Teaching of the Apostle John

[agedman]

In the recent threads on end times, I attempted to insert a bit of historical view that would hopefully impact the thinking of some on the BB (not that I really expect that to happen - but to give such at least a chance).

Because the Apostle John lived a full life and died toward the end of the first century, there were outstanding teachers, preachers, martyrs which had direct and were first hand witnesses to and in some cases disciples of the Apostle John.

One of the most outstanding items is that EVERY one of them were Pre-mil.

Now, if John was an Apostle (and he was) then it would seem as though he would have diligently corrected the "error" and teaching of end times these people did. There is absolutely NO RECORD that he did.

So, here then is the problem.

On the BB there are those who would contend for a view of the Revelation that the Apostle did not teach.

On the BB there are those who would contend for a view of the prophets that the Apostle did not teach.

On the BB there are those who would attempt to dispute with the actual writer of the Revelation in desire to preach and teach what the Apostle John would dispute.

How then can such ones make claims that those that teach and preach what the Apostle John taught and handed down to those he taught claim that John is "bewitched?"

And to think that some of the BB actually find it amusing!

Can ANYONE name a single disciple of John or one that John had direct contact with that was NOT pre-mil?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

How many people connected to the Apostle John do we even know their views on of end times?

 

[Reformed]

The burden is on the author of the OP to produce an exhaustive list of direct disciples of the Apostle John who were Chilists.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

According to Acts 20:30, Paul was expecting some of the elders in Ephesus whom he had taught to go rogue in one way or another. Why should John fare any better?

 

[McCree79]

The earliest ones I know of is Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Neither directly taught by John. Irenaeus was close to Polycarp though. So if we want to say since Irenaeus learned from a disciple of John, that his millennium view must be correct, we must also embrace that water baptism brings new life and start baptizing infants. That was also the belief of Irenaeus

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

How many people connected to the Apostle John do we even know their views on of end times?

Zero

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

Do I have to do all the work for you?

I will give you this statement from here.

Premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church. Philip Schaff has said, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age (A.D. 100-325) is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius." (History of the Christian Church, Scribner, 1884; Vol. 2, p. 614) bold emphasis mine.
​

Papia(s) was a pastor in a near city to the Apostle John in Ephesus. He often traveled to visit the apostle to get first hand accounts of what the apostles said and the words of Jesus.

Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D. (see here) wrote:
"Irenaeus was also a strong believer in premillennialism. In fact, premillennialism was a major a weapon in Irenaeus’s battle against Gnosticism and its unbiblical dualism between matter and spirit."

Iranaeus states of Polycarp, "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." ( Adv. Haer., III.3.4.)

Polycarp stated

Polycarp 11:2
"But he who cannot govern himself in these things, how doth he enjoin this upon another? If a man refrain not from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the Gentiles who know not the judgment of the Lord, Nay, know we not, that the saints shall judge the world, as Paul teacheth?"
​

How do the saints judge the world if the there is no place and time of that justice to be met?

Another source of good information on this topic is found here. It gives a very factual report as to the historical position of the early church and the shift to a-mil and post-mil that were actually considered heretical views. How that when the popularity of those views grew the pre-mil view(s) were then considered heretical.

That shift was done as a direct affront to the apostles and those directly taught by them.

 

[DHK]

I find some of the same information that agedman does. Premillennialism goes right back to the apostles. Virtually all the anti-nicene fathers believed. Schaff being quoted by Ice states:

Philip Schaff, the dean of American church historians and himself a postmillennialist, provided the following summary of the early church's view of the millennium:

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.[19]

European scholar and church historian, Adolph Harnack echoes Schaff and tells us, "First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ's second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned whether it ought not to be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion."[20]

The Bible is the sole basis from which a Believer in Christ should learn what is true. What others have believed down through church history is really not the issue. However, when we believe the Bible teaches a particular doctrine, it is not surprising that others who have read the Bible see the same thing. This is exactly what we find in the early church in regards to premillennialism before allegorical interpretation began to dominate. Maranatha!

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/brief-history-of-early-premillennialism

Certainly we don't maintain that their beliefs were exactly the same as ours.
But what are they:
A belief in a Millennial Kingdom on earth.
A belief in a pre-millennial second coming.
A belief in the judgment after the millennial Kingdom.

Believe it or not, if one is objective they will admit that the above three eras are "dispensations," and hence "dispensationalism." Just because it doesn't fall into the "Darby-defined interpretation" of dispensationalism doesn't mean it isn't dispensationalism. It has dispensations. It has order. It fits the basic definition of what dispensationalism is. One cannot dismiss this so lightly.

Here is another point that Ireneus believed in (from the same article) :

Irenaeus declares:

But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom

Not exactly the same; but very close to what many of us believe.

Notice the last statement of the previous quote:
This is exactly what we find in the early church in regards to premillennialism before allegorical interpretation began to dominate.
Allegorical interpretation was "invented" by Origen. It did not exist before the fourth century. As another biased source provided by Icon claimed: "a literal approach to the Bible is a novel characteristic of dispensationalism." Obviously such a statement if blatantly false. The early church took the scriptures very literally.

 

[McCree79]

Papia(s) was a pastor in a near city to the Apostle John in Ephesus. He often traveled to visit the apostle to get first hand accounts of what the apostles said and the words of Jesus.

This claim is without proof. Eusebius(H.E. III 39) states that he was a disciple of John the the Presbyter, not John the Apostle.

The legend is that Papais and Irenaeus traveled to learn from the Apostle himself. If that is true, then surely they(including Justin Martyr) are right about infant baptism and that water baptism is the source of salvation. Do you believe Irenaeus on that one?



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Polycarp stated

Polycarp 11:2
"But he who cannot govern himself in these things, how doth he enjoin this upon another? If a man refrain not from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the Gentiles who know not the judgment of the Lord, Nay, know we not, that the saints shall judge the world, as Paul teacheth?"
​

How do the saints judge the world if the there is no place and time of that justice to be met?

That in no way is stating a premil view.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Even though early church members did hold to pre mil view. That doesn't make them pre-trib-dispensationalists

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

The earliest ones I know of is Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Neither directly taught by John. Irenaeus was close to Polycarp though. So if we want to say since Irenaeus learned from a disciple of John, that his millennium view must be correct, we must also embrace that water baptism brings new life and start baptizing infants. That was also the belief of Irenaeus

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

And thus the ever an anon problem of trying to use the patristic age to support doctrinal positions. You pointed to one: baptismal regeneration. The patristic age was full of truth and error. And as others have pointed out, historic premillennialism differed greatly from dispensational premillennialism.

 

[agedman]

This claim is without proof. Eusebius(H.E. III 39) states that he was a disciple of John the the Presbyter, not John the Apostle.

The legend is that Papais and Irenaeus traveled to learn from the Apostle himself. If that is true, then surely they(including Justin Martyr) are right about infant baptism and that water baptism is the source of salvation. Do you believe Irenaeus on that one?



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

This is a mere distraction from the truth of the pre - mil view point seen and taught by the Apostle John.

Infant baptism has more to do with the a-mil folks than those who hold pre-mil views.

 

[agedman]

Even though early church members did hold to pre mil view. That doesn't make them pre-trib-dispensationalists

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

That really isn't an issue, is it.

See BOTH of them (pre-mil and disp) are Pre-mil.

So making such a claim as you did, only supports the fact that the Apostles taught Pre-mil view as accurate and Scriptural.

 

[agedman]

And thus the ever an anon problem of trying to use the patristic age to support doctrinal positions. You pointed to one: baptismal regeneration. The patristic age was full of truth and error. And as others have pointed out, historic premillennialism differed greatly from dispensational premillennialism.

But again, they are BOTH pre-mil.

So, what is the problem some have with accepting the Pre-mil as the truth?

Discussions of Baptismal regeneration is just a distraction and not germane to the truth of the Pre-mil view.

 

[DHK]

And thus the ever an anon problem of trying to use the patristic age to support doctrinal positions. You pointed to one: baptismal regeneration. The patristic age was full of truth and error. And as others have pointed out, historic premillennialism differed greatly from dispensational premillennialism.

A red herring.
Shall I point out that Calvin was baptized as an infant, saw his infant baptism as a valid baptism accepted by the Lord and went on to persecute those who baptized by immersion after having made a confession of faith in Christ--the Anabaptists. Totally unscriptural.

 

[Reformed]

But again, they are BOTH pre-mil.

So, what is the problem some have with accepting the Pre-mil as the truth?

Discussions of Baptismal regeneration is just a distraction and not germane to the truth of the Pre-mil view.

You are the one trying to use the patristic age to make your point. History is a great teacher, but it is interpreted differently by many. Historic pre-mil, dispensational pre-mil, a-mil, and post-mil are all orthodox eschatological views. If you really want to be a student of history, do some research on how all major eschatological views have had their period of dominance. A lot of that has to do with how each era interpreted its worldview. There is a reason who so many learned theologians throughout history were either loosely convicted of, or even undecided, when it came to eschatology. Aside from the general agreement that the Lord Jesus Christ will visibly return, eschatology is not one of those slam-dunk doctrines. If you are persuaded about one view over another, let it be because you have exhaustively studied the scriptures. Appealing to church history is a post-facto attempt to add credibility to your position.

 

[JamesL]

You are the one trying to use the patristic age to make your point. History is a great teacher, but it is interpreted differently by many. Historic pre-mil, dispensational pre-mil, a-mil, and post-mil are all orthodox eschatological views. If you really want to be a student of history, do some research on how all major eschatological views have had their period of dominance. A lot of that has to do with how each era interpreted its worldview. There is a reason who so many learned theologians throughout history were either loosely convicted of, or even undecided, when it came to eschatology. Aside from the general agreement that the Lord Jesus Christ will visibly return, eschatology is not one of those slam-dunk doctrines. If you are persuaded about one view over another, let it be because you have exhaustively studied the scriptures. Appealing to church history is a post-facto attempt to add credibility to your position.

I'm convinced of a PreMil view, but have to tip my hat here. I believe an apostle's student or associate could possibly add credence to a view, but not necessarily.

I'm not a big fan of gulping down 2nd-3rd century doctrine without comparing what they said to scripture.

It just seems to me that pretty early on the church started veering from apostolic teaching. Is Eschatology one of those areas?

We should compare historic teaching to scripture at every point. Otherwise we might be building error upon error

 

[McCree79]

So making such a claim as you did, only supports the fact that the Apostles taught Pre-mil view as accurate and Scriptural.

By acknowledging that is all it takes for something to be true....for a 2nd century teacher to believe something, then by you own logic you must hold to infant baptism. You can't have it both ways. You can't say Apostle John taught the man pre-mil, and not accept the argument that he taught him infant baptism.


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[DHK]

By acknowledging that is all it takes for something to be true....for a 2nd century teacher to believe something, then by you own logic you must hold to infant baptism. You can't have it both ways. You can't say Apostle John taught the man pre-mil, and not accept the argument that he taught him infant baptism.


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

The point being made is not that pre-mil is based on history but that it existed before Darby. There are many on this forum who don't believe it did. There is a big gap between the anti-nicene fathers and the mid-1800's. Burt it is not hard to show various individuals that believed in a "millennial kingdom" throughout history.