Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: Church Father quotes in support of my views

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by Jude View Post
    Church fathers of what church?
    Jude
    The Christian Church. There are variations, but in the time of the Church Fathers the orthodox Creeds were being developed. I'm not sure any Church Father was perfectly orthodox. And since they lived in different parts of the Empire, they likely had their own local blend of theology. In this time period, therefore, I trust mostly in those who actually helped to *develop* orthodoxy. I wouldn't cite those considered to be completely heretical.

    Let me add that I'm editing some of my comments in an attempt to capture some of the issues under question. It's a little difficult to transpose some of the issues we discuss here onto this kind of format.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,339
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    In effect, the Church Fathers seemed to view the 70 Weeks Prophecy of Dan 9 as completely fulfilled in the time of Christ. This would naturally include the AoD as something fulfilled immediately following the death of Christ, since in this prophecy the AoD immediately follows the completion of the 70 Weeks.
    I love the topic and that your diving into the EFC writers. I will agree with you that some of the EFC saw fulfillments historically from the 1st advent through the destruction of Jerusalem. However, this was not a consensus view. The only writer that you mentioned that I personally respect related to his eschatology would be Tertullian simply for his resolve to hold to the tenants of Chiliasm. Although, I would say that Tertullian was one of the most divergent in his chiliastic details when compared to other earlier chiliasts such as Irenaeus and Justin. The other writers you mentioned abandoned the early church doctrines of Chiliasm and a literal kingdom of God being established on the earth. Origen and Clement were the two key forerunners of Amillennialism by laying the hermeneutic foundation for Augustine to systemize. Euisbus was Emperor Constantine's church historian and actively sought to erase chiliasm from the church in his writings. The other two writers were devote post/Amillennialist whose views directly necessitated a historical narrative of Matthew 24 and Daniel 9.

    If people are ridiculing you over this, they shouldn't as your thoughts have some commonality with some men from the early church even though your view would have been rare amongst the chiliasts. To your credit, Tertullian did seem to place Daniels prophecy at the 1st coming while also placing many of the events of Matt 24 at the 2nd coming. I'm assuming that is your position as well.

    For the sake of having both views presented by the EFC, I listed a few of the early writers below who saw the Abomination of Desolation as a future event. All of these men wrote AFTER the first advent and AFTER 70AD.

    The first father here is Irenaeus who was directly discipled by Polycarp (John's disciple) and stated that his eschatology was handed down in direct succession from John.

    Against Heresies Irenaeus Book 5 XXV

    1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: “Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.” The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped — that is, above every idol — for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.

    2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” (Mat_24:15, Mat_24:21)

    3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: “And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.” (Dan_7:8, etc.) Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,” (Dan_7:23, etc.) that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: “And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming; whose coming [i.e., the wicked one’s] is after the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity,” (2Th_2:8)

    4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: “I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,” (Joh_5:43) calling Antichrist “the other,” because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one “who feared not God, neither regarded man,” (Luk_18:2, etc.) to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God, — that is, the earthly Jerusalem, — to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: “And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice,42 and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously.” (Dan_8:12) And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: “And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.” (Dan_8:23, etc.) And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: “And in the midst of the week,” he says, “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” (Dan_9:27) Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.

    5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, “When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Mat_24:15) (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coining and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise43 of the Son, and called us into His knowledge. 1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times...




    Hippolytus Appendix XXXVI

    Notwithstanding, not even then will the merciful and benignant God leave the race of men without all comfort; but He will shorten even those days and the period of three years and a half, and He will curtail those times on account of the remnant of those who hide themselves in the mountains and caves, that the phalanx of all those saints fail not utterly. But these days shall run their course rapidly; and the kingdom of the deceiver and Antichrist shall be speedily removed. And then, in fine, in the glance of an eye shall the fashion of this world pass away, and the power of men64 shall be brought to nought, and all these visible things shall be destroyed.
    As these things, therefore, of which we have spoken before are in the future, beloved, when the one week is divided into parts, and the abomination of desolation has arisen then, and the forerunners of the Lord have finished their proper course, and the whole world, in fine, comes to the consummation, what remains but the manifestation65 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from heaven, for whom we have hoped; who shall bring forth fire and all just judgment against those who have refused to believe in Him? For the Lord says, “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be; for wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” (Mat_24:27, Mat_24:28) For the sign of the cross66 shall arise from the east even unto the west, in brightness exceeding that of the sun, and shall announce the advent and manifestation of the Judge, to give to every one according to his works. For concerning the general resurrection and the kingdom of the saints, Daniel says: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Dan_12:2) And Isaiah says: “The dead shall rise, and those in the tombs shall awake, and those in the earth shall rejoice.” (Isa_26:19) And our Lord says: “Many67 in that day shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (Joh_5:25)

    Hippolytus Fragments 22

    22. For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested,83 viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world.


    Victorinus Commentary on Revelation

    Rev_13:13 “And he shall make fire come down from heaven in the sight of men.”] Yes (as I also have said), in the sight of men. Magicians do these things, by the aid of the apostate angels, even to this day. He shall cause also that a golden image of Antichrist shall be placed in the temple at Jerusalem, and that the apostate angel should enter, and thence utter voices and oracles. Moreover, he himself shall contrive that his servants and children should receive as a mark on their foreheads, or on their right hands, the number of his name, lest any one should buy or sell them. Daniel had previously predicted his contempt and provocation of God. “And he shall place,” says he, “his temple within Samaria, upon the illustrious and holy mountain that is at Jerusalem, an image such as Nebuchadnezzar had made.” (Dan_11:45) Thence here he places, and by and by here he renews, that of which the Lord, admonishing His churches concerning the last times and their dangers, says: “But when ye shall see the contempt which is spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let him who readeth understand.” (Mat_24:15; Dan_9:27) It is called a contempt when God is provoked, because idols are worshipped instead of God, or when the dogma of heretics is introduced in the churches. But it is a turning away because stedfast men, seduced by false signs and portents, are turned away from their salvation.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I didn't say anyone denied that the 70 AD destruction of the temple took place. I'm showing how the Church Fathers generally viewed the fulfillment of the AoD in both Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. The desolation of the city and the sanctuary in Jesus' generation was intended by God to be a judgment against Jewish worship, and thus meant the desolation of the symbol of their worship--the temple. Thus, for the Church Fathers the "abomination of desolation" was the destruction of the temple in Jesus' generation. That is how they interpreted it largely.

    Your argument, by contrast, concerns how "all the signs" fit into a single generation, which is not what the Church Fathers were concerned about. That is a Hal Lindsey thing. Lindsey was trying to predict the timing of Christ's return, which is *always* a bad thing! He was trying to prove that with his interpretation *all of the various signs listed* had to be fulfilled in the generation that will see Christ's return. He then tried to prove that indeed all of these signs were fulfilled with the "budding of the fig tree," meaning the restoration of Israel, and thus predict the return of Christ.
    I said in another OP that your insistence that the ECFs views couldn't be wrong is borderline making them infallible and, nothing can be more dangerous than that. Your approach to interpreting the OD is your exclusive reliance on Luke's gospel. So let's examine the text below.

    Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

    Every objective scholar recognises that the phrases, 'AoD' and 'desolation' have different meanings. Therefore, it is a weak argument to use *armies* and *desolation* above to conclude that the AoD occurred in 70AD! An inference that is difficult to sustain when the word 'desolation' is considered in its own merit in the context.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beginner View Post
    If people are ridiculing you over this, they shouldn't as your thoughts have some commonality with some men from the early church even though your view would have been rare amongst the chiliasts. To your credit, Tertullian did seem to place Daniels prophecy at the 1st coming while also placing many of the events of Matt 24 at the 2nd coming. I'm assuming that is your position as well.
    I was "ridiculing" two claims of his about the ECFs.
    1) that there was consensus among them before Augustine systemised it. I couldn't find that in his quotes.
    2) that he could read between the lines and so declare that they all understood the phrase "this generation" was fulfilled.

    I lauded him for finding and giving the quotes, but then I have argued strenuously with him as he doesn't seem to want to deal with what hey actually say and instead create his own interpretation of what they wrote.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beginner View Post
    I love the topic and that your diving into the EFC writers. I will agree with you that some of the EFC saw fulfillments historically from the 1st advent through the destruction of Jerusalem. However, this was not a consensus view. The only writer that you mentioned that I personally respect related to his eschatology would be Tertullian simply for his resolve to hold to the tenants of Chiliasm. Although, I would say that Tertullian was one of the most divergent in his chiliastic details when compared to other earlier chiliasts such as Irenaeus and Justin. The other writers you mentioned abandoned the early church doctrines of Chiliasm and a literal kingdom of God being established on the earth. Origen and Clement were the two key forerunners of Amillennialism by laying the hermeneutic foundation for Augustine to systemize. Euisbus was Emperor Constantine's church historian and actively sought to erase chiliasm from the church in his writings. The other two writers were devote post/Amillennialist whose views directly necessitated a historical narrative of Matthew 24 and Daniel 9.

    If people are ridiculing you over this, they shouldn't as your thoughts have some commonality with some men from the early church even though your view would have been rare amongst the chiliasts. To your credit, Tertullian did seem to place Daniels prophecy at the 1st coming while also placing many of the events of Matt 24 at the 2nd coming. I'm assuming that is your position as well.

    For the sake of having both views presented by the EFC, I listed a few of the early writers below who saw the Abomination of Desolation as a future event. All of these men wrote AFTER the first advent and AFTER 70AD.

    The first father here is Irenaeus who was directly discipled by Polycarp (John's disciple) and stated that his eschatology was handed down in direct succession from John....

    Hippolytus Appendix XXXVI...

    Victorinus Commentary on Revelation

    Rev_13:13 “And he shall make fire come down from heaven in the sight of men.”] Yes (as I also have said), in the sight of men. Magicians do these things, by the aid of the apostate angels, even to this day. He shall cause also that a golden image of Antichrist shall be placed in the temple at Jerusalem, and that the apostate angel should enter, and thence utter voices and oracles. Moreover, he himself shall contrive that his servants and children should receive as a mark on their foreheads, or on their right hands, the number of his name, lest any one should buy or sell them. Daniel had previously predicted his contempt and provocation of God. “And he shall place,” says he, “his temple within Samaria, upon the illustrious and holy mountain that is at Jerusalem, an image such as Nebuchadnezzar had made.” (Dan_11:45) Thence here he places, and by and by here he renews, that of which the Lord, admonishing His churches concerning the last times and their dangers, says: “But when ye shall see the contempt which is spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let him who readeth understand.” (Mat_24:15; Dan_9:27) It is called a contempt when God is provoked, because idols are worshipped instead of God, or when the dogma of heretics is introduced in the churches. But it is a turning away because stedfast men, seduced by false signs and portents, are turned away from their salvation.
    I've noted, in other posts, that Irenaeus and Hippolytus, as well as perhaps a couple others, were not on board with the more usual Dan 9/Olivet Discourse historicist view. They seemed to want to extend these historical events, the 70th Week and the Abomination of Desolation, into the future, into an eschatological scenario. Their interest was in the endtimes, and not purely in historical interpretations.

    Although I appreciate futurist concerns, I must always keep the literal meaning of a prophecy in mind, and let it speak to future generations "as is," and not in some kind of "dualistic" fashion. That being said, I recognize that there can be a "foreshadowing" in prophetic allusions, as long as it is understood that there is a single interpretation from which a "dual interest" can be drawn.

    I am strongly Chiliast/Premil, but do not see that the Amil Church Fathers detract from the historicist perspective on the Dan 9/OD issue. The major thrust of the historicist position is anti-Jewish--not in a bigoted sense, but in a theological sense. The NT supplants the OT, and the Jews are subordinated to the international Church. This did become Replacement Theology, but RT does not logically follows from the idea of supercessionism.

    Thus, I feel free to quote *all* of the Church Fathers, with respect to this subject, and find it telling that the large majority seem to hold to the historicist view of Dan 9/OD. It is therefore very logical to view Dan 9/OD from the historicist position, and not "confused" and "absurd," as has been said.


    I would say this in support of both Gap Supporters of Dan 9, and in support of Amils. The "Gap" theory is not specifically taught by Irenaeus, but sets precedent for it logically. If the 70th Week has to do with Antichrist, then there must be a "gap" between Christ's time and the time of Antichrist in the endtimes. Hippolytus is apparently more definitive with respect to a "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks. I must add here, however, that Hippolytus appears to be a disciple of Irenaeus, and thus derives his interpretation from a Church Father, and not necessarily from the Bible by his own conviction.


    But in support of them I would say that it is to be understood that even historical prophecies are often intended to look forward to eschatological fulfillment ultimately. This could not be more true than in the book of Daniel. Antiochus 4, and the Roman desolation of Jerusalem, are clearly looking forward to the "Little Horn," ie the Antichrist. And so, the 3.5 years of Antiochus 4 is clearly a model for the future coming of Antichrist, who also will reign for 3.5 years. The time periods are, however, a little different between Antiochus 4 and Antichrist. Antichrist reigns for 1260 days, whereas Antiochus 4 reigns for 1290 days.

    Thus, I could conceive of the historicist view of the 70th Week may be a "model" for a future reign of Antichrist. That is, the desolation of Jerusalem in the generation of Christ may legitimately serve as an example for a future reign of Antichrist, who will challenge God's place in His temple.

    And I would add that there might be a tendency to "jump" from the historicist pov in Dan 9/OD to the futurist pov if, for no other reason, the historicist view tends to blend into the futurist view in the Early Church. There may have been a temptation to see Rome as both the desolator of Jerusalem and the source of Antichrist. Both spring from the same root.

    And so, Antiochus 4, along with the Roman desolation of Jerusalem, may be viewed by some in the Early Church as the equivalent of Antichrist's desolation of the Church. The future fulfillment of the Roman Antichrist may have been viewed as *immediately following* the Roman history of that time.


    In support of the Amil Church Fathers I do recognize that the gist of Dan 9/OD is the termination of Jewish worship in favor of Christian worship. The Jewish temple is to be terminated in favor of Christ, the true heavenly temple. Although I don't agree with terminating the Jewish People as the People of God, I must admit that the salvation of Jews rests upon their becoming Christians.

    In these Church Fathers, then, I do find the vast majority tend to favor the historicist position, although I will not deny that there is a legitimate basis for the "gap theory" of the 70th Week of Daniel among a few Church Fathers. Irenaeus and Hippolytus are prominent among them, though their position is, in my mind, actually one. Hippolytus derived from Irenaeus, thus representing a single position.

    Barnabas showed an early view readily accepted and not refuted which was historicist in emphasis. Thus, Irenaeus' view was a notable departure, albeit somewhat justified as an eschatological "allusion."


    The historicist position was based on the following:
    1) The 70 Weeks were completely fulfilled in Christ's earthly mission.
    2) The Jewish People were punished by the 70 AD judgment immediately following the death of Christ.
    3) Christ was the Anointed One rejected by the Jews.
    4) The "Desolation" was the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

    Victorinus, as you suggest, refers to Daniel and to the OD. He describes the image of Antichrist (Rev 13) as the likeness of Nebuchadnezzar's image (Dan 3), and indicates that Daniel views it as placed in Samaria, though I'm not sure what his direct reference is? And he also references the OD of Jesus.


    What is clear, however, is that Victorinus sees the Antichrist as creating an image after himself, like Nebuchadnezzar did, and posing as God Himself. This is the whole idea behind his positioning a temple as a statement of self-Deification. In effect, Victorinus is saying that the *same things* done in the past are a *foreshadowing* of future events--not necessarily the literal events in the past that foreshadowed them. The "temple" of Antiochus 4, and the "temple" of the Roman desolation, then, may have been a "foreshadowing" of the Antichristian claim to self-deification, for Victorinus?


    Antiochus 4 and the Roman desolation are not necessarily denied, but more, are seen as a preview of Antichrist. In other words, I'm not sure Victorinus was purely futurist in his interpretation of Dan 9/OD. And since he sees the Beast as Rome, his futurist outlook is not necessarily a departure from the historicist view that Rome was the desolator of the Jewish temple. He also quotes from Dan 11 and what appears to me to be the prophecy of Antiochus 4 to determine aspects of the Antichrist. We see that in his commentary on Rev 17. But this is certainly debatable, and I lack a complete knowledge on these matters.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I was "ridiculing" two claims of his about the ECFs.
    1) that there was consensus among them before Augustine systemised it. I couldn't find that in his quotes.
    2) that he could read between the lines and so declare that they all understood the phrase "this generation" was fulfilled.

    I lauded him for finding and giving the quotes, but then I have argued strenuously with him as he doesn't seem to want to deal with what hey actually say and instead create his own interpretation of what they wrote.
    As I point out above, the quotations say what they do. They just don't frame their arguments in terms that address your own particular concerns.

    There is little doubt in my mind that they largely viewed the 70 Weeks and AoD of Daniel as fulfilled in the time of Christ, and in the 70 AD destruction of the temple. The fact there was disagreement over details, or allusions to future fulfillments, possibly by allegory, do not detract from this reality.

    If most of these Church Fathers viewed the 70 Weeks Prophecy as *completed* in the time of Christ, then it follows that the AoD is completed immediately following in the Roman desolation of Jerusalem. And so it was regularly described, in terms of *Jewish punishment,* in favor of the new Church. The old temple went away in favor of the new heavenly temple, who was Christ.

    How would you read Barnabas?

    But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in
    the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it
    is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being
    accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the
    name of the Lord.

    How would you read the following from Tertullian, in light of Dan 9/the OD?...

    Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets... Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times.

    Or Clement of Alexandria?

    And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father.
    In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

    Or Origen?
    The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.

    Or Athanasius?

    For it is a sign, and
    an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God,
    that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet
    raised up nor vision revealed to them and that very
    naturally. For when he that signified was come,
    what need was there any longer of any to signify him ?
    When the truth was there, what need any more of the
    shadow ? For this was the reason of their prophesying
    at all namely, till the true Righteousness should come,
    and he that was to ransom the sins of all. And this
    was why Jerusalem stood till then namely, that there
    they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for
    the reality. So when the Holy of Holies was come,
    naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the king
    dom of Jerusalem ceased.

    Or Eusebius?

    But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable — all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, Daniel 9:27 stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire — all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

    As you can see, the Church Fathers likely saw the Dan 9 prophecy of the 70 Weeks and the AoD as fulfilled in the time of Christ and in the destruction of Jewish worship, which took place in 70 AD.
    Or John Chrysostom?

    Because what things befell them in the time of Vespasian and Titus, were very far more grievous than those. Wherefore also He said, "There shall be great tribulation, such as never was, neither shall be."
    What then did He after these things? Since they were not willing to come, yea and also slew those that came unto them; He burns up their cities, and sent His armies and slew them.
    And these things He saith, declaring beforehand the things that took place under Vespasian and Titus, and that they provoked the father also, by not believing in Him; it is the father at any rate who was avenging.
    And for this reason let me add, not straightway after Christ was slain did the capture take place, but after forty years, that He might show His long suffering, when they had slain Stephen, when they had put James to death, when they had spitefully entreated the apostles.
    Seest thou the truth of the event, and its quickness? For while John was yet living, and many other of them that were with Christ, these things came to pass, and they that had heard these words were witnesses of the events.

    Or Augustine?

    The same Savior is spoken of in Daniel, where the Son of man appears before the Ancient of days, and receives a kingdom without end, that all nations may serve Him. Daniel 7:13-14 In the passage quoted from Daniel by the Lord Himself, "When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that reads understand," Matthew 24:15 the number of weeks points not only to Christ, but to the very time of His advent. With the Jews, who look to Christ for salvation as we do, but deny that He has come and suffered, we can argue from actual events. Besides the conversion of the heathen, now so universal, as prophesied of Christ in their own Scriptures, there are the events in the history of the Jews themselves. Their holy place is thrown down, the sacrifice has ceased, and the priest, and the ancient anointing; which was all clearly foretold by Daniel when he prophesied of the anointing of the Most Holy.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beginner View Post
    I love the topic and that your diving into the EFC writers. I will agree with you that some of the EFC saw fulfillments historically from the 1st advent through the destruction of Jerusalem. However, this was not a consensus view. The only writer that you mentioned that I personally respect related to his eschatology would be Tertullian simply for his resolve to hold to the tenants of Chiliasm. Although, I would say that Tertullian was one of the most divergent in his chiliastic details when compared to other earlier chiliasts such as Irenaeus and Justin. The other writers you mentioned abandoned the early church doctrines of Chiliasm and a literal kingdom of God being established on the earth. Origen and Clement were the two key forerunners of Amillennialism by laying the hermeneutic foundation for Augustine to systemize. Euisbus was Emperor Constantine's church historian and actively sought to erase chiliasm from the church in his writings. The other two writers were devote post/Amillennialist whose views directly necessitated a historical narrative of Matthew 24 and Daniel 9.
    I was a bit obtuse in my response to you. I do appreciate your views and support for references to the Church Fathers. Lest there be any confusion I am not a Gap Theorist, with respect to the 70 Weeks, nor am I Amillennial. I simply wish to quote any and all of the Church Fathers, if necessary, to establish their general view that the destruction of the Jewish temple was the fulfillment of both Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, the historicist position on the Olivet Discourse. And this is *not* to be confused with Futurism. The historicist position on the OD is perfectly compatible with Futurism!
    Thanks brother!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,339
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I was a bit obtuse in my response to you. I do appreciate your views and support for references to the Church Fathers. Lest there be any confusion I am not a Gap Theorist, with respect to the 70 Weeks, nor am I Amillennial. I simply wish to quote any and all of the Church Fathers, if necessary, to establish their general view that the destruction of the Jewish temple was the fulfillment of both Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, the historicist position on the Olivet Discourse. And this is *not* to be confused with Futurism. The historicist position on the OD is perfectly compatible with Futurism!
    Thanks brother!

    All good bro! Thanks for clarifying... I was not offended at all, but I appreciate the sensitivity. I understand where your coming from and understand what your position is.

    Thanks

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As I point out above, the quotations say what they do. They just don't frame their arguments in terms that address your own particular concerns.
    Indeed they do NOT say what you CLAIM they say.
    If they DID then I would be agreeing with you. However as the QUOTES themselves show, we have a diversity of views and there is no conformity of agreement UNTIL
    we get to the POST Nicene Fathers.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    In His Service
    Posts
    3,138

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The Christian Church. There are variations, but in the time of the Church Fathers the orthodox Creeds were being developed. I'm not sure any Church Father was perfectly orthodox. And since they lived in different parts of the Empire, they likely had their own local blend of theology. In this time period, therefore, I trust mostly in those who actually helped to *develop* orthodoxy. I wouldn't cite those considered to be completely heretical.

    Let me add that I'm editing some of my comments in an attempt to capture some of the issues under question. It's a little difficult to transpose some of the issues we discuss here onto this kind of format.
    Like Clement of Rome?

    Clement of Rome was the first Apostolic Father of the church—a title given to Christian leaders who personally knew the apostles. He was also one of the earliest popes, and the patron saint of mariners.

    https://overviewbible.com/clement-of-rome/


    Jude
    If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.

    ~ Leonard Ravenhill




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Indeed they do NOT say what you CLAIM they say.
    If they DID then I would be agreeing with you. However as the QUOTES themselves show, we have a diversity of views and there is no conformity of agreement UNTIL
    we get to the POST Nicene Fathers.
    I'm not distinguishing between Church Fathers--just quoting some of them to show there was a general consensus that Daniel's 70 Weeks was fulfilled historically in the 1st Coming of Christ and in the destruction of Jerusalem following. If you can't see that, I can't help you. No, you don't always admit what you see before you. Bias can destroy good reason.

    Disagreements on some peripheral issues do not remove the claim. And the few exceptions do not remove the claim either. Most of them seemed to share a belief in an historically-fulfilled 70 Weeks, and the lack of opposition to this view seems to confirm it. There was a heavy emphasis, in Dan 9, on the importance of Christ's 1st Coming and earthly ministry. He was the Anointed One who, if rejected by the Jews, would lead to their immediate judgment. The 70 AD judgment was thus viewed as a divine rejection of the Jews, along with their religion, as it rejected Jesus as the Anointed One.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by Jude View Post
    Like Clement of Rome?

    Clement of Rome was the first Apostolic Father of the church—a title given to Christian leaders who personally knew the apostles. He was also one of the earliest popes, and the patron saint of mariners.

    https://overviewbible.com/clement-of-rome/


    Jude
    I don't see Clement of Rome as a "pope." However, he was undoubtedly an early Christian leader dating from the earliest history of the Church. I do find it interesting to read early Christian writings, to get a feel as to how they saw the Scriptures.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not distinguishing between Church Fathers--just quoting some of them to show there was a general consensus that Daniel's 70 Weeks was fulfilled historically in the 1st Coming of Christ and in the destruction of Jerusalem following. If you can't see that, I can't help you. No, you don't always admit what you see before you. Bias can destroy good reason.
    Indeed you certainly have bias. I am simply going on what they ACTUALLY wrote. There is NO general consensus UNTIL the Post-Nicene Fathers.

    Disagreements on some peripheral issues do not remove the claim. And the few exceptions do not remove the claim either. Most of them seemed to share a belief in an historically-fulfilled 70 Weeks, and the lack of opposition to this view seems to confirm it. There was a heavy emphasis, in Dan 9, on the importance of Christ's 1st Coming and earthly ministry. He was the Anointed One who, if rejected by the Jews, would lead to their immediate judgment. The 70 AD judgment was thus viewed as a divine rejection of the Jews, along with their religion, as it rejected Jesus as the Anointed One.
    Actually DISAGREEMENTS do remove the claim. It requires AGREEMENT for the claim to be a consensus. After all that is what consensus means.
    The Anti-Nicene Fathers didn't hold this view, and so there is real opposition.
    Daniel 9 does NOT have a heavy emphasis on Jesus' 1st coming. Daniel 9 is about what God is doing for the Jews, and spans UNTIL God's kingdom will come. Just as Dan 2 and Dan 7 do. Everlasting righteousness is something that is STILL being looked forward to as noted by Peter.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Indeed you certainly have bias. I am simply going on what they ACTUALLY wrote. There is NO general consensus UNTIL the Post-Nicene Fathers.


    Actually DISAGREEMENTS do remove the claim. It requires AGREEMENT for the claim to be a consensus. After all that is what consensus means.
    The Anti-Nicene Fathers didn't hold this view, and so there is real opposition.
    Daniel 9 does NOT have a heavy emphasis on Jesus' 1st coming. Daniel 9 is about what God is doing for the Jews, and spans UNTIL God's kingdom will come. Just as Dan 2 and Dan 7 do. Everlasting righteousness is something that is STILL being looked forward to as noted by Peter.
    From Barnabas on, including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, there was a general consensus, with only a few notable exceptions, that the 70 Weeks was fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Christ. Peripheral differences do *not* destroy the particular consensus I'm claiming.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    In His Service
    Posts
    3,138

    Re: Church Father quotes in support of my views

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't see Clement of Rome as a "pope." However, he was undoubtedly an early Christian leader dating from the earliest history of the Church. I do find it interesting to read early Christian writings, to get a feel as to how they saw the Scriptures.
    i use this for early church history..you might find this interesting as well..its filled with personal testimonies..

    http://www.biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm


    Jude
    If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.

    ~ Leonard Ravenhill




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Nov 30th 2015, 04:40 AM
  2. Bible support for Para Church Ministries
    By poochie in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jan 28th 2009, 05:01 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: Dec 19th 2008, 12:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •