The Early Church Fathers did not teach modern Millennialism

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Defenders of modern Millennialism often claim this was the view of the Early Church Fathers. I think it was not taught by any of them.

I consider the writings of an Early Church Father to not teach modern Millennialism if any of these are true:
--The start date already passed
--It's based on 6,000 years of human history (which, in 2017, is provably false)
--If you teach their full view in a Church teaching modern Millennialism, people would be very uncomfortable (because it diverges significantly)

I define modern Millennialism as a yet-future 1,000 year time period.

I propose we use the term Chiliasm interchangeably with Millennialism, but distinguish between older views and the modern views.

I propose we limit the discussion to Early Church Fathers up to Augustine.

The implicit assumption (which I just made explicit) is that if the Early Church Fathers didn't teach it, it came from another source; perhaps the Bible.

I ask y'all to provide quotations as needed; the shorter the better.

Also, please consider making short focused posts. Reply multiple times to a post if there are multiple points, once for each point. I don't know about you, but I often don't read long posts or long paragraphs; too taxing on my puny brain.
Consider this:
“And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." Matt. 23:9
Who cares about early Church Fathers? I don't, I care about what the Bible says. It clearly says we don't need teachers, we have the Holy Spirit. They are not "Fathers" of the Church and whoever gave them that title is mistaken. We have ONE FATHER in Heaven. He is the only Father. Human teachers err and as many doctrines of theology exist, there are differences in interpretations.
I read commentaries like anyone else, but they are not without errors. We need only to rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth. Unfortunately, when these scholars were taught by the Holy Spirit, the truth they learned was sometimes corrupted, it was filtered through preconceived human understandings, reason, etc. We can only have faith in the scriptures, they were not corrupted. Besides, I believe we know and understand much more about the WORD then these so called early Church fathers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
To the best of my knowledge, no where has Jesus or any prophet said the world will end after six thousand years, but there are many signs given that will indicate the end approaches; but even so when it happens most people will be taken by surprise; this is also prophesied.
Thank you for your insightful comments.

Yes, people will be surprised because the signs are not unambiguously crisp and unmistakably recognizable. Why would God provide unclear signs?

Anyway, I don't see any reason to expect the second coming of Christ any time soon: perhaps after a nuclear war or running out of oil or global warming destroys modern civilization? Or maybe from an asteroid striking the earth millions of years from now? Or maybe when the sun runs out of fuel and expands to engulf the earth?
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I care about what the Bible says. It clearly says we don't need teachers, we have the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for your succinct and focused comments.

Yes, I agree we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us in interpretation. And I practice what I preach. I allow the Holy Spirit to direct my rational mind, given to me by God, so I can discern truth. This has led me to studying philosophy and modern science, and to assess biblical interpretation of others on the merits. The Holy Spirit even pushed me to understand the source of the canon and the role of the early church fathers.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I believe we know and understand much more about the WORD then these so called early Church fathers.
Thank you for your assessment on the trustworthiness of the early church fathers.

It seems to me the early church fathers would be more likely to know the truth in apostolic teaching, being closer to its source. Some even heard the apostles in person. There are people claiming the gospel instantly became corrupted upon the death of the last apostle. Isn't your view, in the final analysis, similar; that those closest to the source are least trustworthy?

If that is the case, we should expect that they designated the wrong list of books as the canon of scripture using the wrong criteria for choosing. Yet they got it right. (I assume you believe the canon of scripture has the correct list of books; forgive me if my assumption is too brash.)

And these same early church fathers are the same people who copied the texts. It is their copies which form the basis for our Bibles, since the originals written by the apostles themselves are lost to history.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you for your succinct and focused comments.

Yes, I agree we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us in interpretation. And I practice what I preach. I allow the Holy Spirit to direct my rational mind, given to me by God, so I can discern truth. This has led me to studying philosophy and modern science, and to assess biblical interpretation of others on the merits. The Holy Spirit even pushed me to understand the source of the canon and the role of the early church fathers.
Really, the Holy Spirit led you to early church fathers to reveal the truth to you? He couldn't give it directly to you from scripture? Didn't think God relied on man to reveal truth to us, which is why He did. But OK, you find it helpful to use early resources for your understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you for your assessment on the trustworthiness of the early church fathers.

It seems to me the early church fathers would be more likely to know the truth in apostolic teaching, being closer to its source. Some even heard the apostles in person. There are people claiming the gospel instantly became corrupted upon the death of the last apostle. Isn't your view, in the final analysis, similar; that those closest to the source are least trustworthy?

If that is the case, we should expect that they designated the wrong list of books as the canon of scripture using the wrong criteria for choosing. Yet they got it right. (I assume you believe the canon of scripture has the correct list of books; forgive me if my assumption is too brash.)

And these same early church fathers are the same people who copied the texts. It is their copies which form the basis for our Bibles, since the originals written by the apostles themselves are lost to history.
Again, the Bible only is trustworthy. God protected His Word, He made sure is was copied and passed down correctly and also made sure the canon was complete, it wasn't anything man did based on his own understanding. We can do nothing without Him.
And I do have faith that the Bible is reliable and has been protected from corruption. At least the NT is said to be 99.99% pure with maybe only 400 words in question that do not affect any doctrine at all. Textual criticism applied by scholars reveals only minor variations: misspelled words or flip-flop phrases, but nothing added or taken away as far as truth.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you for your insightful comments.

Yes, people will be surprised because the signs are not unambiguously crisp and unmistakably recognizable. Why would God provide unclear signs?

Anyway, I don't see any reason to expect the second coming of Christ any time soon: perhaps after a nuclear war or running out of oil or global warming destroys modern civilization? Or maybe from an asteroid striking the earth millions of years from now? Or maybe when the sun runs out of fuel and expands to engulf the earth?

Why would you be interested in signs of the Second Coming/Millennial Kingdom if you don't see the signs of the end-times being fulfilled in this generation? Above you said, "I don't see any reason to expect the second coming of Christ any time soon". And how could the signs be "clear and crisp" to you if you don't think they apply to this generation? A sign either signals us and points to something currently happening in this generation or it is not a sign for us at all.
And then a got to reading another post of yours where you said:
"God is not conscious of what we are conscious of, nor does God have any direct knowledge or experience of evil; he knows it exists only because we cry out to him for salvation from it. And so he sent a Savior."
This statement is absolutely false! Where did you get that theology? I'm sure it wasn't from the early church fathers either. ??? God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, that's Christianity 101
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for your assessment on the trustworthiness of the early church fathers.

It seems to me the early church fathers would be more likely to know the truth in apostolic teaching, being closer to its source. Some even heard the apostles in person. There are people claiming the gospel instantly became corrupted upon the death of the last apostle. Isn't your view, in the final analysis, similar; that those closest to the source are least trustworthy?

If that is the case, we should expect that they designated the wrong list of books as the canon of scripture using the wrong criteria for choosing. Yet they got it right. (I assume you believe the canon of scripture has the correct list of books; forgive me if my assumption is too brash.)

And these same early church fathers are the same people who copied the texts. It is their copies which form the basis for our Bibles, since the originals written by the apostles themselves are lost to history.


How then do you explain, that some of them at the time, believed there would be a 1000 year period after the 2nd coming, and that some didn't? How could both be correct? Which of these would have been closer to the truth in apostolic teaching, the former or the latter?
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
How then do you explain, that some of them at the time, believed there would be a 1000 year period after the 2nd coming, and that some didn't? How could both be correct? Which of these would have been closer to the truth in apostolic teaching, the former or the latter?

That is a soft ball. The church couldn’t make it thru the 1st century before it started stepping all over itself and becoming doctrinally mixed up.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for your insightful question.

Yes. That's what he says he saw. And he was viewing all this from the spiritual realm. (Revelation 4:1) (Revelation 4:2)


There are no literal red 7 headed dragons existing in the spiritual realm, or elsewhere. Your entire approach to this is wrong. So I guess when the book of Revelation calls Jesus a Lamb, in the spiritual realm, that's what He really is, a literal lamb, and that John saw Him as a literal lamb in the spiritual realm. I don't think so. You are a good example of what happens when one branches out on their own, and then starts rewriting the Bible, so to speak, according to how they think it should be written. Not trying to be mean here, but maybe you were better off in the past before you decided to go down this road you are now going down.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is a soft ball. The church couldn’t make it thru the 1st century before it started stepping all over itself and becoming doctrinally mixed up.
Then how has the Church survived to this day?

God has always preserved His "7000 who have not bowed to Baal", an indestructible regiment of those who are faithful to His truth.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Really, the Holy Spirit led you to early church fathers to reveal the truth to you? He couldn't give it directly to you from scripture? Didn't think God relied on man to reveal truth to us, which is why He did. But OK, you find it helpful to use early resources for your understanding.
Goodbye.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How then do you explain, that some of them at the time, believed there would be a 1000 year period after the 2nd coming, and that some didn't? How could both be correct? Which of these would have been closer to the truth in apostolic teaching, the former or the latter?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Apparently apostolic teaching did not provide adequate detail on many topics. And, therefore, the Bible doesn't. The Catholic Church claims that over time, by reflection on the Bible, you can better understand the subtle nuances.

I prefer to believe that if the apostles didn't have an idea clearly in their mind when writing, we should not attempt to clarify it for them later.

Also, please keep in mind my main argument: The numerous diverging and conflicting views about, well, any topic really, among modern Christians is what we are comparing against the early church fathers. They have more coherent unified views by far than do modern Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So I guess when the book of Revelation calls Jesus a Lamb, in the spiritual realm, that's what He really is, a literal lamb, and that John saw Him as a literal lamb in the spiritual realm.
Thank you for your comments.

Yes, a lamb. That's not all he is, of course. Don't forget, in chapter 4 John is taken away into the spiritual realm and the remainder of his visions are from that perspective.

I prefer to believe what the Bible says. When John says he saw a lamb open one of the 7 seals (Revelation 6:1), that's what he saw. He didn't see a figure-of-speech-lamb figure-of-speech-open a figure-of-speech-seal. The book of Revelation is not a work of fiction like Paul Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" in which John invents allegories to attempt to share some truth. John literally saw and heard what he reports he saw and heard.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are a good example of what happens when one branches out on their own, and then starts rewriting the Bible, so to speak, according to how they think it should be written. Not trying to be mean here, but maybe you were better off in the past before you decided to go down this road you are now going down.
Thank you for your comments.

Wow. Really?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GUANO

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2013
739
324
40
Los Angeles
✟32,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for your insightful comments. Sorry if I didn't clearly communicate my views:

Yes, you are correct. The Bible says Adam was a farmer and had domesticated animals. Modern science teaches that the first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia and migrated to all continents by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago. They were hunter-gathers for the first 190,000 years. What does that make Adam? Or Noah?
...The first humans to develop language and as a result, experience what we call "inner dialogue"
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
...The first humans to develop language and as a result, experience what we call "inner dialogue"
Thank you for your insightful comment, raising important questions.

Are you saying they evolved? Or that they modern humans of 200,000 years ago having identical DNA were not really modern humans? And when did this development of language occur?
 
Upvote 0

Original Happy Camper

One of GODS Children I am a historicist
Supporter
Mar 19, 2016
4,195
1,970
Alabama
✟486,806.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
To the best of my knowledge, no where has Jesus or any prophet said the world will end after six thousand years, but there are many signs given that will indicate the end approaches; but even so when it happens most people will be taken by surprise; this is also prophesied.

that is why it says he will come as a thief in the night. Most will not be expecting him and will call on the rocks to fall on them at that time. (those that are lost)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Original Happy Camper

One of GODS Children I am a historicist
Supporter
Mar 19, 2016
4,195
1,970
Alabama
✟486,806.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
These verses are the source of the Millennium

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Revelation 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Revelation 20:7
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Understanding these verses is very simple.

It says at the time of the first resurrection the righteous, dead and living, are taken up to be with the Lord and that those left behind are dead. Satan is left alone on this globe without any one to deceive.

After the thousand years the dead are resurrected and Satan now has those he deceived to work with again against God and the Holy City that comes down from Heaven. This is the time (after the thousand years ) that the second death takes place. No more sin or death after that as the dead and Satan are cast into the lake of Fire.

In verse 20:6 we are told that the dragon, old serpent is the devil. So we can not take all statements in the Bible literally as the description of a dragon (in the Bible) is actually according to the Word of God the devil IE Satan the fallen angel.
 
Upvote 0