The Early Church Fathers did not teach modern Millennialism

[Tayla]

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.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

A lot stated and /or a lot that appears "assumed" in the OP content(and other posts) that is attributed to the ecf is contrary to SCRIPTURE and so is not accepted by a lot of followers of Jesus, so isn't it better to go back to and stick with SCRIPTURE ?

 

[sparow]

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.

For me you have opened a Pandora's box, I'll try to not go off topic. I have never given a lot of thought to this matter of the Millennialism; I have heard confused people talking about post millennium and pre millennium. Even now having studied it I do not know the difference between modern millennialism and ordinary millennialism.

From the Bible I get Satan bound for a thousand years, the resurrected righteous judge the world for a thousand years but also the earth or world is desolate for a thousand years. I personally believe the Millennium is a Sabbath following six millenniums of creation. The are reasons to believe that Christ brings with Him the New Heavens and New Earth; the changing are signs of His coming. So what does desolate mean in scripture? Desolate usually means something is absent; in scripture, specifically the abomination of desolation we are told what is present but what is absent is God and the things of God; during the millennium when it would seem the earth is new what does desolation mean; what is absent; I would assume it is Satan and the things of Satan that is absent.

Those of the first resurrection are kings and priests so the only work they would do during a millennium Sabbath would be priestly duties.

The only church fathers that are important are the original apostles and the Jerusalem church.

I find this interesting although other material by the same author hasn't impressed me.

http://www.barriewilson.com/pdf/Taking-Paul-at-His-Word.pdf

 

[Tayla]

A lot stated and /or a lot that appears "assumed" in the OP content(and other posts) that is attributed to the ecf is contrary to SCRIPTURE and so is not accepted by a lot of followers of Jesus, so isn't it better to go back to and stick with SCRIPTURE ?

Thank you for you comments.

I am not claiming or assuming anything in the OP but, rather, establishing a framework for what will, I hope, be a meaningful, interesting, entertaining, and inspiring dialog. I invite you and everyone to participate.

You should be happy I've introduced this topic. Often, supporters of a yet-future millennium draw upon the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Perhaps everyone will come agree with you that this view can only be supported by the Bible. Buckle in.

Personally, I find the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be very useful, after all, there was a time when there was no Bible, and after that, a time with no settled-upon canon of scripture.

 

[Tayla]

I personally believe the Millennium is a Sabbath following six millenniums of creation.

Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. It was so long with so many topics, I chose the one that most caught my interest. To facilitate dialog you may wish to consider shorter posts focused on smaller more easily digestible topics. Please feel free to comment as often as you wish.

This 6,000 year cosmology is provably false: it has already been more than 6,000 years since the first human.

 

[keras]

Personally, I find the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be very useful

I see the ECF's as no better that the confused and errant, so called Bible scholars of today.
Only Jesus and the Apostles tell the reliable truth. We know very well how far away the Church went and still is on many doctrinal points.

It's based on 6,000 years of human history (which, in 2017, is provably false)

I can provide the proof that there is at least 13 more years to go in the 6000 that God decreed for man.
Just enough time for all that is prophesied to happen before Jesus returns, to take place.
Be ready for it!

 

[Tayla]

I can provide the proof that there is at least 13 more years to go in the 6000 that God decreed for man.
Just enough time for all that is prophesied to happen before Jesus returns, to take place.
Be ready for it!

I'm ready! Come Jesus come.

 

[Tayla]

I see the ECF's as no better that the confused and errant, so called Bible scholars of today.
Only Jesus and the Apostles tell the reliable truth. We know very well how far away the Church went and still is on many doctrinal points.

I'm guessing you are not too fond of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching. The pope will not be happy to hear that. Nor will the Eastern Orthodox bishops.

Yes, I agree. Jesus and the apostles are the authorities for the Christian faith. This info is found mostly in the Bible.

 

[DavidPT]

This 6,000 year cosmology is provably false: it has already been more than 6,000 years since the first human.

Since you said this is provably false, you would then need to provide the proof that proves this false, and that we all agree it does. Guess what? It's not to going to happen. Not that you can't likely provide the alleged proof, but that we would all agree it proves the 6000 years of human history false. To me provable means something like such. 5+5=10. That is undeniably provable.

 

[jgr]

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.

Ignatius and/or Papias circa 110 - 115 AD were about the earliest premils, followed by Justin Martyr circa 150 AD. Early amils and premils fellowshipped amicably. Early premils were known as classic/historic, and differed with amils essentially only in their subscription to a literal vs. a spiritual millennium. Other than subscription to a literal millennium, however, classic/historic premil has very little in common with modern dispensational premil.

 

[Acts2:38]

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.

Most likely this millennialism, of future events still to come in our time, spawns from a lack of knowledge in Revelations and Matthew 24, to name the most common ones.

Revelations is a symbolic book, a code book. It has about 390 allusions to the OT and about 348 verses, out of the 404, that are directly pulled from the OT. It was a time of heavy persecution, hence Revelation 1:9 "I John" your brother "in tribulation", so on and so forth.

Lastly to "keep it short", people do not pay attention to 4 verses in Revelation.

Revelations:
1:1; 1:3; 22:6; 22:10

All 4 of these tell us that whatever is written in Revelations (except for Christs coming of course since we are still here), is to happen soon and within their time.

"for the time is at hand" cannot possibly, in any circumstance, mean 2,000 years or so into the future.

And if you take into consideration Matthew 24:34, Jesus is stating that "this generation", that is, of the people He is talking to right then and there (the disciples) will not pass away til all the things in the previous verses happened.

Sorry not sure what "too long of a post" is to you. Hope this is satisfactory.

 

[DavidPT]

Ignatius and/or Papias circa 110 - 115 AD were about the earliest premils, followed by Justin Martyr circa 150 AD. Early amils and premils fellowshipped amicably. Early premils were known as classic/historic, and differed with amils essentially only in their subscription to a literal vs. a spiritual millennium. Other than subscription to a literal millennium, however, classic/historic premil has very little in common with modern dispensational premil.

I agree for the most part, yet not all modern Premils are also dispensational. I know I'm not, or at least I don't think I am.

 

[jgr]

I agree for the most part, yet not all modern Premils are also dispensational. I know I'm not, or at least I don't think I am.

Agreed, there are certainly classic/historic premils today.

 

[keras]

Ignatius and/or Papias circa 110 - 115 AD were about the earliest premils, followed by Justin Martyr circa 150 AD. Early amils and premils fellowshipped amicably. Early premils were known as classic/historic, and differed with amils essentially only in their subscription to a literal vs. a spiritual millennium. Other than subscription to a literal millennium, however, classic/historic premil has very little in common with modern dispensational premil.

Exactly how if any, are the ECF's and every writer on doctrinal issues, Bible commentaries, etc, since the New Testament was written, different from our current lot?
Todays expounders of their personal views have a much bigger audience and far better means to disseminate their theories and fanciful notions. But to give the ECF's greater recognition and honor, is not warranted or logical.

 

[sparow]

Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. It was so long with so many topics, I chose the one that most caught my interest. To facilitate dialog you may wish to consider shorter posts focused on smaller more easily digestible topics. Please feel free to comment as often as you wish.

This 6,000 year cosmology is provably false: it has already been more than 6,000 years since the first human.

There is a principle that works here, and that is the lottery principle; when a person claims to have the winning ticket before the lottery is drawn he has virtually on chance of being right but the person who says he does not have the winning ticket has virtually 100% chance of being right.

The 6000 year cosmology may not be certified but there isn't evidence to discount it; the evidence that allows the possibility begins with history and prophesy being a system of repeating patterns; the future is predictable if the past is known; every fulfilment of prophesy is an anti-type of something that has happened before; there is nothing new under the sun; clearly throwing the seventieth week down to the end of time and having Satan confirming a previously made covenant, has not happened before. From the Talmud the Jews say, two thousand years without the Law, two thousand years with the Law and two thousand years under the Messiah; this does not precisely fit the Jewish calendar.

It is hard to dispute the Roman calendar that there has been 2000 years since the birth of Christ, but not since his baptism; this calendar being corrected every leap year; but how accurate is the Jewish calendar? At any year there is the possibility of the Jewish calendar being +/- two weeks out of plum with the Roman calendar because the Jews use the moon which produces 13 months in a year; but the Jews also correct their calendar such that a year is a year having a summer, spring, winter and autumn. The Jewish calendar today reads 5775 years since creation or Adam; the year 6000 is 225 years in the future.

 

[Tayla]

Since you said this is provably false, you would then need to provide the proof that proves this false, and that we all agree it does.

Thank you for asking for the details of my argument; that is certainly a fair request.

Most recent date proposed for first humans: 4,004 B.C. by Bishop Ussher. Today's date: 2,017 A.D. The difference is greater than 6,000 years.

Note a side effect of accepting the 6,000 years view. You can't think of creation as happening in 10,000 B.C. or 15,000 B.C. as many creationists do.

 

[Tayla]

Ignatius and/or Papias circa 110 - 115 AD were about the earliest premils, followed by Justin Martyr circa 150 AD. Early amils and premils fellowshipped amicably. Early premils were known as classic/historic, and differed with amils essentially only in their subscription to a literal vs. a spiritual millennium. Other than subscription to a literal millennium, however, classic/historic premil has very little in common with modern dispensational premil.

Thank you for your excellent summary of some of the earliest Church Fathers. I might add a bit more:

We cannot assess the end-time viewpoint of Ignatius of Antioch because he mentions nothing regarding the millennium in the 6 letters he wrote on his way to Rome for martyrdom in 108 A.D.

Papias: there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.

Fragment VI of Papias — from the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.
There is no mention of a rapture, great tribulation, antichrist, another resurrection.
​

Papias: work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

Fragment VI of Papias — from the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.
So perhaps the millennium refers to the final state?​

Justin Martyr: two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy..., shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians...

Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew — Chapter CX
Note the antichrist comes immediately before the second coming; no rapture.​

There is much more that can be quoted from Justin Martyr.

 

[Tayla]

"for the time is at hand" cannot possibly, in any circumstance, mean 2,000 years or so into the future.

Thank you for your crisp and succinct comments.

This sounds like a preterist view, but, yes, 2,000 years doesn't seem like "soon". However, if someone were to soon in this generation write a vision of these events, well, that's a different matter.

The passages you mention from the book of Revelation, I think, refer to: (1) the increased persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire that was soon to occur and had already begun with Nero and Domitian; and (2) the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

(Matthew 24:34) refers, I think, to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and the writing of book of Revelation in 96 A.D. and his glimpse into the future.

 

[Tayla]

Revelations is a symbolic book, a code book. It has about 390 allusions to the OT and about 348 verses, out of the 404, that are directly pulled from the OT.

In my view, symbols are real, residing in the spiritual realm. Starting with chapter 4, John writes of events and realities in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm. (But there are interactions between these two realms.) So I would say the book of Revelation is literal; not allegorical, not figurative, not symbolic.

 

[DavidPT]

In my view, symbols are real, residing in the spiritual realm. Starting with chapter 4, John writes of events and realities in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm. (But there are interactions between these two realms.) So I would say the book of Revelation is literal; not allegorical, not figurative, not symbolic.

Are you trying to say, for example, that when John saw a sign in heaven, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads, in the spirit realm this is exactly what he saw? A literal red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads?