Imaginative
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Progressive Covenentalism
- Thread starter Craig Betts
- Start date
- Status
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The Church did reject Premillennialism as heresy. I'm looking through my notes and will post further findings asap.
Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism | Monergism
Jesus told us to be prepared for his return, not the rapture.
Most of the ECF as they call them were pre millenialist.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Pelagianism and premillennialism[edit]
For a different view, contrary to accepted opinion, see § Further reading below.
In addition to its condemnation of Nestorianism, the council also condemned Pelagianism,[2] and rejected premillennialism (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius) in favor of amillennialism (Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo): "Augustine's explanation became Church doctrine when it was adopted as the definitive explanation of the millennium by the Council of Ephesus in 431."[35] According to Augustine of Hippo, the number 'one thousand' of the thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1–3 is a synecdochic figure of speech, "but […] some Christians do not understand […], and so construe the passage into ridiculous fancies. […] uch assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians." Against these assertions (Jerome: "cesset ergo mille annorum fabula", lit. 'so let's stop with this fable of a thousand years'; Augustine: "quasdam ridiculas fabulas", lit. 'certain ridiculous fables'; Council of Ephesus: "juxta deliramenta, fabulosaque mille annorum infausti Apollinarii dogmata", lit. 'like the delusions, and the fabled dogmas of the unfortunate Apollinaris about a millennium'),[36] both Augustine and the Council of Ephesus "prefer proceeding to show how that passage of Scripture should be understood", by quoting, contextualizing, and paraphrasing the ipsissima verba of "Dominus Iesus Christus" (Latin for "Lord Jesus Christ") himself in Matthew 12:29 par Mark 3:27.[37]
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says, "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man" — meaning by the strong man the devil, because he had power to take captive the human race; and meaning by his goods which he was to take, those who had been held by the devil in various sins and iniquities, but were to become believers in Himself. It was then for the binding of this strong one that the apostle saw in the Apocalypse "an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he laid hold", he says, "on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years", — that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed.
— Augustine (TPQ 24 August 410 – TAQ 28 August 430 AD)
The Council of Ephesus re-emphasizes the ecclesiological approach of Augustine's eschatology, thereby conforming the millennium to the Holy Sacraments of the church.[38]
That also, which the holy Church uniformly does in the whole world with regard to those to be baptized, we do not observe with indifferent respect. Since whether children or youths come to the sacrament of regeneration, they do not approach the fountain of life, before the unclean spirit is driven away from them by the exorcisms and the breathings upon them of the priests; so that then it is truly manifest how the prince of this world is sent forth (John 12:31), and how the strong [man] is first bound (Matthew 12:29), and thereafter his vessels are plundered (Mark 3:27), having been transferred to the possession of the victor, who leads captivity captive (Ephesians 4:8) and gives gifts to man (Psalms 67:19).
— Council of Ephesus (431 AD)
Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia
Notice John, this article is open for editing. If you think it is wrong, correct it with your documentation and make it right. Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Millenarianism is a Pharisee doctrine (Proof available) that crept into the mainly Jewish church. But in time became recognized as heresy. See my answer to JoJ.
Particular
Well-Known Member
Biblical
John 4:1-6 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
By the time "the early church" supposedly rejected premillennialism (as presented in your link), it was well on the way to Catholicism, i.e. various heresies And Origen? He was a bizarre heretic, far worse than Montanus, IMO. So why even mention him?
And by the way, I find this essay to be unscholarly also. He says that (early) Montanism was not premillennial, then he says it was, with no supporting evidence. And he writes, "But there was a period of well over a "millennium" (over half of the Church's history), from at least the early fifth century until the sixteenth, when chiliasm was dormant and practically non-existent." Really? Does he think the age of Catholic apostasy and heresy was the best age of "the church"? I'm a Baptist. I reject Catholicism.
Last edited:
Ultimately the argument given in the source is exactly why the early church taught Chilianism.
Christ NEVER refuted that presentation when the Apostles questioned Him, rather He stated the TIME was His authority to determine.
The article presents a very distorted view, because careful reading shows the author also ADMITTING that chilianism was taught in the early church.
He is also confusing what is commonly “absent from the body present with the Lord” teaching of the early as being an opponent to the Chilian teaching. Such is just poor reasoning and a beggarly approach.
Enough from this person!
He isn’t honest in dealing with the topic (imo). And I certainly wouldn’t allow his work on this to go without severe rebuke in the classroom.
That is not chiiad teaching. Many historicists used the wor "dispensation" without explaing what they mean. My guess would be the referred to the OT and the NT dispensation of grace.
Next I would query what a dispensation is. I would say it comnes from our word dispense. When our pharmacist dispenses our prescrition he doesn't dispense a period of time,.
i agree, except, I don’t know any that we’re not.
More often not much is written because it was one of the things assumed as basic teaching.
This is why Augustine was at first, premillennial, but turned away from the truth when he got disappointed. Then decided a half man construct of the last times were better than that given in Scripture.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The pharisees created millenarianism. The Jewish church swallowed it for a while.
Really??? After I say that Wikipedia is a bad source that we don't allow our students to use, you're going back to it. And then you suggest that I correct it? Not on your life. Correcting Wikipedia is a waste of time--though I do find errors in it.
Please. Kick the Wikipedia habit and learn to find scholarly sources.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Take your documentation and edit the article. Also Ephesus said Nicea cannot be changed. Nicea states Jesus' kingdom is eternal without end. Not 1000 years.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Read the list of contributors. Not any small change there. That's why I think you should go set them straight.Really??? After I say that Wikipedia is a bad source that we don't allow our students to use, you're going back to it. And then you suggest that I correct it? Not on your life. Correcting Wikipedia is a waste of time--though I do find errors in it.
Please. Kick the Wikipedia habit and learn to find scholarly sources.
Prove that the Pharisees created chiliasm. Since they rejected Christ, why in the world would they think He was coming a second time? That makes no sense.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The Millennium is a Pharisee doctrine refuted many times by Jesus in the gospels.
MILLENNIUM: MILLENNIUM - JewishEncyclopedia.com
By: Joseph Jacobs, A. Biram
The reign of peace, lasting one thousand years, which will precede the Last Judgment and the future life. The concept has assumed especial importance in the Christian Church, where it is termed also “chiliasm,” designating the dominion of Jesus with the glorified and risen saints over the world for a thousand years. Chiliasm or the idea of the millennium is, nevertheless, older than the Christian Church; for the belief in a period of one thousand years at the end of time as a preliminary to the resurrection of the dead was held in Parseeism. This concept is expressed in Jewish literature in Enoch, xiii., xci. 12-17; in the apocalypse of the ten weeks, in Apoc. Baruch, xl. 3 (“And his dominion shall last forever, until the world doomed to destruction shall perish”); and in II Esdras vii. 28-29. Neither here nor in later Jewish literature is the duration of this Messianic reign fixed. It is clear, however, that the rule of the Messiah was considered as an interregnum, from the fact that in many passages, such as Pes. 68a, Ber. 34b, Sanh. 91b and 99a, Shab. 63a, 113b, and 141b, a distinction is made between and , although it must be noted that some regarded the Messianic rule as the period of the fulfilment of the prophecies, while others saw in it the time of the subjugation of the nations.
Good point.
God “dispensed” differently prior to the flood, prior to Abraham, prior to exodus, prior to kings, prior to Christ, prior to the great tribulation...
Paul gives us an example of this preaching/teaching in Acts 13, if I recall, where he is listing the chronological events. Peter the same at Pentecost.
I am not saying salvation was different.
The last time teaching was that Christ would return prior to and establish the millennial rule.
All other schemes were developed after the second century.
You're kind of mixed up. Of course the Jews/Pharisees believed in an earthly kingdom of the Messiah on the throne of David. They believed that because of the numerous places in the OT where it is prophesied. It's the Davidic Covenant. What the Pharisees did not believe in was premillennialism.
You're confused. Wikipedia does not give lists of contributors. Its writers remain anonymous, and that is why academia rejects it. It only gives sources used and sources recommended, not authors. Why, as far as I know, you may be one of the writers of this Wiki article.
- Status