Subject: Before, during, or after? |
Bible Note: Dear val, Actually, I've only ever heard Dispensationalists avow these ante-Nicene fathers as belonging to their ilk. I've even dug around to try to root out the original quotes on which they base their conclusions. Only small fragments of Papias' writings have survived, but nothing that could be conclusively premillennial. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus divided time into four sections and the world into four zones. They asserted that the present age was the reign of Christ. While Tertullian, a man none too keen on sound doctrine, was a Montanist. Now it is true that Montanists believed in chiliasm... but do we really want those guys as strange bedfellows? Montanists believed they had prophetic gifts that trumped the Scriptures themselves. Anyway, if someone can actually make these particular ante-Nicene folks sound like John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Scofield, Hal Lindsey, or Tim Lahaye ... well... then... they're capable of exegetical sleight-of-hand that makes Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Eckhart Tolle look like school children! I lean on the premillennial side myself, but I sure don't want to throw in with sloppy scholarship! I lean toward premillennialism only because Scripture appears to lend itself to such an interpretation. When it becomes indisputable, though I'll treat it as indisputable. But in the mean time I'll stick with the things that are non-negotiable essential truths, and let everyone else sell books and movies. :-) "You will bear me witness, my friends, that it is exceedingly seldom I ever intrude into the mysteries of the future with regard to the second advent, the millennial reign, or the first and second resurrection. As often as we come across it in our expositions we do not turn aside from the point, but if guilty at all on this point, it is rather in being too silent than saying too much." --Charles H. Spurgeon In Him, Doc PS Augustine and John Chrysostom were amillienial. I think they carry a lot more weight than those earlier fellows. Still and all, they don't persuade me. Mostly what bothers me on the forum is a tacit assumption that a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scriptures requires one millennial view or another. That's what is technically known as poppycock. |