Christ is Risen!

DA) Tim, Chiliasm existed in the ancient Church without many of the additions of todays premils and dispensationalists
T)Since our revision to the ancient system can be summed up in one simple step, then I do not believe it is accurate to say: "many of the additions of todays premils and dispensationalists."

What I was getting at is the following premill/dispensat. beliefs are absent:
The restoration of Israel
Two-part resurrection as opposed to a general resurrection.
The doctrine that todays Jews (so called) are somehow a covenanted accepted people of God (thus creating two seperate and concurrent plans of salvation in their view).
Invisible rapture.
Dispensationalism. The belief God has dealt with mankind in different ways during different dispensations of the history of mankind (Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Church, Millenium etc).

DA)Nicea put the lid on the coffin directly inserting a clause for all Christians to affirm which meant the end of that system of understanding.
T)Actually, I think most of those present at the Nicene Council were premillennial.

Of course I have noticed that your conspiracy theories so far have no basis in facts. Those so called pre-millenialists are the ones that inserted the sentence in the Creed which destroys the Chiliast position.'His kingdom shall have no end."

DA)This view (chilism) as opposed to say the heretics Arius and Nestorius whose views were easily seen to be heresy, was put forward by great saints but it was a view with many flaws as the Church soon woorked out.
T)List these flaws.

Creates an end to Christ's kingdom. Which the Nicene Creed addressed...'Whose kingdom shall have no end."
Teaching originates from one Cerenthus and not from St John the blessed Apostle.(Originally Jewish traditions).
Makes Christ into a Jewish carnal King figure, with armies and secular governments.
Creates reinstituted blood sacrifices of animals as some form of acceptable worhip of God.

T)But that does little to soften the fact that futurist premillennialism was the unanimous position of the earliest church, and that amillennialism is radically opposed to this doctrine in each and every single detail.

Not enough info to make any such statement. Justin's testimony disagrees with it as he asserts that opposing veiws existed which were held by pious true Christians. However hard you try your 'ancient true doctrine destroyed by those naughty Nicene amils' conspiracy just don't hold any water. The Emperors new clothes.

DA)Remember also at this time the Book of Revelation was not even considered canonical by all and so most of the prophecy they were dealing with was Daniel.
T)The earliest Christians readily quoted from the Apocalypse. I don't believe anyone ever questioned the Apocalypse until amillennialism came along. In the earliest church, the Apocalypse was one of the guaranteed writings of the Apostles which immediately demanded its rightful place in the canon. I think the earliest Christian writings make the Apocalypse one of the best attested writings of the NT canon. But then amillennialists came along, and noticed the clear premillennial teachings in that book, and so disputed its place in the canon and attempted to attribute it to either Cerinthus or "another John."

Your above statements are just so 'out there'. Are you making this up as you go along? The Book of Revelation was quoted only once and by St. Justin Martyr, in this section we are discussing, thats -substantially- it for the whole period before Ireneaus. One -confirmed- reference. This means the following writers may not have quoted or held the work at this time: Clement, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias and Justin Martyr, thats the first 306 pages of Volume 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers with- not much more- than one confirmed reference to which we can be absolutely sure of quoting the Book of Revelation. Not until Ireneaus circa 180 AD do we see the first normal mass quoting of the book.

Ok below are some quotes by St Justin Martyr as to some other relevant issues to which he believed and taught. You will note the following teachings are the exact opposite to todays Premillenialism and Dispensationalism. IOW, St Justin was a 'Chiliast" (a believer in a thousand year reign) and NOT a premillenialist or dispensationalist, which of course is my position in this post.

Justin holds to the standard TWO advents of Jesus Christ, His first the Passion and His final, the Parousia.

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho.
"if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,-one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself," p. 210, Vol 1 ANF.
Justin believed Jesus was already reigning then:
The First Apology of Justin. Chapter XLI.-The Crucifixion Predicted.
And again, in another prophecy, the Spirit of prophecy, through the same David, intimated that Christ, after He had been crucified, should reign, and spoke as follows: "Sing to the Lord, all the earth, and day by day declare His salvation. For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols of devils; but God made the heavens. Glory and praise are before His face, strength and glorying are in the habitation of His holiness. Give Glory to the Lord, the Father everlasting. Receive grace, and enter His presence, and worship in His holy courts. Let all the earth fear before His face; let it be established, and not shaken. Let them rejoice among the nations. The Lord hath reigned from the tree." p.176, Vol. 1 ANF

Justin believed Christians are the True Israel the Spiritual Jew.

Chapter XI.-The Law Abrogated; The New Testament Promised and Given by God.
"For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed." P.200, Vol. 1, ANF.

Justin believed the Jewish rituals were broken cisterns and that they required Christian baptism.

Chapter XIV.-Righteousness is Not Placed in Jewish Rites, But in the Conversion of the Heart Given in Baptism by Christ.
"By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure. For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness. Accordingly, also, after the seven days of eating unleavened bread, God commanded them to mingle new leaven, that is, the performance of other works, and not the imitation of the old and evil works." p. 201, Vol. 1, ANF

Justin believed Jews needed Christian baptism.

Chapter XIX.-Circumcision Unknown Before Abraham. The Law Was Given by Moses on Account of the Hardness of Their Hearts.
"This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for your selves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. P. 203, Vol. 1, ANF.
Justin believed there was no seperate covenant of salvation for the Jews apart from Christ.

Chapter XXVI.-No Salvation to the Jews Except Through Christ.
And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. For God speaks by Isaiah thus: `I, the Lord God, have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will strengthen Thee; and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house.' And again: `Lift up a standard for the people; for, lo, the Lord has made it heard unto the end of the earth. Say ye to the daughters of Zion, Behold, thy Saviour has come; having His reward, and His work before His face: and He shall call it a holy nation, redeemed by the Lord. And thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken. Who is this that cometh from Edom? in red garments from Bosor? This that is beautiful in apparel, going up with great strength? I speak righteousness, and the judgment of salvation. Why are Thy garments red, and Thine apparel as from the trodden wine-press? Thou art full of the trodden grape. I have trodden the wine-press all alone, and of the people there is no man with Me; and I have trampled them in fury, and crushed them to the ground, and spilled their blood on the earth. For the day of retribution has come upon them, and the year of redemption is present. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I considered, and none assisted: and My arm delivered; and My fury came on them, and I trampled them in My fury, and spilled their blood on the earth.'" " P. 207, Vol. 1, ANF.

Chapter XLIV.-The Jews in Vain Promise Themselves Salvation, Which Cannot Be Obtained Except Through Christ.
"For thus, so far as you are concerned, I shall be found in all respects innocent, if I strive earnestly to persuade you by bringing forward demonstrations. But if you remain hard-hearted, or weak in [forming] a resolution, on account of death, which is the lot of the Christians, and are unwilling to assent to the truth, you shall appear as the authors of your own [evils]. And you deceive yourselves while you fancy that, because you are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, therefore you shall fully inherit the good things announced to be bestowed by God through Christ. For no one, not even of them, has anything to look for, but only those who in mind are assimilated to the faith of Abraham, and who have recognised all the mysteries: for I say, that some injunctions were laid on you in reference to the worship of God and practice of righteousness; but some injunctions and acts were likewise mentioned in reference to the mystery of Christ, on account of the hardness of your people's hearts. And that this is so, God makes known in Ezekiel, [when] He said concerning it: `If Noah and Jacob and Daniel should beg either sons or daughters, the request would not be granted them.' And in Isaiah, of the very same matter He spake thus: `The Lord God said, they shall both go forth and look on the members [of the bodies] of the men that have transgressed. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a gazing-stock to all flesh.' So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope from your souls, and hasten to know in what way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good things, shall be yours. But there is no other [way] than this,-to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives." p.216, Vol. 1, ANF

Justin denounced a human kingdom and believed in one with God.

Chapter XI.-What Kingdom Christians Look for.
And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." p. 166, Vol. 1. ANF

Justin believed in a 1000 year reign but affirmed many pious Christians did not.

Chapter LXXX.-The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.
that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. " p. 239. Vol. 1. ANF.

Justin believed Christ would subdue His enemies from heaven and rule with the rod of power in His apostles.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter XLV.-Christ's Session in Heaven Foretold.
And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation-hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: "The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire." p. 178 Vol. 1, ANF.

Justin believed baptism was for the remission of sins.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism.
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 [rite] 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. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. 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." p. 183, Vol. 1, ANF.

Justin believed the Bread and Wine mixed with water was no longer common but transmuted into that flesh and blood of Jesus.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LXV.-Administration of the Sacraments.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethrenbread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge/noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion." p. 185, Vol. 1, ANF.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a [the Eucharist], 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. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." p. 185, Vol. 1, ANF.

And you seriously think to promote St Justin martyr as the equilivent of a Protestant Pre-millenialist? Does the above sound anything like -any- premill that anyone has ever heard of in these days?

St Justin Martyr was, is now, and always shall be, one of ours, an Orthodox Catholic Christian in all points, except he also believed an idea of a thousand year event in Jerusalem, of which at his time the Church had not confirmed her teachings about.

Peace and grace.

Great thread Dcn - Theonomy went through a similar exercise with Tim to no avail, but rest assured that the readers are edified. I know I am. I think I will catalog but this thread and your former on my PreteristSite as tools for those who encounter these kinds of arguments.

Originally posted by Dcn_Athanasius

Christ is Risen!

[box]What I was getting at is the following premill/dispensat. beliefs are absent:
The restoration of Israel

Tim always hand waves that away. It is a pillar of dispensationalism yet he pooh poohs that it is not important that such belief is absent. However, it is more than absent, it is positively denied. I need to find that thread by Theonomy for you. Basically Theonomy argued thusly:

Tim claimed that premill laid down the elements for the dispie premill so thus it can be said that dispie premill is the logical consequence of the early church

Theonomy turned that on him and said that the non-dispie views of Israel laid the foundation for amill just as easily.

What you have in many ECF is a mixture of elements of both views. I posit that it is much more logical, and HISTORY has shown, that the progression is to keep the nondispie view of Israel and reject the premill. And that is what happened in the ECF. Tim cannot have it both ways.

Hi Don

I will first say you seem to be trying to defeat a futurist doctrine .............I am not a futurist...............I am like Justin a historical premill. I agree the whole futurist belief that The Church is not Israel is Heresy.

I dispute very little of your take on this accept except that Justin clearly states that there will be 1,000 year reign of Christ in Jerusalem.................and a few other things you passed over that show other errors in amill doctrine.

Quote

Justin denounced a human kingdom and believed in one with God.
end Quote

Yes he believe God would rule on earth for 1,000 years out of Jerusalem. You try and make his words say what they do not say. Justin did not believe the kingdom was in heaven and not on Earth. Justin believed that the kingdoms of this world would be destroyed to be replaced by God's kingdom. here is the words of Justin

"With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning"

Notice he states the day of power and speaks of the Saints and then say the womb of morning.

Justin is referring to the first resurrection and is making a direct reference to psalms 37:

Ps:37:6: And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.

This verse clearly separates the Judgement of the righteous and the wicked ........rev 20 tells us there is 1,000years between these two resurrections. The first being the Saints and the 1,000 years in Jerusalem ON EARTH. The second being the wicked 1,000 years and a season later.

Now I realise that years later amill accumulated teachers claimed his words are incorrect but justin was taught by men who knew John personally. That is why Justin says with such confidence

" But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years(7) in Jerusalem,"

The reality is Justin continuously teaches against many of the amill core beliefs.

beliefs such as a "Just War" you know the "In this sign you shall conquer" The war slogan that has driven Christianity into countless genocides and the murder of millions.

CHAP. XXXIX.--DIRECT PREDICTIONS BY THE SPIRIT.

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."(12) And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, "The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn,"(1) might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, and who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, and parents, and country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it were verily ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things, in order to obtain what we desire from Him who is able to grant it.

I could go on for a very long post but I have demonstrated that Justin did not see heaven as the kingdom of God.

Dcn,



Great thread, how could any reasonable person, after reading your above work continue to maintain, “There is a STRONG link between dispensational premillennialism and the position of the ancient church.” without attempting to intentionally mislead. The only thing in common with the Dispensationalism and JM’s view is the term 1000 years. Great work brother, thank you for the detail you provide.



In Christ,



Paul

Athanasius, I will get to the rest of your post as soon as I can. For now, here is an answer to the first points:

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

What I was getting at is the following premill/dispensat. beliefs are absent:

The restoration of Israel

All premillennialists believe in a restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). Our concept of the kingdom is based upon the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, so, an Israel gathered together and permanently planted in her covenanted land, and the Son of David reigning out of Zion, are essential elements to premillennialism.

Irenaeus puts it this way:

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.30

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Two-part resurrection as opposed to a general resurrection.

The two-fold resurrection is readily apparent in the writings of the ancient Christians (see Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, ch.5; Didache, ch.16; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch.80-81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.33-36. See here: • Edited by a Moderator • )

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

The doctrine that todays Jews (so called) are somehow a covenanted accepted people of God (thus creating two seperate and concurrent plans of salvation in their view).

We don't believe God is dealing with the Jews today. We believe God halted his program with Israel, and shifted his dealings over to a new peoples - the church.

But this is not to say God will not resume his dealings with Israel. Paul specifically teaches that God is not done with Israel. See also Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch.80, in which Justin says the Christians, and also righteous Israel, will be raised to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom age. Dispensationalists hold a very similar opinion, though differing on the idea of when God resumes his dealings with Israel. We move that event back seven years, applying the Great Tribulation as the time of Jacob's trouble - as is demanded by the Scripture.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Invisible rapture.

Invisible rapture? We differ with them on the time the church age closes, and thus arises the difference in pretribulational timing of the rapture. Is this what you are referring to?

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Dispensationalism. The belief God has dealt with mankind in different ways during different dispensations of the history of mankind (Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Church, Millenium etc).

Actually, that is well attested in the writings of Justin and Irenaeus (I can give you the details of their four-fold dispensational scheme if you wish). It also is common sense to anyone who reads the Bible. For example, the transition from the Old Covenant administration to the Church era is a central theme in the NT. So, there are at least two dispensations in Scriptural history. Since the Old Covenant administration did not begin until the Law was given to Moses, then we see that there were earlier dispensations, so we see at least three dispensations here. And if the future Messianic Kingdom is taken into consideration, then we now have at least four dispensations in Scriptural history. And even covenantalists acknowledge the same basic dispensations as we do (see here: • Edited by a Moderator • ).

-Tim

Here is part two for you, Athanasius.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

DA)Nicea put the lid on the coffin directly inserting a clause for all Christians to affirm which meant the end of that system of understanding.

T)Actually, I think most of those present at the Nicene Council were premillennial.

Of course I have noticed that your conspiracy theories so far have no basis in facts. Those so called pre-millenialists are the ones that inserted the sentence in the Creed which destroys the Chiliast position.'His kingdom shall have no end."

But we agree to that (see Daniel 7:14, 27). Christ's reign is eternal. You seem to be misunderstanding the millennial dispensation, and its purposes in bringing the creation into subjection to God (1Corinthians 15:20-28). It doesn't mean Christ's reign will come to an end.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

DA)This view (chilism) as opposed to say the heretics Arius and Nestorius whose views were easily seen to be heresy, was put forward by great saints but it was a view with many flaws as the Church soon woorked out.

T)List these flaws.

Creates an end to Christ's kingdom. Which the Nicene Creed addressed...'Whose kingdom shall have no end."

Addressed above. This actually is yet another wonderful evidence for dispensationalism. Our system can make sense of the millennial dispensation in light of Christ's eternal reign. The other systems end up in confusion.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Teaching originates from one Cerenthus and not from St John the blessed Apostle.(Originally Jewish traditions).

Thats just a rumor started by fourth century amillennial apostates. Since premillennialism is Jewish in nature and unavoidably linked to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, then it should be clear to you our view existed prior to Cerinthus. Read Acts 1:6-7. Alot of amillennialists think these disciples were "still confused" about the kingdom. This places premillennialism prior to Cerinthus.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Makes Christ into a Jewish carnal King figure, with armies and secular governments.

Follows the initial fulfillments of the Covenants in the Old Testament. Why would Christ's kingdom NOT be a real kingdom in this creation, Athanasius? It is demanded by the Covenants.

And what do you mean by "carnal"? If you refer merely to "real material existence," then perhaps "carnal" is an accurate description. But most people use "carnal" against us in a negative manner, to spread notions about us that we are focused on a kingdom full of pleasures of the belly and sexual pleasures. Since "carnal" is often used against us in a slanderous manner (violating Exodus 20:16), I suggest you cease use of that term when describing our doctrine. The kingdom is not meat and drink, but is joy in the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Creates reinstituted blood sacrifices of animals as some form of acceptable worhip of God.

Are you saying Mosaic Law was never an acceptable method of worshipping God? I think during the kingdom God will regulate his dealings with sinful mortals and their nations via a system which involves animal sacrifice, but, like the Old Covenant, the sacrifices serve to point at Christ and do not actually take away sin (i.e., Hebrews 10:4). The kingdom administration (per Ezekiel's prophecy and many other prophecies) clearly is not like the present age, so this should clue you in to the fact that this present age is not the kingdom.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

T)But that does little to soften the fact that futurist premillennialism was the unanimous position of the earliest church, and that amillennialism is radically opposed to this doctrine in each and every single detail.

Not enough info to make any such statement. Justin's testimony disagrees with it as he asserts that opposing veiws existed which were held by pious true Christians.

Addressed in post #14 here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52891

Justin's testimony is actually quite troubling for non-premillennialists, because he discusses the denial of the kingdom in a manner which is intimately connected with a denial of the bodily resurrection. This is because only Gnosticism denied the kingdom in Justin's day. These people who denied the kingdom also denied the bodily resurrection, thus the force of Justin's argument.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

However hard you try your 'ancient true doctrine destroyed by those naughty Nicene amils' conspiracy just don't hold any water. The Emperors new clothes.

"We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

This sure lines up well with premillennialism!

-Tim

Christ has Risen!

Hi Don

Thats Dcn

I will first say you seem to be trying to defeat a futurist doctrine .............I am not a futurist.

I am not trying to defeat you or any individual particular theory. I am trying to fairly and honestly represent the writings of the great saint Justin Martyr. Thats all. I saw that you in a prideful manner misquoted him, misrepresented him and then alleged he denounced a group that he was not denouncing. So I spoke to the issues, thats all.

I

am like Justin a historical premill. I agree the whole futurist belief that The Church is not Israel is Heresy.

It is not your position I took humbrage with but your misuse of an ancient father to support it erroneously and then to attack others in the most negative ways as if you had established your point unhindered. Any Orthodox who happened to own the complete writings of the Church fathers would have spoken up.

This verse clearly separates the Judgement of the righteous and the wicked

You need to read the bits of Justin I just posted on the other thread by eschaton, they speak to your assumption here I think. Justin speaks of one general resurrection to come.Never two. Of course if you disagree then you find the relevant quote where he says exactly that not some assumed self allegory.

rev 20 tells us there is 1,000years between these two resurrections. The first being the Saints and the 1,000 years in Jerusalem ON EARTH. The second being the wicked 1,000 years and a season later

.

I have read Rev. 20 and I am aware of the theory you promote above. Such theory is not supported by historical Christianity.

Now I realise that years later amill accumulated teachers claimed his words are incorrect but justin was taught by men who knew John personally. That is why Justin says with such confidence

I have seen you try to associate your views back to st John you might care to outline that line for me, seeing the blessed apostle reposed 96 AD and his student the blessed Polycarp reposed 107AD and Justin was born in a completely different land in 114 AD. Coming to Christ later in life as a philosophy convert. So please elucidate on how it is you believe what you do in the above and give the line of men and documentary evidence, for my edification.

The reality is Justin continuously teaches against many of the amill core beliefs.

We shall see when the latest quotes of his I have posted have been disected.

beliefs such as a "Just War" you know the "In this sign you shall conquer" The war slogan that has driven Christianity into countless genocides and the murder of millions.

The Church I am ordained amongst never raised an army and they believe and teach the seperation of church and state. So this attack falls to the ground regarding my weakness. I am happy to discuss another time the -Christian- view of war and soldiers. It is not as simple as you promote. Many Christians of peace have learnt war no more. I myself used to carry a gun by authority of the state but no longer do so.

Your responses and manner in those responses to the above will determine in my mind whether you are a man of peace seeking to further your knowledge or a man of contention and accusing. My response will be according to the spirit of your next post after this is on the list.

May peace and grace be yours.

Moderated By: Undisclosed

Tim, you know better than to argue by weblink or refer to another site when you can present the argument or information here. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Hi Dcn

sorry for the don thing that would be my dyslexia

yes Justin was born in Palestine. however the date is not clear most think it was around 102 AD. We do no he was Martyred around 165 AD.

his Dialogue was during the war of Bar-Cocheba 132-135

But he was in Asia Minor when he was converted. He was a member of John's church in Asia Minor and was converted in around 125 Ad.

"We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years, '(1) is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ,who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell(2) a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said,"

Now some say he new John personally. because he says WITH US. But given John's age and the fact that tradition says he died around 105 AD I think it is far more likely Justin meant at our Church. Although one cannot rule out that he new him personally……….but he was for sure taught by men who new John personally.


Does That help


Side note you will notice Justin backs up what I posted in the earlier post about the order of resurrection.

Christ is Risen!

[quote=Just The Facts]Hi Dcn
yes Justin was born in Palestine. however the date is not clear most think it was around 102 AD. We do no he was Martyred around 165 AD.
But he was in Asia Minor when he was converted. He was a member of John's church in Asia Minor and was converted in around 125 Ad.
Does That help
QUOTE]

Not really.

Here is the biographical details about St Justin from the editors of his translated works:
from.

Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, the modern Nablous. The date of his birth is uncertain, but may be fixed about a.d. 114. His father and grandfather were probably of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity he studied in the schools of the philosophers, searching after some knowledge which should satisfy the cravings of his soul. At last he became acquainted with Christianity, being at once impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death, and with the grandeur, stability, and truth of the teachings of the Old Testament. From this time he acted as an evangelist, taking every opportunity to proclaim the gospel as the only safe and certain philosophy, the only way to salvation. It is probable that he traveled much. We know that he was some time in Ephesus, and he must have lived for a considerable period in Rome. Probably he settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. While he was there, the philosophers, especially the Cynics, plotted against him, and he sealed his testimony to the truth by martyrdom.

The principal facts of Justin's life are gathered from his own writings. There is little clue to dates. It is agreed on all hands that he lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and the testimony of Eusebius and most credible historians renders it nearly certain that he suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The Chronicon Paschale gives as the date 165 a.d.

The dates do not allow anywhere near him meeting St John who reposed 96AD, however there is reference to an Ephesus visit and this certainly was St John's See prior to his death so -maybe- there -may- have been someone who was still alive who had known St John some forty to fifty years later.

I must say the slaphazard way you lengthen st Johns life by ten years and shorten St Justins by nearly the same is disingenius. Have you ever presented papes at college level. Quite frankly most would be thrown back at you.

You are very very lax with facts.

Which reminds me, you did not quote any sources that supported your dating theories, (said sources don't exist but I already knew that, just wanted to bring you to that point).

Peace and grace,.

Hi Dcn


Quote
I must say the slaphazard way you lengthen st Johns life by ten years and shorten St Justins by nearly the same is disingenius. Have you ever presented papes at college level. Quite frankly most would be thrown back at you.
End Quote

Ahhhhh will it never end insult after insult.

Mt:12:33: Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

[22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

My brother in Christ ..............Do you not see such attacks only weakens your position in the eyes of all who read.

Once again you use the Translator as proof when he is clearly shown to be wrong by a number of sources.

I did not lengthen John life and shorten Justin's.

As I said the date is uncertain but the Catholic Encyclopidea puts it at

"The date of his birth is uncertain, but would seem to fall in the first years of the second century. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

Now the first years would mean before 110 and since it is 10 years from 100 to 110................... I said around 105.

or check out this one which says around 100 AD.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Now either way I do not buy the He new john himself but for sure he was converted by men who did.

We also know he was about 60 years old at his death he died in 165 to 167 AD some say it was June 1st 167 AD.............so do the math.

I wish to clear something up with you.....My handle is not saying I have all the Facts...It is Joe Friday......Just the facts please Maam....................I only want scriptural facts not opinions of accumulated teachers that are all designed to support each others false doctrine..........do you understand?

Originally posted by Just The Facts

Hi Dcn


Quote
I must say the slaphazard way you lengthen st Johns life by ten years and shorten St Justins by nearly the same is disingenius. Have you ever presented papes at college level. Quite frankly most would be thrown back at you.
End Quote

Ahhhhh will it never end insult after insult.

Mt:12:33: Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

[22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

My brother in Christ ..............Do you not see such attacks only weakens your position in the eyes of all who read.

Once again you use the Translator as proof when he is clearly shown to be wrong by a number of sources.

I did not lengthen John life and shorten Justin's.

As I said the date is uncertain but the Catholic Encyclopidea puts it at

"The date of his birth is uncertain, but would seem to fall in the first years of the second century. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

Now the first years would mean before 110 and since it is 10 years from 100 to 110................... I said around 105.

or check out this one which says around 100 AD.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/06/01.html

Now either way I do not buy the He new john himself but for sure he was converted by men who did.

We also know he was about 60 years old at his death he died in 165 to 167 AD some say it was June 1st 167 AD.............so do the math.

I wish to clear something up with you.....My handle is not saying I have all the Facts...It is Joe Friday......Just the facts please Maam....................I only want scriptural facts not opinions of accumulated teachers that are all designed to support each others false doctrine..........do you understand?

Christ is Risen!

The differences between the two posts is you showed where you are getting your information from in the second post (The R.Catholics) Something you should have done with the first. AND Second, this proves that you KNEW that the theory that St Justin met St John and was taught by him was erroneous when you posted it but you went ahead anyway. Since both men were born, lived and died in seperate centuries this was an impossibility. I find your intentional use of misinformation to attempt to bolster your point of view to be most unChristlike in spirit.

As for the attempt at moral high ground regarding ad hom I will just let that one through to the keeper. I am interested in facts not such failing weak attempts at high moral ground gaining. You you wish to assume you have some high moral ground, assume such, no skin off my nose, just the facts dear sir just the fascts.

So lets recap.

St Justin in no way did or could have met St John.

St Justin learnt his doctrines of a thousand year reign from someone, said someone not being st John.

St Justin -may- have met someone who knew st John over thirty five years after St John's repose. Whether said meeting actually occurred or not is not known and certainly there is no record of any conversations that may have passed between the two. Thus anyone who builds a theory based on said invisible non existant evidence is basically making up stories to suit his own theories. Thanks. Glad we sorted that one out too.

I realise the truth is a hard taskmaster, but it is what is demanded of us from the Master. Have you had a chance to disect what St Justin taught about Israel and Zechariah and one general resurrection yet?

Peace and grace.

Hi Dcn

quote
AND Second, this proves that you KNEW that the theory that St Justin met St John and was taught by him was erroneous when you posted it but you went ahead anyway.
End Quote

More baseless accusations…………….and now you put words in my mouth and then convict me on the words you have put there.

go back and read again....................I said he was taught by men who knew john not the Justin knew him...............I said from the very start I did not think he knew him

I said the With Us thing and said there are some who claim he knew him ............... I said some teach that he did know him.............I said I did not think it was possible for him to know John as John died in about 105AD

Catholic encyclopaedia.

“The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96)”.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm#I

Perhaps if you would spend more time reading and less time attacking and insulting

I have had enough of your baseless accusations and insults your fruit is apparent to all.

As is the Truth of what I have posted.

Good Day.

Here is a response to the rest, Athanasius.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

DA)Remember also at this time the Book of Revelation was not even considered canonical by all and so most of the prophecy they were dealing with was Daniel.
T)The earliest Christians readily quoted from the Apocalypse. I don't believe anyone ever questioned the Apocalypse until amillennialism came along. In the earliest church, the Apocalypse was one of the guaranteed writings of the Apostles which immediately demanded its rightful place in the canon. I think the earliest Christian writings make the Apocalypse one of the best attested writings of the NT canon. But then amillennialists came along, and noticed the clear premillennial teachings in that book, and so disputed its place in the canon and attempted to attribute it to either Cerinthus or "another John."

Your above statements are just so 'out there'. Are you making this up as you go along? The Book of Revelation was quoted only once and by St. Justin Martyr, in this section we are discussing, thats -substantially- it for the whole period before Ireneaus. One -confirmed- reference. This means the following writers may not have quoted or held the work at this time: Clement, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias and Justin Martyr, thats the first 306 pages of Volume 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers with- not much more- than one confirmed reference to which we can be absolutely sure of quoting the Book of Revelation. Not until Ireneaus circa 180 AD do we see the first normal mass quoting of the book.

You are correct that the earliest references to it are found in Justin and Irenaeus. I suppose I should've stated that some NT books are better attested in the earliest church, especially Matthew, 1Corinthians, Romans, and a few others. But my basic point was that the early church readily attributed the Apocalypse to St. John, and there was no doubt about it in their minds. If you look at Irenaeus' comments in Against Heresies, book 5, ch.30 you will realize that the Apocalypse was universally accepted as a writing by the Apostle John in his day. Here is the basic point I mean to emphasize: Nobody disputed the Apocalypse until amillennialism came along. Show me the earliest Christians who questioned the Apocalypse, Athanasius, and I'll show you third century (or later) amillennialists who engaged in other dubious tactics when sneering at premillennialism.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Ok below are some quotes by St Justin Martyr as to some other relevant issues to which he believed and taught. You will note the following teachings are the exact opposite to todays Premillenialism and Dispensationalism. IOW, St Justin was a 'Chiliast" (a believer in a thousand year reign) and NOT a premillenialist or dispensationalist, which of course is my position in this post.

Justin holds to the standard TWO advents of Jesus Christ, His first the Passion and His final, the Parousia.

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho.

"if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,-one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself," p. 210, Vol 1 ANF.

Right. Justin's two advent teaching (similar to Acts 3:17-21) is a marking point of Christian chiliasm. Jewish chiliasm had been unable to discern the two advents.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed Jesus was already reigning then:

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter XLI.-The Crucifixion Predicted.

And again, in another prophecy, the Spirit of prophecy, through the same David, intimated that Christ, after He had been crucified, should reign, and spoke as follows: "Sing to the Lord, all the earth, and day by day declare His salvation. For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols of devils; but God made the heavens. Glory and praise are before His face, strength and glorying are in the habitation of His holiness. Give Glory to the Lord, the Father everlasting. Receive grace, and enter His presence, and worship in His holy courts. Let all the earth fear before His face; let it be established, and not shaken. Let them rejoice among the nations. The Lord hath reigned from the tree." p.176, Vol. 1 ANF

Actually, this ties in to the two-advent teaching. Justin was not saying Christ would immediately begin his reign after the crucifixion.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed Christians are the True Israel the Spiritual Jew.

Chapter XI.-The Law Abrogated; The New Testament Promised and Given by God.

"For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed." P.200, Vol. 1, ANF.

Yes, Justin's language here can be hard for a dispensationalist to understand. But as already mentioned to Paul and others on this board, you need to keep in mind that Justin taught a "multiple Israels" concept in which the new peoples becomes a "new Israel" (see the final chapters in Dialogue). So Justin's view does not allign with the "metamorphosed Israel" theory common today, and it actually has more in common with the "multiple peoples" concept of dispensationalism.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed the Jewish rituals were broken cisterns and that they required Christian baptism.

Chapter XIV.-Righteousness is Not Placed in Jewish Rites, But in the Conversion of the Heart Given in Baptism by Christ.

"By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure. For this is the symbolic significance of unleavened bread, that you do not commit the old deeds of wicked leaven. But you have understood all things in a carnal sense, and you suppose it to be piety if you do such things, while your souls are filled with deceit, and, in short, with every wickedness. Accordingly, also, after the seven days of eating unleavened bread, God commanded them to mingle new leaven, that is, the performance of other works, and not the imitation of the old and evil works." p. 201, Vol. 1, ANF

Justin believed Jews needed Christian baptism.

Chapter XIX.-Circumcision Unknown Before Abraham. The Law Was Given by Moses on Account of the Hardness of Their Hearts.

"This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for your selves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. P. 203, Vol. 1, ANF.

I'm not sure I see the significance of this in our discussion of eschatology. It does help highlight the dispensational change-up between Old Covenant Judaism and the Christian church, however.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed there was no seperate covenant of salvation for the Jews apart from Christ.

Chapter XXVI.-No Salvation to the Jews Except Through Christ.

And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. For God speaks by Isaiah thus: `I, the Lord God, have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will strengthen Thee; and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house.' And again: `Lift up a standard for the people; for, lo, the Lord has made it heard unto the end of the earth. Say ye to the daughters of Zion, Behold, thy Saviour has come; having His reward, and His work before His face: and He shall call it a holy nation, redeemed by the Lord. And thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken. Who is this that cometh from Edom? in red garments from Bosor? This that is beautiful in apparel, going up with great strength? I speak righteousness, and the judgment of salvation. Why are Thy garments red, and Thine apparel as from the trodden wine-press? Thou art full of the trodden grape. I have trodden the wine-press all alone, and of the people there is no man with Me; and I have trampled them in fury, and crushed them to the ground, and spilled their blood on the earth. For the day of retribution has come upon them, and the year of redemption is present. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I considered, and none assisted: and My arm delivered; and My fury came on them, and I trampled them in My fury, and spilled their blood on the earth.'" " P. 207, Vol. 1, ANF.

Chapter XLIV.-The Jews in Vain Promise Themselves Salvation, Which Cannot Be Obtained Except Through Christ.

"For thus, so far as you are concerned, I shall be found in all respects innocent, if I strive earnestly to persuade you by bringing forward demonstrations. But if you remain hard-hearted, or weak in [forming] a resolution, on account of death, which is the lot of the Christians, and are unwilling to assent to the truth, you shall appear as the authors of your own [evils]. And you deceive yourselves while you fancy that, because you are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, therefore you shall fully inherit the good things announced to be bestowed by God through Christ. For no one, not even of them, has anything to look for, but only those who in mind are assimilated to the faith of Abraham, and who have recognised all the mysteries: for I say, that some injunctions were laid on you in reference to the worship of God and practice of righteousness; but some injunctions and acts were likewise mentioned in reference to the mystery of Christ, on account of the hardness of your people's hearts. And that this is so, God makes known in Ezekiel, [when] He said concerning it: `If Noah and Jacob and Daniel should beg either sons or daughters, the request would not be granted them.' And in Isaiah, of the very same matter He spake thus: `The Lord God said, they shall both go forth and look on the members [of the bodies] of the men that have transgressed. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a gazing-stock to all flesh.' So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope from your souls, and hasten to know in what way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good things, shall be yours. But there is no other [way] than this,-to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives." p.216, Vol. 1, ANF

I agree there is no salvation outside the blood of Christ.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin denounced a human kingdom and believed in one with God.

Chapter XI.-What Kingdom Christians Look for.

And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." p. 166, Vol. 1. ANF

All Justin is saying here is that the Messianic Kingdom is not of human origin, but rather a work of God. Notice Justin says: "For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect." This is a perfect parallel to John 18:36:

"Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this world.'" - John 18:36

In this passage, Jesus is not suggesting that his kingdom is immaterial by nature and disconnected from the creation. He is merely pointing out that his kingdom will be brought about by an act of God, not via human effort. Justin was saying the same basic thing in the above quote.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed in a 1000 year reign but affirmed many pious Christians did not.

Chapter LXXX.-The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.

that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. " p. 239. Vol. 1. ANF.

As mentioned elsewhere, your use of this sentence relies on a disputed reading. Also, Justin went on to say "right-minded Christians on all points" agreed with his chiliastic teaching, so it should be clear no bishops or other important Christians disagreed with chiliasm.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed Christ would subdue His enemies from heaven and rule with the rod of power in His apostles.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter XLV.-Christ's Session in Heaven Foretold.

And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation-hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: "The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire." p. 178 Vol. 1, ANF.

Ah, now there is a good one Athanasius! :) I actually disagree with Justin's idea that the passage means God would "keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies." I think the passage means something more along the lines of "God would keep Him there until the appointed time for the kingdom comes." Look at Psalm 110:

"The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.' The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, 'Rule in the midst of Your enemies.' Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; in holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.' The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; therefore He will lift up His head." - Psalm 110

This time that Christ's enemies are "made a footstool for His feet" is the same time that the LORD will "stretch forth Christ's strong scepter from Zion," it is the same time Christ will be instructed to "Rule in the midst of His enemies," it will be the same time that Christ will "shatter kings," "judge among the nations," "shatter the chief men over a broad country," and etc. Keep in mind that Messiah's kingdom will bring everything into subjection to God (1Corinthians 15:20-28), so I think it is doubtful Psalm 110 is telling us Christ will remain in heaven until all enemies are already subdued.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

Justin believed baptism was for the remission of sins.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism.

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 [rite] 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. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. 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." p. 183, Vol. 1, ANF.

Justin believed the Bread and Wine mixed with water was no longer common but transmuted into that flesh and blood of Jesus.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LXV.-Administration of the Sacraments.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethrenbread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge/noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion." p. 185, Vol. 1, ANF.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.

And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a [the Eucharist], 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. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." p. 185, Vol. 1, ANF.

This also has no importance to our discussion on eschatology.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

And you seriously think to promote St Justin martyr as the equilivent of a Protestant Pre-millenialist? Does the above sound anything like -any- premill that anyone has ever heard of in these days?

Hmmm? It sounds like premillennialism. Not sure what you mean by "Protestant Premillennialists." Some of these issues you raise have no connection to eschatology.

Originally posted by Dcn Athanasius

St Justin Martyr was, is now, and always shall be, one of ours, an Orthodox Catholic Christian in all points, except he also believed an idea of a thousand year event in Jerusalem, of which at his time the Church had not confirmed her teachings about.

Nah, he obviously was not a Roman Catholic. If anything, you've only shown that certain baptism and Eucharist concepts existed prior to Roman Catholicism. But what does this have to do with eschatology, Athanasius? Lets stick to discussing Justin's premillennialism.

-Tim

Moderated By: Undisclosed

as mentioned earlier, Just The Facts, we would appreciate it you quote from the links you reference, rather than just "argue by weblink." thank you. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Well since a moderator has rendered some of my points unintelligible, then I'll just copy/past in the info for you here, Athanasius.

me: The two-fold resurrection is readily apparent in the writings of the ancient Christians (see Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, ch.5; Didache, ch.16; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch.80-81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.33-36. See here: * edited by a moderator *)

Here is the linked info:

Ancient Christian testimony of course is not as valuable as Scriptural proofs. On the other hand, it is helpful to show that those nearest the Apostles interpreted the Scriptures in the same manner as ourselves on this issue.

"If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, 'we shall also reign together with Him,' provided only we believe." - Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, ch.5

Here, Polycarp teaches a resurrection of those who will reign with Christ in his coming kingdom.

"For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: 'The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.' Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven." - Didache, ch.16

Here, the authors of the Didache teach a first resurrection which does not include "all."

"I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." - Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch.80

Here, Justin teaches of a resurrection of those who will reign with Christ in his coming kingdom.

"The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead. . . . in the resurrection of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is non in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had been originally subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth. . . . Then, too, Isaiah himself has plainly declared that there shall be joy of this nature at the resurrection of the just, when he says: 'The dead shall rise again; those, too, who are in the tombs shall arise, and those who are in the earth shall rejoice. For the dew from Thee is health to them.' And this again Ezekiel also says: 'Behold, I will open your tombs, and will bring you forth out of your graves; when I will draw my people from the sepulchres, and I will put breath in you, and ye shall live; and I will place you on your own land, and ye shall know that I am the Lord'. . . . For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in (the times of) which (resurrection) the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and (with respect to) those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. . . . For after the times of the kingdom, he says, 'I saw a great white throne, and Him who sat upon it, from whose face the earth fled away, and the heavens; and there was no more place for them.' And he sets forth, too, the things connected with the general resurrection and the judgment, mentioning 'the dead, great and small.' 'The sea,' he says, 'gave up the dead which it had in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead that they contained; and the books were opened'. . . . For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically, as I have shown repeatedly. And as he rises actually, so also shall he be actually disciplined beforehand for incorruption, and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father. . . . John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize (with his vision)." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.33,34,35,36

And here Irenaeus teaches a first resurrection "of the just." The kingdom blessings are shared by those who are included in this first resurrection.

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard...d=7432&page=17

me: Actually, that is well attested in the writings of Justin and Irenaeus (I can give you the details of their four-fold dispensational scheme if you wish). It also is common sense to anyone who reads the Bible. For example, the transition from the Old Covenant administration to the Church era is a central theme in the NT. So, there are at least two dispensations in Scriptural history. Since the Old Covenant administration did not begin until the Law was given to Moses, then we see that there were earlier dispensations, so we see at least three dispensations here. And if the future Messianic Kingdom is taken into consideration, then we now have at least four dispensations in Scriptural history. And even covenantalists acknowledge the same basic dispensations as we do (see here: * edited by a moderator *).

Here is the material from Mr. Hodge:

The Covenant of Grace - Different Dispensations by Charles Hodge

Although the covenant of grace has always been the same, the dispensations of that covenant have changed. The first dispensation extended from Adam to Abraham. Of this period we have so few records, that we cannot determine how far the truth was revealed, or what measures were adopted for its preservation. All we know is, that the original promises concerning the seed of the woman, as the Redeemer of our race, had been given; and that the worship of God by sacrifices had been instituted. That sacrifices were a divine institution, and designed to teach the method of salvation, may be inferred,

1.) From the fact that it is the method which the common consciousness of men has everywhere led them to adopt. It is that which their relation to God as sinners demanded. It is the dictate of conscience that guilt requires expiation; and that expiation is made by the shedding of blood. Sacrifices, therefore, not being an arbitrary institution, but one having its foundation in our real relation to God as sinners, we may infer that it was by his command, direct or indirect, that such sacrifices were offered.

2.) This may also be inferred from God's approving them, adopting them, and incorporating them in the religious observances subsequently enjoined.

3.) The fact that man was to be saved by the sacrifice of Christ, and that this was the great event to which the institutions of the earlier dispensations refer, renders it clear that this reference was designed, and that it was founded upon the institution of God.

The Second Dispensation

The second dispensation extended from Abraham to Moses. This was distinguished from the former,

1.) By the selection of the descendants of Abraham to be the peculiar people of God. They were chosen in order to preserve the knowledge of the true religion in the midst of the general apostasy of mankind. To this end special revelations were made to them, and God entered into a covenant with them, promising that He would be their God, and that they should be his people.

2.) Besides thus gathering his Church out of the world, and making its members a peculiar people, distinguished by circumcision from the Gentiles around them, the promise of redemption was made more definite. The Redeemer was to be of the seed of Abraham. He was to be one person. The salvation He was to effect should pertain to all nations.

3.) Subsequently it was made known that the Deliverer was to be of the tribe of Judah.

Third Dispensation

The third dispensation of this covenant was from Moses to Christ. All that belonged to the previous periods was taken up and included in this. A multitude of new ordinances of polity, worship, and religion were enjoined. A priesthood and a complicated system of sacrifices were introduced. The promises were rendered more definite, setting forth more clearly by the instructions of the prophets the person and work of the coming Redeemer as the prophet, priest, and king of his people. The nature of the redemption He was to effect and the nature of the kingdom He was to establish were thus more and more clearly revealed. We have the direct authority of the New Testament for believing that the covenant of grace, or plan of salvation, thus underlay the whole of the institutions of the Mosaic period, and that their principal design was to teach through types and symbols what is now taught in explicit terms in the gospel. Moses, we are told (Heb. 3.5), was faithful as a servant to testify concerning the things which were to be spoken after.

Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic covenant, it is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God. First, it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people. In this view the parties were God and the people of Israel; the promise was national security land prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, 'Do this and live.' Secondly, it contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works. It is as true now as in the days of Adam, it always has been and always must be true, that rational creatures who perfectly obey the law of God are blessed in the enjoyment of his favour; and that those who sin are subject to his wrath and curse. Our Lord assured the young man who came to Him for instruction that if he kept the commandments he should live. And Paul says (Rom. ii. 6) that God will render to every man according to his deeds; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil; but glory, honour, and peace to every man who worketh good. This arises from the relation of intelligent creatures to God. It is in fact nothing but a declaration of the eternal and immutable principles of justice. If a man rejects or neglects the gospel, these are the principles, as Paul teaches in the opening chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, according to which he will be judged. If he will not be under grace, if he will not accede to the method of salvation by grace, he is of necessity under the law.

These different aspects under which the Mosaic economy is presented account for the apparently inconsistent way in which it is spoken of in the New Testament.

1.) When viewed in relation to the people of God before the advent, it is represented as divine and obligatory.

2.) When viewed in relation to the state of the Church after the advent, it is declared to be obsolete. It is represented as the lifeless husk from which the living kernel and germ have been extracted, a body from which the soul has departed.

3.) When viewed according to its true import and design as a preparatory dispensation of the covenant of grace, it is spoken of as teaching the same gospel, the same method of salvation as that which the Apostles themselves preached.

4.) When viewed, in the light in which it was regarded by those who rejected the gospel, as a mere legal system, it was declared to be a ministration of death and condemnation. (2 Cor 3.6-18.)

5.) And when contrasted with the new or Christian economy, as a different mode of revealing the same covenant, it is spoken of as a state of tutelage and bondage, far different from the freedom and filial spirit of the dispensation under which we now live.

The Gospel Dispensation

The gospel dispensation is called new in reference to the Mosaic economy, which was old, and about to vanish away. It is distinguished from the old economy,

1.) In being catholic, confined to no one people, but designed and adapted to all nations and to all classes of men.

2.) It is more spiritual, not only in that the types and ceremonies of the Old Testament are done away, but also in that the revelation itself is more inward and spiritual. What was then made known objectively, is now, to a greater extent, written on the heart. (Heb. 8.8-11.) It is incomparably more clear and explicit in its teachings.

3.) It is more purely evangelical. Even the New Testament, as we have seen, contains a legal element, it reveals the law still as a covenant of works binding on those who reject the gospel; but in the New Testament the gospel greatly predominates over the law. Whereas, under the Old Testament, the law predominated over the gospel.

4.) The Christian economy is specially the dispensation of the Spirit. The great blessing promised of old, as consequent on the coming of Christ, was the effusion of the Spirit on all flesh, I. e., on all nations and on all classes of men. This was so distinguishing a characteristic of the Messianic period that the evangelist says, 'The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' (John 7.39.) Our Lord promised that after his death and ascension He would send the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, to abide with his people, to guide them into the knowledge of the truth, and to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come. He charged the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem until they had received this power from on high. And in explanation of the events of the day of Pentecost, the Apostle Peter said, 'This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.' (Acts 2.32, 33.)

5.) The old dispensation was temporary and preparatory; the new is permanent and final. In sending forth his disciples to preach the gospel, and in promising them the gift of the Spirit, He assured them that He would be with them in that work unto the end of the world. This dispensation is, therefore, the last before the restoration of all things; the last, that is, designed for the conversion of men and the ingathering of the elect. Afterwards comes the end; the resurrection and the final judgment. In the Old Testament there are frequent intimations of another and a better economy, to which the Mosaic institutions were merely preparatory. But we have no intimation in Scripture that the dispensation of the Spirit is to give way for a new and better dispensation for the conversion of the nations. When the gospel is fully preached, then comes the end.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13|65|366

So we see that Mr. Hodge discerned the same basic dispensations as we do, though we would disagree that these dispensations are all part of the unfolding of a so-called "covenant of grace." This is an interesting phenomenon, Athanasius. The covenantalists admit the existence of the dispensations, but try to minimize them by assuming they all are part of an unfolding of the hypothetical "covenant of grace." But dispensationalists allow the different ages to be different, sometimes in a radical manner (as per Paul's contrasting of "law" and "grace"), and we don't believe there is any so-called "covenant of grace," becuase it is not taught anywhere in Scripture.

Dcn Athanasius: Not enough info to make any such statement. Justin's testimony disagrees with it as he asserts that opposing veiws existed which were held by pious true Christians.

me: Addressed in post #14 here: * edited by a moderator *

Here is the info:

"There is a textual issue in the portion of Justin's comment you have emphasized. George N.H. Peters has commented upon this textual issue as follows:

"Another disreputable mode of procedure to lower the Fathers in the estimation of others or to make them contradictory, is (1) to interpolate or omit, (2) to ascribe to them what they never said, (3) and to ascribe to them some heretical sentiments. In reference to the first, Brooks shows (El. Proph. Interp., p. 52, 53) that in printed copies of Justin the word "not" was omitted in the sentence which expressly asserts that those who are not following the pure doctrine - who are the unorthodox - reject the Chiliastic view.1"

"1 The student who desires to investigate the controversy respecting the suppression of the word "not," will find in favor if its retention : Mede, Works, B. 3, P. 2, p. 533; Arch. Tillotson, Works, vol. 3, p. 380; Daille, Use of the Fathers, p. 289; Chillingworth's Works, p. 732; Muencher, His. Ch. Doctrine, vol. 2, p. 450, etc. Dr. Macdill refers to the following as favoring the suppression of the word "not :" Thirlby, Hagenbach, Neander (!), Shedd (!), Kelly (a Pre-Mill. !), Rossler, Semisch (!), Ed. of the Parisian Ed.; to which we add Jebb. Dr. Morehead, in his reply to Dr. Macdill (in the Chicago U.P. Ch. paper, The Instructor, 1879), takes the former view." - George N.H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol.1, p.452

And,

"Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld (Chiliasm). Justin's language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec. 2); for after stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts : "it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many - even those of that race of Christians who follow not godly and pure doctrine - do not acknowledge it.1 For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians ; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound," etc." - George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol.1, p.480

"1 This is the passage that has been tampered with in some MSS., the "not" being omitted (comp. Prop. 73, Obs. 3, note 2). For the genuineness of the passage, see e.g. Brooks' El. of Proph. Interp., ch. 3. Semisch (Herzog's Cyclop) remarks on it : "Chiliasm constituted in the sec. century so decidedly an article of faith that Justin held it up as a criterion of perfect orthodoxy." Numerous writers have made the same comment. This has, unfortunately, lead some (as Shimeall, the Christadelphians, etc.) to apply it as a measure of orthodoxy at the present day. To avoid a wrong inference, we may add, that the criterion set up by Justin in his day might well answer the purpose at that time, but is inapplicable to the present day. The reason is simple : those who rejected Chiliasm in Justin's time were also guilty of subverting the essential, fundamental doctrines of religion (and hence the force of his comparison), while this is not true of a large number of our opponents at this day." - George N.H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol.1, p.480-481

So, we see there is a textual issue in this particular statement from Justin. And, if we follow the alternate reading, this means Justin was only contrasting his view against Gnosticism, and there never was any third party of so-called 'orthodox non-premillennialists' in view."

Post #14 here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52891

-Tim