Post by gilgames<<
I disagree that the Church Fathers were supporters of the
millennialism, my sort search proved negative answer. There are many
search able collection, prove it from original source, from the
writings of the Church Fathers.
Well you didn't do a very good job at researching to
historical record. But even beyond that, for the moment,
Christ and the NT writers all speak of a literal Kingdom
on earth. What you fail to immediately grasp is the
fact of the nature of the covenants promised to Israel.
In the NT, Galatians and Hebrews both presuppose
Post by gilgames<<
I disagree that the Church Fathers were supporters of the
millennialism, my sort search proved negative answer. There are many
search able collection, prove it from original source, from the
writings of the Church Fathers.
Well you didn't do a very good job at researching to
historical record. But even beyond that, for the moment,
Christ and the NT writers all speak of a literal Kingdom
on earth. What you fail to immediately grasp is the
fact of the nature of the covenants promised to Israel.
In the NT, Galatians and Hebrews both presuppose
that the covenants have not been set aside or some
how taken over by the Church. In Galatians, Paul's
argument is that it is only by the Church's relationship
with Christ, does it get adopted into the promises.
I think you fail to recognize just what the Kingdom is
and to whom it was promised. The Kingdom is
JEWISH!!! It is given to an elect *nation*. Pasages
such as Deut 7:6; 14:2, Rom 11:28; 9:11 are
without equivocation that the Sovereignty of God
chose in the descendants of Abraham, the JEWs,
a people through whom should be mainfested His
Divine purpose and salvation. Salvation isn't only
about "getting out of jail" or escaping the wrath
of a Holy God, it is also about being adopted into
the Kingdom.
The Theocratic Kingdom is especially granted
to David and his descendants. It is identified as
the Davidic Kingdom from which the Messiah
will reign while sitting on the throne of David.
There is but one Kingdom and it is David's. The
Kingdom of Heaven," The Kingdom of God,"
"The Kingdom of Christ" and the Kingdom of
David are all one and the same. It is a
literal kingdom under the prescribes of the
covenants which are to be understood in a
literal manner even as the NT writers
ascribed it.
It is also of interest to note that the Jews
did not contest the Christian teachings
concerning the kingdom. Apostles themselves
in their writing, confirmed both the Messianic
nature of the Kingdom and its literal and
historic fulfillment yet to be granted.
John the Baptist preached a literal Kingdom and
Christ did not correct him but rather developed
the theme even further.
Post by gilgamesmy sort search proved negative answer.
Read historians like Neander, who really wasn't
a millennialist in any imagination of the word yet
if forced to admit that the historical position of the
early disciples of the apostles and the early
church was completely, without exception,
millennial upto the time of the Alexandrian
introduction of the allegorical hermeneutic. But
the first 2 centuries after the death of Christ,
both the Church and the Jews taught and
wrote exclussively about a literal millennial
kingdom.
Gibbon's, a hard hearted agnostic at best,
and athiest at worst, maintains that Chiliasm
was universal doctrine of the early churches.
(Rise and fall, cp 15). There is no need for
me to detail all the historians, unbelievers,
opposers, critics, commentators who stand
with one voice stating that Chiliasm was the
article of belief in the early church.
Bonar in his "Prophetic Landmarks" states:
"As to the history of our doctrines, the
conclusions to which all inquires upon this
subject have come is that during the three
first centuries it prevailed universally, its
only opponents being the Gnostics. This is
now an ascetained historical fact, which we
may well ask our opponents to account for
as it presupposes that Chiliasm was an article
of the Apostolic Creed."
Chillingworth agrees that it was "held true
and Catholic," and that "by none of their
contemporaries condemned," "being
grounded upon evident Scripture," (Works,
Vol 3 p.369)
Giesler's "Church History" "In all the works of
this period (1st 2 centuries) Millenarianism is
so prominent, we cannot hesitate to consider
it as universal in an age when such sensuous
motives were certainly not unnecessary to
animate men to suffer for Christianity."
Benard Russell, "Discourse on the Millennium"
p. 236 writes: "There is good ground for the
assertion of Mede, Dodwell, Burnet and writers
on the same side, that down to the beginning
of the fourth century the belief (in Christ's return
and personal reign on earth for 1000 yrs) was
universal and undisputed."
Brook's, as mentioned in Peter's, "Theocratic
Kingdom," vol 1. p 451, lists the following
fathers having written about or around the
doctrine of the Millennium without contesting
it. In fact, nearly all have a line or two in
support of it.
Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Papieas, Justin Martyr, Tatian,
Melito, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrianus,
Tertullian, all ranging from 70-102AD.
Later fathers include, Lactantius, Methodius,
Epiphanius, Gregory of Myssa, Paulinus,
Victorinus, Apollinaris and others.
I think one of the lowest forms of attack
on this doctine is those of Eusebius and
Jerome, making out that Papias was ignorant
and illiterate, making weak statements
concerning his "Millenarian sentiments".
Strange to read this when else where
Eusebius writes of him that he is,
"eloquent and learned in the Scriptures"
on doctrines not counter to his.
The historical fact is that the
Millennialism was The universal
and literal hope of the early church.