Polycarp

[Guest kingdombrat]

Just now, Alive said:

I didn't say that Polycarp is irrelevant. I am suggesting that he is not reliable.

Reliable for what?   

His writing took place 150 A.D.

Now if 70 A.D. kicked off Christ's Mill Reign, any writing of that time from all Church Fathers is [relevant] to the moment of that time.   It's the perfect Thermometer to understand if they're living like what Revelation's describe as the Mill Reign or not.

[Alive]

9 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Reliable for what?   

His writing took place 150 A.D.

Now if 70 A.D. kicked off Christ's Mill Reign, any writing of that time from all Church Fathers is [relevant] to the moment of that time.   It's the perfect Thermometer to understand if they're living like what Revelation's describe as the Mill Reign or not.

Reliable in the sense that he is not been judged inspired by the Church.

Polycarp says nothing in that letter of the Mill one way or another...he is silent, so I don't understand your point of proof.

[Guest kingdombrat]

7 minutes ago, Alive said:

Reliable in the sense that he is not been judged inspired by the Church.

Polycarp says nothing in that letter of the Mill one way or another...he is silent, so I don't understand your point of proof.

I never said his writing was judged to be inspired, [although], now that we know who Constantine truly was, it's hard to imagine that any Book was [truly inspired by God] through his (Constantine) judgments.

 

But my point of his writings shows him being concerned how some people were holding the position as Shepherd to God's people.

^

There will be no need for that during the Mill Reign.   

Edited May 10, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Alive]

22 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

I never said his writing was judged to be inspired, [although], now that we know who Constantine truly was, it's hard to imagine that any Book was [truly inspired by God] through his (Constantine) judgments.

 

But my point of his writings shows him being concerned how some people were holding the position as Shepherd to God's people.

^

There will be no need for that during the Mill Reign.   

Yes--I understand what you are saying.

[Guest kingdombrat]

12 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yep. Not only that but many of the ECFs can be quoted to assert........ preterist positions!!! Many of them were quite explict with the view the end of time or the end times had come and gone ! Even the Dispensationalist Thomas Ice has often commented on this fact and cites things like Eusebius' "The Proof of the Gospel" as containing preterist views - at a time before any eschatolgoical view had been formalized!!!!! Irenaeus, for example, wrote, "...the temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord's advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: 'For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight.'" That would be a preterist pov. A generation earlier Ignatius wrote things like, "It is absurd to speak of Jesus with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes and every tongue confesses, is gathered unto God," and "And here, at the manifestation of the Son, magic began to be destroyed, and all bonds were loosed; and the ancient kingdom and the error of evil was destroyed. Henceforward all things were moved together, and the destruction of death was devised, and there was the commencement of that which was perfected in God." That wasn't mere theology. He meant what he wrote as the facts of history in his day and age. The same can be said of Polycarp. 

 

But that is going to drive Premillennialists in general and Dispensations particularly          (fill in label of your choosing)            if we rely on the ECFs. 

 

The problem is every modern perspective uses the ECFs selectively. This is possible because eschatology 1) was not a prominent or core doctrine of the early Church and 2) eschatology was therefore undecided. Just about every ECF can be found to have written something somewhere somehow that can be used by anyone to evidence their views...... but rarely do we read of sufficient honesty to admit that is what they are doing. That's one of the reasons I do not often quote extra-biblical sources. I can. If the subject is a particular person's views I might do that. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or Wesley might come up in a discussion of soteriology and that might warrant quoting the person but that's not typically the case. Polycarp (or Papias) is not the subject here. The concern is this premise the ECFs can be considered as viable sources for proving a given eschatology and that is definitely NOT the case, especially if we're going to use biased sources like the RCC. As I noted earlier, no one but Dispensationalists would tolerate a solely-Dispensationalist treatment of the ECFs. Why them should we be expected to accept a solely-RCC view of Polycarp or the other ECFs? The short answer is we should not. 

 

 

Ultimately, all we need to measure any doctrine - including eschatology - is sound exegesis of the Bible and basic logic. In my web searches this morning of the ECFs I happened upon an article by Ice and I didn't have very far to read before I found a ThD - an intelligent, highly educated, well-practiced, and otherwise very devout Christian making red herring and straw man arguments! There's no excuse for such occurrences but we find them often. I sometimes sympathize with the fellow poster who disdains extra-biblical sources . Ordinarily the only viable explanations for such practices are 1) ignorance, 2) incompetence, 3) willful neglect (deceit), or 4) mental illness.  It is a strange condition whereby we hope the teacher was merely incompetent and not something worse, yes? One of the reasons the principles of exegesis and logic were developed was to avoid such things. And since you've ready Schaeffer you know how and why this happens: many no longer subscribe to a single standard (even if they claim otherwise). 

I definitely agree with the point you're making here.   But knowing the circumstances surrounding Christ's Mill Reign, there won't be anyone being deceived by false preachers/teachers until Satan is released and it results in war.

 

Polycarps writings is a Thermometer that he is still concerned about those in position as Preacher/Teacher/Shepherd at 150 A.D.   That's an excellent Barometer Reading the Mill Reign had not taken place yet, since 150 A.D. is 80 years from 70 A.D. that some believe kicks off this Reign of Christ upon Earth.

 

In fact, Polcarps writings is an example that sort of thing [bad Preachers/Leaders/Shepherds of God] are still on the scene.

 

During Christ's Reign, there will be only ONE Shepherd for All and All will have access to Him [and not by way of Churches and Preachers][but by all people will have access to the physical Christ]!

Edited May 10, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Do you really want an answer to that question or are you already decided in your opinion to the point of no longer being open to any view other than your own? 

Depends, is your view based upon the Traitor Josephus or not?

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Because I did already answer that question and that answer is being ignored.

I missed it then, my bad.

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

kb, one of the reasons we don't read much commentary about the millennium as early as Polycarp is because they thought they were in it, not because they didn't think they were in it. It was an assumption about which there wasn't much debate for many decades. Some Christians not only thought the millennium had begun but they thought the world was going to end in the 11th century, a literal thousand years after the incarnation or Pentecost or the destruction of Jerusalem, or..... Look it up.

They would know that during the Mill Reign there was no need for preachers/teachers because the Ultimate Shepherd Himself would be on the scene.

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The following might stir you up a little but that's not my intent. All the links in the second post are Roman Catholic. Have you ever bothered to review the same content through something like Preterist Archives? Those guys are going to handle the exact same content but from a completely different pov and for completely different purposes. Both are biased sources. Look, I for one appreciate your effort and I do hope others actually read Polycarp. I have no dispute with you over reading the ECFs. My dissent is simply the degree to which we can rely on them evidentially because 1) there was no formal eschatology and 2) they can and are be made to say just about anything (as I have already shown ).

I am neither pre/post/future other than the beheaded from rejecting the MOB are not Ruling nor have ever Ruled with Christ.   Revelation is specific about the BEHEADED being the ones Ruling.  The true Believers are already enjoying their Eternity without thoughts or concerns for what's happening on Planet Earth.

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

If Christians aren't going to agree on what the Bible teaches then how is it imagined they will agree on what the ECFs taught when each interprets the ECFs eisegetically?

But I do Agree Matthew 24 is specifically about 2 events, which one has already happened in 70 A.D.

[Guest kingdombrat]

10 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I am glad we have some agreement.

 

Let's look at just that statement. Let me ask you a couple of questions - real basic questions. 

 

• Do you believe God is sovereign?
• Do you believe God is almighty (all mighty)?
• Do you believe satan has power over God?
• Do you believe the outcome is all already decided?

 

I have intentionally asked very basic questions in very basic manner, phrasing the questions so each can (and should) be answered with a simple yes or no. I have done so because the way we (Christians) answer these questions is very, very important; critically so. These are presuppositional concerns often ignored. 

 

 

.

Predestination is 100% Biblical, God knowing the End from the Beginning is fact, and that not only makes God All Knowing, but All everything.

 

A million people, when John would know multiple millions lived in Greece, in Rome, in Minor turkey and Asia, in the Mesopotamia areas that when he wrote about the BEHEADED being NUMEROUS as the Sea, makes the Destruction of Jerusalem look like children's play.   Which means, more people will be BEHEADED than the total who died in 70 A.D. and those Beheaded will be the Rulers who Reign with Christ!

Edited May 10, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

Just now, Josheb said:

Thanks but that does not answer all the questions asked. 

 

• Do you believe God is sovereign?
• Do you believe God is almighty (all mighty)?
• Do you believe satan has power over God?
• Do you believe the outcome is all already decided? 

 

Yes?
Yes?
Yes?
Yes? 

I feel like you're going to post then can God make a Donkey fly and do circles in the air and poof out messages for those who lack wisdom.   Which YES, God can do that.   But I feel you're going to use it for a point of View that I disagree with.

 

 

But YES to 1-2-4 and NO to 3

[Guest kingdombrat]

My Discernment in the Holy Spirit is telling me I am about to be attempted to be DECEIVED!

Edited May 10, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

Then let me encourage you to keep it simple - plain and simple in your own mind. Lay aside the suspicions and..... just answer the questions asked.  

The "No," to the last question is going to be a problem, but I'll work with the affirmative answers to the first three questions. 

 

If God is sovereign and almighty then how is it satan has power over God (a created creature over The Creator of the creature)?
If Godis sovereign and almighty then how is it the outcome is undecided?

The [NO] is that Satan does not overpower God