In another thread, Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox, writes:
"But I already handled some of your arguments when dealing with a Supra - full-preterist Prespyterian."
Here's part of what Jnorm888 writes in the two articles he links us to, regarding premillennialism (here and here):
"only the christians from Ashia Minor were mostly PM [premillennial]. Ashia minor is where Saint John mostly lived and died, and so the Apostolic Tradition that came from his region mostly held on to 'Chilism'. Justin Martyre and some others who were from that region but moved to Rome later in life spread that teaching to other parts of Christiandom....You also mentioned Justin, but like I said before. HE was from the same region, and he later moved west, and spread that form of eschatology to other parts of the christian world. the same is true with Saint Irenaeus....Most christians rejected the book of Revelations, So most christians never had a pre-mill view to begin with....If you are going to mention Historic PM then you are going to have to use the Church as being the final authority. It was the Church at a euceminical council that took a stand on the issue....You have to use the standard of the time. And at that time, the Apostolic tradition of Saint John (on this issue) was trumped by the Apostolic traditions of Mark, Andrew, Peter, and Paul. The Christians in Ashia minor had a little more detail about end time views that other regions didn't have. And they lost the fight, just like they lost the fight some centuries earlyier at the council of Nicea, in regards to Pascha observance. The christians in Ashia minor were at one time called ' quartodecimans' (because they observed Pascha on the same day the Jews observed Passover, which was Nisan 14) This custom came from John, so the christians in his region did what he did. But they lost the fight at the council of Nicea, because the other Apostles (in other regions) did it differently. So they were trumped. I don't see a problem with it. The Circumcision group were trumped at the very first Church council. And they were fighting for the customs of Moses. This is what happens King Neb, and you shouldn't see a problem with it. Certain customs & beliefs/interpretations get trumped by other customs & beliefs/interpretations.....that are also ancient....Everything in ancient PM was not declared heretical. Only the literal 1,000 earthly year riegn of Christ, and their carnal view of Paradise in that 1,000 year riegn...You had two competing views. One group from Ashia minor that believed in a literal 1,000 year reign and embraced the book of Revelations. And those who either rejected Revelations, or just didn't embrace it. And these were the christians that did not believe in a literal 1,000 earthly reign of Christ....But alot of modern PMers don't know that PM was declared heretical in the 6th century, so for the most part it's a view held in ignorance. I know when I was PM, I didn't know it was heretical until some years ago....My Godfather is a PMer(ancient PM. He picked it up from some of the early fathers & nonfathers). He is not suppose to be, because he's ORthodox. But as long as he's not dogmatic about his PMism, and as long as he doesn't try to spread it to others then he is still allowed to partake of cummunion. So yeah, it's a heresy, but it's not a bad bad heresy. There are different levels of heresies/sins/error.....ect....What we don't see in scripture is error from followers of the Apostles who miss heard what they said. The Apostles spoke to the masses, so in order for their followers to get them wrong is for everyone to miss understand them"
Apparently, then, without offering much supporting argumentation or documentation, Jnorm888 wants us to believe that:
- The apostle John taught premillennialism, but he was wrong. The Christians in Asia Minor "had a little more detail about end time views that other regions didn't have. And they lost the fight". Apparently, they were mistaken because they accepted the "details" John gave them. The apostle led them astray.
- The book of Revelation, which the large majority of professing Christians today accept as canonical, was rejected as uncanonical by most of the earliest Christians, and the book taught a false view of eschatology. It can be reinterpreted in an orthodox manner, but the book was initially written with the intention of conveying false eschatology.
- The reason why men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus advocated premillennialism and spoke of it as if it was the mainstream Christian view when they were outside of Asia Minor is because they were at the forefront of spreading the belief to other regions. Apparently, men like Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian accepted premillennialism under the influence of men like Justin and Irenaeus. We aren't told why premillennialism would be so widely accepted outside of Asia Minor if it had initially been rejected in such places. We aren't told how Jnorm888 allegedly knows that the doctrine was spread in the manner he suggests.
- Premillennilaism is a heresy condemned by an ecumenical council, but "not a bad bad heresy", and it's acceptable for individuals to hold that heresy, as long as they "aren't dogmatic about it" and don't try to spread it, for example.
Etc.
Christ was born in the year 5,500 after the Expulsion from Paradise, when time first became fully countable and measurable. That's why some Christians that had lived before the beginning of the seventh millennium, in the year 6,000 AM, (which would mean 500 AD) were inclined to speculate about its apocalyptical or eschatological significance. Obviously, that year came and went and nothing happened. Later on, other pious opinions spoke about 7,500 AM, but that year also came and went (1992 AD), and obviously nothing happened. It's unOrthodox to raise pious private speculation to the rank of Dogma (that's what Catholic Scholastics have done at the dawn of the Enlightment and Renaissance, and the consequences for them were disastrous).
ReplyDeleteLVKA wrote:
ReplyDelete"Christ was born in the year 5,500 after the Expulsion from Paradise, when time first became fully countable and measurable. That's why some Christians that had lived before the beginning of the seventh millennium, in the year 6,000 AM, (which would mean 500 AD) were inclined to speculate about its apocalyptical or eschatological significance. Obviously, that year came and went and nothing happened. Later on, other pious opinions spoke about 7,500 AM, but that year also came and went (1992 AD), and obviously nothing happened. It's unOrthodox to raise pious private speculation to the rank of Dogma (that's what Catholic Scholastics have done at the dawn of the Enlightment and Renaissance, and the consequences for them were disastrous)."
Which of my comments are you addressing? I don't know what you're responding to or what you think your response proves.
I was discussing premillennialism. Not all premillennialists set false dates for Christ's second coming, and the premillennialist sources I was discussing cited multiple reasons for believing in premillennialism, including oral tradition that was unrelated to the setting of dates. It's not as though the sort of false setting of dates you describe above was the only argument that was made for premillennialism.
Even if it had been, you haven't explained why these people would have abandoned apostolic eschatology in order to speculate about an eschatology that contradicted what the apostles gave them. How do you reconcile your assessment above with what Jnorm888 has claimed about the reliability of patristic tradition?
If your intention was to address what Jnorm said about the acceptability of believing in premillennialism, as long as one isn't dogmatic about it, etc., I understand the difference between speculation and that which is confirmed. But Jnorm claims that an ecumenical council has condemned premillennialism. He claims that the concept is heresy. There's a difference between, on the one hand, speculating about something your system of authority hasn't commented upon and, on the other hand, believing in something that your system of authority has condemned and considers heresy.
Jnorm claims that an ecumenical council has condemned pre-millennialism
ReplyDeleteUhm, ... and which one would that be? :-/ I certainly don't recall any, and I've just checked the Wikipedia article, and it doesn't mention any either. Pre-millenialism was abandoned and fell into disuse during and after the same century as the one in which Niceea took place, because the time(s) was/were approaching and nothing that was expected to happen happened.
You or JNorm888 mentioned some of the Early Fathers, and I've told You why some speculated about it. St. Paul also seems to have believed that the Second Coming of our Lord would happen in his own life-time ... but it didn't. So it can't be said that it's not Apostolic, but it's not dogma either. Dogma is/are the words of Christ: "for the time and hour of that day's coming knows none: neither men, nor Angels, and not even the Son, but only the Father". Amen.
My own private and personal speculation is that the Kingdom that lasted 1,000 yrs -from 6,000 AM to 7,000 AM-, that is, from 500 AD to 1,500 AD, is Byzantium (which is NOT "THE" Kingdom, but an image or icon of it). It certainly offered liberty of religion and a time of peace and prosperity for the persecuted Roman Christians of Diocletian's pagan Roman Empire, which is the time that Revelations was written. But Christ said: "*MY* Kingdom is *NOT* of *THIS* world".
ReplyDeleteLVKA wrote:
ReplyDelete"Uhm, ... and which one would that be? :-/ I certainly don't recall any, and I've just checked the Wikipedia article, and it doesn't mention any either."
I was responding to Jnorm888 on his own terms. He claimed that an ecumenical council condemned premillennialism. I was addressing the implications of that claim in light of other claims he made.
You write:
"You or JNorm888 mentioned some of the Early Fathers, and I've told You why some speculated about it."
And I've explained why your comments on the subject are inadequate. You're not interacting with what I said.
Jason Engwer,
ReplyDeleteI was talking to a full-preterist when I made that post. He at one time attended a Prespyterian church that rejected full preterism. They said he could join, but he would have to keep that view to himself.
Do Prespyterians and Baptists allow hypercalvinists to join their churches? If so then you can't point the finger at anyone.
In the past. Some heretics were locked in Monasteries.
Do you think that all of those who were of the party of the Circumcision found it easy to give up their views?
You can't just take "one" principle and run with it....as if it's the answer to "all" situations. The Christian Faith is Holistic. So you have to look at everything. At all the principles.
JNORM888
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDelete“Jason Engwer,__I was talking to a full-preterist when I made that post. He at one time attended a Prespyterian church that rejected full preterism. They said he could join, but he would have to keep that view to himself.”
The point at issue is patristic premillennialism, not preterism. Preterism is not a synonym for premillennialism. Indeed, they’re opposites. Premillennialism has a futuristic eschatology, whereas preterism (or “full” preterism) takes the antithetical position, dating the fulfillment of all NT prophecies to the 1C AD.
“Do Prespyterians and Baptists allow hypercalvinists to join their churches? If so then you can't point the finger at anyone.”
Since Jason is not a Calvinist, much less a hypercalvinist, and since he doesn’t belong to either a Baptist or Presbyterian denomination, why couldn’t he point fingers at all of the above?
Moreover, belonging to a denomination doesn’t mean you think your denomination is above criticism. Only a blind loyalist and ecclesiolater would take a my-church-right-or-wrong position.
Furthermore, the general criterion for joining a Reformed church is, to my knowledge, a credible profession of faith.
Jnorm888 said:
ReplyDelete"I was talking to a full-preterist when I made that post. He at one time attended a Prespyterian church that rejected full preterism. They said he could join, but he would have to keep that view to himself."
You cited your articles in the context of responding to something I said about premillennialism. Neither that original context nor what I cited from your articles in this thread addresses the circumstances surrounding the Presbyterian you were responding to. I didn't address that subject. Why are you bringing it up at this point? How is it relevant to what I've written?
You write:
"Do you think that all of those who were of the party of the Circumcision found it easy to give up their views?"
What are you responding to? What I said about your view of how Eastern Orthodoxy treats premillennialists? If so, how is your comment about "the party of the Circumcision" relevant? If something was declared a heresy by Eastern Orthodoxy more than a thousand years ago, as you claim, why would Eastern Orthodox living today not "find it easy" to avoid the heresy? Is it acceptable for people to follow something condemned as a heresy by an ecumenical council, in part because the people who find the heresy appealing wouldn't "find it easy" to give that heresy up? Is that what you're saying?
You didn't say anything about my view. For that wasn't my view that you were responding to. You were putting words in my mouth. I never asserted the things you said I said.
ReplyDeleteJNORM888