Why disagree with the church fathers on eschatology

[steve]

I received a thoughtful email from a listener which I thought I would share with you, along with my response. Some of you might have thoughts to add to the topic:


Steve,

I am a listener to your program. I like yourself come from a Calvary Chapel-esqe pre-trib, pre-millenial background. Moved to Europe as a young man to be involved in full-time ministry and became an Amillennialist, probably due mostly to the scholarship I ran into (commentaries and such). I drifted into "pan-millenialism" wherein I claimed not to care in a tongue and cheek manner.

Then I began to read the Early Church and I had to take a look again at some of the positions (or at least aspects of them) that I had either rejected or somehow dismissed. I also became acquainted with George Eldon Ladd's articulation of a historic premillenialism, which I felt corrected some of the things I never saw in the Scriptures (a secret rapture, believers somehow escaping persecution).

I guess what is a bit confusing to me is that on some issues you rightly affirm the conclusions of the Early Church writers when they are in universal agreement (i.e. their rejection of what we call Augustinianism/Calvinism, their views on divorce and remarriage, their views on non-violence)—interestingly, conclusions I came to independently from reading the Bible for myself as a new convert in the mid-80's. You accept their conclusions on the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. You ultimately agree with their decisions on what is the authoritative Canon of Scripture.

At the same time, I am aware of your divergence on particular issues like for example infant Baptism. I guess you would probably not have as high a view of communion (I am guessing) and I think I have heard your opinion on the meaning and doctrine of Baptism that would also be 'lower' (if I can use that term) than theirs.

My question is about their eschatology. I have read all of the 2nd century writers that we have extant today and I can't find a preterist (hyper or partial) among them. I'm not saying 70AD wasn't an important event, but when we look carefully at what they wrote/believed about eschatology, there were clearly futuristic notions in their midst. Some of these men were either personal disciples of the Apostle John and/or his spiritual grandchildren. It seems to me that these men would have articulated the apostolic view of eschatology in their writings. I think the absence of amillennialism and preterism in their writings would be some of the strongest evidence against your position.

Your thoughts - I am sure you've thought this matter through.

David

--------------------------------------

Hi David,

Thank you for writing. Yes, I have thought about these issues, and have also read the second century Fathers, and most of the third century ones, as well (apart from isolated quotes which I have encountered through the years, I am slowly working my way through the volumes of the church fathers on my own).

I guess the reason for my amillennialism is that I gradually was forced to that position by my studies in the scriptures themselves—back in the 1970s when I had not met or read any amillennialists, and did not know that my conclusions had a name or any other adherents. It was not the disagreement of church fathers that concerned me about having reached these views (since I had not, at that time become familiar with their writings), but, rather, the disagreement (as I suspected) of all Christians of all times. I was naive enough to assume that premillennialism was the only view ever held by believers prior to my reaching my new views. Thus, I assumed I was a heretic, and determined never to teach on this subject. I was pleasantly surprised, to say the least, when, in 1977, I learned that my view had a name and a history, and—best of all!—had been the majority view of Christians throughout most of the last 1700 years.

I knew that the earliest church fathers seemed to speak with one voice in favor of premillennialism (I had learned this by reading Ladd, in 1974), and that disappointed me, but did not shake my exegesis any more than did the knowledge that every Christian I had ever personally known was also premillennial (and also dispensational). If I had been led to amillennialism through the influence of respected teachers, I probably would have been vulnerable to giving up the position upon learning of even-more-impressive teachers who did not embrace it. However, I have come to my position (slowly and reluctantly) by the inescapable comparison of scripture with scripture—especially on the subject of the resurrection from the dead. I do not know how the church fathers escaped the fact that the Bible clearly teaches the simultaneous resurrection of the saved and of the lost (e.g., John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; John 6:39, 40, 44, 54 w/ 12:48), instead of the premillennial insistence that there will be separate resurrections of the two groups, separated by a thousand years from each other.

The fact that I must differ from the fathers on certain issues (some of which you have noted) means that I cannot allow them to do my thinking for me about the meaning of scripture. We do not know how much John may have talked to Polycarp or Ignatius (nor how much Polycarp talked to Irenaeus) about the subject of the millennium or eschatology at all. My impression is that John, in his later years, did not talk much about eschatology, but obsessed on a more practical message: “Little Children, love one another!” If a church father could be wrong about infant baptismal regeneration (actually, the earliest fathers may not have believed in it, since they don’t say), then they could be wrong about any other subject concerning which I find them in conflict with clear scriptural affirmations.

Of course, the earliest fathers weren’t all premillennial, in any case, since Justin mentioned to Trypho that very many respected Christians held millennial views alternative to his own. If any of those fine, unnamed saints had left writings on this subject, and had their writings been preserved, we would have a better idea of how diverse the views on this subject were on this topic in the first three centuries (we know that, in the early third century, Origen was not premillennial).

It was years after my departure from premillnnialism that I came into contact with preterism (I held the Idealist view of Revelation for a few years after embracing amillennialism). I first read a preterist view of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse in 1982, in a book by Jay Adams. I was intrigued, but ultimately rejected the view for lack of adequate evidence (or, perhaps, my inability to process the evidence presented). I later read works by other preterists, who filled in much of my lacking knowledge of the events of the Jewish War.

My own reading of scripture, in the meantime, was convincing me that AD 70 was an extremely common theme in the teaching of Jesus, in the books of Hebrews, James and also in the Old Testament prophets. Eventually, by comparing the contents of Revelation with those sources just mentioned, it became apparent that John was writing about the same subject. Thus, I finally succumbed to the partial preterist view of Revelation, in addition to my amillennialism.

I have no ax to grind about this view. I have held three different views of Revelation (four, if dispensationalism be counted a distinct brand of futurism). I don’t mind changing my view to fit the evidence presented. However, with reference to biblical studies, because of my high view of scripture, I do favor internal evidence (i.e., what the Bible actually says about itself) over external evidence (e.i., opinions of church fathers).

Call me a rebel. I insist on thinking my own thoughts and holding to my own analysis of scripture. It is always encouraging to find others (e.g., church fathers or respected scholars) who reach the same conclusions as I have reached, but their agreement is of secondary importance.

Blessings!

Steve

[Paidion]

Hi Steve,

You have asked for our thoughts. I think you have adequately explained your position and why you hold it. A thought did come to me concerning the following sentence:

If a church father could be wrong about infant baptismal regeneration (actually, the earliest fathers may not have believed in it, since they don’t say), then they could be wrong about any other subject concerning which I find them in conflict with clear scriptural affirmations.

I don't think any of the "church fathers" prior to the third century held to infant baptism. But Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) taught baptismal regeneration, and I for one, do not think he was wrong about that.

Justin in his explanation of Christianity to the emperor of Rome (today called "The First Apology of Justin") seems to recognize baptimsal regeneration in the following passage from ch LXVI"

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [Thanksgiving], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

Particularly in the following, Justin affirms baptismal regeneration:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the
universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone ...and in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. — Ch. LXXI

And from the "lost fragments of Irenæus ch. XXXIV:

“And dipped himself,” says [the Scripture], “seven times in Jordan.” It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

If anyone knows of a "church father" who wrote prior to 200 who taught infant baptism, I would be happy to learn of it—who it was, and the reference to the part of his works which contains it.

[dwilkins]

While I understand the caller's conclusion that preterism isn't taught in the 2nd Century, I think it is premature and missing some important pieces. First, from the very beginning of the church writers such as Justin Martyr were clear that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and the prophecies of Daniel. While they didn't put the name "preterist" on that approach, in the modern analysis (where there is a more complete analysis of the integrated nature of these prophecies and the concept of the 2nd Coming, which was a term coined more than a hundred years after Christ) this is a solidly preterist observation. The point here is that preterism is inextricably linked to your view on the Law, the identity of Israel, and the completion of the work of Christ. It's not just a punchline about the 2nd Coming. Likewise, it has been the position of the church since the very beginning that certain things were fulfilled in the fields of soteriology and liturgy that require some sort of preterist conclusion. For example,

"Byzantine Theology" by John Meyendorff., page 208

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theolog ... meyendorff

". . . the very idea that the Eucharist is an anticipation of the eschatological fulfillment is affirmed in the canon of the Byzantine liturgy itself, which recalls the second coming of Christ as an event which has already occurred; "Remembering this saving commandment and all the things which have come to pass for us, the cross, the tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, and the second and glorious coming, we offer unto Thee . . ."

The point of this quote is that in the EO liturgy there is some sort of reference to a past "second and glorious coming", though the rest of their theology doesn't follow through with this observation and there isn't a large amount of clear explanation of where this liturgy comes from. Similar ideas can be found in "The Lamb's Supper" by Hahn. While Protestants tend to be dismissive of RCC or EO doctrine, they can't deny that they at least represent some very old traditions in the church. And, there might be a reason that neither church tradition put much time or effort into eschatology. For some of their scholars there is some vague expectation of a future coming, but they don't worry about it much.

Second, very early on there were factions in the church that we have a hard time noticing. "Regnum Caelorum" by Hill does a good job of pointing out that the position of early writers on the location of the intermediate state is a handy key for determining who was premillennial and who was amillennial. The bottom line here is that the majority of the early church writers were amillennial, and this tradition starts in the 2nd Century.

Which brings us to the third very important point: The disagreement between early writers on such a fundamental doctrine indicates that the Apostles did not hand down a tradition beyond what we have in writing in scripture. This has profound implications. You'll notice that none of the early writers for whom we have extant writings claim to have heard anything directly from an Apostle. They all base their interpretive rationales on their own study of scripture. Tradition says that some of them did talk to the Apostles, but we don't have copies of them explaining what that means. We only have third party claims such as from Irenaeus. And, more importantly, the third party claims that we do have are based on an eschatology that is demonstrably false. That is, they claim that the world that had existed for about 6,000 years at that point would only last another 1,000 years. This is essentially the eschatology that the people who claimed (without proof) to have talked to the Apostles are asserting. It's wrong. That means that either the Apostles were flat wrong, or the people who claimed to have talked to them are lying (or possibly that the third party who claims to have documented such a conversation is lying). Either way, the only people claiming to be relying on a tradition have been proven to be wrong, and they were all (as far as I know) premillennial.

Finally, the implications of the discovery of Eusebius' "Theophania" are very important. Eusebius originally wrote this book in Greek but it is only available now in Aramaic. The reason is that it was copied into Aramaic (probably in Edessa) but lost in the west. The RCC is known for having an exhaustive library of early church writings. But, the Greek version of this book is not one of them. And, it took until the mid-1800's to rediscover the Aramaic version. Why? I suspect that it's because there is a strong flavor of preterism in it. I suspect that certain early works of Christian writers that didn't line up with later "orthodoxy" were scrubbed from our history. I suspect that we'll find more of them over the next few centuries.

The topic of eschatology in the early church is not a settled matter. Our primary problem is seeing the various camps through modern lenses. Instead, I'd suggest becoming very familiar with the ancillary doctrines associated with these positions, and seeing how the the early church taught those connected doctrines. What I have found is that there is a preterist assumption to a great deal of doctrine, but a premillennial position is pasted over it.

Doug

[robbyyoung]

I received a thoughtful email from a listener which I thought I would share with you, along with my response. Some of you might have thoughts to add to the topic:


Steve,

...My question is about their eschatology. I have read all of the 2nd century writers that we have extant today and I can't find a preterist (hyper or partial) among them. I'm not saying 70AD wasn't an important event, but when we look carefully at what they wrote/believed about eschatology, there were clearly futuristic notions in their midst. Some of these men were either personal disciples of the Apostle John and/or his spiritual grandchildren. It seems to me that these men would have articulated the apostolic view of eschatology in their writings. I think the absence of amillennialism and preterism in their writings would be some of the strongest evidence against your position.

Your thoughts - I am sure you've thought this matter through.

David

Thanks Steve for the post. I would like to comment on this particular piece, "The Elephant in the room" if you will. After 70AD we have ZERO writings from ANY Apostles, or their direct converts. As a matter of fact, church history proves and labels this 70-100 year period as SILENCE. Consider this, there was about 83 different saints mentioned in the NT, who if remained alive on earth after AD 70, probably down into the first few decades of the second century (especially the younger ones such as Timothy, Titus, Gaius, Aristarchus, and others, etc.) and were still around at the very time when the Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Clement, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius were being written, all of which claim that the Parousia was still future. So, where are the rebuttals from these eyewitnesses? Where is ANYTHING from these eyewitnesses? Do you see the dilemma here? The very folks who lived through AD 70 and who experienced the Parousia, Resurrection, and Judgment were supposedly still around afterwards at the very time when the apostolic father writings began to appear in the late first and early second century. Every one of those post-70 writers say that the Parousia is still future. Why didn't some of those pre-70 saints, who were still alive, speak up and set the record straight? Why did they remain silent and let the post-70 writers keep on saying that the Parousia was still future?

Are we to believe ZERO direct converts of the 1st Century couldn't write! All these 3rd party "johnny come lately" writings trump the eye-witnesses account???? THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING!!!!

Either these 1st Century Believers ALL DIED during the 70AD destruction, or they were so embarrassed by non-fulfillment of 1 Thess 4 and other passages which promised them relief and a "home coming", that they ALL simply "fell away" into silence never to be heard from again. Lastly, the only other option is that THEY ALL were taken to heaven as scripture seemingly says. Either way, the SILENCE must be accounted for in a serious manner. Why? Because any hint of false prophecy on Yeshua or The Apostles ministry would be devastating to the entire Christian faith.

Why are we listening to 3rd party writings instead of eyewitness accounts? Where are the eyewitness writings? Does or do not the scriptures teach the remaining eyewitnesses will be taken to heaven? Does or do not "The Silence" serve as it's own witness to these questions?

We are left with the only sure witness. The NT writings and it's history in it's own regard. Not uninspired 3rd party this or that!

If they were taken, what should common sense expect? Can somebody please tell me how YAHWEH could have better given us a witness regarding 1 Thess. 4 and other related passages other than, Hmmm...SILENCE.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

After 70AD we have ZERO writings from ANY Apostles, or their direct converts. As a matter of fact, church history proves and labels this 70-100 year period as SILENCE.

There wasn't too much silence from Clement, Paul's fellow helper, who wrote a powerful letter to the Corinthians, shortly after Paul and Peter's death. He refers to Paul and Peter as "the most recent spiritual heroes" and as "noble examples furnished in our own generation."

Clearly Clement wrote the letter during the "period of silence" since he died in 100 A.D. He is considered by some to have been an apostle, and even if not, it is certain that he was an overseer in the church at Rome, in whose name he wrote the letter.

[robbyyoung]

After 70AD we have ZERO writings from ANY Apostles, or their direct converts. As a matter of fact, church history proves and labels this 70-100 year period as SILENCE.

There wasn't too much silence from Clement, Paul's fellow helper, who wrote a powerful letter to the Corinthians, shortly after Paul and Peter's death. He refers to Paul and Peter as "the most recent spiritual heroes" and as "noble examples furnished in our own generation."

Clearly Clement wrote the letter during the "period of silence" since he died in 100 A.D. He is considered by some to have been an apostle, and even if not, it is certain that he was an overseer in the church at Rome, in whose name he wrote the letter.

Hi Paidion,

Assuming that I Clement is genuine and that it has survived substantially uncorrupted, it is safe to say that it was written between c. A.D. 67 and 70, and that its eschatological message is preterism.

For Clement, the Parousia, the Resurrection of the dead and the Judgment were all about to happen at the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem.

We know that Clement's epistle was written shortly after c. A.D. 67, because he says in chapter six that Paul and Peter were martyred “in our own generation,” and that they were “the most recent spiritual heroes.” (Chapter 5) Along with them, Clement adds, “a great multitude …endured many indignities and tortures…” (Chapter 6)

The “indignities and tortures” of Paul, Peter and the “great multitude” were probably part of the Neronian persecution (or more precisely, the Jewish-Neronian persecution) that began in c. A.D. 64. According to tradition, Peter and Paul were martyred in that persecution in c. A.D. 67.

We can infer that Clement's epistle was written before A.D. 70, because he speaks in four places of the Temple in Jerusalem:

Now concerning his death, it is speculative, for the same source also states that he wrote two letters (though the second letter, 2 Clement, is no longer ascribed to him) and that he died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD.

Hey, I'll be the first to tell you that I'm speculating on a literal rapture of believers in the 1st Century, but Clement doesn't disprove anything.

God Bless.

[Singalphile]

I agree with the guy's (David's) letter to some extent. But every view that exists nowadays is probably different than any view that existed 1,000 or 1,900 years ago. I have never heard a view that fits perfectly. They've all got problems, I think, and that includes even the secular, non-Christian view that I'm familiar with.

There's always a large dose of speculation.

[dwilkins]

I thought I'd update this with an interesting quote of a church father on eschatology:

http://kloposmasm.com/2014/10/13/we-now ... new-earth/

Eusebius, Theophania:

"All authorities concur in the declaration that “when all these things should have been done”, ‘The End’ should come: that “the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets“: it should be completed: time should now be no more: the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass: in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets: or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done: the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem–all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realised on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations; God’s holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished."

[Homer]

in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations

Was it not a statement made in ignorance to say this? We support a missionary family in Laos. It seems the gospel has only reached them in relatively recent times.

[robbyyoung]

in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations

Was it not a statement made in ignorance to say this? We support a missionary family in Laos. It seems the gospel has only reached them in relatively recent times.

Hi Homer,

I'm going to be deliberately short with you in answering your question, why? Because Ad Nauseam, on many different eschatological post, this was answered.

1. In regards to "The End of the Age", not the world, the following terms:

Nations
Earth
World

Referenced, exegetically, the "Roman Empire" of that then "Known World".

2. Therefore, the prophetic time statements geared to the original audience holds it's integrity, for the NT Writer's testimony upholds the signs given for "The End" in scripture.

So, NO, Loas or any other modern day remote place IS NOT in view regarding what Yeshua and The Apostles preached and taught concerning "The End of the Age", which occurred in 70AD.

God Bless.