Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Patristic Premillennialism

Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox poster, has been making some dubious, undocumented claims about the history of premillennialism. He's argued that the apostles taught contradictory views of eschatology, that premillennialism came from John, whereas men like Paul and Mark taught a different eschatology. He's claimed that the canonicity of Revelation was rejected by most Christians for a while. And he's claimed that a sixth-century ecumenical council condemned premillennialism. When asked for documentation of such claims, he wrote:

"The fact that you want me to list my sources to back up everything I say about Church history only tells me that you don't read the primary sources of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers. And you probably haven't read too many church history books either. That is not my fault. No, you will have to do your own homework. I'm not gonna dig through my books for you." (source)

Here are some of his assertions, in his own words:

"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. The book of Revelations wasn't embraced by everyone. It was by those who knew John and lived in Ashia minor, but it wasn't embraced by a lot of christians outside of Ashia minor....PM was always givin a hard time by christians living outside of modern day Turkey and Syria....So is it [premillennialism] historic? Yes, but it was only limited to a certain region of christianity....Most christians rejected the book of Revelations, So most christians never had a pre-mill view to begin with. And when the early PMers started to spread to other regions, this is when you had arguments about such a view....the Apostolic tradition of Saint John (on this issue) was trumped by the Apostolic traditions of Mark, Andrew, Peter, and Paul....ancient PM was disliked by most christians in other regions...So at the end of the day, the onlything you can say about ancient christianity is: Some believed in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on planet earth. Most did not believe in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on planet earth." (sources here and here)

I've addressed some of the problems with Jnorm's claims elsewhere. See, for example, here and here.

The apostle John lived in Asia Minor, and he wrote Revelation to some of the churches there. But premillennialism's origin and prominence in that region don't imply some of the other conclusions Jnorm has reached. Premillennialism is found early in Asia Minor (Papias), but also is found early outside of Asia Minor (The Epistle Of Barnabas). Premillennialists like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus lived in multiple locations, so how does Jnorm know where they acquired their premillennialism, and how does he know that such men had the role he claims they had in spreading premillennialism? If premillennialism was opposed in other regions by people who had received a different eschatology from their own apostolic sources and a larger number of apostolic sources, then why would men like Justin and Irenaeus be able to spread premillennialism so successfully in those other regions? Why would people give up their own apostolic eschatology, supported by a larger number of apostolic sources, for another region's apostolic eschatology that came from only one apostolic source?

Here are some examples of ante-Nicene sources who advocated premillennialism while living outside of Asia Minor:

Pseudo-Barnabas (The Epistle Of Barnabas, 15)
Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho, 80)
Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:28:3, 5:33:2-4)
Tertullian (Against Marcion, 3:24)
Hippolytus (On Daniel, 2:4)
Cyprian (section 2 in the preface and chapter 11 in Treatise 11, On the Exhortation to Martyrdom)
Nepos (Eusebius, Church History, 7:24)
Commodianus (Writings, 44)
Victorinus (On The Creation Of The World)
Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 7:14)

Remember, Jnorm claims that premillennialism was always "given a hard time by Christians living outside of modern day Turkey and Syria".

Premillennialism became much less popular in later centuries, but it was widespread during the ante-Nicene era. The large majority of extant ante-Nicene sources who advocate the doctrine do so while living outside of Asia Minor. A smaller number of mainstream ante-Nicene sources opposed premillennialism, such as Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, but not with the sort of argumentation we're getting from Jnorm. They didn't oppose one apostolic eschatology to another. Rather, Dionysius of Alexandria, for example, argued for a different interpretation of Revelation and other portions of scripture rather than arguing that one apostolic form of eschatology should be rejected in favor of another (Eusebius, Church History, 7:24-25).

Some ante-Nicene sources rejected the canonicity of Revelation, but acceptance of the book as scripture seems to have been the mainstream view in the earliest centuries:

"As early as the middle of the second century, Revelation was ascribed to John, 'one of the apostles of Christ' (Justin, Dial. 81). Other second-century works and writers make the same claim: a lost commentary on Revelation by Melito, bishop of Sardis (c. A.D. 165; see Eusebius, H.E. 4.26.2); Irenaeus (c. 180; Adv. Haer. 3.11.1, 4.20.11, 4.35.2); and the Muratorian Canon (late second century). Whether Papias, an even earlier witness than these (d.c. 130), can be added to this list is disputed, but a good case can be made out that he both knew Revelation and attributed it to John. The evidence of these writers is particularly strong in that two of them (three, if Papias is included) could well be reporting firsthand evidence. Sardis, where Melito was bishop, was one of the churches addressed in Revelation (1:11; 3:1-6). Irenaeus was from Smyrna, also a church addressed in Revelation (1:11; 2:8-11), and claims to have heard Polycarp, who had talked with John the apostle himself. Papias knew John the apostle personally. The early tradition is confirmed by the third-century fathers Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. Not only do these authors ascribe Revelation to John the apostle, they do so without any hint of there being a contrary claim. No New Testament book, concludes Gerhard Maier, has a stronger or earlier tradition about its authorship than does Revelation." (D.A. Carson, et al., An Introduction To The New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992], p. 468)

Carson, Moo, and Morris are only mentioning a portion of the evidence here. Much more could be cited.

The tendency was to classify apostolic books as scripture, so acceptance of the apostolic status of Revelation tends to suggest acceptance of the book as scripture. I can document that tendency, and I can give examples of the citation of Revelation as scripture by such sources, if Jnorm wants to dispute the point.

We need to keep in mind the distinction between what was believed in one era of church history and what was believed in another era. Later opposition to premillennialism doesn't, by itself, lead to the conclusion that earlier affirmations of the doctrine were a minority position during that earlier period. Jnorm can't just cite later sources and assume that they represent what was mainstream in those regions of the world in earlier centuries. For example, we wouldn't conclude that if there isn't much belief in premillennialism in the area of Asia Minor today, then there must not have been much belief in the doctrine in that region in the second or third century either. Later sources can be relevant, but Jnorm will have to do more than just citing later sources.

What does Jnorm's behavior suggest about his Eastern Orthodoxy? Why does he so often fail to document claims that he ought to document, and why does he make so many false and misleading claims about church history?

57 comments:

  1. I don't think you can put "The Epistle Of Barnabas" 100%ly in the pre-mill camp. He talks about 6 days equaling six thousand years, but just like in the book of Genesis, the 7nth day doesn't have a "time limit" on it.

    He doesn't say that the 7nth day will last for a thousand years. Nor does he say that for the 8th day.

    As seen in chapter 15:
    the online source

    "Barnabas 15:1
    Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten
    Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And
    ye shall hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a
    pure heart.

    Barnabas 15:2
    And in another place He saith; If my sons observe the Sabbath then
    I will bestow My mercy upon them.

    Barnabas 15:3
    Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
    God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
    seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

    Barnabas 15:4
    Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
    meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
    things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
    and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
    the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
    days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.


    Barnabas 15:5
    And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
    shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
    judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
    stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

    Barnabas 15:6
    Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with pure hands
    and with a pure heart. If therefore a man is able now to hallow
    the day which God hallowed, though he be pure in heart, we have gone
    utterly astray.

    Barnabas 15:7
    But if after all then and not till then shall we truly rest and
    hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after being
    justified and receiving the promise, when iniquity is no more and all
    things have been made new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow it
    then, because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first.

    Barnabas 15:8
    Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
    away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
    Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
    made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
    the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
    world.

    Barnabas 15:9
    Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
    also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
    into the heavens."

    This is why I didn't mention him.

    And as far as where he was from....well that's mostly speculation.

    As seen from the intro to the Epistle of Barnabas from Michael W. Holmes, in the book "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations 3rd eition"

    He says on page 373:

    "A lack of information renders difficult any determination regarding location. Nevertheless, Barnabas is widely thought to have originated in Alexandria in view of its numerous affinities to have originated in Alexandria in view of its numerous affinities in hermeneutical approach and style with Alexandria Judaism and Christianity and because its earliest witness is Clement of Alexandria (who accorded it the same authority as the Catholic Epistles). It appears to have been written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 (16.3-5) but before the city was rebuilt by Hadrian following the revolt of AD 132-135. Within these limits it is difficult to be any more precise."

    We really don't know where he was from, but the majority view is Alexandria, but like I said before. You can't really put him in the chilism camp. And that is why I never included him.


    I will have to answer everthing else you said at a later time. I really don't have the time to dive into alot of resources at the monent. So if you are willing to be patient, I will do a little at a time.






    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Here are some examples of ante-Nicene sources who advocated premillennialism while living outside of Asia Minor:

    Pseudo-Barnabas (The Epistle Of Barnabas, 15)
    Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho, 80)
    Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:28:3, 5:33:2-4)
    Tertullian (Against Marcion, 3:24)
    Hippolytus (On Daniel, 2:4)
    Cyprian (section 2 in the preface and chapter 11 in Treatise 11, On the Exhortation to Martyrdom)
    Nepos (Eusebius, Church History, 7:24)
    Commodianus (Writings, 44)
    Victorinus (On The Creation Of The World)
    Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 7:14"


    I already told you why Barnabas shouldn't be included.

    I mentioned how Saint Justin Martyre traveled from Ashia minor to the west. I also mentioned how the same was true for Saint Irenaeus.

    All the other people you mention come later in time. Both Justin and Irenaeus already brought the view to the west. Some believe that Saint Hippolytus was a disciple of Saint Irenaeus. Now this may or may not be true, but Saint Hippolytus, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian, st. Victorinus, and Lactantius all come later in time.

    The same is true for the book of Revelation itself. It has it's origin in Ashia minor and it eventually spread to other regions.

    Do you believe there is something wrong with ideas spreading from one region to another? Is there something wrong for a book to spread from region to another?


    You said:
    "Why would people give up their own apostolic eschatology, supported by a larger number of apostolic sources, for another region's apostolic eschatology that came from only one apostolic source?"


    People really didn't have to give up anything. It was extra info, that augmented what was already tought. We don't find a literal 1,000 year reign in the Epistles of Saint Paul. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's in the Gospel's nor the book of Acts either. Not to mention Hebrews, Jude, 1st & 2nd Peter,.....ect.


    Also in regards to the Apostolic church Father 1st Clement. He seems to have an "amill" When he asserts that Christ reigns right now over his enemies. He doesn't assert a future 1,000 period.

    my online source, look at chapter 36


    "CHAPTER 36

    36:1 This is the way, beloved, in which we found our salvation; even Jesus Christ, the high priest of our oblations, the champion and defender of our weakness.

    36:2 Through him we look steadfastly to the heights of the heavens; through him we behold, as in a glass, the immaculate and lofty countenance of God the Father; through him the eyes of our heart were opened; through him our foolish and darkened understanding springeth up again to his marvellous light; through him the Lord hath willed us to taste of immortal knowledge; who, being the brightness of his glory, is so far better than the angels, as he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than they.

    36:3 For it is thus written: Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flame of fire.

    36:4 But of his Son the Lord hath thus said: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the world for thy possession.

    36:5 And, again, he saith unto him: Sit on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

    36:6 Who then are the enemies? Even the wicked, and they who resist the will of God."

    J. Pelikan says on page 124 & 125
    in the book "The Christian Tradition: A history of the Development of Dcotrine" Volume 1, the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)

    "But there is striking evidence not only that the mellenarian hope continued in the Church after the Apostolic age, but also that, probably from the beginning, it stood in tension with other descriptions of the reign of Christ, which were not as privy to the details of the timetable for this reign. Although he himself entertained the expectation that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and that the saints of both the Old and New Testament eras would share with Christ in the joys of the new age, Justin admitted that there were other christian believers, no less pious and orthodox than he, who did not have such an expectation. It would seem that very early in the post-apostolic era millenarianism was regarded as a mark neither of orthodoxy nor of heresy, but as one permissible opinion among others within the range of permissible opinions. Although its terminus a quo is set very early, its terminus ad quem is much more diffucult to fix, Origen's polemics against millenarianism recounted the exegesis of the literalists on the various promises concerning the Kingdom of Christ, but concluded that such an interpretation was "unworthy of the divine promises";"


    My bad. I thought it was a council in the 6th century that condemned it.

    The second council of 381 A.D. already did it in Canon 41

    the online source


    "[41] Led astray by the words in ch. 20 of the Book of Revelation (v. 3 to 7), where it says that Satan was shut up and bound for a thousand years, and that the righteous who participated in the first resurrection reigned together with Christ as kings for a thousand years, many men have imagined that after the second advent and common judgment take place, the righteous are to reign here on the earth as kings for a thousand years together with Christ, and thereafter to ascend to heaven; and on this account they have been called millenarians or millennialists. There have been two battalions of millenarians. For some of them used to say that during those thousand years they are to enjoy every enjoyment, and bodily pleasure; these men were followers of Cerinthus, a pupil of Simon, in the first century, and the Marcionists in the second century of the Christian era. Others said that they were not to enjoy passionate pleasures, but rather intellectual pleasures befitting rational human beings, of whom the leader was Papias the bishop of Hierapolis (in Euseb. Eccl. Hist, book 3, ch. 34) and others. Hence it is evident that Apollinaris became such a millenarian of the first battalion, as is plain from what St. Basil the Great says (letter 332), and from what the Theologian says (Discourse 51), and from what Jerome says (Book 18 on Isaiah). On this account in refutation of this heresy this Council added to the Creed of the Nicene Council that statement, which it borrowed from the sentence which the Archangel Gabriel spoke to the Virgin, viz.: “and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33). As for the thousand years referred to by St. John, they are not to come to pass after the second advent of Christ; and the kingdom of the Lord is not describable in terms of years, nor food and drink, as St. Paul said (Rom. 14:17): but, on the contrary, a thousand years are to be understood, according to those versed in theology, to mean the interval of time extending from the first advent of Christ to the second, during which Satan was bound, according to the words of the Lord, saying, “Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). The first resurrection, by contrast, took place for justification of souls through mortification of infidelity and wickedness, concerning which Christ said “He that heareth my words, and believeth in him who sent me, hath life everlasting, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life” (John 5:24); and the Apostle said “If then ye be risen with Christ . . . set your mind on the things that are above” (Col. 3:1-2). And thereafter in this interval of time the reign of the righteous with Christ took place, being their union with Him through (i.e., by means of) the Holy Spirit, and the contemplation and enjoyment of His divine illumination, respecting which the Lord said, “Some of them that stand here shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1).

    So yes, I was wrong about when it was first declared. And now I will have to make a retraction.








    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  3. wait, I should of said. People didn't have to give up much.




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've just looked up Premillenialism on Wikipedia; and, -as I've already told You before-, the interpretation of the six days in Genesis (as refering each to a millennium) is something basic for Christianity, Christ thus becoming the New Adam [and so in St. Paul's writings], born in the sixth millennium: that's a fundamental Christological reading of Genesis 1 (and not "Creationism vs. Darwinism", or other such kindred aberrations). But that the 7th day will also last only for just 1,000 yrs (strictly and literally, and not more than that) is something that I haven't been able to find anywhere in the Fathers: they just simply consider it to be eternal. (That's also something basic, and it's in the Creed: WHOSE KINGDOM WILL HAVE NO END -- I guess that this was what JNorm888 was talking about when he mentioned it being condemned by a Synod).

    St. Paul expected Christ to return within his own life-time or generation; later Christians (before 500 AD) speculated that He will return around that date (6,000 AM), and that the world will end then. But not that God's eternal Reign (or Kingdom), His reign with His Saints, -which is everlasting-, will have an end. :-| That's something completely unPatristical.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The condemnation of premillennialism is traditionally, though erroneously, ascribed to Ephesus. It was actually condemned at the 2nd Ecumenical Council which declares through the Creed, while walking through the chronology of Christ: "from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." This in contrast to the heretical views which held (through whatever means: Arianism, Docetism, etc; in this case, it is the Apollinarians) that because Christ was some kind of middle being (not fully human/fully divine), that first there would be a 1000 year reign of Christ (raising the righteous to take part in this "middle being") and then the reign of God (the Father, who would then judge and condemn the unrighteous). The Church rejects this and says that the reign of Christ will have no end because he is of one substance with the Father.

    This connection with the "homoousias" of Nicea and the condemnation of Chilliasm at Constantinople MUST be understood together. Yes, most of the pre-Nicenes taught some kind of Chilliasm (though there has always been a strain that rejected it). However, most of the orthodox pre-Nicenes also taught things like "Christ is the visible form of the Father" (Irenaeus, et al). Both of these understandings become rephrased after the Nicene formula.

    BTW, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I do not think that jnorm's view reflects the views of the scholars of those in my Church (Myendorff, Behr, Pelikan, etc). For instance, what he quotes as "Canon 41" of Constantinople is actually "Footnote 41" from the first canon of Constantinople. However, please note that neither jnorm888 nor I are bishops and thus have no real authority to speak on behalf of the Church. I'm saying this because every time you had a post responding to jnorm888 you clarify "an Eastern Orthodox" as if jnorm888 is speaking authoritatively for the Church. By this, you are implying that by debunking jnorm888 you are debunking Eastern Orthodoxy. This is nothing more than the logical fallacy of association.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You said:
    "Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox poster, has been making some dubious, undocumented claims about the history of premillennialism."

    These are my personal oppinions. Not the view of the Church. And just because I refused to dig in my books and type for you my sources at your command, doesn't mean I never post my sources. I often do.


    You said:
    "He's argued that the apostles taught contradictory views of eschatology, that premillennialism came from John, whereas men like Paul and Mark taught a different eschatology."

    This is your spin, to what I said. My view is that early christians from different regions didn't always have a 100% uniform "interpretation" of eschatology.

    Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan seems to say something similar:

    "If the teachings of the early church and of Jesus could simply be described as consistent eschatology, we could then trace the decline of such an eschatology as the primary factor in the establishment both of ecclesiastical structures and of dogmatic norms. Neither primative Christianity nor the church catholic was consitent in so single-minded a way, as each new bit of evidence or new study of old evidence makes clear. But once the dialectic of already/not yet is permitted to emerge from the texts, the magnitude of the change may become visible. It was nothing less than the decisive shift from the categories of cosmic drama to those of being, from the Revelation of St. John the Divine to the creed of the Council of Nicea."[1]




    You said:
    "He's claimed that the canonicity of Revelation was rejected by most Christians for a while."

    What's wrong with this claim? The Assyrian Church of the East(what some have traditionaly called Nestorian) still doesn't have it in their canon. They only have 22 books in their New Testament. They don't include 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, & Revelation.

    I could be wrong, but I think they broke away around the time of the 3rd council. So they were in communion until about 431 A.D.

    You can always go to one of their websites to look at the number of their new testament books.


    You said:
    "And he's claimed that a sixth-century ecumenical council condemned premillennialism."

    I was wrong about the 6th century. It was in the 4th.


    You said:
    "Premillennialists like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus lived in multiple locations, so how does Jnorm know where they acquired their premillennialism, and how does he know that such men had the role he claims they had in spreading premillennialism?"

    I don't know with 100% certainty that Saint Justin Martry got it in Ashia minor. It is true, that he did live in alot of places. It is my speculation that he picked it up while living in the East. For that is where the view most likely came from.

    On the otherhand, it is said that Saint Irenaeus was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was a disciple of Saint John. And it is also said that Saint Papias was friends with Saint John. Saint Papias is mostly the one that people point the finger at. So I am pointing the finger at him too.

    So Saint Irenaeus seems to have come from that line of Tradition. He was a Native of Ashia Minor

    "Very little is known of his personal history except that he was a native of Asia Minor;" [2]

    And in regards to the role they played in spreading the view. The view was in their writtings, and other people during their time as well as after their time, read their works.

    Elsewhere you said:
    " 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."


    You are putting words in my mouth. This is what I said:

    ""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'.""

    Where in that quote did I say that Saint John tought premill? I was very careful not to say that. It is you who are making that connection from some of my statements.

    I said that the Apostolic tradition that came from his region, mostly held to it. You guys have been putting words in my mouth for the past few days. For three days you have been either putting words in my mouth, or gave a meaning I never gave. I came here a few days ago in regards to John Calvin's noval view of the Asiety of the Son, and you guys change topics to pound me over the head with premill.

    "Probably the first indication that the prophecy in this chapter was being interpreted to mean an earthly reign of a thousand years following the return of Christ is that associated with the name of Papias. The only doctrinal position definitely attributed to him was the teaching, which he clamed to have derived from "unwritten tradition," that there will be a millennium following the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ is to be established physically on this earth."[3]

    You also said:
    " 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."


    You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said any of that. In my rejoinder with King Neb, I said that the Canon was still in a state of flux. and that alot of christians didn't embrace the book of Revelation. I never said anything about the book of Revelations teaching a false view anywhere. How can I say that when the book itself doesn't even tell us how we should interpret that chapter.

    I never said any of what you asserted.


    You also said:
    " 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."


    You are putting words in my mouth again.
    Why should I say that about Saint Justin Martye when even he admited that not everyone agreed with his "eschatology", and yet you wonder why I wouldn't always answer your posts. Well for starters, you keep putting words in my mouth, and I didn't originally come here to talk about Premill. I came to talk about John Calvin & friends.


    You said:
    "The apostle John lived in Asia Minor, and he wrote Revelation to some of the churches there. But premillennialism's origin and prominence in that region don't imply some of the other conclusions Jnorm has reached. Premillennialism is found early in Asia Minor (Papias), but also is found early outside of Asia Minor (The Epistle Of Barnabas)."

    I think I already answered why "The Epistle of Barnabas shouldn't be included.


    You said:
    "Premillennialism became much less popular in later centuries, but it was widespread during the ante-Nicene era."

    In your list you included "Lactantius & Victorinus ". Lactanius lived from 250 A.D. to about 325 A.D.

    Victorinus lived around 304 A.D.

    Well since you included these pre-millers. I think it's only fair that I include Eusebius who lived anywhere from 270 A.D. to about 340 A.D.

    on page 129 Pelikan says:

    "Eusebius was certainly speaking for a large body of theological opinion in the East when he called Papias's millenarianism "bizarre" and rather mythological." [4]

    You said:
    "A smaller number of mainstream ante-Nicene sources opposed premillennialism, such as Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, but not with the sort of argumentation we're getting from Jnorm."

    Pelikan seems to think that Origen reacted against Millenarianism with alot of vigor. And Dionysius of Alexandria at least knew of some who rejected the book.

    "Some persons before our time have set this book aside and entirely rejected it. They have criticized it chapter by chapter, trying to demonstrate that it is without either sense or reason. They have also alleged that its title is false. For they have that John is the author.....they claim that non of the Apostles, nor indeed any of the Saints, nor any person belonging to the church, could be its author. Rather, they say that Cerinthus and the heretical sect founded by him.....attached that title to the book....However, I, for my part, could not venture to set this book aside. For there are many brethern who value it highly." Dionysius of Alexandria 262 A.D. [5]

    And it seems that Dionysius of Alexandria didn't believe that Saint John was the author either.

    "I do not deny that this person was called John, therefore, and that this was the writting of somone named John. I also acknowledge that it was the work of some holy and inspired man. However, I could not so easily acknowledge that the author was one of the aposltes. I cannot so easily acknowledge that it is the same person who wrote the Gospel that bears the title, "According to John," and the author of the general epistle. Rather, from the character of both those works and the forms of expression in them....I draw the conclusion that the authorship is not his. For the evangelist nowhere else affixes his name [to his works]. He never proclaims himself either in the Gospel or in the epislte. Dionydius of Alexandria (262 A.D.) [6]

    You said:
    "The tendency was to classify apostolic books as scripture, so acceptance of the apostolic status of Revelation tends to suggest acceptance of the book as scripture. I can document that tendency, and I can give examples of the citation of Revelation as scripture by such sources, if Jnorm wants to dispute the point."


    There is no need to do that for I never disputed/fought againt the claim.






    JNORM888

    [1] page 131,[3] page 124,[4] page 129 by Jaroslav Pelikan, in the book "The Christian tradition: A history of the Development of Doctrine" Vol 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)

    [2] page 520, edited by Henry Wace & William C. Piercy, in the book "A dictionary of early Christian Biography"

    [5] page 565,[6] page 565 edited by David Bercot, in the book "A dictionary of Early Christian beliefs"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where in that quote did I say that Saint John tought premill? I was very careful not to say that. It is you who are making that connection from some of my statements.

    I said that the Apostolic tradition that came from his region, mostly held to it. You guys have been putting words in my mouth for the past few days. For three days you have been either putting words in my mouth, or gave a meaning I never gave. I came here a few days ago in regards to John Calvin's noval view of the Asiety of the Son, and you guys change topics to pound me over the head with premill.


    You can't keep track of your own arguments.

    Here's your original claim:

    Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity. They held to the Asiety of the Father. So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters....You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles....If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong."

    Emphasis mine

    You also wrote:

    “If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them.”

    So, since you can't keep track of your first argument, one of us will have to do it for you.

    If there were those who believed in premillenialism, then St. John would have corrected them. But since premillenialism was condemned, and that was deemed binding, premillenialism is a "heresy" (but not a big one, as you said later). The fact that they believed it must mean, then that John taught it. The fact that a later council condemned it must mean he was wrong - that is if we are following your original argument.

    Put another way:

    If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.

    Were the churches from Asia Minor from John? Did they learn from his feet? Yes and Yes - and that is by your own admission. Were they wrong? Yes - and that by your own admission. So, John was wrong.

    Realizing this later, you started to modify your position by adding caveats not in the original, like it isn't possible to know exactly how John understood his own eschatological writings. That's about the time we got into this multiple choice argument from you.

    You, JNORM, can't keep track of your argumentation. You mistake what you originally said with what you stated later in modified form.

    The reason we brought up premillenialism is that you're claiming one thing for Trintarianism and another for premillenialism. So, sorry to break this to you, that's why premill is relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jnorm888 wrote:

    "I don't think you can put 'The Epistle Of Barnabas' 100%ly in the pre-mill camp. He talks about 6 days equaling six thousand years, but just like in the book of Genesis, the 7nth day doesn't have a 'time limit' on it. He doesn't say that the 7nth day will last for a thousand years. Nor does he say that for the 8th day."

    If there's an eighth day, then the seventh probably does have a limit on it. If any day would be most different from the others, we would expect it to be the eighth, the last day. Six thousand years, followed by a millennial kingdom, followed by an eternal eighth day would make sense in a premillennial framework, and we know that referring to the millennial kingdom as a seventh day was popular among the ante-Nicene fathers. See the other passages I've cited from the ante-Nicene fathers above. I agree that there's some room for reasonable doubt about the premillennialism of Pseudo-Barnabas, but the weight of probability still favors it. It's doubtful that he was using such a common premillennial manner of describing world history, at a time when premillennialism was so popular, yet meant it in a non-premillennial sense.

    You write:

    "And as far as where he was from....well that's mostly speculation."

    The fact that we don't have much to go by doesn't change the fact that what we have favors a location outside of Asia Minor. Even if we left the matter undecided, the presence of premillennialism in such an early source that can't be tied to Asia Minor should caution us against associating the doctrine with that region to the degree that you've done so.

    You write:

    "I mentioned how Saint Justin Martyre traveled from Ashia minor to the west. I also mentioned how the same was true for Saint Irenaeus."

    The fact that they traveled West doesn't prove that they had the influence you claim they had in spreading premillennialism when they traveled. The fact that both were in Asia Minor for part of their life before traveling West doesn't prove that they derived their premillennialism from Asia Minor. How do you know that Justin didn't attain his premillennialism in Israel, prior to going to Ephesus (if he went there, as Eusebius reports)?

    You write:

    "Some believe that Saint Hippolytus was a disciple of Saint Irenaeus. Now this may or may not be true, but Saint Hippolytus, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian, st. Victorinus, and Lactantius all come later in time."

    The fact that a source is later in time than Justin and Irenaeus doesn't prove that he attained his premillennialism by means of the influence of Justin and Irenaeus. And you aren't addressing what I said about the unlikelihood that people in other regions would keep accepting premillennialism when they already had an established contrary eschatology from another apostolic source or multiple apostolic sources.

    You write:

    "Do you believe there is something wrong with ideas spreading from one region to another? Is there something wrong for a book to spread from region to another?"

    We're not discussing appropriateness. We're discussing history. There's nothing inappropriate about the spreading of a belief from one region to another. But you've made historical claims about how a belief allegedly spread. You can't defend a historical claim by making an appeal to the acceptability of such a historical event in principle. It would be acceptable for me to have been born in California. But if I claim that I was born there, that's a historical claim that requires historical argumentation. To respond to somebody who challenges that historical claim by asking him whether there's anything wrong with being born in California wouldn't make sense.

    You write:

    "People really didn't have to give up anything. It was extra info, that augmented what was already tought....wait, I should of said. People didn't have to give up much."

    If premillennialism doesn't require "giving up much", then why would it be considered a heresy? If it requires "giving up" something, even if it's not much, you should explain why people who already had an apostolic eschatology would keep giving that eschatology up in favor of another eschatology with less apostolic support.

    And you haven't just been arguing that premillennialism had "extra info" that another apostolic eschatology didn't have. Rather, you referred to the alleged erroneous nature of premillennialism that people objected to. You wrote:

    "This is one of the reasons why ancient PM was disliked by most christians in other regions. They saw it as too carnal.....just like how Islam is carnal in how it views heaven...Thus the Millenium was 'spiritualized/Allegoricalized' Along with it's carnal understanding of 'super foods'." (source)

    You write:

    "Also in regards to the Apostolic church Father 1st Clement. He seems to have an 'amill' When he asserts that Christ reigns right now over his enemies."

    We were discussing the status of early premillennialism, not whether anybody was non-premillennial early on. I haven't denied that some ante-Nicene sources rejected premillennialism.

    But Clement of Rome's belief that "Christ reigns right now over His enemies" doesn't contradict premillennialism. It's not as though premillennialists believe that Christ has no rulership before or after the millennium. The issue is the nature of the rulership at different times in history.

    You write:

    "My bad. I thought it was a council in the 6th century that condemned it. The second council of 381 A.D. already did it in Canon 41"

    That's note 41 of a later commentator, not canon 41 of the council. Premillennialism continued among some mainstream Christians after First Constantinople. Augustine, for example, was a premillennialist in his early days as a Christian. For other examples, see Brian Daley's discussion in Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999), p. 240. The note 41 you've cited claims that a portion of the council's creed alluding to Luke 1:33 is meant to condemn a particular form of premillennialism that was different from the form accepted by more orthodox sources like Papias. Would you explain how you get from those comments in note 41 to the conclusion that this council condemned premillennialism in general?

    You write:

    "And just because I refused to dig in my books and type for you my sources at your command, doesn't mean I never post my sources. I often do."

    And you often don't.

    You write:

    "My view is that early christians from different regions didn't always have a 100% uniform 'interpretation' of eschatology."

    That's not all you said. You also referred to one apostolic eschatology "trumping" another, proponents of the different eschatologies "arguing" and "bumping heads", etc. You compared the alleged differences between John and the other apostolic sources to the differences between the apostles and "the Circumcision group" in Acts 15, where contradiction was involved. In this thread, you've referred to how those going from one apostolic eschatology to another would have to give something up, though supposedly not "much".

    You write:

    "What's wrong with this claim? The Assyrian Church of the East(what some have traditionaly called Nestorian) still doesn't have it in their canon. They only have 22 books in their New Testament. They don't include 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, & Revelation. I could be wrong, but I think they broke away around the time of the 3rd council. So they were in communion until about 431 A.D."

    How does your citation of that group justify your claim that Revelation was rejected by most Christians? Does that group qualify as most Christians of the timeframe we're discussing? No.

    You write:

    "I don't know with 100% certainty that Saint Justin Martry got it in Ashia minor. It is true, that he did live in alot of places. It is my speculation that he picked it up while living in the East. For that is where the view most likely came from. On the otherhand, it is said that Saint Irenaeus was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was a disciple of Saint John. And it is also said that Saint Papias was friends with Saint John. Saint Papias is mostly the one that people point the finger at. So I am pointing the finger at him too."

    In other words, you can't demonstrate that your earlier claims about Justin and Irenaeus are probable. All you can do is suggest possible scenarios in which the claim would be true.

    You write:

    "So Saint Irenaeus seems to have come from that line of Tradition. He was a Native of Ashia Minor"

    He also lived in other places and had access to documents and individuals from other locations, so he could have been influenced by sources outside of Asia Minor or by some combination of the two.

    You write:

    "Where in that quote did I say that Saint John tought premill? I was very careful not to say that. It is you who are making that connection from some of my statements. I said that the Apostolic tradition that came from his region, mostly held to it. You guys have been putting words in my mouth for the past few days."

    Gene has already explained how your earlier claims implied an error on the part of the apostle John.

    If the Asia Minor tradition doesn't represent what the apostle John taught, then why are you referring to it as an apostolic tradition?

    And when you compared the controversy over the different eschatological traditions to the Quartodeciman controversy, you wrote:

    "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." (source)

    Why did you use such a comparison if you didn't mean to suggest that the apostles disagreed with each other? And why did you also cite the disagreement in Acts 15 between the apostles and those arguing for circumcision?

    You also wrote:

    "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'." (source)

    Why would you relate premillennialism to John's having lived and died in that region if John didn't teach premillennialism?

    In another recent thread at this blog, you wrote:

    "You know very well that I meant another Apostle(or many Apostles) can trump an Apostle." (source)

    If there's no apostolic disagreement, then why does one apostle or group of apostles "trump" another?

    In the same thread linked above, you wrote:

    "You make it seem as if it rejected an ancient view without having an equally ancient alternative."

    If your eschatology is "equally ancient" in comparison to premillennialism, then the implication is that both go back to the apostles.

    I don't think the problem is that we're being unreasonable in how we interpret your comments. Rather, you seem to keep changing your arguments or communicating poorly or both.

    You write:

    "Well since you included these pre-millers. I think it's only fair that I include Eusebius who lived anywhere from 270 A.D. to about 340 A.D."

    I've explained that I was citing ante-Nicene sources. Eusebius of Caesarea isn't usually classified as such. And, again, I haven't denied that there were people who opposed premillennialism, especially as more time passed.

    You write:

    "And Dionysius of Alexandria at least knew of some who rejected the book."

    I know. I cited the passage where he comments on the subject. But we have no reason to conclude that those people were a majority. I've acknowledged that some people rejected the canonicity of Revelation. I'm not asking you for documentation of that fact. Rather, I'm asking for documentation of your assertion that a majority rejected Revelation's canonicity. You still haven't provided such documentation.

    You write:

    "And it seems that Dionysius of Alexandria didn't believe that Saint John was the author either."

    I know, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. He accepted the canonicity of the book.

    I've addressed Dionysius' argument for authorship by another John elsewhere. See here, for example.

    I've noticed that you seem to have modified one of the articles at your web site that I linked to. One of the articles now reads:

    "People can always agree to differ, and that's what the Church did for the first 381 years. But in the 4th century it ruled on the issue and that's that." (source)

    That seems to be a revision of what you said earlier, when you were arguing that it was a sixth-century council that condemned premillennialism. Have you also revised other portions of your articles? Are you going to keep revising them?

    ReplyDelete
  9. LVKA said:

    "But that the 7th day will also last only for just 1,000 yrs (strictly and literally, and not more than that) is something that I haven't been able to find anywhere in the Fathers: they just simply consider it to be eternal....St. Paul expected Christ to return within his own life-time or generation; later Christians (before 500 AD) speculated that He will return around that date (6,000 AM), and that the world will end then. But not that God's eternal Reign (or Kingdom), His reign with His Saints, -which is everlasting-, will have an end. :-| That's something completely unPatristical."

    The belief that an earthly kingdom will only last one thousand years doesn't suggest that there will be no other type of reign of Christ with His saints thereafter. Some patristic sources do refer to a seventh day that lasts for one thousand years. See, for example, my citations of Victorinus and Lactantius above.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason,

    Victorinus and Lanctantius (along with Augustin and Origen) aren't exactly the company with which we normaly like to hang around with. (Not that they're all-bad, though).

    ReplyDelete
  11. NPMcCallum said:

    "This connection with the 'homoousias' of Nicea and the condemnation of Chilliasm at Constantinople MUST be understood together."

    I'm not familiar with the history behind the portion of the creed of Constantinople that you're citing. A premillennialist could agree with the wording in question. If the framers meant to condemn all forms of premillennialism, as Jnorm888 had been arguing, then why did some professing Christians continue to accept premillennialism after First Constantinople?

    What sources would you recommend on this subject? I'm interested in reading more.

    You write:

    "However, please note that neither jnorm888 nor I are bishops and thus have no real authority to speak on behalf of the Church. I'm saying this because every time you had a post responding to jnorm888 you clarify 'an Eastern Orthodox' as if jnorm888 is speaking authoritatively for the Church. By this, you are implying that by debunking jnorm888 you are debunking Eastern Orthodoxy. This is nothing more than the logical fallacy of association."

    Identifying Jnorm as Eastern Orthodox doesn't suggest that he "is speaking authoritatively for the Church". To the contrary, one of the closing lines of my initial post in this thread refers to "his Eastern Orthodoxy", which acknowledges that he doesn't represent all Eastern Orthodox.

    And I don't know why you mention that the two of you aren't bishops. Even if you were both bishops, you wouldn't maintain that everything said by a bishop is equivalent to "speaking authoritatively for the Church", would you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. LVKA said:

    "Victorinus and Lanctantius (along with Augustin and Origen) aren't exactly the company with which we normaly like to hang around with. (Not that they're all-bad, though)."

    You said that you couldn't find the belief "anywhere in the Fathers". You didn't say "anywhere in the fathers whose company we normally like to keep".

    And the two fathers I cited as examples aren't the only ones who held the belief in question. See the other sources I've cited above regarding premillennialism outside of Asia Minor. Some of them, not just Victorinus and Lactantius, held the view you said you couldn't find "anywhere in the Fathers". Methodius held the view as well (The Banquet Of The Ten Virgins, Discourse 9:5), though I didn't mention him above, since he lived in Asia Minor.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Victorinus and Lanctantius aren't Fathers at all. And, as I've told You, that whole Apocalyptical rage disappeared together with the coming -not of Christ- but of the yr. 500 AD. (With the expected Second Coming nowhere in sight). And the Creedal expression *IS* meant to combat such opinions as to a certain "temporal extent" of the Kingdom. So Your pacifist ideea that "the belief that an EARTHLY kingdom will ONLY last one thousand years doesn't suggest that there will be no OTHER type of reign of Christ with His saints THEREAFTER", while being very lovely, is still wrong. :-| It also goes against Christ's own words: "MY Kingdom is NOT of THIS world!". (Gospel > Revelation; Council decrees > pious individual speculations). And Revelation itself makes mention of a Heavenly and Eternal and Glorious Jerusalem--NOT of an earthly and temporal and destroyed (or demolished) one: since the Christians were expelled from Synagogues & from Jerusalem, and since the city was already in ruins at the time Revelation was penned down.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LVKA wrote:

    "Victorinus and Lanctantius aren't Fathers at all."

    When somebody makes the sort of unqualified reference to "the Fathers" that you made, why are we supposed to conclude that Victorinus and Lactantius are excluded? And what about the other sources of the patristic era who believed what you claim you didn't see anywhere in "the Fathers"? Do they also not qualify as fathers? If so, why?

    You write:

    "And, as I've told You, that whole Apocalyptical rage disappeared together with the coming -not of Christ- but of the yr. 500 AD. (With the expected Second Coming nowhere in sight)."

    As I've told you before in response to that claim, not all of the patristic premillennialists argued for that date for the return of Christ. Patristic premillennialism didn't require a belief that Christ would return around 500 A.D. The patristic premillennialists give multiple, independent arguments for their premillennialism, as the passages I've cited illustrate. Those who argued for a return of Christ in the near future could still maintain premillennialism for other reasons, even if they gave up something like an expectation that Jesus would return around 500 A.D.

    You write:

    "And the Creedal expression *IS* meant to combat such opinions as to a certain "temporal extent" of the Kingdom. So Your pacifist ideea that 'the belief that an EARTHLY kingdom will ONLY last one thousand years doesn't suggest that there will be no OTHER type of reign of Christ with His saints THEREAFTER', while being very lovely, is still wrong."

    Those are assertions, not arguments.

    You write:

    "It also goes against Christ's own words: 'MY Kingdom is NOT of THIS world!'."

    Explain how that comment made by Christ contradicts premillennialism. Surely you realize that a phrase like "of this world" can have multiple meanings. You're assuming a particular meaning without arguing for it.

    Do you deny that Jesus will return to earth? Do you deny that He has authority over earth now and that He'll rule over earth in the future? Why would earth be excluded from His kingdom? Passages like Matthew 25:31-46 and Acts 1:6-7 refer to a future kingdom that involves earth. What do you think those passages are referring to? If earth isn't part of Christ's kingdom, then why do you think passages like Revelation 20:8-9 and 21:1 refer to earth and a new earth, both in relation to Christ's reign? How do you reconcile your (erroneous) interpretation of John 18:36 with Revelation 11:15?

    You write:

    "And Revelation itself makes mention of a Heavenly and Eternal and Glorious Jerusalem--NOT of an earthly and temporal and destroyed (or demolished) one: since the Christians were expelled from Synagogues & from Jerusalem, and since the city was already in ruins at the time Revelation was penned down."

    Premillennialists don't deny that there will be a new Jerusalem. And the fact that the old city was in ruins two thousand years ago doesn't prove that it would always be in that condition (it isn't today), nor does it prove that Christ wouldn't have a kingdom involving earth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jason,

    Regarding my statement regarding bishops, no not every bishop speaks for the Church, but there is a hierarchy of authority here: Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, Synods, Ecumenical Councils. My point was simply that jnorm888 and I don't fall anywhere in that authority chain. Thus, please forgive my unlearned ramblings. :)

    Regarding the Apollanarians, St. Gregory mentions their chilliasm here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iv.ii.iv.html

    The passage should be fairly self-explanatory, so I won't burden you with my comments. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. GeneMBridges said:

    "You can't keep track of your own arguments.
    Here's your original claim:

    "Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity. They held to the Asiety of the Father. So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters....You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles....If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong."

    Emphasis mine"


    Jason quoted what I said to King Neb in regards to premill. What you quoted was in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity with Steve.

    What you guys are doing are switching topics. Everytime I nail someone in a corner, topics get switched on me. No, I am sticking to the topic of "premill" on this thread. The quote you gave was in regards to another topic. The Topic of the Trinity. I don't use the exact same argument for every topic. Yes, the two are similar, and that's why I gave the link to my responce to King Neb. I didn't have the time on Saturday night to really get into, in regards to the Doctrine of the Trinity. The gist of the two arguments are similar, but they are not exactly the same. There are contingencies, and Church councils are one of those contingencies. Each topic is going to be naturally different, because each topic have there own context.
    There are no "one size fits all" principles. Alot of things are tailor made for the topic.



    You said:
    You also wrote:

    “If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them.”

    So, since you can't keep track of your first argument, one of us will have to do it for you."

    My first argument was with King Neb, And that is what Jason quoted. This thread is about Premill, and the topic with King Neb was about Premill. I might be wrong, but I believe you quoted me in regards to the other topic with Steve. We were talking about the doctrine of the Trinity. Two different topics with two different contexts.


    You said:
    "If there were those who believed in premillenialism, then St. John would have corrected them. But since premillenialism was condemned, and that was deemed binding, premillenialism is a "heresy" (but not a big one, as you said later). The fact that they believed it must mean, then that John taught it. The fact that a later council condemned it must mean he was wrong - that is if we are following your original argument."


    You are switching topics again. You are switching my conversation in regards to the doctrine of the Trnity with Premill. In regards to premill, traditionally the finger is pointed at Saint Papias.



    You said:
    "Put another way:

    If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.

    Were the churches from Asia Minor from John? Did they learn from his feet? Yes and Yes - and that is by your own admission. Were they wrong? Yes - and that by your own admission. So, John was wrong."


    You are switching topics again. That argument was specifically built for the doctrine of the Trinity. You guys switched topics, and inserted "premill". Premill has a different context. With different contingencies.



    You said:
    "Realizing this later, you started to modify your position by adding caveats not in the original, like it isn't possible to know exactly how John understood his own eschatological writings. That's about the time we got into this multiple choice argument from you."


    Yes, I did modify my position because you guys ran from talking about the Trinity. You guys switched topics, so I modified my argument. I should be allowed to do that when topics are switched.
    Christianity is not some machine, in which you can push a button and get the same formula out to solve every issue. It is an organism. It is living. So one stale argument isn't going to solve all topics under the sun. You need different arguments for different topics.



    You said:
    "You, JNORM, can't keep track of your argumentation. You mistake what you originally said with what you stated later in modified form."

    What I orginally said was with King Neb, and Jason quoted what I said to him, then he put words in my mouth. If he quoted what I said to Steve, then you can say that such and such was my original argument. But you guys keep switching topics, as if what I said in regards to the doctrine of the Triity is going to be 100%ly the same as what I say in regards to Premill.

    I am not a robot, now maybe Calvinism may like everything all roboty, and mechanical, but different topics require different arguments.

    Are they similar? Yes, but you can' interchange them all like that for they have different contexts, and contingencies.


    You said:
    "The reason we brought up premillenialism is that you're claiming one thing for Trintarianism and another for premillenialism. So, sorry to break this to you, that's why premill is relevant."


    The two topics have there own contexts. You can't use my quotes in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity and say, they were in regards to premill.

    They are similar, but they are different.


    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  17. And the fact that the old city was in ruins two thousand years ago doesn't prove that it would always be in that condition (it isn't today)

    Jason,

    You don't get it: Revelation was written with a disgust towards the "Synagogue of Satan" and towards the "earthly Jerusalem": they were kicked out of Synagogues and had fled Jerusalem because of persecution (Saul of Tarsus). So St. Joh is offering his readers a promise of a marvelous Heavenly worship (the whole imagery of Revelation is taken right out of Temple- and Synagogue-services), with which Christ will repay those that the false Israel (the unbelieving Jews) have expelled the true Israel (the Church) from Temple and from Synagogue. And He will let those expelled from the earthly city enter the Heavenly one, which is eternal. The Jews on the other hand already got their reward for being repulsive towards Christians: at first they thought that they were the winners; but when the entire city of Jerusalem, together with the Temple were pulverized, then they thought again. Son, no, the earthly Jerusalem and the earthly Temple already HAD their time to repent, for a few decades, but since they didn't use it wisely ... :-( And the "Kingdom of Heaven" is obviously NOT an earthly dominion. The ONLY "demolished Temple" that Christ had "rebuild" was his Body, on the third day.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Christ said very clearly these following things about what will happen to those men anf those cities that will reject His message that He will deliver unto them through His Holy Apostles :

    Matthew 10:14  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15  Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city [in which category Jerusalem clearly belonged].

    Matthew 11:20  Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 21  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22  But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24  But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

    Mark 6:11  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

    Luke 10:10  But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11  Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12  But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14  But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. 15  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16  He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me
    .

    ReplyDelete
  19. And, even more precisely, this time directly and explicitely concerning Jerusalem and the Temple

    Matthew 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 24:1  ¶And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2  And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

    Mark 13:1  ¶And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2  And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

    Luke 13:34  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! 35  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. 21:5  ¶And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6  As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down
    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. What's your problem, jnorm?

    The point is your criterion. Why is your criterion valid for one topic, but invalid for another? When you make statements like, "If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong," or "“If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them,” how is that criterion applicable to one topic, but inapplicable to another?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jason,


    I still disagree with you in regards to the epistle of Barnabas.

    Barnabas is your weak link. You need it, in order to say alot of the other stuff you said. Plus 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.

    The Revelation was most likely known around 90 something A.D.

    I highly doubt that in 40 years time it was widespread.....at least in the way you make it seem.


    You said:
    "The fact that they traveled West doesn't prove that they had the influence you claim they had in spreading premillennialism when they traveled. The fact that both were in Asia Minor for part of their life before traveling West doesn't prove that they derived their premillennialism from Asia Minor. How do you know that Justin didn't attain his premillennialism in Israel, prior to going to Ephesus (if he went there, as Eusebius reports)?"


    If we take the Epistle of Barnabas out of the picture, then I think I can make that claim with them. The book of Revelation had to spread from the east to the west.

    I don't see anything wrong with the book traveling to different regions through people migrating from one place to the next.

    Lets look at the dates & places of some of the people you listed (I'm not including Barnabas).


    Justin Martyr lived from 100 A.D. to about 165 A.D. (from the east to Rome)

    Irenaeus lived from 130 A.D. to about 200 A.D. (from Ashia minor to France)


    Tertullian lived from 160 A.D. to about 230 A.D. (Carthage)


    Hippolytus lived from 170 A.D. to about 236 A.D. (Rome)


    Cyprian about 258 A.D. (Carthage)


    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".


    Victorinus 304 A.D. (lived in Syria)


    Lactantius 250 A.D. to about 325 A.D. (maybe Gaul, which is modern day France....I could be wrong about that)


    Both Saints Justin Martrye and Irenaeus preceed most of the people on your list.

    Some think that Saint Hippolytus was a disciple of Saint Irenaeus. Now this may or may not be true, but there seems to be some influence there.


    My theory is that it went from the East to Rome (Through Justin Martyre) and Gaul(France) through Irenaeus, and from there to North Africa (Carthage)

    Now I could be wrong in all of this, but It seems like a decent guess. Especially when you look at the dates and places of where the premillers lived.


    You said:
    "The fact that a source is later in time than Justin and Irenaeus doesn't prove that he attained his premillennialism by means of the influence of Justin and Irenaeus. And you aren't addressing what I said about the unlikelihood that people in other regions would keep accepting premillennialism when they already had an established contrary eschatology from another apostolic source or multiple apostolic sources."


    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. Who knows, maybe Justin & Irenaeus brought the book of Revelations with them, while going west. They also could of brought some of the works of Papias with them as well.

    I could be wrong about what I am about to say, but I think it was said that "Hippolytus" knew greek or wrote in greek. If this is true then he was able to read works that came from the east. I might be wrong again, but the same might be true for Tertullian. I know he knew old Latin, but he could of translated some manuscripts from greek to old latin.


    We know that some people did reject it. Dionysius said "Some people before his time.

    "Some persons before our time have set this book aside and entirely rejected it. They have criticized it chapter by chapter, trying to demonstrate that it is without either sense or reason. They have also alleged that its title is false. For they have that John is the author.....they claim that non of the Apostles, nor indeed any of the Saints, nor any person belonging to the church, could be its author. Rather, they say that Cerinthus and the heretical sect founded by him.....attached that title to the book....However, I, for my part, could not venture to set this book aside. For there are many brethern who value it highly." Dionysius of Alexandria 262 A.D. [5]


    So my guess would be around 200 A.D. Which is around the same time you start to see, more and more people talk about it, in there writtings. And alot of these people are either in the west or North Africa.

    You said:
    "If premillennialism doesn't require "giving up much", then why would it be considered a heresy? If it requires "giving up" something, even if it's not much, you should explain why people who already had an apostolic eschatology would keep giving that eschatology up in favor of another eschatology with less apostolic support."


    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.

    I gave up premill because the Eastern view still believed in a future Anti-christ, a future resurrection of the dead, and a future second coming.

    Some people in the west think the second coming already happened in 70 A.D. Yeah, it would be hard to change if you had to believe that. It would be hard to change if you couldn't believe in a future anti-christ.

    But I doubt that was the case back then. They didn't have full-preterists back then, they didn't have partial prets that didn't believe in a future anti-christ back then. So I don't think they had to worry about some of the things western eschatology worries about.

    The differences wasn't as major then, as it is now. In our day in time.

    I use to defend pre-mill, and it wasn't that hard for me to change.

    Now I don't know if you are a pre-miller, but if you are then I will say, "if it wasn't hard for me to change, then it shouldn't be hard for you either"




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  22. steve said...
    "What's your problem, jnorm?

    The point is your criterion. Why is your criterion valid for one topic, but invalid for another? When you make statements like, "If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong," or "“If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them,” how is that criterion applicable to one topic, but inapplicable to another?"

    Truth be told, I was focused on one topic. If I would of known that the tables would of been turned on me, in regards to premill, then I would of never of made the claim as strong as I did in regards to the topic of the Trinity.

    The doctrine of the Trinity has a different context than premill does. Both Tradition (in more than one region) as well as the councils
    confirms the doctrine.

    Whereas premill, had it's start in one region. The finger is mostly pointed at Saint Papias. And it was eventually condemned by a council.

    So yes, the argument would be similar, but they are not the same.

    I am sorry for coming off too strongly. And if I hurt your feelings or the feelings of anyone else by saying anything rude. Please forgive me. I am sorry.





    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jason Engwer,

    What do you know of the "Quartodeciman controversy"?

    For that is my template for the two tradition theory in regards to pre-mill. Now I know that the Quartodeciman controversy is a different topic than pre-mill so everything isn't going to be the same. There will be some differences, because they each have there own contexts.

    But that is where my diverce tradition theory of different regions comes from.

    However, when pressed on the issue. I saw that the argument for it, in regards to pre-mill wasn't as strong. Plus in regards to the Quartodeciman controversy. It was a difference in custom. And the New Testament allowed for a difference in certain customs.

    So yes, I may of been wrong to borrow that idea, and bring it into the pre-mill situation.

    I saw that primative christian eschatology wasn't a monolith.

    I will now change my tone, in regards to this theory. I won't be as assertive.






    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jason quoted what I said to King Neb in regards to premill. What you quoted was in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity with Steve.

    That's irrelvant, JORM. Drawing a distinction between what you said with respect to what you said with respect to King Neb and with respect to the Trinity doesn't help your case. It only hurts you case. For that's an admission that in at least one of those instance you were arguing that John taught premillenialism - and was wrong, and he was wrong because a later council contradicted him - and not only that offering arguments that are inconsistent with each other and are, in fact, offering a multiple choice argument for the authority and the content of Apostolic Tradition. But when Steve called you out on that, you denied you were doing it, despite the fact that he documented it.

    Indeed, the heart of your complaint is that we started talking about PM when you wanted to talk about the Aseity of the Father.

    Once again, you can't keep track of what you write and accuse us of putting words in your mouth.

    You can't use my quotes in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity and say, they were in regards to premill.

    Sure we can - and the reason we can is that we're following your original argument. You shift your criterion. You say in one place that nobody can be sure of how John understood the interpretation of his own eschatology, but then you claim Nicene Trinitarianism is Apostolic. Once again, we need to spell it out for you. If nobody can be sure of how John understood the interpretation of his eschatological writings (and thereby nobody really know John's own eschatological views) then you're in no position to determine the understanding of any other Apostle on that topic. Further, if you're not in a position to know that understanding for eschatology, you're in no position to declare it heretical unless you think the Apostles themselves could get it wrong. So, what determines what is right and wrong isn't what is "Apostolic" it's what a council determines. Apostolic interpretation qua Apostolic interpretation is mooted.

    Consequently, the same argument applies to Trintarianism. If you can't know the Apostolic interpretation of eschatology, how can you know it regarding the Trinity? Because a certain view was "widespread" over more than one region?

    Well, considering the Apostles dispersed that's what you'd find.

    But which Apostles actually had much to say about eschatology? In Scripture we know John wrote on it. We know Paul did too. Peter alludes to a bit. But the issue isn't what they wrote, but what they actually interpreted? How can you verify how they interpreted their own writings?

    It's a nonsequitur to say that because a later council condemned one and not the other that the Apostles definitely believed Nicene Trinitarianism but not premillenialism, because PM was condemned. It's also a nonsequitur to conclude that because PM had its roots in Asia Minor and Nicene Trintarianism was more widespread, that the latter was definitely "Apostolic" and the other was not. Error can be widespread and the truth be confined to a particular area.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Triabloguers,

    The fact that Christ will reign or not for a thousand yrs on this earth in the earthly city of Jerusalem is a mistake of minute importance compared to a wrong view of the Trinity. -- which isn't to say that we will permit or allow for ANY.

    (And there ARE no "auto-theistic" Fathers, are there?) :-|

    Furthermore, not all Fathers were Premillenialists, so You can't say that we have a consensus that has undergone changes: the other view won out.

    And Revelation has been constantly rejected in the course of history by the very same Churches to which it was purportedly addressed. The only seven somethings that had ever received it constantly throughout human history are the Romans, whose city Rome is founded upon seven hills; and where Satan was enthroned (Revelation 2:13).

    This fact is not without reason, since the Romans seem to have been very fond of Apocalyptic writings generally: whether John's, or Peter's, or Hermas' Shephard, or Ezra's. (see the Muratory Canon, for instance; and remember that IV Ezra was part of Catholic Bibles up until the age of Trent, when 3rd and 4th Ezra weren't included).

    The fact that it was rejected by the very same cities to which it was supposed to have been written to is also of signifficance: the excuse for that is that some or certain heretics used it and abused it at a certain point in time, ... but just *think* for a minute before easily passing on Your judgement:

    -- Matthew's Gospel was used and abused by various Judaizing sects;
    -- Luke's Gospel, along with Acts and 10 of St. Paul's Epistles, by Marcionist anti-Judaizing Gnostics;
    -- John's Gospel by Valentinian Gnostics;

    yet were *ANY* of these books EVER rejected on that basis? :-\ I don't think so ...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Uhm, ... Guys,

    You're wrong in Your Patristic examples: they don't teach Premillenialism. :-( At least not those from:

    Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:28:3, 5:33:2-4)
    Tertullian (Against Marcion, 3:24)
    Hippolytus (On Daniel, 2:4)
    Cyprian (section 2 in the preface and chapter 11 in Treatise 11, On the Exhortation to Martyrdom)

    Justin indeed teaches it precisely; and the four unknown ones (Victorinus, Lanctantius, Commodianus and that anonymous guy from Eusebius) I haven't checked (due to their not being Fathers, nor being of any importance or significance). And the Tertullian example I haven't been ablr to locate (3:24 ? -- if it's 3rd Book and 24th Chapter, then there's nothing there). :-(

    Actually, it seems to me that their words as to the world ending in 6 days, a.k.a. 6,000 yrs, does actually imply the eternity of the seventh day or age. (At least in the case of Iraeneus that clearly seems to be so: he argues for the eternality of the Kingdom inaugurated with the coming of the 7th day: just read the following chapters from his 5th Book also).

    I did enjoy, however, the extremely outrageous allegoricall-mystical-typological interpretations that they had to offer for various portions of the Old and New Testaments; as well as for Cyprian's pages-long evocation of the glorious Maccabee Martyrs and their courageous mother; and for mentioning Tobith and Tobias also in the same chapter. :-) -- Not that You would bother reading these also, though ... 8-) :>

    ReplyDelete
  27. And, as I've told You, the earthly Kingdom that spanned from 6,000 AM to 7,000 AM is Constantinople. (lasting from the 4th to the 15th century, for about 1,000 yrs) -- Oh, but You don't like this idea too much, ... do You, now? >;) ;D

    330 -- Constantine makes Byzantium into his capital (New Rome), which is renamed Constantinople.

    395 -- The Empire is permanently split into eastern and western halves, following on the death of Theodosius I.

    1453 -- The Ottoman Turks conquer Constantinople, and with the death of Constantine XI Palaiologos, the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire, the Byzantine Empire comes to an end, marking final destruction of the Roman Empire.

    In any case, it is NOT THE Kingdom of Heaven, but the *image* of that Kingdom on earth. ("MY Kingdom is NOT of THIS world" -- Jesus Christ)

    ReplyDelete
  28. NPMcCallum said:

    "Regarding the Apollanarians, St. Gregory mentions their chilliasm here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iv.ii.iv.html"

    I was asking about First Constantinople and Jnorm888's claims about a condemnation of premillennialism in general. What do you think Gregory Nazianzen's comments demonstrate? What's the relevance to a general condemnation of premillennialism at First Constantinople?

    ReplyDelete
  29. LVKA wrote:

    "You don't get it: Revelation was written with a disgust towards the 'Synagogue of Satan' and towards the 'earthly Jerusalem': they were kicked out of Synagogues and had fled Jerusalem because of persecution (Saul of Tarsus). So St. Joh is offering his readers a promise of a marvelous Heavenly worship (the whole imagery of Revelation is taken right out of Temple- and Synagogue-services), with which Christ will repay those that the false Israel (the unbelieving Jews) have expelled the true Israel (the Church) from Temple and from Synagogue. And He will let those expelled from the earthly city enter the Heavenly one, which is eternal. The Jews on the other hand already got their reward for being repulsive towards Christians: at first they thought that they were the winners; but when the entire city of Jerusalem, together with the Temple were pulverized, then they thought again. Son, no, the earthly Jerusalem and the earthly Temple already HAD their time to repent, for a few decades, but since they didn't use it wisely ... :-( And the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is obviously NOT an earthly dominion. The ONLY 'demolished Temple' that Christ had 'rebuild' was his Body, on the third day."

    You're making a lot of unsupported assertions without interacting with the evidence I cited. I explained why your interpretation of John 18 has to be demonstrated, not just asserted. You haven't demonstrated that your reading of that passage is correct. And I cited passages that refer to Christ's reign over earth, such as Matthew 25, Acts 1, Revelation 11, and Revelation 20. You haven't interacted with those passages. I didn't say anything about the temple, and the judgment of first-century Jews for their sin doesn't prove that Jesus can't have a millennial kingdom later in history, nor does it even prove that He can't have a millennial kingdom centered in Jerusalem. You keep ignoring the evidence cited against your assertions, and you keep making those assertions without offering much supporting argumentation. It doesn't seem that you give your responses much thought before posting them.

    You go on to write, in a later post:

    "In any case, it is NOT THE Kingdom of Heaven, but the *image* of that Kingdom on earth."

    If you're saying that the kingdom consists of more than its earthly manifestations, then who denies that? Premillennialists don't. When they refer to Christ's millennial kingdom, they aren't saying that the earthly manifestation that will be seen for one thousand years is the entirety of Christ's reign. You don't seem to understand the position you're criticizing. You still haven't demonstrated that John 18 contradicts premillennialism.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jason,

    First of all, the passages pointed out by You from the Fathers speak clearly of 6,000 AM to 7,000 AM: there are NO OTHER views present there that embrace ANOTHER period of time: THAT'S why it disappeared from the face of the world together with the coming of that certain age without what was expected: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT! :-|

    Furthermore: they do not seem to speak of that time-frame as being a temporal one: God FINISHED His Creation in six days AND He will *also* FINISH the world in 6,000 yrs. : so, if You want to imply something else, go ahead! (BUT SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, ... and DON'T try to twist the Fathers' words and make them speak Your premillenialist dialect). :-|

    We do not believe that material creation will be obliterated: the Scriptures speak of a New Earth and of a New Heaven. We believe in the resurrection, and that we will not be disembodied spirits. BUT we do NOT share materialistic views of that reality, such as that put forth by Jehova's Witness, 7th Day Adventism, Judaism, or Islam. We believe them to be pretty disgusting and feel repelled by them. We believe that our bodies (and creation generally) will share in the same transfigured and deified nature as the resurrected body of our Saviour Himself, with which He rose from the Grave and walked through walls and closed doors, appearing and disappearing, or with which He walked on water, and that we will share in His Taboric Light from the Trans-figuration; and that Christ's words about there being no more mating [and eating and drinking and suffering and pain but also the lack of bodily pleasures], and that we will be like the Angels in Heaven, (though obviously embodied)

    We're repelled by such concepts foreign to our religion as a Messianic Age or other man-concocted utopias (such as Communism), Zionism (whether Jewish or Christian ), and the entire plethora of absurdities put forth by secularized, atheistic, humanistic Jews in the last few centuries, who do NOT believe in a personal Messiah, (as their Torah-abiding, traditional Orthodox counterparts still do), but have instead chosen to follow the destructive path set forth by either Protestantism [Reformed Judaism] or Humanistic Atheism [Humanistic Judaism], etc. and as such do not follow the tradition of their fathers and forefathers and elders.

    The same goes for the Muslim mounts of pilau and women whose virginity closes back after penetration.

    The same goes for any other disgusting Christian-Protestant view of an "earthly Paradise", such as those put forth by either Jehova's Witness or 7th Day Adventists: these opinions simply repell our guts out.

    So, yes, the Scripture are NOT Gnostic (death = eliberation from material AND evil world created by an evil demiurge who trapped out spirits in this prison cells made of flesh; but we also equally abhor such repugnant ideas as those who believe that President BUSH is the Burning Bush through whom God spoke, and that we will have an existance such as this one, filled with bodily pleasures, though not pain, for 1,000 yrs with Christ reigning from His villa in Jerusalem, and probably driving a red Mercedes; Pax Americana; democracy imposed by force; peace imposed by bombs etc).

    YOU WILL NOWHERE FIND SUCH GROSSLY DISTORTED VIEWS IN THE FATHERS. :-|

    As for people who say resurrection is "spiritual", that we will be made alive "in the spirit" (we WILL be made alive in the spirit, but this spirit will be the life-giving principle of the [trans-figured and Christ-like] body), and that we will all share in a "spiritual" eternal life (such as Your friend Peter Pike over here) : they're equally heretical.

    Is this helping You to better understand the Orthodox position with regards to God's *HEAVENLY* Kingdom and the Resurrection of the *BODIES*, the Afterlife and the Second Coming? :-|

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jnorm888 said:

    "In regards to premill, traditionally the finger is pointed at Saint Papias."

    Papias is rarely mentioned or quoted among the ante-Nicene fathers. He was one bishop among others. He doesn't seem to have traveled much. His church wasn't among the most prominent churches of the time. Why should we think that he was as influential as you're suggesting? Irenaeus mentions him in the context of discussing premillennialism, but he also mentions other sources in that context. Attributing the origin or popularity of premillennialism to Papias is unverifiable speculation, regardless of whether it's "traditional" to do so in some circles.

    You write:

    "I still disagree with you in regards to the epistle of Barnabas."

    But you don't explain why. I explained why I view the document as I do. Why don't you interact with what I wrote on the subject?

    You write:

    "Barnabas is your weak link. You need it, in order to say alot of the other stuff you said."

    How so?

    You write:

    "Plus you are making a claim that the premill view was widespread by 130 A.D. I doubt that."

    I didn't say that premillennialism was widespread by that time. But, since you've brought the issue up, yes, I do believe it was widespread by that time. Later sources who advocate premillennialism cite earlier sources who did the same, and some of those earlier sources date to around the time of The Epistle Of Barnabas. Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho wasn't written until a little past the middle of the second century, but the debate he recounts in that document occurred around the year 135. In that debate, Justin refers to premillennialism as if it's a widely held belief (Dialogue With Trypho, 80). Trypho's knowledge of premillennialism and Justin's references to disputes on the subject among professing Christians suggest that the doctrine was known and discussed for a long time prior to Justin's debate with Trypho. Similarly, Irenaeus refers to disciples of the apostle John who advocated the doctrine (Against Heresies, 5:33:3-4).

    You write:

    "If we take the Epistle of Barnabas out of the picture, then I think I can make that claim with them. The book of Revelation had to spread from the east to the west."

    But you haven't given us any good reason to "take the Epistle of Barnabas out of the picture". And Justin Martyr tells us that the doctrine was already widely known and discussed, both by Christians and non-Christians, around the year 135. I cited The Epistle Of Barnabas as an example of early premillennialism outside of Asia Minor, but it's not the only example.

    You write:

    "My theory is that it went from the East to Rome (Through Justin Martyre) and Gaul(France) through Irenaeus, and from there to North Africa (Carthage) Now I could be wrong in all of this, but It seems like a decent guess."

    There's no evidence that would lead us to your "decent guess". It's an unverifiable speculation that you've come up with as a result of a desire to lessen the significance of the widespread acceptance of premillennialism. And you still aren't explaining 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:

    "Now I don't know if you are a pre-miller"

    Yes, I am.

    You write:

    "I will now change my tone, in regards to this theory. I won't be as assertive."

    I'm glad to hear that. That's commendable.

    Regarding the Quartodeciman controversy, I suspect that there were differing apostolic traditions on that issue, partly because of what I mentioned in the other thread. The apostles considered such holiday observances a matter of freedom (Romans 14:5-6). The differing traditions are early and credible, and I see no reason to deny that different sources received different traditions from the apostolic church.

    But premillennialism is a doctrinal matter. The apostolic documents and the early post-apostolic sources suggest that the apostles were united in their doctrine. You referred to one eschatological tradition coming from John and another coming from men like Paul and Peter. If Revelation was written in the last decade of the first century, as I believe, then John wrote around 30 years after Paul and Peter had died. He surely knew what their eschatology was, and what they had taught would have been widespread by the time John wrote. If he had been proposing an eschatology contrary to theirs, I would expect to see many and explicit traces of that conflict in the historical record. Instead, the mainstream approach toward eschatology was to treat all of the apostolic sources as harmonious. And the disciples of John speak highly of the other leaders of the apostolic church, such as Paul and Mark.

    The early opponents of premillennialism don't seem to claim the same degree of extra-Biblical confirmation of their eschatology as the early premillennialists claimed for theirs. Papias and Irenaeus refer to men from the apostolic generation (apostolic leaders or those who knew them) teaching premillennialism outside of scripture. I'm not aware of any comparable claim from the early opponents of premillennialism, related to their eschatology. Both the widespread acceptance of premillennialism early on and the nature of the claims made about its history by its proponents suggest to me that it's more likely to be the eschatology of the apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  32. LVKA writes:

    "the four unknown ones (Victorinus, Lanctantius, Commodianus and that anonymous guy from Eusebius) I haven't checked (due to their not being Fathers, nor being of any importance or significance)"

    The source I cited from Eusebius, Nepos, isn't anonymous. Why would you respond to a source I named by objecting that he's anonymous? And you still haven't supported your claim that men like Victorinus and Lactantius shouldn't be considered fathers. You just repeat the assertion without supporting argumentation. And why are we supposed to believe that a bishop and martyr like Victorinus, for example, has no significance? You need to make more of an effort to support your claims rather than just asserting them.

    You keep mentioning "fathers" and claiming that men like Victorinus and Lactantius shouldn't be considered such, but these men don't have to be accepted as church fathers in order to be relevant. I was addressing the existence of premillennialism outside of Asia Minor. The doctrine doesn't have to be advocated by a church father outside of Asia Minor in order for the doctrine to have been accepted outside of Asia Minor.

    You write:

    "You're wrong in Your Patristic examples: they don't teach Premillenialism. :-( At least not those from: Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:28:3, 5:33:2-4) Tertullian (Against Marcion, 3:24) Hippolytus (On Daniel, 2:4)Cyprian (section 2 in the preface and chapter 11 in Treatise 11, On the Exhortation to Martyrdom)"

    Irenaeus refers to the typical premillennial framework of the days of creation. His emphasis is on the first six days, but he also cites what Genesis says about the seventh day, then he goes on to equate the days with a thousand years. And he cites some of Papias' comments on the millennium, and we know that Papias was a premillennialist. Would you explain why we're supposed to conclude that Irenaeus wasn't advocating premillennialism?

    I cited the wrong chapter for Tertullian. It's chapter 25:

    "But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, 'let down from heaven,' which the apostle also calls 'our mother from above;' and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld." (Against Marcion, 3:25)

    Hippolytus:

    "And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day 'on which God rested from all His works.' For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they 'shall reign with Christ,' when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.'" (On Daniel, 2:4)

    Cyprian:

    "It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man....the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years" (section 2 in the preface and chapter 11 in Treatise 11, On The Exhortation To Martyrdom)

    That Cyprian viewed the return of Christ as something that would occur at the end of the six thousand years, not at the end of the seventh thousand, is suggested in passages such as the following. Notice that the first passage is from the treatise quoted above, which means that Cyprian referred to the coming of the Antichrist being near in the same document in which he referred to the six thousandth year being near. Thus, the seventh millennium would have to come after the Antichrist:

    "You have desired, beloved Fortunatus that, l since the burden of persecutions and afflictions is lying heavy upon us, and in the ending and completion of the world the hateful time of Antichrist is already beginning to draw near, I would collect from the sacred Scriptures some exhortations for preparing and strengthening the minds of the brethren, whereby I might animate the soldiers of Christ for the heavenly and spiritual contest." (section 1 in the preface in Treatise 11, On The Exhortation To Martyrdom)

    "For you ought to know and to believe, and hold it for certain, that the day of affliction has begun to hang over our heads, and the end of the world and the time of Antichrist to draw near, so that we must all stand prepared for the battle" (Letter 55:1)

    "Nor let it disturb you, dearest brethren, if with some, in these last times, either an uncertain faith is wavering, or a fear of God without religion is vacillating, or a peaceable concord does not continue. These things have been foretold as about to happen in the end of the world; and it was predicted by the voice of the Lord, and by the testimony of the apostles, that now that the world is failing, and the Antichrist is drawing near, everything good shall fail, but evil and adverse things shall prosper." (Letter 67:7)

    You write:

    "So, yes, the Scripture are NOT Gnostic (death = eliberation from material AND evil world created by an evil demiurge who trapped out spirits in this prison cells made of flesh; but we also equally abhor such repugnant ideas as those who believe that President BUSH is the Burning Bush through whom God spoke, and that we will have an existance such as this one, filled with bodily pleasures, though not pain, for 1,000 yrs with Christ reigning from His villa in Jerusalem, and probably driving a red Mercedes; Pax Americana; democracy imposed by force; peace imposed by bombs etc)."

    You keep ignoring my refutations of your arguments in order to make irrelevant points about positions I haven't been advocating.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I want to retract what I said in my last post about the chapter number in Tertullian. My original citation was correct. I went to the New Advent version of Against Marcion to check on the chapter number, and I didn't notice that their chapter number is wrong. They go from chapter 23 to chapter 25. I imagine that LVKA did the same thing I did. He saw chapter 25, then scrolled the screen up and read the chapter before it, assuming that it would be chapter 24. But since the numbering is wrong, it was chapter 23. That portion of Tertullian's treatise only has 24 chapters, so the one labeled as chapter 25 is actually chapter 24. My original chapter number was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jason,

    we're spelling the year 7,516 from the Expulsion from Paradise. The End just didn't come the way pious speculations made by the Fathers living before that time would have had us believed that it will take place: and a good reason for that might be the very words of our Redeemer Himself: Mark 13:32  But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. -- don't You agree? :-\

    And there WAS indeed an earthly Kingdom; AND in that certain time-frame nonetheless; and it WAS Christian, and it WAS an image of that Kingdom, and the Anti-Christ that John spoke about [i.e., the pagan Roman Empire, persecuting Christians], WAS defeated [by St. C-tine the Great's conversion to Chr.] ... but it just WASN'T THAT Kingdom, al right? :-\ They did have SOMETHING right, ... but they didn't know the WHOLE or EXACT picture, OK? :-\ And how could they, since the Scriptures had already warned us before-hand from being TOO nosy about it, and for doing TOO much speculation about it, right? :-\ I guess, what I *AM* trying to say here is: They were Fathers, -- NOT Prophets! All right? :-\

    And the way Protestants paint it: (kitschey cosmic Disney-Land) it's just NOT Patristical, OK?:-\ It's much more spiritual, yet without losing our bodies, but rather transforming or transfiguring them after the image and likeness of Christ's. (Just think of the monks here). And *NO* bodily pains *OR* pleasures [i.e., no passions *at all*] are to be felt in it: that's what apatheia means, and it's part of the theosis that the Saints (of which You make such constant mention) have already received in this earthly life by their ascetical strugles. -- THAT *IS* Patristics 101. OK? :-\ [I mean: You DO see the difference between what the Fathers paint, and what the Apocalyptic Prot. present, ... don't You?]. :-\

    Whenever You hear a fellow tellin' You otherwise (whether he's a Chr. Zionist, J.W., 7th Day Adventist, Republican, political activist or utopist, Cath. Communist from South- or Central-America, Che Guevarra fan ... or any other that expect an "earhtly Paradise") -- just tell him to leave You alone. (Trust me, You'll do much better without entertaining such beliefs).

    They've been proven wrong in the past, and they'll be proven wrong in the future. (Historia est magistra vitae et vita memoriae).

    ReplyDelete
  35. I imagine that LVKA did the same thing I did.

    Uhm, ... no, I didn't. I have Scahff's entire plethora of Patristical translations as PDF's on my computer: they're bookmarked and all that. (Tough "Tertullian" isn't).

    ReplyDelete
  36. And I'm still under the impression that the 7th millennium is eternal in the Fathers that I mentioned. Because God *finished* His work in six days, and *rests* on the seventh. Where do they say (except Justin and Tertullian) that the seventh will have an end? :-\ And Tertullian makes it pretty clear that the "Jerusalem" there is a Heavenly City; doesn't he? :-\

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jason, (and the others also),

    just read this. It's about the Eucharist in John 6.

    ReplyDelete
  38. LVKA said:

    "And I'm still under the impression that the 7th millennium is eternal in the Fathers that I mentioned. Because God *finished* His work in six days, and *rests* on the seventh. Where do they say (except Justin and Tertullian) that the seventh will have an end?"

    What do you mean by "the Fathers that I mentioned"? You previously listed Tertullian as one of the fathers I supposedly had misrepresented. But now you exempt him, along with Justin Martyr.

    Reread my last response to you. Either in my discussion of each of those four fathers or in my quotations of them, there's a reference to a period of one thousand years. If you think I'm wrong, you'll need to explain why rather than just telling us what "impression" you have.

    And the passages I've cited aren't the only relevant ones. You can find others by consulting historians and patristic scholars who have written on the subject, for example. It doesn't seem that you've studied the issue much.

    ReplyDelete
  39. LVKA said:

    "just read this. It's about the Eucharist in John 6."

    We've addressed that passage many times. See the archives. The article you linked to doesn't address much of what we've discussed, and its arguments are unconvincing.

    Jesus did clarify what He meant, repeatedly (verses 26-27, 29, 35, 63-64, etc.).

    In John 2:19-22, Jesus refers to His body as a temple, which many people misunderstood as a reference to the actual temple in Jerusalem. He didn't explain to these people what He really meant. We read in Mark 14:56-59 that some people, long after Jesus had made the statement in John 2:19, were still thinking that He had referred to the actual temple in Jerusalem. And in John 21:22-23, we read of another instance of Jesus saying something that was misunderstood by some people, with the misunderstanding leading to the false conclusion that the apostle John wouldn't die. Yet, Jesus didn't clarify the statement. It was John who clarified it decades later in his gospel. (Any suggestion that John didn't clarify chapter 6 in his gospel only begs the question. How do you know that passages such as John 6:35 and 6:63 aren't clarifications of what Jesus meant?) Even without any clarification, Jesus could have been following the same pattern we see in Matthew 13:10-17, John 2:19-22, and John 21:22-23. To this day, people continue to disagree about what Jesus meant by some of the parables in Matthew's gospel, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You previously listed Tertullian as one of the fathers I supposedly had misrepresented.

    I know; I've copy-pasted him by mistake in that list, and I only saw the error after publishing the comment. (I've told You I wasn't able to locate that passage from him).

    I basically see neither one saying that the 7th will end; nor that an eternal 8th will begin afterwards. And in any case, I see neither one of them entertaining such a grosse material view of the Kingdom as Protestants usually do.

    As for Patristical commentaries, I don't know how OK they are: maybe first the Prots said one thing; then the counter-Reformationists contradicted them without doing proper verification; and then the Orthodox parroted & monkeyed them as we've been mindlessly doing for the last ... 500 yrs? :-\ We just ``copy-paste`` things from Prots to answer the Caths and things from Caths to answer the Prots, and we aren't even careful to see how much this fits with our own identity, ... if we're even aware of having one ... :-\

    In any case, now that we live in the year that we willy-nilly live in, hundreds -and even thousands- of years after the predictions were made, and the fulfillments of those predictions materialized themselves we see ... a few things:

    -- the *differences* between expectations and fulfillments.
    -- the *similarities* between expectations and fulfillments.
    -- and -MOST IMPORTANTLY- we learn a very important lesson: don't be TOO nosy or TOO inquiring into the things which are hidden ... `cause You're just gonna end saying things which might NOT be QUITE true, and set a stumbling-stone for many (and there's really no point doing that) -- Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42.

    As for the John 6 link, what can I say: `t'was worth a shot, right? I mean, ... what was there to lose? (Save Your eternal soul, of course)
    >:)

    ReplyDelete
  41. LVKA writes:

    "I basically see neither one saying that the 7th will end; nor that an eternal 8th will begin afterwards."

    Who's involved in the "neither one"? Which sources are you addressing?

    And if a source says that the seventh day will last for one thousand years, why would he have to go on to say that the seventh day "will end"? A thousand years is a limited amount of time. We don't normally expect a reference to a thousand years to be a reference to an endless time, especially if the same source refers in the same context to human history as consisting of six periods of a thousand years.

    Similarly, there's no need for a source to affirm "that an eternal 8th will begin afterwards" in order to affirm premillennialism. The latter can be affirmed without any comments being made about the former. You're asking for these sources to say something that doesn't need to be said in order for my citation of these sources to be valid.

    You write:

    "And in any case, I see neither one of them entertaining such a grosse material view of the Kingdom as Protestants usually do."

    Again, I don't know which "them" you're referring to. And the degree of materialism within a source's premillennialism is a different issue than whether a source was premillennial. You keep bringing up issues I wasn't addressing.

    And I don't accept your characterization of what Protestant premillennialists "usually" believe. Your assertion on that subject isn't enough to establish your conclusion.

    Besides, I'm not obligated to agree with what's "usual" among Protestant premillennialists. Where have you seen me advocate a "gross material view" of the millennium?

    You write:

    "As for Patristical commentaries, I don't know how OK they are: maybe first the Prots said one thing; then the counter-Reformationists contradicted them without doing proper verification; and then the Orthodox parroted & monkeyed them as we've been mindlessly doing for the last ... 500 yrs?"

    Again, it's unclear what you're referring to. You should make more of an effort to communicate clearly. Which of my comments are you responding to? Are you addressing what I said about the significance of Victorinus and other patristic sources? If so, why would you be relying on what other Eastern Orthodox have "parroted and monkeyed"? Why don't you make more of an effort to consult the original sources yourself and consult some of the relevant scholarship? How many of your other conclusions about church history are dependent on such "parroting and monkeying"?

    ReplyDelete
  42. LVKA's claims about how the churches of Revelation 2-3 responded to the book of Revelation have been answered here.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I was refering to the ones I said I was refering to (without Tertullian which I've copy-pasted there by mistake): Iraeneus, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Barnabas. Just read the subsequent chapters from Iraeneus, following the citation from Book V that You gave.

    And the subsequent rejection of Revelations by the very same Churches to which it was addresses cannot be undermined, given the uses and abuses to which the vast majority of the NT books was as well subjected to by Gnostics or various such sects. (4 Gospels, Acts, and 10 of Paul Epistles = 15 books, out of 27: -- and, somehow, only Revelations gets the evacuation notice: I just don't buy it). :-\

    Also, it cannot be undermined that the only ones to constantly receive it were the ones that seemed to traditionally have such an apocalyptical inclination. (ie, the Romans: the citizens of the city traditionally founded upon seven hills; where Satan reigned).

    ReplyDelete
  44. LVKA writes:

    “I was refering to the ones I said I was refering to (without Tertullian which I've copy-pasted there by mistake): Iraeneus, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Barnabas.”

    Where did you say you were referring to them? You didn’t.

    You write:

    “Just read the subsequent chapters from Iraeneus, following the citation from Book V that You gave.”

    I’ve read the entirety of Against Heresies, as well as everything else Irenaeus wrote. There’s nothing in his writings that overturns what I discussed earlier in this thread. If you want us to believe otherwise, then you need to be more specific. I cited specific passages and explained specific details within those passages leading to my conclusion. Your vague response isn’t sufficient.

    You write:

    “And the subsequent rejection of Revelations by the very same Churches to which it was addresses cannot be undermined”

    You still aren’t offering any documentation for your claim about rejection of Revelation by those churches. In contrast, I’ve demonstrated that the evidence supports an acceptance of Revelation by the churches in question in their early years.

    You write:

    “given the uses and abuses to which the vast majority of the NT books was as well subjected to by Gnostics or various such sects. (4 Gospels, Acts, and 10 of Paul Epistles = 15 books, out of 27: -- and, somehow, only Revelations gets the evacuation notice: I just don't buy it”

    I haven’t asked you to “buy” such an argument, since it’s an argument I haven’t been using. You keep ignoring my arguments in order to spend your time burning straw men instead.

    You write:

    “Also, it cannot be undermined that the only ones to constantly receive it were the ones that seemed to traditionally have such an apocalyptical inclination. (ie, the Romans: the citizens of the city traditionally founded upon seven hills; where Satan reigned).”

    Not only have you not documented that claim about “the only ones” to “constantly” accept the book, but you also haven’t explained why we should think that Revelation’s comments about a city on seven hills and the reign of Satan are to be believed if Revelation isn’t canonical.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It's a well-known fact that the East accepted Revelation only very late, about the time of St. Isaac the Syrian, the author of the Dogmatics. The same goes for Hebrews in the West. Even today, the book still isn't read liturgically, during any of our services. The East never had a problem with Hebrews and the West never had a problem with Revelation

    ReplyDelete
  46. Jason said:
    "I was asking about First Constantinople and Jnorm888's claims about a condemnation of premillennialism in general. What do you think Gregory Nazianzen's comments demonstrate? What's the relevance to a general condemnation of premillennialism at First Constantinople?"

    Well... Both chilliasm and the Apollinarians (chilliasts, among other heresies) were condemned at First Constantinople. One of the other groups condemned at First Constantinople were chilliasts as well, but I must confess I can't find the reference now. For both of these groups, their chilliasm was connected to their deficient view of Christ (you can see this in St. Gregory).

    Further complicating the issue is the chilliasm of the Originists, who used it as a stepping stone for the transmigration of souls. This is, I hope, obviously heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. the time of St. Isaac the Syrian, the author of the Dogmatics.

    Whoops, sorry: I meant John Damascene. (In any case, even in his time, the opinion still wasn't definitively settled: see JNorm888' bolded comment from the other related article).

    ReplyDelete
  48. LVKA said:

    "It's a well-known fact that the East accepted Revelation only very late, about the time of St. Isaac the Syrian, the author of the Dogmatics. The same goes for Hebrews in the West. Even today, the book still isn't read liturgically, during any of our services. The East never had a problem with Hebrews and the West never had a problem with Revelation"

    You keep making assertions without even attempting to argue for them. The fact that Revelation was disputed by some Eastern sources in later centuries doesn't prove that it must have been disputed in the East in general in earlier centuries, much less that it must have been disputed by the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 in particular. You've made claims about those seven churches, and you've repeatedly failed to document those claims when asked to do so. You've also not explained why we should think that Revelation’s comments about a city on seven hills and the reign of Satan are to be believed if Revelation isn't canonical. You don't make much of an effort to support your claims to begin with, then you ignore so much of the evidence that's cited against your claims.

    Your references to "East" and "West" are simplistic. Revelation had widespread Eastern support early on (Papias, Melito of Sardis, Origen, etc.). Citing what happened centuries later, "even today", doesn't tell us what happened in the earliest generations of Christianity.

    If you want to know why Revelation was so controversial in later centuries, a large part of the explanation probably can be found in this thread. Revelation was associated with premillennialism. While some ante-Nicene sources opposed premillennialism, it wasn't opposed as widely then as it was later. You can't assume, without argument, that later opposition to Revelation reflects earlier opposition to the same degree. Not only are you making such an assumption without argument, but you're also doing so against the evidence we have. As I've shown, the evidence suggests that Revelation was widely accepted early on, both in the West and East. The later doubts in the East are just another example of how unreliable the Eastern churches sometimes are. Their traditions aren't as credible as you make them out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  49. NPMcCallum said:

    "Well... Both chilliasm and the Apollinarians (chilliasts, among other heresies) were condemned at First Constantinople."

    I'm asking you for evidence of the former (a condemnation of premillennialism), not the latter (a condemnation of heretics who were premillennial). When somebody adopts a heresy, such as a false view of Christ, that heresy will tend to come into contact with other doctrines. It will affect their view of the church, their view of marriage, etc. They'll reinterpret other areas of the Christian life in light of their heresy. It doesn't therefore follow that some other area of theology that's being reinterpreted in light of the heresy is itself heretical when separated from that initial heresy. The fact that a group condemned by First Constantinople as heretical was premillennial, or that they associated their heresy with premillennialism, doesn't prove that First Constantinople condemned premillennialism as heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jason,

    now You're contradicting Yourself:

    when I first stated that it's a bit awakward to believe that Revelation was later rejected because of its use and abuse by heretics, You said that You nevr said any such thing (though You obviously knew that that's what Prot. apologists usually say). And now, You actually DO say this, what You told me You never said. -- funny how lies have short feet, don't You agree? :-\

    ReplyDelete
  51. LVKA said:

    "now You're contradicting Yourself: when I first stated that it's a bit awakward to believe that Revelation was later rejected because of its use and abuse by heretics, You said that You nevr said any such thing (though You obviously knew that that's what Prot. apologists usually say). And now, You actually DO say this, what You told me You never said. -- funny how lies have short feet, don't You agree?"

    I haven't contradicted myself or lied. Here's what you wrote on this subject:

    "And Revelation has been constantly rejected in the course of history by the very same Churches to which it was purportedly addressed....The fact that it was rejected by the very same cities to which it was supposed to have been written to is also of signifficance: the excuse for that is that some or certain heretics used it and abused it at a certain point in time...given the uses and abuses to which the vast majority of the NT books was as well subjected to by Gnostics or various such sects. (4 Gospels, Acts, and 10 of Paul Epistles = 15 books, out of 27: -- and, somehow, only Revelations gets the evacuation notice: I just don't buy it"

    I don't use such an "excuse", since I reject the assertion that Revelation was "constantly rejected in the course of history" by the seven churches of Revelation 2-3. Why would I use an excuse to explain an alleged historical fact that I don't consider a fact of history?

    If you're going to claim that you were only referring to what the churches did later in history, your original post didn't suggest that, and you haven't documented that the seven churches in question rejected Revelation either early on or later. And a later rejection would be of less significance, for reasons I've explained.

    Furthermore, my comments about opposition to premillennialism among later sources isn't equivalent to a reference to the use of Revelation by heretics. A person can reject Revelation because he thinks it teaches premillennialism, even if no heretic had ever used the book. You're equating two concepts that aren't the same.

    Where have I contradicted myself or lied?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Oh, but heretics DID use Revlation to inforce their views, or at least that's what I've read in the Fathers: Cerinthus: see the sections: "Eschatology", "Christian opponents", and "Works attributed to Cerinthus".

    ReplyDelete
  53. LVKA said:

    "Oh, but heretics DID use Revlation to inforce their views"

    I didn't deny that.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I didn't deny that.

    Yes, that's true: You've just infirmed it, but You've NEVER EVER denied it. :-\

    ReplyDelete
  55. LVKA said:

    "Yes, that's true: You've just infirmed it, but You've NEVER EVER denied it."

    LVKA has been banned, but, for the benefit of other readers, I want to point out that the fact that I "NEVER EVER denied it" supports what I've been saying, not what LVKA argued. He was asked to explain how I supposedly contradicted myself or lied, and he repeatedly failed to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jason, I would agree with you 100% if it were not for "whose kingdom shall have no end." "Whose kingdom shall have no end" is the ONLY phrase added to the Christological portion of the creed at Constantinople, the same council which condemns a known chilliast (and I think two known chilliasts, if I can find the source). Why add this phrase to the Creed? There is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm. I'll happily accept correction if you can show otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  57. NPMcCallum said:

    "Jason, I would agree with you 100% if it were not for 'whose kingdom shall have no end.' 'Whose kingdom shall have no end' is the ONLY phrase added to the Christological portion of the creed at Constantinople, the same council which condemns a known chilliast (and I think two known chilliasts, if I can find the source). Why add this phrase to the Creed? There is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm. I'll happily accept correction if you can show otherwise."

    As I explained earlier, I don't know much about the history of the creed in question. I don't know the timing of the addition you're referring to or much else about its background. I know there's been disagreement among scholars regarding where different portions of the creed came from. I haven't followed those disputes in detail.

    You've made a lot of assertions, but the only source you've cited so far has been a letter of Gregory Nazianzen, which mentions premillennialism, briefly, as one of the beliefs of some of the heretics in question. It wasn't the central belief of those heretics, and the council itself condemns multiple groups of heretics without any reference to premillennialism. If the phrase in question in the creed came from the council, and the council meant to condemn premillennialism of some type, I would want more evidence before concluding that a condemnation of premillennialism in general was in view. As I said before, an allusion to Luke 1:33 doesn't contradict premillennialism as it's commonly perceived, so the phrase itself shouldn't be seen as a condemnation of premillennialism. You would need to combine the phrase with something else indicating that a condemnation of premillennialism was in mind.

    Philip Schaff writes, concerning this addition to the creed:

    "This addition likewise is found substantially in the Antiochian creeds of 341, and is directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, who taught that the union of the power of God (ἐνέργεια δραστική) with the man Jesus will cease at the end of the world, so that the Son and His kingdom are not eternal Comp. Hefele, i. 438 and 507 sq." (source, note 1441)

    That heresy isn't part of premillennialism in general. As I said earlier, a condemnation of a heretical form of premillennialism wouldn't qualify as a condemnation of premillennialism in general. You have to attach a heresy to premillennialism that isn't part of premillennialism itself in order to place some form of premillennialism under this condemnation.

    You say that "there is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm", but Schaff's comments above provide another context. The eternality of Christ's reign is relevant to heretics who denied that Christ and His reign are eternal. No condemnation of premillennialism in general is needed to make sense of the creed.

    Of the scholars I've read on the history of premillennialism so far, none have argued that the doctrine was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople. And as I noted earlier, the doctrine continued among mainstream Christians after First Constantinople. Furthermore, whoever composed the portion of the creed you're referencing probably realized that premillennialism had been a widespread belief, accepted by the likes of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. In light of such factors, a condemnation of premillennialism in general seems unlikely. The evidence I've seen so far is against your conclusion.

    ReplyDelete