Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology

In 1962, philosopher-scientist Thomas Kuhn coined the term “paradigm shift” to signal a massive change in the way a community thinks about a particular topic. Examples of paradigm shifts include Copernicus’s discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Each changed the world of thought (some for better, some for worse) in a fundamental way.

From a political perspective, Constantine’s Edict of Milan, issued in AD 313, constituted the formal beginning of a major paradigm shift that signaled the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the medieval period. That edict legitimated Christianity and impressed upon it the Empire’s stamp of approval.

It is a fair question to ask: “Why do we care about the eschatological views of the early church fathers?” We as evangelicals emphatically agree with Hodge that “the true method of theology… assumes that the Bible contains all the facts or truths which form the contents of theology.” As Ryrie cogently put it:

The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong unless, of course, it is unscriptural.

From a theological perspective—specifically an eschatological one—the Edict of Milan also signaled a monumental paradigm shift—from the well-grounded premillennialism of the ancient church fathers to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that would dominate eschatological thinking from the fourth century AD to at least the middle part of the nineteenth century. Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen’s allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of Augustinian amillennialism.

The crushing blow for premillennialism came with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, by which Constantine reversed the Roman Empire’s policy of hostility toward Christianity and accorded it full legal recognition and even favor. Historian Paul Johnson calls the issuance of this edict “one of the decisive events in world history. With it, no longer was the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church. Rather, Christianity would be, in many ways, a mirror-image of the empire itself. “It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalistic.” It was a huge force for stability. Hence, Christianity after 313 would become worldly, rather than other-worldly.

The church’s new-found favor from Rome caused dramatic upheavals. Jerome complained that “one who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; another moves overnight from the ampitheatre to the church; a man who spent the evening in the circus stands next morning at the altar, and another who was recently a patron of the stage is now the dedicator of virgins.” He wrote that “our walls glitter with gold, and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry.”

Thus, the focus of the church changed from looking for ultimate comfort in the world beyond the grave to seeking comfort in this world, in the here and now. Christianity was viewed as “a religion with a glorious past as well as an unlimited future. As a result, it suffered what Johnson called “a receding, indeed, disappearing, eschatology.”

The lesson for us is that we must continually guard against interpreting the Bible according to current events—a point often lost on some of dispensational millennialism’s more popular proponents.

The bottom line, of course, is that we must continually go back to the Scriptures as our only source for “doing theology.” As much as we may respect and admire the early church fathers, or, for that matter, the reformers, the puritans, or a particular modern spiritual leader, we must always remember to be Bereans, checking their conclusions and reasoning against the plumb line of God’s Word. No one could put it more clearly or forcefully than Martin Luther as he boldly and defiantly proclaimed before the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God… Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”

>>No, the point is that the word church is only what English speakers use to render ἐκκλησία/ecclesia which is found in the New Testament.<<

No, it was a perversion of scripture by the RCC. Ecclesia NEVER meant “church” as the RCC portrays it nor how many people today understand it.

“Iglesia” is church in Spanish. As to our understanding of “Church,” that depends on whether you are talking about Luther’s “psychic” understanding or Calvin’s more practical meaning. And, no Ekklesia meant assembly in the sense of a coming together of the members of the Polis, which means something more corporate than “congregation.” Protestantism is, of course, so relentlessly attached to philology because it starts out being led, most powerfully, by a professor of Old Testament. Naturally it sees the church as gatherings of individuals listening to hours of exposition of Scripture.

The lesson for us is that we must continually guard against interpreting the Bible according to current events—a point often lost on some of dispensational millennialism’s more popular proponents.

I don't agree with this, yet...

Much prophecy was given in the OT (and New) and much has come to pass, fulfilled...While no one from OT times seems to recognize there would be (at least) 2 appearances of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, it wasn't made clear that it would be 2 events, until the first one took place and Jesus left...

I believe there are things in the bible that have not and will not be revealed until those events happen and then will lead those in attendance to get back into scripture and see things we never saw...

It would be difficult to diagree with your point here, and I do not. you can see that this happened to Daniel. Abstracting from that book re eschatology and the great tribulation (which the Romanists have failed to see):

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
...
Dan 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
...
Dan 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Even J. N. Darby and his contemporaries did not see the formation of today's Israel in 1947. However, he/they did see the development of much of the prophecies regarding Western history (Babylon-->Persia-->Greece-->Rome-->current dominance of Latinized culture) that Dasniel did not comprehend but did report as instructed by Yehova,

>>No, the point is that the word church is only what English speakers use to render ἐκκλησία/ecclesia which is found in the New Testament.<<

No, it was a perversion of scripture by the RCC. Ecclesia NEVER meant “church” as the RCC portrays it nor how many people today understand it.

Both of these statements are a little off base, IMHO. "Church" as a noun can mean "church house" or it cam mean "a formal meeting for organized worship and/or instruction" or it can mean "the body of affiliated members of a local church assembly." What it does not mean, Biblically, and RCC intends it to mean, is an organization external to the local churches, and imposed on them for their regulation under a consolidated authority." This "Church" (capitalized to make it a proper noun peculiar to the unBiblical implementation) is a sacral society supposedly both visible and invisible. In comparison, the only Biblical invisible "church" is that of Christ's heavenly-manifested cumulative spiritual body noted in Hebrews 12:23, the public festal assembly/incorporated deliberative body free of imperfection, and found only in The Heaven.

This topic can be relatively lengthy, and is not essential to discussion of this post on the error of the hermeneutics of the ante-Nicene patristics.

Now for the trtuh:

("truth" mistyped here, I think)

This long list of articles promulgated by the Romanist is impressive, but hardly fitting to this discussion of dispensationalism and the restoration of a literal-historical interpretation to its rightful place as used uniformly by Jesus, His disciples, and the other writers of the New Testament. All your articles are simply meant to press your claims on the gullible and ignorant constituents of the Romanist paradigm, which is rejected by faithful and thoughtful Bereans, who search the Scriptures daily, to see if it be so. Your list has little, if any at all, meaning to this dispensational discussion (as seen by the identidication provided in the header).

>>As to our understanding of “Church,” that depends on whether you are talking about Luther’s “psychic” understanding or Calvin’s more practical meaning.<<

I suppose if a person is that shallow or new to the faith that would be the case. Those who wish to discuss in depth however would want to understand what the apostles wrote and what words they used and what they mean. You see, the apostles taught that if it didn’t come from them it was to be considered “another gospel” and the preacher of that gospel was to be “accursed”. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

I’m sure you would agree that it would be wise to stay with what the apostles taught. If not, well…………..you can read the verse.

You can be assured I will not believe anything the apostles didn't teach.

Well if by faith, you mean who is substantially Luther’s faith. THere is a reason why the term “Protestant” has stuck to those many denominations who today prefer the term evangelicals, because they think that they have the “true gospel.” Protestant prefers to those who reject not only the authority of Rome but of the traditional Catholic Faith followed in the East. Protestants were Latin Christians who rebelled not only against Rome but also the idea of the apostolic succession. Rejecting bishops in the traditional sense, they chose to follow outlawed priests such as Luther and Zwingli or lay theologians such as Calvin.

Luther claimed as the indictment at Worms says to be wrong and what the church had said for fifteen hundreds years was wrong. He believed he was right in saying this because of his own studies of the Scripture and on must assume that he was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to read it all correctly. You make the same claim, and argument for or against such a thing is really futile.

>> Which is why I am Catholic.<<

Oh good. Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary. Please do so. I wouldn’t want to think that you were preaching “another gospel” here.

Peter died for the faith, he was not a “joke” as you put it. The people of scripture all had faults and God used each and every one of them to further his message and will.

I am not a Catholic, but I do find your references to one of the founding Saints of Christianity to be offensive and in need of being tempered.

>>they chose to follow outlawed priests such as Luther and Zwingli or lay theologians such as Calvin.<<

I don’t follow any of those guys. Protestants you know are simply daughters of the RCC. They retained many of her errors too. Catholics really need to stop preaching “another gospel” and like God said in Revelation to those in the RCC religion, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
(2 Thess 2:15)
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us. … So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
(2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2)

Your turn. Now show proof that the apostles taught sola scriptura

>>Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thess 2:15)<<

Hmm, no teaching of the assumption or veneration there!

>>Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us. … So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2)

Still no teaching of the assumption or veneration! What’s up with that? Let me post that again and I will highlight for you.

Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary.

Maybe that will help you. You need to show proof of that specific teaching or we can understand that the RCC can make anything up and just say “it’s part of the tradition part of preaching”. See, you couldn’t show proof of those teachings.

I’m thinking the ones teaching those are “accursed”.

You accept their dogmas but don’t follow them? That doesn’t follow. Even groups like the Mennonites, or the English separatists, who had no formal connection with the major reformers adopt tenants such as their version of sola Scriptura the priesthood of all believers, and of course the rejection of Roman authority.

Neither Scripture has any bearing on our teachings about Mary. IAC, one would think that the worship of the Church centered on Mary, but one can go to mass every Sunday and hear the name of Mary spoken but seldom. During the creed, as the mother of the incarnate God, and during the canon with regards to her proper place at the head of the list of saints.

>> You accept their dogmas but don’t follow them?<<

LOL I accept what scripture says. I also believe that Jesus died on the cross and arose again but that doesn’t make me a follower of the RCC. They follow a different Jesus. The Jesus I follow doesn’t need a stand in here on earth. He’s in every believer. The Jesus I follow taught to go directly to the Father in prayer in His name and never taught to pray to so called saints or Mary.

>>Neither Scripture has any bearing on our teachings about Mary.<<

? Then why did you put those out in answer to my statement, “Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary” then ask me a question as if you had shown where the apostles taught that? I would say you are preaching “another gospel”.

>>but one can go to mass every Sunday and hear the name of Mary spoken but seldom.<<

Yeah, Mary is always in the background right? Give us a break.

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.