Pages

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Early Prominence Of Revelation And Premillennialism

Jnorm888 has written another article at his blog in response to my comments on the history of premillennialism. Much of the background of this discussion can be found in the threads here, here, and here. Jnorm writes:

"The Epistle [of Barnabas] doesn't put a limit on it [the seventh day of world history that corresponds to the seventh day of creation]. So if you are going to put a limit on something that doesn't have a limit then you mind as well put a limit on the eigth day as well."

The Epistle Of Barnabas refers to eight days. The implication is that the seventh day lasts for a limited period of time. If the seventh day never ends, why would he refer to an eighth day that he distinguishes from the seventh?

You write:

"When one looks at the book of Genesis, one will see that every day except for the seventh has a morning and an evening."

Where does Pseudo-Barnabas cite that fact or assign the significance to it that you're assigning to it?

You write:

"The evening and morning are missing on day seven. We can also see God's rest in Hebrews chapter 4. To put a time limit on God's rest is to say that our resting in Him is not eternal."

How do you know that Pseudo-Barnabas had the themes of Hebrews 4 in mind when he wrote? You don't. Whether something meant to correspond to the seventh day of creation is intended to have a time limit associated with it depends on the context. For example, we don't assume that the seventh year of the seven-year cycle of Leviticus 25:1-7 was meant to be endless.

You write:

"Some later ante-Nicene christians, who were 'premillers' did put a limit on that day, but Barnabas didn't. Yes, I agree with you that it does make sense in a premillennial framework, but I don't think you can use Barnabas like you can the others. For unlike the others, Barnabas didn't do that."

Again, Pseudo-Barnabas' reference to an eighth day suggests a limit to the seventh day. And while a person could view the seven days of creation as a model for seven periods of world history without believing that the seventh day is as long as the previous days, it was more common in the ante-Nicene era to view the seventh day as of equal length. And the more natural reading of such a parallel with the creation week would be to expect each day to last the same amount of time, as they do in our calendars. If you want to argue for a change in the duration of the seventh day and argue that the seventh day never ends, despite a reference to an eighth day, then the ball is in your court. It's not my responsibility to prove that there isn't a discontinuity in the length of days or to prove that somebody would refer to an eighth day when he considers the seventh day endless. I'm taking the text in a more natural sense. You're arguing for a more unusual reading.

And your reference to "later ante-Nicene Christians" will need to be supported with an argument. Justin Martyr associates the millennial kingdom with the equivalence between a day and a thousand years in his debate with Trypho (Dialogue With Trypho, 81), which is set around the year 135. The concept I'm seeing in The Epistle Of Barnabas seems to have been circulating elsewhere in the Christian world around the same time.

You write:

"They came later in time...Commodianus about 250 A.D. I don't know where he is from, but according to Newadvent he imated ' Tertullian, Lactantius, and Papias.' The site also makes note that in one of his works he seems to of read of St. Cyprian's 'Testimonia'."

You keep resorting to that same bad argument, even after it's been refuted repeatedly. Again, the fact that one source is later than another doesn't suggest that the later source derived its beliefs from the earlier source. And the fact that Commodianus "seems to have read St. Cyprian's 'Testimonia'" doesn't suggest that Commodianus derived his premillennialism from that source.

By your own admission, your theory of how premillennialism spread is a "guess". You write:

"Now I could be wrong in all of this, but It seems like a decent guess."

You just assume, without evidence, that whatever would be needed to sustain your theory occurred. That's not convincing.

As I've said before, if we were to accept your theory about the origin and popularizing of premillennialism, you would still have to explain why so many people who allegedly had a contrary eschatology from other apostles and a larger number of apostles would give up their eschatology in order to adopt premillennialism. What does such a scenario, in which Christian leaders in so many locations keep abandoning their apostolic eschatology in favor of a false eschatology, suggest about the degree of credibility you've been assigning to the Christians of the patristic era?

You write:

"I disagree about the wieght of probability, especially when one wiegh in the Alexandrian hermeneutical method. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Epistle of Barnabas did come from Alexandria, which is what the majority view is. Their hermeneutical method was different than that of Modern day Turkey."

I haven't made any appeal to the "hermeneutical method...of modern-day Turkey". The premillennial parallel between the days of creation and world history wasn't confined to Asia Minor. And an appeal to an "Alexandrian hermeneutical method" isn't as relevant as the text that we find in The Epistle Of Barnabas. The author of that document wasn't obligated to follow a method of interpretation found in other Alexandrian sources, and even if he did so in general, we would still have to make case-by-case judgments. I've explained why my interpretation makes more sense than yours in the case of chapter 15 of The Epistle Of Barnabas.

You write:

"You are making a claim that the premill view was widespread by 130 A.D. I doubt that. Maybe around 200 A.D. but I doubt it was that popular around 130 A.D."

Papias was a premillennialist. And he claims to have gotten his premillennialism from an earlier source. Irenaeus refers to multiple elders who were disciples of the apostle John and premillennialists. Justin Martyr's references to the existence of "many" premillennialists (Dialogue With Trypho, 80) and non-Christian awareness of premillennialism (Trypho mentions it) come from a debate set around the year 135. It would have taken some time for premillennialism to have spread and to have been discussed as much as is suggested in Justin's debate with Trypho. And the popularity of the doctrine in the remainder of the second century and beyond makes more sense if it was popular earlier.

You write:

"Alot of churches didn't even have the book, so how would they know about a 1,000 year earthly reign?...And Saint John didn't really travel that much in order for the book to have multiple origins."

The fact that Revelation is the earliest extant source that premillennialists cite for an explicit reference to the millennial kingdom doesn't prove that the belief originated there or could only have spread early on by means of the book of Revelation. Even if the concept originated with the writing of Revelation, John could have communicated the concept orally as well. Papias and Irenaeus claim to have received information on the millennial kingdom through oral means or claim that one or more of their sources received it in that manner. And people who had read Revelation would communicate with other people and would travel. Papias tells us that he received some of his information about Christianity from people who traveled to his area. Revelation was initially sent to seven churches, which would multiply the opportunities for circulation of the document and for the furthering of the information contained in the document by various means.

You write:

"If one looks at both the times and place of those that supported 'pre-mill' in their writings then one can see land marks of how it spread from the east to the west to North western Africa."

The fact that a doctrine originates in a location, such as somewhere in Asia Minor, doesn't tell us whether it came from an apostle in that location or from somebody else in that location. Your theory that the doctrine originated in Asia Minor, then went West through sources like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus doesn't tell us whether the source of the doctrine in Asia Minor was apostolic. And an origin in Asia Minor wouldn't imply that the means by which the doctrine arrived in other regions must be traceable through the literature extant to us today. Justin Martyr refers to the doctrine as having been accepted by many Christians prior to the middle of the second century, the non-Christian Trypho had heard about it prior to the middle of the second century, and it's found in The Epistle Of Barnabas, outside of Asia Minor, prior to the middle of the century. The process of spreading the doctrine was already well underway before Justin and Irenaeus attained the height of their influence.

And the influence they had during their lifetimes can't be equated with their later influence through their being canonized as Saints, the spreading of their literature through the printing press, etc. Why would we expect somebody like Justin to convince Christian leaders to abandon their apostolic eschatology and adopt his false eschatology? Again, what does such a scenario, in which Christian leaders in so many locations keep abandoning their apostolic eschatology in favor of a false eschatology brought to them by travelers from other locations, suggest about the degree of credibility you've been assigning to the Christians of the patristic era?

You write:

"It doesn't 'infallibly' mean that, but if these people later in time were familier with the works of Irenaeus & Justin then I don't see a problem with assuming that."

I didn't suggest that infallibility is needed. You haven't even shown that your view is probable or preferable to mine.

Do you apply the same reasoning to other sources with regard to other beliefs and practices? What if I would argue that a doctrine appearing in Clement of Rome came from him, not from the apostles, and would claim that later sources who advocate the doctrine derived it from Clement? Would the fact that men like Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus refer to Clement's letter to the Corinthians be sufficient evidence that Dionysius and Irenaeus agree with Clement's doctrine only because of Clement's influence? What if I were to keep assuming that later sources advocating the doctrine derived it from Clement or from some other source influenced by Clement? And what if, when people pointed out to me that I'm speculating and can't demonstrate my conclusion to be probable or preferable to an alternative, I responded by saying that my theory is "a decent guess"?

You write:

"I use to believe in Premill and I switched/changed when I became Orthodox. It wasn't that hard for me. Unlike some forms of western amill or post mill. The christian East still believes in a future anti-christ. And maybe even a future tribulation."

You've claimed that premillennialism is a heresy, one significant enough that it would allegedly be condemned by an ecumenical council, and you've told us that Eastern Orthodox aren't allowed to try to spread the doctrine, if they hold it. You can mention some similarities between premillennialism and some other types of eschatology, but there are significant differences as well. And the early patristic Christians were in a significantly different historical context than yours. Even if it "wasn't that hard" to move from some other eschatology to premillennialism, you still ought to explain why so many of the ante-Nicene Christians supposedly would have made such a move after receiving a non-premillennial eschatology from one or more of the apostles.

You write:

"In your form of pre-mill, but you are trying to use the ancients to defend your form of pre-mill."

First of all, this discussion didn't begin as a means for me to defend my form of premillennialism. Rather, I was responding to some claims you made about church history.

And if Clement of Rome's comments don't contradict my form of premillennialism, why are we supposed to believe that they contradict ante-Nicene premillennialism? It's not as though my belief that Christ's rulership consists of more than the millennial kingdom is a concept that the ante-Nicene premillennialists would reject. If they did reject it, then that fact would make your view of church history even more implausible. If premillennialists like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus intended their premillennialism to involve a denial that Christ reigns from Heaven prior to the millennium, then they had some problems with their belief system significantly worse than the alleged error of premillennialism.

Your evidence that Clement of Rome was an amillennialist is insufficient. Instead of explaining how his comments supposedly would contradict premillennialism, you've just made a vague reference to how his comments don't contradict my premillennialism, but might contradict that of the ante-Nicene sources. If you want to argue that there is a contradiction between Clement's comments and the beliefs of the ante-Nicene premillennialists, then you'll need to explain why we're supposed to believe that there's a contradiction.

You write:

"But note 41 does condemn 'premillennialism'. You are correct in that it explicitly condemned a certain kind of pre-millennialism. However, it also gives an interpretation on how chapter should be interpreted."

You're referring to a note written by a later commentator. Who is the commentator, and why are we supposed to believe that his views represent what First Constantinople meant? I still haven't seen anything from the council itself that supports your conclusion.

You write:

"It took a while for the second council to be embraced as 'ecumenical'."

That's one possible explanation for why premillennialism continued to be accepted by mainstream Christians. It's also possible that part of the reason why premillennialism continued to be accepted was because people weren't interpreting First Constantinople the way you're interpreting it. You haven't given us any reason to prefer your explanation.

You write:

"But yes, it is true that everyone in the east didn't use it [the book of Revelation]. Or just didn't have it."

Your original claim was that most Christians rejected Revelation. You didn't include qualifiers like "in the East" or that some people "just didn't have it". Saying that some people in the East didn't have or didn't use Revelation isn't the same as saying that most Christians rejected it. As I've argued here, the evidence suggests that Revelation was widely accepted early on in the West and East.

You write:

"Only by putting words in my mouth. He [Gene Bridges] implied it from what I said in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity. But these are two different topics."

You made comments about apostolic teaching and the transmission of it in the ancient church. The fact that you were discussing Trinitarian doctrine doesn't lead to the conclusion that the principles you laid out are only applicable to Trinitarian doctrine. That's a qualification you didn't make in your original comments, and it's a qualification you haven't yet justified.

You write:

"The finger is pointed at Saint Papias"

You keep telling us that "the finger is pointed at" Papias with regard to the origin of premillennialism, but I've explained why that unsupported assertion is unconvincing. Again, Papias tells us that his premillennialism came from an earlier source, and that source isn't Revelation 20. Irenaeus refers to disciples of John who believed in premillennialism, and there’s no reason to think that they got the doctrine from Papias. Justin Martyr refers to premillennialism as already popular around the year 135, and I see no reason to think that those premillennialists Justin refers to, as well as Justin himself, derived the doctrine from Papias. And the doctrine is in The Epistle Of Barnabas around the same time, probably in Egypt.

You write:

"Saint John lived and died in that region, and that's why, I was very careful to say it, in the way I did."

The apostle Paul died in Rome. The papacy later became popular in that location, and the claim was made that it was an apostolic tradition. Would you therefore call the papacy an "apostolic tradition"?

Even if you would, that's not how the term is usually used. When people refer to something as an apostolic tradition, they usually mean that it's a tradition that actually came from the apostles, not that it's a post-apostolic tradition that arose in an area where an apostle had been.

As I said earlier, either your argument is wrong or you're a poor communicator. Why are we supposed to have known that you meant "apostolic tradition" in the highly unusual sense in which you now claim you meant it?

You write:

"However, in regards to premill, I didn't want to point the finger at Saint John himself. Eventhough the view was tought by one of his flock."

You initially said that Asia Minor in general was premillennial. You also said that if one person who heard an apostle misrepresented what the apostle said, then the majority would correct that one who was mistaken. How, then, did premillennialism become the view of Asia Minor in general, as you said it was? If you want to argue that most of those in Asia Minor rejected premillennialism initially, then why didn't you say so earlier, and where's your evidence?

You write:

"What I said in regards to the topic of the doctrine of the Trinity, should stay with that topic. What I said in regards to 'premill' shouldn't be interchanged with another conversation."

In other words, you don't want to be held accountable for an apparent inconsistency that you haven't explained. You don't want the standards you argued for in a discussion about a Trinitarian doctrine to be applied to a discussion about eschatology, even though you still haven't explained why such a distinction should be made. We should make the distinction because you tell us to.

You write:

"And remember, your view is that 'most pre-nicen christians' believed in pre-mill."

That's not what I said. Your use of quotation marks is misleading, since you aren't quoting or even paraphrasing something I said. I do believe that premillennialism was the majority view early on, but my argument with you hasn't depended upon that position.

You write:

"'Eusebius was certainly speaking for a large body of theological opinion in the East when he called Papias's millenarianism 'bizarre' and rather mythological.' [13] page 129 Around the sametime Lactantius and Victorinus lived. The Majority view in the east was non premill."

Your quote from Jaroslav Pelikan doesn't refer to a majority. Even if it did, your original claims involved more than the East and more than the timeframe of Lactantius and Victorinus.

You write:

"You had Caius from Rome, that argued against the view, and he lived around 215 A.D. You had Origen and Dionysius from Alexandria who both fought against the view. Origen lived from 185 A.D. to about 255 A.D. And Dionysius was ordained a Bishop around the 247 A.D. and he mentioned that there were people before his time, that rejected the book. The window for a premill majority is small."

I've already cited earlier sources, a larger number of sources, and sources from a wider variety of backgrounds, dispositions, and locations in support of premillennialism. And I can cite more. If "the window for a premillennial majority is small", then the window for a majority who rejected the position is much smaller.

You write:

"it wasn't in the Divine liturgy of Eastern christian churches"

You can't assume that later rejection of Revelation reflects an earlier rejection when we have so much evidence to the contrary. The evidence suggests that Revelation was widely accepted in the East early on, as I've argued in another thread.

You said:

"You can believe a book to be inspired without having it in your canon. And this is what you had back then."

You offer no documentation. Are you saying that Dionysius of Alexandria didn't view Revelation as scripture? That most Christians didn't? I see no reason to accept either position. See, for example, the relevant sources discussed in Bruce Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Regarding Dionysius of Alexandria in particular, see his comments preserved in Eusebius' Church History 7:24-25. Dionysius cites Revelation 22:7-8 with approval and suggests his agreement with the entirety of the book, and he refers to his view of the book as a matter of "faith". He refers to the author of Revelation as a prophet, and he refers to how that author had received prophecies and revelation. We don't normally associate that sort of language with non-canonical literature. The possibility that a Christian would refer to non-canonical literature in such a way doesn't overturn the probability that he meant to refer to canonicity. And we know that Revelation was viewed as scripture in Alexandria shortly before his time, as reflected in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Considering how high the authority claims are in Revelation (Jesus is portrayed as commanding the writing of the book, the author claims to be writing the words of God, those who add to it or take from it are condemned, etc.), the sort of middle position you're suggesting (inspired, but not scripture) is unlikely to have been held by many people.

You write:

"I disagree, the unverifiable speculation is assuming that the book as well as the interpretation of chapter 20 came from muliple origins. You probably assume that all the Apostle tought it."

No, I don't assume that all of the apostles taught premillennialism. The doctrine should be accepted even if it was taught by only one apostolic source. But we don't know how many apostolic sources taught it, nor do we know what the apostle John or his disciples in particular did to spread it. Your claim that we can "point the finger" at Papias is dubious, for reasons I've explained, and it's doubtful that the book of Revelation and premillennialism were disseminated as slowly as you've suggested.

You write:

"So you think that all the Apostles tought premill?"

No. When I said that the apostles were united in doctrine, I meant that they didn't contradict one another. That was the context I was addressing. I don't deny that some apostolic doctrines arose without the knowledge of one or more of the apostles. For example, John's brother James died early in church history (Acts 12:2), before some revelations were received by other apostles. I would deny that James contradicted premillennialism, but I wouldn't argue that he was aware of the doctrine.

You write:

"The fact that they had to prove where their view came from by pointing at tradition, only shows that their was opposition."

No, somebody can describe the origin of his beliefs without doing so in response to opposition to those beliefs. And even if we were to assume opposition, we would have to ask what the nature of that opposition was. Was it opposition from a minority of orthodox Christians? Opposition from a heretic or heretical group? The fact that Papias and Irenaeus appeal to extra-Biblical tradition in support of premillennialism doesn't, by itself, suggest that the doctrine was being opposed, much less opposed to the degree you've suggested.

I doubt that you're so dismissive of appeals to extra-Biblical tradition among the church fathers when those appeals are made in support of your beliefs. If you had evidence for prayers to the dead or the veneration of images comparable to the evidence for premillennialism, I doubt that you'd be so dismissive of it.

17 comments:

  1. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Epistle of Barnabas did come from Alexandria, which is what the majority view is. Their hermeneutical method was different than that of Modern day Turkey.

    Spot on.

    And I also have to agree with JNorm888 here: the texts You've provided (save Justin Martyr and perhaps Tertullian) don't seem to put a limit to the Seventh Day. And I'm sure it's absurd to imply so by reading into them (by way of eisegesis) what they've never actually said. -- not that I have something against eisegesis >:) but it's just that I'll rather couple their words with the Book of Genesis (2:1-3) rather than other fringe opinions.

    And -again- it's not like Your Protestant Premillennialism does such a good job at resembling that of the Fathers:
    -- do You follow the LXX version of Genesis? (Because that's the only one that puts Christ in the 6th day as the New Adam). NO, You DON'T!
    -- are Your ready to accept that the Byzantine Empire was that earthly Kingdom? :-\ I don't think so ...
    -- St. Cyprian spoke in those chapters You've refered at of the Seven Maccabean Martyrs and that of their mother -- You ready to do the same? Again: I wholehearttedly doubt THAT! >:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. LVKA wrote:

    "Spot on."

    And you make no effort to interact with my response to the argument of Jnorm that allegedly is "spot on".

    You write:

    "And I also have to agree with JNorm888 here: the texts You've provided (save Justin Martyr and perhaps Tertullian) don't seem to put a limit to the Seventh Day."

    You aren't agreeing with Jnorm on that point, since he didn't make the same argument you're making. And I've answered your assertions on this issue elsewhere.

    You write:

    "not that I have something against eisegesis >:)"

    Yes, your eisegesis is another example of your low view of scripture.

    You write:

    "I'll rather couple their words with the Book of Genesis (2:1-3) rather than other fringe opinions."

    And how do you know that these patristic sources interpreted Genesis as you do on this point?

    You write:

    "And -again- it's not like Your Protestant Premillennialism does such a good job at resembling that of the Fathers"

    That wasn't the issue I was addressing, but I can understand why you'd want to change the subject, as you often do.

    You write:

    "do You follow the LXX version of Genesis? (Because that's the only one that puts Christ in the 6th day as the New Adam). NO, You DON'T!"

    So, premillennialism includes the issue of whether a person follows the Septuagint version of Genesis? Can you cite a single historian, patristic scholar, or theologian who defines premillennialism in that manner? Who, besides you, claims that a comparison between ancient and modern premillennialism should involve a comparison between how the relevant sources viewed the Septuagint version of Genesis?

    You write:

    "are Your ready to accept that the Byzantine Empire was that earthly Kingdom?"

    No, and that wasn't the view of the premillennial fathers either.

    You write:

    "St. Cyprian spoke in those chapters You've refered at of the Seven Maccabean Martyrs and that of their mother -- You ready to do the same? Again: I wholehearttedly doubt THAT!"

    Again, can you cite a single historian, patristic scholar, or theologian who defines premillennialism in such a manner as to include that issue as something that defines premillennialism?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Bible teaches pre-millennialism. That's what matters. It's interesting that this or that patristics did or did not hold some form of it, but that's all it is. Interesting. They weren't divinely inspired, and the canon closed with Revelation. Christ didn't "promise the Spirit to the Church." He promised the authority to write and judge new revelations to the Apostles only. So the Orthodox huffing and puffing about which patristic father wrote what is much ado about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Spot on.

    Yes: spot on! You Yourselves posted on this very blog various essays on the interpretative differences between the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools.

    I'm also glad to see that the way St. Paul and Jesus interpreted Scripture is lower than Your presumably "high" view of the Bible. -- a view so "high" and exalted that fails short on EVERY CONCEIVABLE point. (Sola Fide, GHM)

    So, premillennialism includes the issue of whether a person follows the Septuagint version of Genesis? Can you cite a single historian, patristic scholar, or theologian who defines premillennialism in that manner? Who, besides you, claims that a comparison between ancient and modern premillennialism should involve a comparison between how the relevant sources viewed the Septuagint version of Genesis?

    You write:

    "are Your ready to accept that the Byzantine Empire was that earthly Kingdom?"


    Jason dearest, are You also BLIND now, as opposed to Your usual one-sidedness? :-|
    -- do the Premillennialist Fathers You keep mentioning OVER AND OVER again follow the MT chronology OR the LXX chronology?
    -- the they posit an earthly Christian Kingdom in the time-frame 6,000 AM - 7,000 AM?

    WELL: DO THEY, OR DON'T THEY !? (Wise-guy!) :-|

    Again, can you cite a single historian, patristic scholar, or theologian who defines premillennialism in such a manner as to include that issue as something that defines premillennialism?

    No, but I can cite You the wikipedi article on hypocrsy and schizophrenia, if You so desire. (Smart-guy!).

    YOU DISGUST ME ! :-| LIAR!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, but I can cite You the wikipedi article on hypocrsy and schizophrenia, if You so desire. (Smart-guy!).

    YOU DISGUST ME ! :-| LIAR!!!


    Lvka,

    You've been warned about your demagoguery at least once.

    This is your second warning.

    One more, and it's a permaban - period. You get no say so here on this. Don't even bother replying to us on this issue. You will be made to disappear should you try. You are adding nothing to this conversation as it is, because you are, yet again, asserting your position without arguing for it, and you are repeating arguments we've already addressed. Shape up or ship out.

    I'm also glad to see that the way St. Paul and Jesus interpreted Scripture is lower than Your presumably "high" view of the Bible.

    You're not an Apostle. You're certainly not Jesus. Nobody who ever used allegorical interpretation ever claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Do you interpret the Fathers from Alexandria allegorically too? No.

    The GHM makes allowances for the use of allegory, intertextuality, and typology. It's a pity you can't even represent what the GHM does correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Only by putting words in my mouth. He [Gene Bridges] implied it from what I said in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity. But these are two different topics."

    No, the problem here is that you, JNORM, gave an original argument. When confronted with premillenialism, you started adding caveats not in the original argument. Then we wound up with a multiple choice argument from you such that what you originally stated was only applicable to Trinitarianism but not to premillenialism. Why? Because they aren't the same topics.

    1. You didn't say that in your original argument.
    2. You added that qualification after you made your original argument.
    3. You've given us no supporting argument for one argument applying to one topic but not the other.

    The fact that you had to introduce these qualifications and caveats not in the original is a tacit admission that the original argument was a failure.

    It's dishonest to claim that we put words in your mouth. We merely followed your argument for you, because you couldn't keep track of it yourself and you kept introducing caveats as face saving manuevers

    "What I said in regards to the topic of the doctrine of the Trinity, should stay with that topic. What I said in regards to 'premill' shouldn't be interchanged with another conversation."

    1. But the reason premillenialism was introduced was in the discussion about the Trinity to demonstrate that you aren't consistent with your own criterion.

    2. You don't get to stipulate what we write here. This isn't your blog.

    3. We never changed the topic, because you're the one that started whittering on about "apostolic tradition." We merely took what you said about AT and applied it elsewhere, and you did us the favor of falling for that move and thereby demonstrating that your criterion actually moves on a sliding scale as you see fit.

    "I disagree, the unverifiable speculation is assuming that the book as well as the interpretation of chapter 20 came from muliple origins. You probably assume that all the Apostle tought it."

    This assumes, without benefit of argument, that the Apostles taught a mature eschatology like amillenialism, premillenialism, or post-millenialism, probably because you assume, without benefit of argument, that they taught a developed version of Trintarianism like that in the Nicene Creed qua Creed or a developed Christology like Chalcedon or explicitly denied particular views like monotheletism.

    But's that a nonsequitur.

    a. To know that, you'd have to have it documented. Where can we find the specific eschatological views of any Apostle? As I recall, elsewhere you said we couldn't know what John actually believed and taught about such a thing.

    b. All we can document for sure is what they left in writing. That would be what the Bible contains.

    c. All they need have taught orally is that Christ would return. All they need have said is what they recalled Jesus teaching Himself in the Olivet Discourse or what the Spirit later told or showed them in a vision, as with John. The actually interpretation of that into a developed model like premillenialism or amillenialism, etc. need never have been actually taught. We Protestants do not go about running around claiming "this is for sure what they taught on this topic." That's your rule of faith, not ours - and that is only true, if we follow your argument, because of what some council later said, not what the Apostle qua Apostles are known to have taught and believed. So, you make AT superfluous; what's really important to you is what a council said, not what the Apostles taught.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're not an Apostle. You're certainly not Jesus. Nobody who ever used allegorical interpretation ever claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Except St. Paul. (Galatians 4:24)

    And You don't have to be Jesus and St. Paul: You have to be a Christian and follow in their footsteps, as they've repeatedly asked us to.

    And You can't prove that *ONLY* Jesus and St. Paul were "allowed" to offer this standard, Second Temple interpretative method.

    And I didn't make You into a liar, Jason: You did. :-| Your hard-neckedness and hard-heartedness with which You constanly and persistently resist truth is demonic or satanic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And since we're talking Revelation here, here's a little something to ponder about:

    Revelation 22:11
     He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Except St. Paul. (Galatians 4:24)

    And You don't have to be Jesus and St. Paul: You have to be a Christian and follow in their footsteps, as they've repeatedly asked us to.


    Paul and Jesus never said we should interpret the Scriptures allegorically.

    Paul wrote under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    You're confusing typology and allegory. The GHM allows for the truth of texts like Galatians 4 to be known.

    Paul may have been divorced by his wife. Jesus never married. I take it you plan to divorce or not marry, and you recommend all Christians follow those examples too.

    To quote Steve:
    Allegory doesn't select for a "spiritual" meaning. You could just as well allegorize Scripture to extract a "carnal" meaning.

    Allegory has no external controls. You can extract whatever you want from the text using the allegorical method. You could interpret Gal 2:20 allegorically to signify our life in Antichrist.

    The allegorical method is an exercise in mirror reading.


    We've also dealt with this before:

    Does St. Paul embrace the allegorical method in Gal 4? Here’s some of what Moisés Silva has to say:

    “Some scholars argue that the passage uses a typological approach to the Genesis narrative, but many others are convinced that the apostle is treating us here to a full-blown allegorical interpretation. After all, he begins 4:24 with the words ‘which things are spoken [or ‘interpreted’] allegorically.” We must not simply assume, however, that his use of the verb allegoreo (from allos [‘other’] and agoreuo [’speak’]) corresponds to what modern scholars mean when they speak of ‘allegorical interpretation’ (see Davis 2004),” G. Beale & D. A. Carson, Eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker 2007), 808.

    “Paul nowhere in his writings gives any hint that he rejects the historical character of biblical narrative or even minimizes its significance. Moreover, it could be argued that the apostle himself provides a clue to his meaning by using the verb systoicheo in the very next verse: ‘Now Hagar…corresponds to [systoichei] the present Jerusalem’ (4:25). In contrast to Philo, Paul casts no doubts on either the factual nature or the historical value of the Genesis narrative…Indeed, some of his comments here (e.g., ‘For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman’ [4:22]; “But just as at that time the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one [born] according to the Spirit, so also now’ [4:29]) are clear affirmations of factual events upon which the apostle builds his argument,” ibid. 808.

    “Thus, if it turns out that Paul is pointing out a correspondence between two historical realities, we may with good reason regard his reading of Genesis as ‘typological’ rather than ‘allegorical.’ The central theological truth with which he is concerned is the contrast between Spirit and flesh: God works according to the former, while sinners depend on the latter. This contrast has manifested itself in a notable way at various points throughout (redemptive) history. It did during the patriarchal period, and it does now at the fullness of time (4:4), ibid. 808.

    “In addition to these considerations, one should keep in mind the place of 4:21-31 within the argument as a whole. It can be argued that Paul had completed his scriptural demonstration at the end of chapter 3 and that the present paragraph is intended not as some kind of logical, exegetical proof, but rather as a climactic, forceful finale directed at those who claim to subject themselves to the law (4:21),” ibid. 808.

    “In any case, the very fact that Paul nowhere else uses this approach (1 Cor 10:4 provides only a partial analogy, while 9:9 does not deal with an OT narrative) should be a warning against drawing major conclusions on the basis of Paul’s use of the Sarah/Hagar analogy,” ibid. 808.
    And You can't prove that *ONLY* Jesus and St. Paul were "allowed" to offer this standard, Second Temple interpretative method.

    You're not an Apostle.

    Nobody in Alexandria claimed to be under the inspiration of the Spirit when using allegorical methodology.

    Your appeal is highly selective, and since you don't interpret the Fathers allegorically, your inconsistency is manifest for the world.

    And I didn't make You into a liar, Jason: You did. :-| Your hard-neckedness and hard-heartedness with which You constanly and persistently resist truth is demonic or satanic.


    Strike 3 Lvka. You were warned.

    I vote for a permaban.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Strike 3 Lvka. You were warned.

    I vote for a permaban
    .

    I'll support Jason here: he has my vote also: I'm pretty disgusted with myself after this incident of ill-memory, and I wouldn't want that to happen again either. (And if You won't ban me, I'm affraid I won't be able to resist the temptation of the "eternal return" to this blog either). Trust me, it's far more better this way for everybody involved. Bye and adieu!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Speaking of schizophrenia...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jason,


    Is it your view that the Apostles tought a "premill" position?

    Is this the reason why you believe it was a majority view early on? If so then you are workig from a different paradigm than myself.

    I do not believe Jesus tought a premill position from 30 A.d. to 33A.D.

    I do not believe any of the apostles tought a premill position from 33A.D. to about 70 something A.d.

    Infanct, in order to have a premill "interpretation" of Revelation chapter 20. You must first have the book of Revelation itself.

    The book did not come into being until 70 something A.D. to about 90 something A.D.


    And only one Apostle had it in their possession at that time.

    The book was made known to the public around 90 something A.D. when Saint John was freed from the Island of Patmos.

    And this is why I keep saying that it couldn't of been the Majority position early on. Infanct, I don't even belief it ever was "thee" majority view. I think it became a popular view around 200 A.D.

    But it seems that you and I are working from two different paradigms.


    Also I would like to ask you one more question.

    Are you a "Dispensationalist" or a "Historic" premill.




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jason,

    why did you ban Lvka? You didn't have to ban him. You guys at triablog banned two Orthodox people that I know of.

    Why are you banning Orthodox people?




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Why are you banning Orthodox people?"

    Because you guys make repeated assertions without backing up your claims when we challenge you.

    You repeat the assertions without supporting argument (or counter-counter argument) after we give arguments against the assertions.

    After you guys repeat the assertions too many times for our patience, you degenerate into ad-hominem in response to our frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh yeah, and one more thing:

    On the odd occasion that you do try to give a counter-argument, it is usually hand-waiving, a double-standard, begging-the-question, or some other logical fallacy that a freshman philosophy student would be able to avoid using. That's so annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jason,

    why did you ban Lvka? You didn't have to ban him. You guys at triablog banned two Orthodox people that I know of.

    Why are you banning Orthodox people?


    To anticipate the inevitable response that this is discriminatory...

    1. We've issued warnings. These bans do not come suddenly. I've issued the warnings several times myself - and I've done so while on vacation from writing articles here.

    2. Moreover, I've let my email pile up while on vacation, as I always do while on vacation. That's how people know I'm on vacation. It says a lot that I can issue warnings that capture the feeling of the other writers here when I haven't been part of any offline discussions about who to ban and why.

    3.Follow the comboxes where the warnings have been issued. You should be able to figure out why.

    4.Bans get issued here when you all get repetitive and we don't feel you are adding to the conversation. Generally, however, we'll let you hang yourself in that regard - but when you start playing demagogue, we'll jerk the leash for you. When you start lacing comments with invective, it gets jerked again. When you start playing like you get to set the terms of this blog, as if you own this blog, it gets jerked more tightly.

    5. And bans and warnings aren't issued due to the content of what you write, as much as they way you behave.

    6. We've warned others besides the Orthodox, and we've banned more than just Orthodox persons.

    7. One of the Orthodox people that was banned tried to defy his ban. He posted anonymously. He went for a number of days and behaved like a toddler. Indeed, he got himself into the nasty habit of not using his own blog while using ours and those others to communicate, and he kept doing it after we confronted him with that behavior. Let's not pretend he did not earn his ban.

    Finally, it may behoove you to read the rules to remind yourself that there is no court of appeal here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jnorm888 said:

    "Is it your view that the Apostles tought a 'premill' position?"

    I've addressed that issue in the post at the beginning of this thread.

    You write:

    "Infanct, in order to have a premill 'interpretation' of Revelation chapter 20. You must first have the book of Revelation itself."

    As I explain in the first post in this thread, John and other apostolic sources could have taught premillennialism orally. It seems unlikely that John would have circulated Revelation without participating in any oral discussion of eschatology. Aside from the reasonable assumption that the apostles would have orally taught much of what they wrote about eschatology, we don't know much about what they taught orally on the subject. Your attempts to limit the earliest premillennialism to Asia Minor and the interpretation of Revelation 20 are unconvincing. There were many opportunities for premillennialism to have been disseminated outside of the book of Revelation, both before Revelation was written and afterward, multiple early sources tell us that the doctrine was transmitted orally and describe some of the details, and the doctrine is found in sources other than Papias, including outside of Asia Minor, around the time when Papias wrote.

    You write:

    "And this is why I keep saying that it couldn't of been the Majority position early on. Infanct, I don't even belief it ever was 'thee' majority view. I think it became a popular view around 200 A.D."

    The number of extant ante-Nicene sources opposed to premillennialism is much smaller than the number supporting it. As I've said above, if a doctrine like prayers to the dead or the veneration of images had that sort of popularity - supported as early as Papias, attributed to multiple disciples of the apostle John, supported by multiple accounts of early oral tradition, advocated by a much larger number of extant ante-Nicene sources than opposed it, etc. - I doubt that you would be so critical. If the early patristic support for premillennialism isn't enough for you, then you must consider the early patristic support for something like the perpetual virginity of Mary, prayers to the dead, or the veneration of images even more unsatisfactory.

    You write:

    "Are you a 'Dispensationalist' or a 'Historic' premill."

    I don't know how you're defining those terms. Different sources define them in different ways. Dispensationalism comes in more than one form, and there are many areas of eschatology I haven't studied much. I'm more confident about some beliefs, like premillennialism, than I am about other beliefs, like the timing of the rapture. I believe in a personal Antichrist, a future tribulation, and a future conversion of national Israel, to cite a few examples. My beliefs are largely similar to some common definitions of dispensationalism, but I disagree with or have no confident opinion about some of the beliefs associated with dispensationalism.

    You write:

    "why did you ban Lvka?"

    Gene and I have explained why in both of the threads linked in the post announcing his banning.

    You write:

    "Why are you banning Orthodox people?"

    Because they've deserved it, for reasons we've explained.

    ReplyDelete