Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers
Critical Issues Commentary ^ | Bob DeWaay

Posted on 04/22/2008 6:15:22 AM PDT by xzins

Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers

by Bob DeWaay

 

In this paper, I will show that the earliest fathers of the church (before 300 AD) primarily believed in a literal millennium. This will be accomplished by consulting the primary sources, the fathers themselves, and other writings about the views of the early fathers. Those early fathers who wrote about this issue will be dealt with one at a time.

Papias


The fourth century church historian Eusebius considered Papias to be a primary source for the millennial views of early fathers. He wrote:

In these [Papias' accounts] he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. . . . yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments.1

All we have of Papias' writings are fragments taken from other ancient writers. He was evidently associated with Polycarp and John the apostle. Irenaeus said, “And these things [a futuristic, restored, Jewish kingdom] are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book.” 2It is debated whether or not Papias was actually a personal acquaintance of the Apostle John, but that he taught a literal millennium is not. Larry Crutchfield provides a thorough discussion of Papias' millennial view and his possible association with John and concludes: “When all of the evidence is weighed in the balance it seems that the scales must be tipped in favor of Papias' discipleship under the aged author of the Apocalypse.” 3 Papias was born anywhere from 61 to 71 AD4 so could very well have known John. Since Eusebius who disagreed with Papias’ millennial view and Irenaeus who agreed with Papias both considered him a proponent of a literal millennium, it is quite certain that he was.

The Epistle of Barnabas


The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (cir. 117/132 AD )5 held to the idea that after six thousand years of history that would correspond to six days of creation, there would be a seventh day “sabbath” rest which would last one thousand years. The following is from the Epistle of Barnabas:

Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, “Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years.” Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming again, shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. 6

Hans Bietenhard sees possible Jewish influences such as the Book of Enoch at work here and comments: “On the universal Sabbath all things are brought to rest and a new world begins. From the time of Barnabas onwards millennial expectation was always within the framework of a universal week of 7000 years.” 7

Justin Martyr


Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”8 Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names.

Since the actual debate with Trypho likely took place at Ephesus shortly after 135 AD, Larry Crutchfield sees a possible connection to the teachings of the Apostle John: “If Eusebius was correct, [about Dialogue taking place at Ephesus] the earliest extant Christian defense of the millenarian doctrine took place at Ephesus, not far from Patmos where John's revelation was received.”10 Crutchfield speculates about the possibility that Justin had contact with Polycarp or Papias which may have influenced his teaching: “In any case, whether Justin made contact with either man or not, a sojourn in Ephesus would have thoroughly exposed him to the teachings of the apostle John and the venerable Asiatic bishops [Polycarp & Papias].” 11 Whatever the validity of this speculation, Justin claimed his teaching was based on Scripture, which is the authority he cited in seeking to convince Trypho.

Irenaeus


Irenaeus discusses Biblical prophecy in Against Heresies (written from 180 to 199 AD12 ). Irenaeus mentions the “seventh day” in regard to eschatological promises. He wrote, “These [promises given by Christ] are to take place in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.”13 Irenaeus considered the promise that Jesus made to His disciples at the last supper to one day drink the fruit of the vine again with them “in my Father's kingdom” to be proof of a future, earthly kingdom to be established after the resurrection.

Interestingly, Irenaeus also mentioned the promise of land that God gave to Abraham in this connection: “If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just.”14Irenaeus firmly believed that Jesus would literally reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem.15 He also anticipated the allegorizing of Biblical prophecy: “If, however, any shall endeavor to allegorize prophecies of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points.” 16

Shirley Jackson Case summarizes Irenaeus' millennial view:

This period of millennial bliss corresponds to the seventh day of rest following the six days of creation described in Genesis. During this time the earth is marvelously fruitful. Jerusalem is magnificently rebuilt, and the righteous joyfully become accustomed to the new life of incorruption. After this preliminary regime of bliss has passed, a final judgment of all the world is instituted, and the new heaven and the new earth are revealed. In this final state of blessedness the redeemed shall live in the presence of God, world without end. 17

It is notable how closely Irenaeus' understanding is to that of many pre-millennialists today.

Tertullian


We learn of Tertullian's pre-millennialism through his debate against the heretic Marcion (cir. 207-212 AD). Obviously, a physical, rebuilt Jerusalem could have no validity for Marcion since he considered anything physical to have been created by a lesser "demiurge," the God of the Jews. Hans Beitenhard explains Marcion's view, “A little later [after Irenaeus] Tertullian found it necessary to defend the millennial hope against Marcion, who denied that the Christian can have any hope for a world created by the Demiurge. The Demiurge as the God of the Jews would restore the Jews to Palestine, and there they could set up their own Messianic kingdom.” 18

Tertullian rejects Marcion's version of the millennium, but not a literal millennium itself:

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. 19

Tertullian's idea takes an odd twist when he goes on to claim the heavenly city had been seen suspended over Judea for forty days.20 Also, Tertullian evidently joined the Montanists whose eschatological views were rather bizarre. Beitenhard thinks that, “unwittingly and against his will [i.e. he did not intend to discredit pre-millennialism] Tertullian helped to discredit the millennial hope by joining the Montanists.”21 Nevertheless, Tertullian was a pre-millennialist.

Hippolytus of Rome


Hippolytus (cir. 170-236) wrote extensively about the end times, including, Commentary of Daniel. Hippolytus took up the idea of a day being one thousand years and applied it to history. He reasoned:

For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. 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.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.”22

David G Dunbar comments on Hippolytus' view, “Christians ought not to think that the present sufferings of the church are the eschatological woes signaling Christ's return, for that return is not imminent. In support of this argument Hippolytus employs the creation-week typology widely accepted in the west until Augustine.”23 Dunbar goes on to explain how Hippolytus sets the time of Christ's return in 500 AD. 24

Though this date setting is obviously problematic, Hippolytus asserted the idea that there would be a “Sabbath” rest which will be a time when the saints will reign with Christ. Though he does not use the term “millennium,” clearly his schema of a day being one thousand years would make the Sabbath rest last for a millennia. Bietenhard considers Hippolytus a chiliast: “Hippolytus places the millennial hope within the schema of a universal week of 7000 years.”25Interestingly, in another article Dunbar states, “Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, and even here his own position is so muted as to be unclear.” 26 It seems to me that Hippolytus’ position is clear enough in the above quoted Commentary on Daniel.

Lactantius


Lactantius (cir. 250 - 317 AD) also wrote of a literal millennium. His views are based, however, partially on quotations from the Sibylline books. He writes, “But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”27 An interesting thing about Lactantius is that he supplies more details about the Millennium: “Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.”28According to Lactantius, resurrected saints shall coexist with mortals. He also includes the idea of Satan being bound for the thousand year period and the existence of pagan nations to be ruled over by the righteous.

Commodianus


Commodianus of North-Africa wrote about 240 AD. He also spoke of a literal Millennium. He writes, “They shall come also who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years.” 29

What Happened to the Millennium?


Since most of the earliest Fathers either taught a literal millennium (though clearly differing on details) or were silent on the matter, how did amillennialism become the predominant view of the Church from the fourth century on? Evidently Origen was the first to publically break with this tradition. Thomas D. Lea comments, “Before the time of Origen it was reasonably common to find the fathers expressing their belief in a personal second coming of Christ together with a millennial reign of the saints with Christ after their resurrection from the dead. Origen denounced millennialism perhaps because of his view that it overemphasized the sensual and the material.” 30It is beyond the scope of this paper to address amillennialism among the fathers. 31 Though adducing different sources and theories as to details, the earliest church fathers clearly taught pre-millennialism.



End Notes

    1. Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.13; trans. Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) 126.

    2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.4; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers Alexander Roberts ed. vol. 1, 563.

    3. Larry V. Crutchfield, “The Apostle John and Asia Minor as a Source of Premillennialism in the Early Church Fathers,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol 31 #4 (December 1988) 421.

    4. ibid. 420.

    5. see W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, (The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN, 1970) 14.

    6. The Epistle of Barnabas 15.4 in op. cit. The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 146.

    7. Hans Bietenhard, “The Millennial Hope in the Early Church,” The Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 6 (1953) 13.

    8. Justin Dialogue 80; op. cit. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 1, 239.

    9. Ibid.

    10. Op. Cit. Crutchfield, 423.

    11. ibid.

    12. Op. cit. Jurgens, 84.

    13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.2, op. cit. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 562.

    14. ibid. 5.32.2; 561.

    15. ibid. 5.34.4; 564.

    16. ibid. 5.35.1; 565.

    17. Shirley Jackson Case, The Millennial Hope, (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1918) 164, 165.

    18. Bietenhard, 15.

    19. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3.25; op. cit., The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. III, 342.

    20. ibid. 342,343.

    21. Bietenhard, 16.

    22. Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 2.4; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 5, 179.

    23. David G. Dunbar, “The Delay of the Parousia in Hippolytus,” Vigiliae Christianae, vol 37, no. 4 (Dec. 1983) 315.

    24. ibid. 315,316.

    25. Bietenhard, 19.

    26. David G. Dunbar, “Hippolytus of Rome and the Eschatological Exegesis of the Early Church” The Westminster Theological Journal, vol 45 no. 2 (Fall, 1983) 337.

    27. Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 7.24, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, 219.

    28. ibid.

    29. Commodianus, The Instructions of Commodianus, chapt 54., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, 212.

    30. Thomas D. Lea, “A Survey of the Doctrine of the Return of Christ in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 29 no. 2 (June 1986) 176.

    31. See Bob DeWaay, “The Millennial Hope and the Church,” Critical Issues Commentary, Issue #27 (March/April, 1995) where I present the theory that allegorization of Scripture, anti-semitism, and a realized eschatology that came with the Christianization of the Roman Empire starting with Constantine were causes of amillennialism’s ascendance as the position of the Roman Catholic Church. www.cicministryorg/commentary/issue27.htm



TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: fathers; premillennialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: xzins

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!


21 posted on 04/22/2008 8:06:41 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I believe prophecy has an impact on Salvation in this regard . . .

Folks who are not taught the fulfilled prophecy aspects of Scripture tend to view Scripture with less respect . . . even to the point of not being saved because they respect Scripture so little.

And, folks who are not anticipating Biblical fulfillments of BIBLICAL prophecy may well be caught with their theological pants off . . . spiritually naked before devastating events . . . lost.


22 posted on 04/22/2008 8:09:36 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I agree, Q.

Prophetic urgency can lead others to have a heightenend sense of concern.


23 posted on 04/22/2008 8:17:20 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All
From scripturecatholic.com

There are three ways that Protestants interpret the meaning of the thousand year “millennium” (and the interpretation leads to answering when they think the rapture will occur).

(1) Post-millennialism – this view interprets the “thousand years” as a very long time. This view also holds that God’s kingdom is being advanced in the world by His grace and the world will eventually be Christianized. Then Christ will return at the close of this period during a time of righteousness and peace. The problem with this view is that the Scriptures do not teach that the world will be even relatively Christianized before the Second Coming. For example, in Matt. 13:24-30;36-43, Jesus says the wicked and the righteous will co-exist until the end of the world, when they will be judged, and either inherit eternal life, or be thrown into eternal fire.

(2) Pre-millenialism (also called “millenarianism”) – like post-millennialists, this view also interprets the “thousand years” as a golden age on earth when the world will be Christianized. But they believe that this period will occur after Christ’s second coming, during which time Christ will reign physically on earth. They believe the Final Judgment occurs when the millennium is over. But Scripture does not teach that there is a thousand year span between the Second Coming and Final Judgment. Instead, Jesus said that when He comes a second time in glory, He will immediately repay every man for what he has done. Matt. 16:27. When Jesus comes, He will separate the sheep from the goats and render judgment. Matt. 25:31-46. There is nothing about any period of time between His coming and final judgment.

(3) Amillennialism – this view also interprets the “thousand years” symbolically, but, ulike the pre and post views, not as a golden age on earth. This view believes the millennium is the period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on earth through His Church. This is because the saints who reign with Christ and to whom judgment has been committed are said to be on their thrones in heaven. Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4; 11:16. During this time, satan is bound and cannot hinder the spread of the gospel. Rev. 20:3. This is why, they explain, Jesus teaches the necessity of binding the “strong man” (satan) in order to plunder his house and rescue people from his grip. Matt. 12:29. This is also why, after the disciples preached the gospel and rejoiced that the demons were even subject to them, Jesus declared, “I saw satan fall like lightening from heaven.” Luke 10:18. Nevertheless, during this period, the world will not be entirely Christianized because satan, though bound, is still in some sense able to prowl around and attack souls. cf. 1 Peter 5:8. Of the three, this position is most consistent with Catholic teaching (the pre and post-millennium views have been rejected by the Church).

2 Thess. 2:1-4 – concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Scripture teaches (and most Protestants believe) that Christ’s coming will be preceded by a time of rebellion, lawlessness and persecution. Protestants often refer to this period as the “tribulation” (although the word “tribulation” cannot be found in the Scripture passages Protestants use to support the “rapture”). So the question is, when will the 1 Thess. 4:16-17 “rapture” occur, in light of the tribulation and Christ’s Second Coming? Here are the three theories previously mentioned:

(1) Post-tribulational view – this view holds that the rapture will occur right after the tribulation and immediately before the Second Coming of Christ. This view can be consistent with Scripture and Catholic teaching to the extent it holds that the rapture and Christ’s Second Coming occur together, after the tribulation and the Church Militant on earth. See, for example, Matt. 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; 2 Thess. 1:1-12.

(2) Pre-tribulational view – this view holds that the rapture will occur before the tribulation. The problem with this view is that it requires three comings of Christ – first, when He was born in Bethlehem; second, when He returns for the rapture before the tribulation; third, when He returns at the end of the tribulation and establishes the millennium. Scripture rejects three comings of Christ. In Heb. 9:28, it is clear that Christ will appear a second and final time, when he comes in glory to save us. This view also is inconsistent with Matt. 24:24-31; Mark 13:24-27; and 2 Thess. 2:1-12 where the rapture and the Second Coming occur together.

(3) Mid-tribulational view – this view holds that the rapture will occur during the middle of the tribulation. The problem with this view is that it also requires three comings of Christ – first, when He was born in Bethlehem; second, when He returns for the rapture during the middle of the tribulation; third, when He returns at the end of the tribulation and establishes the millennium. As seen in Heb. 9:28, Scripture rejects three comings of Christ. The view is also inconsistent with Matt. 24:24-31; Mark. 13:24-27; and 2 Thess. 2:1-12.

2 Peter 3:8-15 – instead of worrying about when the rapture will occur, Christians should follow Peter’s instruction to repent of their sins, live lives of holiness and godliness, be zealous and at peace, and wait for the Lord’s coming with forbearance and joy!

24 posted on 04/22/2008 8:20:50 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

No offense but I’m not sure any of these guys got the Trinity exactly right either, so this doesn’t prove much. The beliefs of the Fathers are used to justify the papacy too.


25 posted on 04/22/2008 8:21:20 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; stfassisi

Would you argue that trinitarianism was NOT the position of the early church?


26 posted on 04/22/2008 8:23:21 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Here’s a link to last night’s C2C guest’s site.

This link lists some videos of interest.

http://www.endtime.com/DocLibrary.aspx

His written docs are frustratingly protected in pdf files and I don’t have a converter.

Have a request into him about posting articles on Fr.

Will see what the reply is.

Blessings,


27 posted on 04/22/2008 8:34:25 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Origen isn’t sounding like much of a role model is he?

Amen to that !

28 posted on 04/22/2008 8:37:13 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“”Would you argue that trinitarianism was NOT the position of the early church?””

Nope!

Just a few writings

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

“[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.” Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).

“For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;’ He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).

“And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle’ (arche), because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.’ And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’” Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, II:10 (c. A.D. 181).

“In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas.” Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 (post A.D. 213).

“[T]he statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages.” Origen, First Principles, 4:28 (A.D. 230).

“”Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius’s opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,—a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods.” Pope Dionysius [regn. 260-268], to Dionysius of Alexandria, fragment in Athanasius’ Nicene Definition 26 (A.D. 262).

“Equally must one censure those who hold the: Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them; which is most absurd…
Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of ‘work’ the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For ‘I,’ says He, ‘and the Father are one; ‘and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me.’ For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.” Pope Dionysius [regn. 260-268], to Dionysius of Alexandria, fragment in Athanasius’ Nicene Definition 26 (A.D. 262).

29 posted on 04/22/2008 8:38:47 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins

MARK OF THE BEAST LINK:

http://www.endtime.com/ProphecyTopic.aspx?id=1

The most dreaded prophecy in scripture is the prophecy concerning 666 - the mark of the beast. Books have been written about it. Movies have been produced about it. It has been called the mark of Cain and the mark of the Devil. Until recently, this dreaded subject has been projected into some far distant future. However, it now appears that the time for the enactment of this prophesied cashless society is upon us.


Scripture references:
Revelation 13:16-18

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


Explanation:
Proponents of world government teach that there are three major causes of war on the earth: political conflicts, economic conflicts, and religious conflicts. They contend that, if we had one-world government, a global economy, and one-world religion, the root causes of war would be abolished. With the advent of The European Union, NAFTA, APEC, and GATT it appears that a one-world economy is upon us.

The Bible teaches that the time will come where this one-world economy will be so dominant that no man may buy or sell unless he has received a mark in his right hand or forehead. Our world is rapidly moving toward a cashless society where every economic transaction is done electronically and requires that each individual has a number associated with them (e.g. Social Security number). It has been recommended by some in banking circles that a special invisible number be implanted somewhere on the body. This number would satisfy the needs of the banking community, the manufacturing industry, and the businesses that supply us with goods and services. Emerging technologies such as RFID are enabling such a system.

The desires of the proponents of world government, today’s societal trends, as well as emerging technology are working together to fulfill Biblical prophecy and usher in the Mark of the Beast!

#########

NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT LINK:

http://www.endtime.com/ProphecyTopic.aspx?id=2

VARIOUS RELATED VIDEO LESSON LINKS:

http://www.endtime.com/Videos2.aspx


30 posted on 04/22/2008 8:46:46 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Quix; xzins
Revelation 13:16-18
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,
to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

How do you read :

NAsbU Exodus 13:16 "So it shall serve as a sign on your hand
and as phylacteries on your forehead,
for with a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt."

b'SHEM Yah'shua
31 posted on 04/22/2008 8:54:52 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Have often wondered how God was going to mark His own . . . as He says in Scripture He will do.

I still don’t have an emphatic answer on that one. But I have utter confidence that HE WILL.

Some say He already has.


32 posted on 04/22/2008 8:56:21 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
Thank you for your informed post. While I am a protestant “fundamentalist” pre-mil Christian, I found what you said very insightful. I have come to believe that the second coming will follow the rapture and a 7 year tribulation. I don't consider the Rapture to be a return of Christ, but a calling up of the elect TO Christ. For me there is a distinction between Him gathering the elect up in the air, and him returning to earth to physically take the throne. I don't have the time for a lengthy response, but I just wanted to set out my thoughts on that particular observation of the “rapture doctrine”.
33 posted on 04/22/2008 9:04:46 AM PDT by Clump (Your family may not be safe, but at least their library records will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
Excuse me. Whether or not there is a "secret rapture" has nothing whatsoever to do with the millenium. There doesn't have to be a secret "middle coming" in order to believe that the "second coming" inaugurates a literal, earthly messianic kingdom. Discrediting Darby has nothing whatsoever to do with that, especially considering the data posted on very early church fathers who were millenialists.

So as not to fly a false flag, I am not a chr*stian (though I used to be). I am a Noachide who regards the idea of a non-literal "spiritual messiah" as one of the most harmful ideas that has ever come into existence.

34 posted on 04/22/2008 9:12:06 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `et hazamir higgi`a, veqol hator nishma` be'artzeinu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Nor would I argue that trinitarianism was not a doctrine of the early church. Therefore, it WAS a doctrine of the early church and deserves our deepest attention.

As this article points out, premillennialism also was a doctrine of the early church.


35 posted on 04/22/2008 9:17:58 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I do now have permission to post things from ENDTIEMS.COM to FR etc.

And, have even figured out how to do it from the pdf files.

But it will be tonight or Thurs before I get to it.

Thanks tons for this thread.

Blessings,


36 posted on 04/22/2008 9:40:51 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump

Thanks for the charitable post. Like I said, I tried to give a fair assessment to the Pre-Millenial view, based on what I have been told by those who subscribe to it and based on Catholic speakers who have examined it and given the Catholic response, which I tried to to based on the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Thanks again, God Bless


37 posted on 04/22/2008 10:08:04 AM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Well, we have to respectfully disagree on that. An earthly Messiah, ruling over the earth, is essentially what the Jewish-Zealots believed during the time of Christ. Judas, was influenced by this Jewish Group, as opposed to the Pharisees and Saduccees. When Judas realized that Christ was not interested in throwing out the Roman empire and establishing and earthly temporal Kingdom, this started Judas on the way to betrayal of Christ.

Regards


38 posted on 04/22/2008 10:12:59 AM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
I can't help what Judas did or didn't believe. The prophecies plainly tell of a coming literal messianic kingdom, not a spiritual allegory.

The rejection of the world's fulfillment in a literal messianic kingdom--the reduction to the stark alternatives of a sin-and-misery soaked world and a Heaven of disembodied spirits--has led to the rejection of the latter and the attempted transformation of the former by humanistic schemes (Communism, etc.).

G-d created the world to be fulfilled. Our part is to hasten the kingdom by obeying G-d's commandments. Absent this is only an other-worldly quietism or a militant crusading secularism.

39 posted on 04/22/2008 10:24:21 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `et hazamir higgi`a, veqol hator nishma` be'artzeinu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins

While the Trinity was never explicity stated in the Scripture, although MT 28 clearly implys it, it would be the development of the Doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity in the Church Fathers which was finally explicitly taught at the Council of Nicea and the later Councils (Constantinopile 381 AD, Ephesus 431 AD, and Chalcedon 451 AD) in terms of the relationshop among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The pre-millinial view, while taught in various forms by some of the Fathers, was never universally taught. Also, it seems to find very little notice in the Eastern Church Fathers. Remember, there were two Theological Traditions, that complemented each other, the Latin-West and the Greek-East. Both traditions came together at the 4 Councils I cited above, but the issue of pre-millinialism by the time of St. Augustine (360-430 AD) had no support, and even though a few Fathers had a pre-millinial view, the Universal Church never embraced it at the 4 Great Universal Councils.

Regards


40 posted on 04/22/2008 10:26:20 AM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson