[xzins]

Without question, premillennialism was the earliest and most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church. The dean of church historians, Philip Schaff has said, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [A.D. 100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius."2 German historian Adolph Harnack has said, "First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ's second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned as an essential part of the Christian religion. . . . it must be admitted that this expectation was a prominent feature in the earliest proclamation of the gospel, and materially contributed to its success. If the primitive churches had been under the necessity of framing a 'Confession of Faith,' it would certainly have embraced those pictures by means of which the near future was distinctly realized."3

[xzins]

This is a very good balanced view of premillennialism.

The author manages to accomplish his purpose without attacking anyone else.

[xzins]

This is a very good balanced view of premillennialism.

The author manages to accomplish his purpose without attacking anyone else.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen.

That is because for the first three centuries the dominant hermeneutic was a literal/figurative one.

It was under first Origen and then later Augustine, that the hermeneutic switched to a allegorical one.

It was a return to the literal one that sparked the Reformation, although the Reformer's were not consistent in its application.

[HarleyD]

Without question, premillennialism was the earliest and most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church.

I wouldn't necessarily make this assumption but, if so, so what? The early church fathers held erroneous views about many things (E-u-c-h-a-r-i-s-t?). Would Charles Rylie go on record as saying he believes in transubstantiation because Iraeneous did? It's a very weak argument. (I won't bring up my other argument.)

For the first 300 years of the early church the fathers never recorded the basic systematic theology of the church because they were too busy evangelizing. I know. I've looked. The author would like us to think the late date of other views is a bad thing (and I don't believe they were non-existent) but actually some of our greatest theology of the church was finally pulled together and articulated around 300-400AD.

Paul chastised the Thessalonians for their "ignorant" views of the "last days" and this certainly predates the church fathers. I wouldn't base my entire argument on what the majority of the early church fathers believe. Otherwise we're worshiping in the wrong church.

[blue-duncan]

Hold everything! I think we have a winner here. Guess what is the eschatological scheme of the EMERGENT CHURCH MOVEMENT?

From an interview with Brian McLaren.

Brian McLaren: "I think that many of us from Evangelical backgrounds grew up with a sense of hopelessness about human history. We were taught to expect the return of Christ very soon, which entailed the destruction of the earth as we know it, with some new beginning on the other side, a new beginning characterized by radical discontinuity with this history. To care about earth's long-range future, then, became an act of unfaithfulness to God and the Bible. To invest in the earth's long-term survival seemed like a "humanist" thing to do. Thankfully, some Christians found ways to counteract this attitude of abandonment toward the earth and its history even within the "left behind" interpretive framework, but others of us still weren't satisfied.

By getting a fresh look at what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God - not an escape from this world, but the inbreaking of God's will into this world, not the abandonment of earth, but a radical, self-sacrificing commitment to it - we find ourselves being able to gratify desires - Spirit-inspired desires, I believe - to care about God's creation and its future.

Along with a fresh look at the kingdom, a number of people (from a variety of camps, many of which wouldn't agree with each other on many points) are realizing that many of the so-called apocalyptic passages in the gospels and the New Testament as a whole seem to find fulfillment in three related realities: a) the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 67-70, which included the end of the Temple and priestly sacrificial systems, and the continuity of a multi-cultural, Spirit-filled, globally-concerned community of faith. Andrew Perriman finds fascinating connections to the phrase "Son of Man" from Daniel. Taken together, these insights suggest that the New Testament writers looked forward to something that we can look back on ... which, I think, motivates us to get on with the work of mission in a full and integrated sense, so that evangelism and social justice and ecology and the creation of good art and serving the poor and forgotten are deeply integrated facets of our mission. This, for me, adds sacredness and purpose to all of life, and further breaks down the old sacred-secular dualism.

All of this helps us reconnect to a more healthy and robust theology of creation too. Since it doesn't anticipate God discarding creation like a candy-wrapper, it gives us permission to love and cherish God's world - all facets of it - forests, economies, wild animals, weather, history, art, language, architecture, and soil."

I think I'll just go out and hug a tree for devotions tomorrow.