Posted on 06/13/2012 1:12:26 PM PDT by wmfights
It has been said that one can use church history to prove just about anything. There is some wisdom to that old adage and that is why we must be careful when we use church history to support what we believe. Also, evangelicals have often rightly declared that as important as church history is, our doctrinal beliefs must first and foremost be grounded in Scripture. Thus, the proper perspective is to pay close attention to church history and learn from it, but also understand that Scripture takes priority over church history when it comes to what we should believe.
With that in mind, however, I do think church history is helpful when it comes to the controversial issue of the nature of the millennium that is discussed in Rev 20:1–10. On six occasions in this passage the Apostle John speaks of a reign of Christ that is a “thousand years.” Throughout church history, Christians have sparred over what John meant by a thousand-year reign of Christ. Premillennialists say this reign takes place on earth after the second coming of Christ but before the eternal state. In this case, the millennium is future from our current standpoint in history. Amillennialists, on the other hand, say the millennium is a spiritual reign of Christ that takes place in this current age between the two comings of Jesus. Thus, the millennium is not a future reign of Jesus but a current reign.1
So how can church history help us on this controversial issue of the millennium? It can benefit us as we look at the millennial beliefs of those who had some connection with the Apostle John, the one who penned Rev 20:1–10. It can also help as we look at the beliefs of those in close geographical proximity to Asia Minor where the Apostle John lived later in his life. Our argument is this—we think it probable that those who had a close association with John would also have a correct understanding of what John meant by the millennium.
First, let’s look at two individuals who had some connection historically with John—Papias and Irenaeus. Papias (A.D. 60–130) was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. He was a contemporary of Polycarp.2 According to Martin Erdman, Papias “represented a chiliastic tradition which had its antecedents in Palestine.”3 Papias’s dependence on the oral teachings of the apostles and elders has been documented by both Irenaeus and Eusebius.4 Eusebius points out that Papias received “doctrines of the faith” that came from the “friends” of the twelve apostles.5 Eusebius also said of Papias, “It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist.”6 Papias,
1 Postmillennialists agree with amillennialists that the millennium takes place between the two comings of Christ, but argue that this reign of Christ must mean that the world will get progressively better until it has been Christianized. 2 Polycarp (A.D. 70–155) was Bishop of Smyrna and most importantly for our purposes, was a disciple of John the Apostle. Because of his connection to the apostle John, Polycarp was viewed as a protector of true doctrine. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp was converted to Christianity by the apostles. He was made a bishop and had communicated with many who testified that they had seen Jesus. 3 Martin Erdman, The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), 107. For our purposes here we are following the lead of Erdman in viewing chiliasm and premillennialism as mostly synonymous. 4 Ibid. 5 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III. 39.2. 6 Ibid., 39.5. 2
thus, saw himself as possessing the teachings of the apostles. As Eusebius notes, “And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them.”7 Irenaeus also refers to Papias as “a hearer of John.”8
It appears that Papias had close connections with the apostles and John the Apostle in particular. So did he hold a particular millennial view? He did—Papias was a premillennialist. Eusebius records that Papias believed things that “came to him from unwritten tradition” and “teachings of the Saviour.” Among these beliefs were “that there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth.”9 Thus, with Papias we have a case of a Christian who had close access to John the Apostle and was convinced that the kingdom of Christ was future and earthly.
Next, Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 202) was born in Asia Minor and later became the bishop of Lyon. As a youth Irenaeus had listened to Polycarp who probably had personal contact with John and other apostles.10 Irenaeus was not as directly associated with John as Papias, but the historical connection through Polycarp is still significant. Irenaeus knew someone who knew the Apostle John. As with Papias, Irenaeus was also a strong believer in premillennialism. In fact, premillennialism was a major a weapon in Irenaeus’s battle against Gnosticism and its unbiblical dualism between matter and spirit.11 Irenaeus used premillennialism and the idea of an earthly kingdom to fight the gnostic view that matter was evil that and God was not interested in redeeming the earth. Erdman points out that “The book Adversus Haereses is also one of the most important sources of millennial expositions in the ante-Nicene literature.”12
So with the cases of Papias and Irenaeus we have two people who had a historical connection with John the Apostle who affirmed premillennialism. Is it possible that these two men were simply wrong about the millennium? Did they misunderstand John? Of course it is possible, but is it likely? We think not.13 It is more likely that they held to premillennialism because John himself taught this view.
Another historical factor we must keep in mind is that those in geographical proximity to John also believed in premillennialism. John lived his later years in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Erdman refers to the premillennialism of Asia Minor in the second century as “Asiatic millennialism.”14 He also notes that “the decisive authority of Asiatic millennialism is John, from whom the elders claimed to have obtained their information. Moreover, John, as again stated by Papias, ascribed the origin of millenarianism to Christ.”15 Thus, the evidence indicates that Christians of Asia Minor held to premillennialism. Other associated with Asiatic millennialism include Tertullian, Commodian, and Lactantius. In fact, the pervasiveness of premillennialism in the early church in general was so great that Philip Schaff once declared:
7 Ibid., 39.7. 8 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V. 33.4. 9 Ecclesiastical History, 39.11–12. 10 Erdman, 108. 11 For a detailed discussion of how Irenaeus used premillennialism as a weapon against Gnosticism see Erdman, 107–29. 12 Ibid., 109. 13 Eusebius himself believed Papias was mistaken. 14 Ibid., 107–134. 15 Erdman, 111. 3
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.16
If premillennialism was the intended view of John the Apostle it seems natural to think that those who knew him or had a close association with him would also affirm premillennialism. And, if John the Apostle lived in Asia Minor it appears likely that those Christians near his area of influence also would have similar views as John on the millennium. We cannot be absolutely certain of these estimations, but they do appear probable. On the other hand, for amillennialism or postmillennialism to be correct, we have to believe that those who had close connections with John, either personally or geographically, were woefully wrong with their views of the millennium. In our view, this is possible but not probable.
In closing, we understand that the case for a particular millennial view does not rest solely on what certain Christians in the early church believed. Scripture, not church history determines the correctness of a theological view. But it seems to us that the historical argument is on the side of premillennialism since people close to John held premillennial views and premillennialism was the overwhelming view of those in Asia Minor and the church as a whole of the second century.17
16 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids. Eerdmans, 1973), 2:614. 17 We are not saying that every single Christian of the second century was a premillennialist, but premillennialism was clearly the dominant view
U-2012> I believe your tale is in error.
Messianic Judaism is YHvH’s remnant as spoken of in the WORD.
I disagree and not to be mean. Yes, it is known, the origin of Messianic Judaism and their splits. You can’t make history up.
If you believe a lie, you can.
It’s like stating Scripture came complete. Not true. Someone of authority had to decide which writings were divinely inspired and those writings had to be translated. It happened. Pope Damasaus and St. Jerome. The Bible is a Catholic book.
blessings to you,
He did not create a gentile corporation. He came for the Jew first. The Apostles were all Messianic Jews. The WORD of YHvH is not something created by man. Most of the WORD of YHvH existed before the advent of Yah'shua. Later Rav Sha'ul was sent to the Gentiles to bring YHvH's Good News. The Good News of calling on Yah'shua's NAME : YHvH is/be my Salvation. The "New" testament existed hundreds of years before Damasus & Jerome Sorry to say you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Seek YHvH in His WORD. Yah'shua was/is and will always be a Jew.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
U-2012> I believe your tale is in error.
Messianic Judaism is YHvH’s remnant as spoken of in the WORD.
I disagree and not to be mean. Yes, it is known, the origin of Messianic Judaism and their splits. You can’t make history up.
If you believe a lie, you can.
It’s like stating Scripture came complete. Not true. Someone of authority had to decide which writings were divinely inspired and those writings had to be translated. It happened. Pope Damasaus and St. Jerome. The Bible is a Catholic book.
blessings to you,
He did not create a gentile corporation. He came for the Jew first. The Apostles were all Messianic Jews. The WORD of YHvH is not something created by man. Most of the WORD of YHvH existed before the advent of Yah'shua. Later Rav Sha'ul was sent to the Gentiles to bring YHvH's Good News. The Good News of calling on Yah'shua's NAME : YHvH is/be my Salvation. The "New" testament existed hundreds of years before Damasus & Jerome Sorry to say you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Seek YHvH in His WORD. Yah'shua was/is and will always be a Jew.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
“Yah’shua was/is and will always be a Jew.
He did not create a gentile corporation.
He came for the Jew first.
The Apostles were all Messianic Jews.”
~ ~ ~
Messianic Judaism is Protestantism cloaked in pretend Judaism using a few Old Testament words. Messianic Judaism professes Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not Jewish or found in Scripture.
How can you be Jewish and a Protestant Christian? Jews reject Jesus is the Messiah.
How can you be Jewish and a Protestant Christian? Jews reject Jesus is God.
How can you be Protestant? Jesus is mankind’s “One Lord”, Jesus established “One faith”, Roman Catholicism of which Protestantism broke away in 1517.
Messianic Jews do not use the term Old Testament or New Testament for obvious reasons.
Luke 5:36-39
[36] And he spoke also a similitude to them: That no man putteth a piece from a new garment upon an old garment; otherwise he both rendeth the new, and the piece taken from the new agreeth not with the old. [Luke 5:36] [Latin] [37] And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: otherwise the new wine will break the bottles, and it will be spilled, and the bottles will be lost. [38] But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. [39] And no man drinking old, hath presently a mind to new: for he saith, The old is better.
Hebrews 8:8
For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
No one yet has shown their ‘Bible Alone’ belief supports
Jesus is returning to reign on earth in His Person during the 7th Day. The reason, it’s not true, the Church rejects this belief. And how...
Inconsistent, the author in the OP wishes to show the first Christians believed in millenarianism, naming some of them stating they knew and were taught by the Apostles while totally ignoring these same men Polycarp and Irenaeus believed in Our Lord’s presence in the Holy Eucharist!
Polycarp was/is a Roman Catholic priest.
Many, many Protestants, especially Protestant ministers convert when they read history, discover the beliefs of the first Christians.
“Polycarp was/is a Roman Catholic priest.”
~ ~ ~
Anacletus (Cletus), the 3rd Pope (76-88)
Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna and held the see for about 70 years. He was a staunch defender of orthodoxy and an energetic opponent of heresy, especially Marcionism and Valentinianism (the most influential of the Gnostic sects). Toward the end of his life he visited Pope St. Anacletus in Rome. To testify his respect and ensure that the bonds of charity were unbroken, Anacletus invited Polycarp TO CELEBRATE the Eucharist in the papal chapel on this occasion. Polycarp suffered martyrdom with 12 others of his flock around the year 156.
Among the select few from apostolic times about whom we have some historical information is Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and one of the most glorious martyrs of Christian antiquity. His life and death are attested by the authentic “Acts” of his martyrdom (no similar account is older), as well as by other contemporary writings. It moves us deeply when, for example, we find in St. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, the passage in which he reminisces:
“The memory of that time when as a youth I was with Polycarp in Asia Minor is as fresh in my mind as the present. Even now I could point to the place where he sat and taught, and describe his coming and going, his every action, his outward appearance, and his manner of discourse to the people. It seems as though I still heard him tell of his association with the Apostle John and with others who saw the Lord, and as though he were still relating to me their words and what he heard from them about the Lord and His miracles. . . .”
...with deep reverence:
“At Smyrna, the death of St. Polycarp. He was a disciple of the holy apostle John, who consecrated him bishop of that city; and there he acted as the primate of all Asia Minor. Later, under Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, he was brought before the tribunal of the proconsul; and when all the people in the amphitheater cried out against him, he was handed over to be burned to death. But since the fire caused him no harm, he was put to death by the sword. Thus he gained the crown of martyrdom. With him, twelve other Christians, who came from Philadelphia, met death by martyrdom in the same city.”
They appear to be from this book. I have read just a few paragraphs but will try to read the whole book shortly.
Has the Catholic Church authenticated or approved of Cletus Schefers' prophecies?
“Thank you for sharing your insights, dear stpio, and for those excerpts!
They appear to be from this book. I have read just a few paragraphs but will try to read the whole book shortly.
Has the Catholic Church authenticated or approved of Cletus Schefers’ prophecies?”
~ ~ ~
Thank you for sharing the link. It’s one you can copy
from if you like.
Actually, most all of the current messages from Heaven are yet to be approved by the Church. The Church is prudent
and the “soon” divine events prophesied in these private
revelations haven’t happened. We are in that period of time. I believe them, God wouldn’t remain silent or wait for approval AND I was converted by one of them, one of
Mary’s apparitions here in our country.
Cletus’ messages line up with other messages from Heaven,
you will like them because there is much Scripture reference
to help understand and confirm if your devotion is Scripture.
I must confess that I find prophecies written in "first person" outside of Scripture to be a little off-putting regardless of the source. We have (I believe) a Pentecostal here who does that a lot - and even though his prophecies are mostly generic, it is still a little off-putting to read them. LOLOL!
“I thank you for the referral.”
~ ~ ~
You are welcome.
All the Scripture reference included, as you read a long, are a great help. I recall, the Great Warning, non-Catholic Christians know it as the “awakening” spoken of, the very words in Revelation 6:16-17 are used. A confirmation.
Here’s the other link, you can’t print this one off, it’s a
PDF.
http://www.godspeakswillyoulisten.org
He did not create a gentile corporation.
He came for the Jew first.
The Apostles were all Messianic Jews.
Messianic Judaism is Protestantism cloaked in pretend Judaism using a few Old Testament words. Messianic Judaism professes Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not Jewish or found in Scripture.
How can you be Jewish and a Protestant Christian? Jews reject Jesus is the Messiah. How can you be Jewish and a Protestant Christian? Jews reject Jesus is God. How can you be Protestant? Jesus is mankind’s “One Lord”, Jesus established “One faith”, Roman Catholicism of which Protestantism broke away in 1517.
Messianic Jews do not use the term Old Testament or New Testament for obvious reasons.
Luke 5:36-39
Hebrews 8:8
I would recommend: s> Jews reject Jesus is the Messiah. s> Jews reject Jesus is God s> Jesus is mankind’s “One Lord”, Jesus established “One faith”, You are absolutely correct the term: Old Testament is pejorative. The Brit Hadashah, the New Covenant with the Tanach Your understanding of Messianic Judaism is a LIE.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
An intelligent person would not repeat a lie,
but inform themselves.
Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement With an Ancient Past:
(A Revision of Messianic Jewish Manifesto) [Paperback]
All of the apostles became Messianic Jews.
Not those who see Yah'shua as YHvH's Shekinah.
Roman Catholicism of which Protestantism broke away in 1517.
Yah'shua did not create an earthly Empire.
The earthly Empire was created by the Roman Pontiff Constantine.
It is the Tanach, named for the Torah, the prophets and the writings.
completes the Complete Jewish Bible.
“Your understanding of Messianic Judaism is a LIE.
An intelligent person would not repeat a lie,
but inform themselves.”
~ ~ ~
Uri’el,
Is this the “nice” way of calling me a liar? Be careful at
FR how you word it and it is allowed. I am not smart, I realize but it’s not kind for you to say it.
The link shared in your post:
“Messianic Judaism: A MODERN MOVEMENT With an Ancient Past:
(A Revision of Messianic Jewish Manifesto) [Paperback]”
True, a very modern Protestant sect, the 1960s. A Baptist minster’s attempt to convert Judaism.
Messianic Judaism and their breakaways agree on Martin Luther’s Bible Alone while throwing in some Old Testament terms. Who would want to base their eternal life on a modern movement? Run far away.
Understand authority, it’s important, by whose authority do you believe what you do? And please...
Read the quotes of the first Christians.
Thanks for the link, dear stpio!
Uri’el,
Is this the “nice” way of calling me a liar? Be careful at
FR how you word it and it is allowed. I am not smart, I realize but it’s not kind for you to say it.
The link shared in your post:
“Messianic Judaism: A MODERN MOVEMENT With an Ancient Past:
(A Revision of Messianic Jewish Manifesto) [Paperback]”
True, a very modern Protestant sect, the 1960s. A Baptist minster’s attempt to convert Judaism.
Messianic Judaism and their breakaways agree on Martin Luther’s Bible Alone while throwing in some Old Testament terms. Who would want to base their eternal life on a modern movement? Run far away.
Understand authority, it’s important, by whose authority do you believe what you do? And please...
Read the quotes of the first Christians.
For a N00bie(Since Mar 24, 2012) to throw around FR rules is silly. If YHvH wants to regather His Remnant in these End Times, Let me repeat again: All of the Apostles were Messianic Jews. Later the Pagan Pontiff Constantine created the Roman "church" You seem to be believing based on a Pagan "church" which at it's core The only authority we need is YHvH, the creator of the universe Yah'shua did not create a Pagan Roman "church" Yah'shua only preached His WORD: the Tanach. Seek YHvH in His WORD. No one called you a liar !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
it is the prerogative of the creator of the universe.
is anti-semitic from it's inception, believing in a Mother of "god",
believing in three gods, believing that there is a Magic Show where
the Roman "church"'s lord can be called down and become a
stale matzoh from a passover seder, believing in Pagan Tradition
as more valid than the Holy WORD of G-d.
and His WORD: Yah'shua.
Words such as "false", "wrong" and "error" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Your understanding of Messianic Judaism is a LIE.
An intelligent person would not repeat a lie,
but inform themselves.”
“No one called you a liar !”
~ ~ ~
So what if a person is new or been at FR a long time, be
loving in the present moment as Our Lord wishes.
Messianic Judaism IS a new sect in Protestantism, the
link posted the other day in your reply, called MJ a “modern movement”, a way to say it without being specific.
Sorry, the comments about the faith have been answered a thousand times, all Protestant objections and the mention of Protestants famous fella, Constantine. He is the only person every mentioned in Protestants account of early Church history. Protestants have to name someone, to make their account look legitimate, they think one name and two paragraphs for all the first centuries of Christianity are convincing.
Jesus established His Church giving Peter the keys, naming
Peter head of His Church. God has always named leaders. It’s very important when God changes a person’s name, Simon became Peter which means rock. The objection to argue, little or big rock, Peter still means rock.
It’s going to take the Great Warning, seeing the faith
in God’s light.
Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone upon which the Church is built and the rock upon which it is built is faith. Read Romans, then reconsider the context of Christ’s communique with Peter.
So your assertion that God will no longer reign from the physical throne of David nor will exert His volition by his mind in his soul, but only execute a spiritual kingdom, would also imply that what God created in the physical and soulish domains is in essence good for nothingness that He need to never reign over it?
He made man in body, soul, and spirit, not simply spirit.
Consider Romans Chapter 3 to understand there still is discernment in His Plan for the Hebrew nation.
stpio: “It’s not true. God’s reign will be spiritual.”
Cvenger: “He made man in body, soul, and spirit, not simply spirit.”
~ ~ ~
Your words are true and so are mine.
And one day, everyone’s soul and body will be united at the
Final Judgment.
This thread is not about the Final Judgment but about
the Millennium, some call it the Era Peace, God’s 7th Day.
When I said “God’s reign will be spiritual”, I am meaning,
Jesus is NOT returning to the earth in His person during
the 7th Day. It is a “spiritual” reign. All will
believe the same finally. Prophesied, it will be the
Eucharistic reign of our Lord Jesus Christ.
What is the significance? Why did Our Lord change Simon’s
name to Peter which means “rock?”
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.