Replies

The point remains that premillennialism was the earliest view of the church. Peter and Paul were among the earliest leaders of the church. As you said, evangelism was the earliest mission of the church.

Because there were later theological ideas does not negate the earliest ideas.

And it certainly is not true that premillennialism is only a recently developed view.

The point remains that premillennialism was the earliest view of the church.

Let's get this straight. Premillennialism was never the view "of the church". There was never an early creed of confession adopted by the church that was distinctively premillennial.

As Schaff says of Irenaeus, "He regarded this expectation of the earthly perfection of Christ’s kingdom as the key-stone of pure doctrine, but adds that many pure and devout Christians of his day did not share this opinion." There were "many" who did not hold his views on the millennium, so it could never have been the view "of the church." Premillennialism was merely an "opinion" of some early church fathers.

So most of these sorts of comments amount to overblown rhetoric.

Because there were later theological ideas does not negate the earliest ideas.

So what different does it make that some folks in the early church (as opposed to the "early church") held nascent premil ideas? The best you can say is that there were some scattered ideas along these lines. But the early church saw lots of odd ideas pop up and fade away, alike Arianism.

None of this really helps the modern dispensationalists, whose basically carnal views on future Israel were almost universally condemned by the early church, even premils. They were only adopted by the heretical groups like the Ebionites. Note Schaff's comment:

The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.

"... a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom". Sounds like modern dispensationalism to the tee.

Because there were later theological ideas does not negate the earliest ideas.

It doesn't negate the earliest ideas but it doesn't mean that the earliest ideas were correct. Look at what this author reasoning is...

Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned as an essential part of the Christian religion

The author is saying that since this doctrine appeared so early in the writings it must be true. If this was true than we all better agree that the Eucharist actually turns into the actual body and blood of Christ. I know many of them (if not all) wrote about that far more than the end times. I can tell you from reading through many of these blessed saints that I certainly wouldn't make the claim of the Eucharist let alone the end times.

Just because most of them may have held a particular belief doesn't make it right. Protestants have always rigthfully held the church fathers in high regards. But in the end all we can do is use the Bible to argue as our actual source. I think there is more of an argument in the dating of Revelation than there is basing it on what the church fathers felt. But I wouldn't hang my hat on any of it.

The Orthodox, on the other thread, feel just as skeptical about the writings of Revelation as I do. If anyone has the best handle on the early church fathers and what they had to say, IMHO, it's the Orthodox. Appartently they are very suspicious about the whole book and rarely discuss it.