The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial

This is taken from an article written by Martin R. Bachicha and I found it quite interesting. Thanks to Mark at Here I Blog for the link. I have always been told by other premils that the early fathers were mostly premils. This starts the investigation and shows that this might not be true at all. I have been studying a lot lately on the subject of end times, Revelation and amillenialism. I have to say that I have definitely switched my view to leave behind dispensationalism, but not quite sure where that leaves me. I am looking forward to continually seek the truth of the Scriptures in what they teach, instead of what I have always been taught. Here is an article to show forth some of this, and next week I will be showing some insight on the main things that have switched my view of eschatology.

The Athanasian Creed and the Early
Church: Clearly Amillennial

By Martin R. Bachicha

Weren't the Early Church Fathers Premillennialists?

In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church." But upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded the following in response, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]." [ 1] (Quoted by Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 235. [ 2] )

Thomas Albrecht, who has done additional research on this topic, also writes, "some premillennialists had attempted to show that premillennialism was the ‘pervasive view of the earliest orthodox fathers’ (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p.202). But many additional scholars have shown this to be false, including Boyd, D.H. Kromminga, Ned Stonehouse, W.G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and Philip Schaff. According to Boyd, the best that can be said of the early Church father is that they were ‘seminal amillennialists’ (cf. Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 239). The early Church fathers … Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papius, admitted that there were many other Christians who were quite orthodox and not premillennial." [ 3]

The following quote by the early church historian Eusebius from his classic work The History of the Church clearly demonstrates the amillennial, consummationist outlook held by the early church. Speaking of the grandsons of Jude, he writes: "the grandsons of Jude.... When asked [by the Emperor Domitian] about Christ and his kingdom--what it was like, and where it would appear--they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead ...." [The History of the Church by Eusebius] from Charles Ludwig, Ludwig’s Handbook of New Testament Rulers and Cities. [ 4]

Eusebius is one of the early church fathers who most clearly denounces "chiliasm," as premillennialism was then called. In the same work he writes, "About the same time … appeared Cerinthus, the leader of another Heresy. Caius, in The Disputation attributed to him, writes respection him: ‘But Cerinthus, by means of revelations which he pretended as if they were showed him by angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that flesh, i.e. men, again inhabiting Jerusalem, would be subject to desires and pleasures. Being also an enemy to the divine scriptures, with a view to deceive men, he said that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals.’" Eusebius also writes of a tradition passed down by Polycarp regarding an encounter between the Apostle John and Cerinthus in a public bath, "He [Polycarp] says that John the Apostle once entered a bath to wash; but ascertaining that Cerinthus was within, he leaped out of the place and fled from the door, not enduring to enter under the same roof with him, and exhorting those with him to do the same, saying, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth is within.’"[ 5] Tertullianus is another early church father who attributes chiliasm’s birth to Cerinthus. He writes: "They are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years, who think with the heretic Cerinthus. For the Kingdom of Christ is now eternal in the saints, although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection." [ 6]

Two of the preeminent creeds of the early church that contain verses that clearly lean towards an amillennial belief are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Apostles’ Creed contains the words "He [Christ] shall come again to judge the quick and the dead," implying that both judgement and the resurrection will take place at His coming. The Nicene Creed states that Christ "shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." Note that Christ’s kingdom is viewed here as eternal, not as a temporal reign of 1000 years.

By far the early church statement of faith that most vividly presents the early church’s belief in an amillennial, "consummationist" eschatology is The Athanasian Creed. Attributed to Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria and the champion of the Council of Nicaea, around 325 A.D., the creed ends with these words: "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation." Let us analyze these closing verses more carefully to see how they align with the belief system we know today as amillennialism, and how they oppose any belief in an earthly 1000 year reign of Christ.

1. "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead." This simply means that there will be those who are alive as well as those who are dead when He comes (1 Thess. 4:15). Notice that judgement of the living and the dead occurs at His coming (cf. Matt. 25:31-46), not a thousand years after His coming.

2. "At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies ...." Thus, at Christ’s coming all rise, the good and the evil alike (cf. John 5:28,29, Matt. 12:41,42). Not just the good, and then a thousand years later the wicked.

3. "... and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire." This is a clear reference to Matt. 25:31-46. Athanasius views this as taking place after the resurrection (or translation), making it a post-resurrection judgement. This is in sharp contrast to the dispensational view that Matthew 25:31-46 is only a judgement of "living, mortal Gentiles" who survived the tribulation. Note again that it (i.e. Matt. 25:31-46) is viewed as a judgement of all men, the Jew and the Gentile, the wicked as well as the good.

We must ask, why were the early church fathers so solidly amillennial? The first most obvious answer is that it reflected apostolic teaching, which means they were being obedient to God’s word (Acts 2:42, Ephesians 2:20). Most importantly, it is what the scriptures clearly teach, and being faithful students of the scriptures, they came to this rightful conclusion. Even the late Dr. George Eldon Ladd, a premillennialist, wrote "I admit that the greatest difficulty to any premillennialism is the fact that most of the New Testament pictures the consummation as occurring at Jesus’ parousia." [ 7] Lastly, amillennialism is the single view that most highly glorifies our Lord Jesus and His Second Coming. To demonstrate this point I will ask these questions. Which view glorifies our Lord Jesus more? A view that has the glorified Christ reigning eternally immediately after His advent from the New Heavenly Jerusalem in the glory of His Father (amillennial); or a view that has Jesus reigning temporally (i.e. for 1000 years) from an earthly Jerusalem, surrounded by mortal men, sinners (premillennial)? Which view magnifies His Second Coming more? A view where at His parousia He eternally judges all of mankind, the living and the dead (amillennial), or a view where this judgement doesn’t take place until a 1000 years after His coming (premillennial)? Which is more monumental an advent? A Second Coming where sin is utterly effaced and death is completely destroyed (amillennial)? Or a second coming where sin is not effaced and death is not destroyed until a 1000 years later (premillennial)? The answer is obvious. Let us give glory to our Lord Jesus and believe the true prophetic faith: Amillennialism, the one and only true Christian eschatology.

Footnotes

[1] "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers [Until the Death of Justin Martyr]," unpublished master's thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977, p. 47), quoted in the web article, "Some Questions and Answers on Eschatology," by Thomas Albrecht. [Back]

[2] House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology, by Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. [Back]

[3] Tom Albrecht, "Some Questions and Answers on Eschatology," World Wide Web article. [Back]

[4] Quoted in the article "The Return of Nero" by Gary Stearman, Prophecy in the News, Vol. 16, No. 5, May 1996, p. 6. [Back]

[5] From Eusebius’ Eccleslastical History, Book 3, Chapter 23. Circa A.D. 324. [Back]

[6] From Tertullianus, The Writings of Tertullianus, Vol. 3, p. 433. [Back]

[7] George Eldon Ladd, The Meaning of the Millennium, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977) edited by Robert G. Clouse, pp. 189, 190. [Back]

About the Author:

Martin Bachicha is a native of Albuquerque and is the author of The Kingdom of the Bride, a book on Bible Prophecy.

Martin Bachicha
4908 Sherry Ann Road NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114

He also writes a prophecy newsletter, The Kingdom of the Bride Prophecy Newsletter. To receive your free e-mailed copy, send an e-mail to kbride@iolnm.net.

© Copyright 1999, Martin R. Bachicha, All Rights Reserved

Read More......

An Evening of Eschatology: Piper, Storms, Wilson, Hamilton

HT: Foedus Theologus

Read More......

Dispensationalism, Covenant and New Covenant Theology

I admit it, I steal. I lifted this from Desiring God and the following was written by Dr. John Piper. I thought this was a great glimpse into each theological department in one post. Figured I would put them here. Historically I have been a dispensationalist, but according to these descriptions alone, I would really lean more towards New Covenant Theology. Before I get into each one, here is a quote from Driscoll that would help understanding of where I fall in the looking at the OT (and why I feel I am getting closer to NCT, although I still strongly believe in a literal 1000 years):

It is my desire that you really embrace this simple but transforming truth. Unless Jesus is the central message of the Old Testament, many errors abound. The most common is moralizing. Moralizing is reading the Old Testament not to learn about Jesus, but only to learn principles for how to live my life as a good person by following the good examples of some people and avoiding the bad examples of others. That kind of approach to the Old Testament is not Christian because it is not about Christ. It treats the Bible like any other book with moral lessons that are utterly disconnected from the example and empowerment of Jesus.
Mark Driscoll, A Book that You Will Actually Read on the Old Testament, p. 42

Below is a quick description of each theological position in a nut shell, which one do you agree with? Do these faithfully describe each one? Take a look below.

What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology?
By Dr. John Piper
January 23, 2006

There are three main theological camps on the issues of law, gospel, and the structuring of God's redemptive relationship with humankind: dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology. Many have written to us asking about the differences between these three views, and so before discussing John Piper's perspective we will give an overview of each.

Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives.

First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a "test" of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.

Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium). For example, the promise of the land is interpreted to mean that God will one day fully restore Israel to Palestine. In contrast, non-dispensationalists typically see the land promise as intended by God to prophesy, in shadowy Old-covenant-form, the greater reality that He would one day make the entire church, Jews and Gentiles, heirs of the whole renewed world (cf. Romans 4:13).

In many ways it is thus accurate to say that dispensationalism believes in "two peoples of God." Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional "earthly" promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus "heavenly."

Covenant Theology
Covenant theology believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity by covenants rather than dispensations. For example, in Scripture we explicitly read of various covenants functioning as the major stages in redemptive history, such as the covenant with Abraham, the giving of the law, the covenant with David, and the new covenant. These post-fall covenants are not new tests of man's faithfulness to each new stage of revelation (as are the dispensations in dispensationalism), but are rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace.

The covenant of grace is one of two fundamental covenants in covenant theology. It structures God's post-fall relationship to mankind; pre-fall, God structured His relationship by the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is best understood in relation to the covenant of works.

The covenant of works, instituted in the Garden of Eden, was the promise that perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life. Adam was created sinless but with the capability of falling into sin. Had he remained faithful in the time of temptation in the Garden (the "probationary period"), he would have been made incapable of sinning and secured in an eternal and unbreakable right standing with God.

But Adam sinned and broke the covenant, and thereby subjected himself and all his descendants to the penalty for covenant-breaking, condemnation. God in His mercy therefore instituted the "covenant of grace," which is the promise of redemption and eternal life to those who would believe in the (coming) redeemer. The requirement of perfect obedience for eternal life is not annulled by the covenant of grace, but is rather fulfilled by Christ on behalf of His people, since now that all are sinners no one can meet the condition of perfect obedience by his own performance. The covenant of grace, then, does not set aside the covenant of works but rather fulfills it.

As mentioned above, covenant theology emphasizes that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all of the various redemptive covenants that we read of in the Scripture are simply differing administrations of this one covenant. In support, it is pointed out that a covenant is in essence simply a sovereignly given promise (usually with stipulations), and since there is only one promise of salvation (namely, by grace through faith), it follows that there is therefore only one covenant of grace. All of the specific redemptive covenants we read of (the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) are various and culminating expressions of the covenant of grace.

New Covenant Theology
New covenant theology typically does not hold to a covenant of works or one overarching covenant of grace (although they would still argue for only one way of salvation). The essential difference between New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and Covenant Theology (CT), however, concerns the Mosaic Law. CT holds that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws--those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The ceremonial law and civil law are no longer in force because the former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter only applied to Israel's theocracy, which is now defunct. But the moral law continues.

NCT argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer.

Does this mean that believers are not bound by any divine law? No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God's eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code's particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled. Rather, upon canceling the Mosaic Law, God gave us a different expression of his eternal moral law--namely, the Law of Christ, consisting in the moral instructions of Christ's teaching and the New Testament. The key issue that NCT seeks to raise is: Where do we look to see the expression of God's eternal moral law today--do we look to Moses, or to Christ? NCT says we look to Christ.

There are many similarities between the Law of Christ and Mosaic Law, but that does not change the fact that the Mosaic Law has been canceled and that, therefore, we are not to look to it for direct guidance but rather to the New Testament. For example, England and the US have many similar laws (for example, murder is illegal in both countries). Nonetheless, the English are not under the laws of America, but of England. If an English citizen murders in England, he is held accountable for breaking England's law against murder, not America's law against murder.

The benefit of NCT, its advocates argue, is that it solves the difficulty of trying to figure out which of the Mosaic laws apply to us today. On their understanding, since the Mosaic Law is no longer a direct and immediate source of guidance, we look to the Law of Christ for our direct guidance. Although the Mosaic Law is no longer a binding law code in the NT era, it still has the authority, not of law, but of prophetic witness. As such, it fills out and explains certain concepts in both the old and new covenant law.

John Piper's position
John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.

Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

Read More......

Which Church is it? Universal or Philadelphia's

I know that we have a lot of reformed readers here that will jump on this band wagon and love to "make fun" of me and my co-horts being dispensationalists, but I still must point out a troubling "proof" text that someone recently used for the rapture of the church. And when I say that my reformed friends will "make fun" I am kidding as they have been very gracious to us here at Contend Earnestly and I have enjoyed their company. Now time to move on.

As I was a young boy in the pew of my churches we would always sing "Just as I am" or "I surrender all," both great songs, and as people would respond to the altar call, which I longer adhere to, the pastor would almost always say, "Jesus stands at the door and knocks and whomever lets Him in will have eternal life."

This reference has been used by a lot of "free-willers" and Arminians to show that Jesus Christ literally stands at the heart of every man. This view of Christ really depicts a sorrowful Saviour with no control, and definitely no sovereignty, but almost seems as though He just waits on us and when we finally decide, "He wins one for the gipper!" Sorry, but this is not what this means and this is not what happens. Read John 6:35-45 and pick up "Drawn by the Father" for the illustration and exhortation on that text.

The verse used is in Revelation is speaking directly to the church of Laodicea, and them alone. Christ was not welcomed in their worship and Christ was commanding to be worshiped or their church was to be condemned.

Anyway. If we take this in context, we must also throw out another misnomer. It is this letter directed towards Philadelphia.

Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you
from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole
world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

Revelation 3:10

I have heard many use this as a way of showing a Pre-Trib Rapture, which to many reading this sounds like folly in itself, but bear with me. There are other verses that I see that we can use for the pre-trip rapture but we must not go here for that exhortation. For if you use this we must adhere to, Jesus standing at the heart of every man waiting to be accepted, which I will never do.

We must test all those who are teachers to the word of the Lord and as I look at this defense of a pre-trip rapture it leaves me wanting. Are we really willing to use this verse as a an overarching message to the universal church? Because if we do we must not stop there and must charge that the same is meant in the next view verses to Laodicea when speaking of the knocking at the door, and that cannot be or the whole of the Doctrines of Grace does not make sense.

This promise is only for Philadelphia and not for us. Philadelphia's faith was great, therefore they will not have to go through the time of wrath.

Use discernment and test these Scriptures that have been used so many times in the past.

Read More......

Why I am Not a Preterist

Some might be asking, “What is Preterism?” Preterist means “gone by” or “past.” Preterists believe that that Jesus’ prophecies in Matthew 24 were all fulfilled before AD 70 in the destruction of Jerusalem. They would also take that Revelation was written in AD 68 to AD 70 instead of the traditional AD 95 that even early church fathers point to. My post will not exhaustively take on this widely debated subject but I just want to give you some of my problems with this way of interpretation.

The very first thing that I notice with Preterism is the way of commingled hermeneutics that make the reader decide when he wants to take a passage, or even different words, as literal or figurative instead of letting the passage really speak for itself.

In Donald Green’s article “A Critique of Preterism” he states the following:

One of the standard authors on biblical interpretation, Bernard Ramm, says, “The interpreter should take the literal meaning of a prophetic passage as his limiting or controlling guide.” Without denying the presence of figures of speech or symbols, Ramm emphasizes that the literal meaning of words cannot be abandoned simply because the interpreter is handling prophetic literature.

So what am I, Donald Green and Bernard Ramm pointing out? In Matthew 24:34, the Olivet Discourse, Jesus Christ says that, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The Preterist would say that means that according to Jewish generations, which is 40 years, that all these things will come to pass before 40 years has ended. Here is where I have problem with this interpretation. If they take this part literally then they must take all of the prophecies that were spoken of before being literally fulfilled as well. So they should take that there would have been a great falling away from Christianity (24:10); there will be many false prophets (24:11); there will be a great tribulation, like never seen before (24:21); the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky (24:29); the Son of Man will appear in the sky, then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory (24:30). All happening on or before AD 70!

So does the Preterist believe that all these things have literally been fulfilled? No. They believe they have been fulfilled but all of them figurative instead of literal. The main point, the very point they rest everything on, is because Christ says, “this generation will not pass away.” They force all other things to fit into this one statement. Full Preterists are forced to even say that Christ’s parousia, His second coming, has already happened as well. This is plain and utter horrific hermeneutics.

If you look in the very next verse, Matthew 24:35, Christ says that “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” Christ uses the very same phrase, pass away, for the end of the age that He just used with “this generation.” Could it be that He meant that the generation He is speaking of is a more loose term speaking of those followers that are living at the time all these things take place? It seems more likely that this would be the case. When you take “generation” to mean just that, you can now let Scripture speak for itself instead of having to take all these things figuratively.

Think of it: Has the sun been darkened? Was there a great falling away? Was the destruction of Jerusalem a great tribulation like never seen before? Has Christ returned on the clouds with His angels? The answer to all these is, no. Many Preterists claim that Christ is on His throne now and it is, of course, a figurative throne and not a literal physical throne. Quickly take a look at this verse:

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
Matthew 25:31

Did you notice it? When Christ comes again, THEN He will sit on His throne. Christ doesn’t reign on the promised throne at this time. But at His second coming then He will reign forever like the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16) promised.

Many early Christians were told to look for the second coming, to have hope in Christ’s return. Where is our hope if Christ has already come again and the Devil is bound? And how can you say that the devil is bound when it is obvious that he is still so rampant in this world and Peter actually says that he is still prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).

There are so many points of Preterism that I don’t agree with but just wanted to give a short summary of them here to start a discussion or start us all on thinking of these things. Let Scripture speak for itself and know that it is best to start on the literal and then let Scripture tell us when it is supposed to be taken as figurative.

I look forward to the parousia and can’t wait to see my Saviour come on the literal clouds with His literal angels to call all the literal elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Read More......