exceptions, most in the Christian Church during the Medieval and Reformation eras held to Amillennialism and the view that the millennium was being fulfilled in a spiritual manner in the present age. However, the last 150 years has witnessed a strong resurgence of Premillennialism. Much of this can be attributed to the rise in popularity of Dispensationalism which affirms a future 1000-year reign of Christ upon the earth."
Theopedia states of the Premil view:
This next one is another classic example of someone who does not understand even the basics of Pre-mill.
Again, he also err's in his understanding. We do not believe the "throne of glory is an earthly throne". The Throne of Glory is in Glory where the Father sits and Jesus at His right hand. Christ will fulfill the prophesies of Davids lineage sitting on his throne as King of Israel forever, and that Old Covenant is fulfilled as God decreed it would be when He made it.
Found here:
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/premillennialism.html
A Reformed website even
Hippolytus: it seems that Hippolytus believed that Jesus is already on His throne.
61. By the woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued wth the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the "moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, "she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered," mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. "And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-christ.html
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
