Theology

Eschatology of the early church fathers

1 Comment

Pastor David Squyres asked a great question in response to last Friday’s post on premillennialism:

“Do you think this is a view the Church fathers held? I ask because it seems relatively new to me, and would help if I could see it in a more historic sense.”

The early church fathers did not all hold to one millennial position. Their theology of last things, like every other area of theology, was in infancy and still developing. Though the coming return and judgment of Christ were clearly defined in the early creeds, no specific mention was made of the millennium.

However, it is very interesting to note how “premillennialism” developed and then declined in the first few centuries. These men were much closer to the ministry of Christ and the apostles, and were experts in the Greek language, so their testimony should not be dismissed lightly.

Church historian Philip Schaff observes:

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age [i.e. the era prior to the Council of Nicea in AD 325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it...

…the crushing blow [against chiliasm] came from the great change in the social condition and prospects of the church in the Nicene age. After Christianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman empire, and was embraced by the Caesars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine and the downfall of paganism, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial state-church.

Augustin, who himself had formerly entertained chiliastic hopes, framed the new theory which reflected the social change, and was generally accepted. The apocalyptic millennium he understood to be the present reign of Christ in the Catholic church, and the first resurrection, the translation of the martyrs and saints to heaven, where they participate in Christ’s reign.

(Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Chapter XII, Section 158. )

Uncategorized

Worship wars

Leave a comment

Ed Stetzer has a must-read article on worship. Here’s an excerpt:

In many churches where a worship war is brewing or is in outright conflict, one group perceives themselves to be pushing forward toward the next generation (relevance) while another is trying to pull back to a once-honored method (reverence). One group thinks contemporary music or a more casual style will suit the modern generation and appeal more to the lost. Meanwhile the other group thinks all of that is just worldly compromise and, furthermore, arrogant to casually dismiss the styles that have served the church well, in some cases, for hundreds of years.

When either of these scenarios occurs it is usually because we have elevated our preferences to the level of principles. We are “taking a stand” for something important: our own comfort, convenience, and concerns. And all the while we’re trying to give God his due or the lost people in the pew it turns out we’re really just making worship about us.

He calls for both sides to do a heart check. You can read the whole thing here.

Theology

Why I’m pre-millenial

6 Comments

While many friends and most Reformed scholars today hold to the amillennial view of eschatology, I continue to find the dispensational premillennial position most attractive and convincing.

Here’s an excellent summary of premillennialism and why it is to be preferred over other views:

Premillennialism is the view that Jesus Christ will return to this present earth prior to the establishing of His millennial kingdom. Jesus will reign supreme in power and great glory and will be the object of worship for all mankind. The kingdom will be on an earth where the curse has been removed and where righteousness, peace, and prosperity are universal. Prior to the millennial kingdom there will be a resurrection of believers, and following the kingdom there will be a resurrection of unbelievers. The primary purpose of this period of time is to fulfill completely the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants. When this kingdom is over, the next phase of God’s kingdom, the eternal state on a new earth, will commence.

The premillennial position is based squarely on a consistent, literal hermeneutic. A literal approach to the prophetic Scriptures leads one to believe that the promises made to Israel have not been fulfilled in the past and are not being fulfilled today. This mandates that they be fulfilled sometime in the future to national Israel, which means that the nation of Israel and the church of Jesus Christ must be kept distinct. This contrast between Israel and the church is a key to the premillennial position, and it is one of the primary ones that sets it apart from other systems of theology. (Paul Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 100-101).

It’s unfortunate that the sensationalism of some pre-millennialists (setting dates, ranting about the rapture and tribulation, endless speculation about the mark of the beast) has caused Christians to “throw out the baby with the bathwater,” returning to an Augustinian eschatology that spiritualizes God’s promises, misunderstands Christ’s present fulfillment, and replaces Israel with the church.

I’m not interested in dueling with other Christians over this issue. It is not a hill to die on. I have much more in common with my Reformed brothers than I have in disagreement. But I do believe many Christians are depriving themselves of a truthful hope because of their misunderstanding of eschatology. I’m doing my best to keep an open mind, but the more I search the Scriptures, the more I favor premillennialism.

Shepherding

Factors in a church facility

Leave a comment

Mark Driscoll recently finished a series of posts on 23 factors that church planters should consider when finding a church facility.

Many of these factors are important not only for new church planters, but also for established churches with existing facilities…

  1. Sight
  2. Time Flexibility
  3. Set-up and Tear-down
  4. Smell
  5. Comfort
  6. Lighting
  7. Acoustics
  8. Power
  9. Location
  10. Children’s Space
  11. Room for Fellowship
  12. Cost
  13. Storage
  14. Public Perception
  15. Parking
  16. Additional Space
  17. Additional Use
  18. Cleanliness
  19. Accessibility
  20. Signage
  21. Conflicting Dates
  22. Contract Length
  23. Facility Options

Where is your facility the strongest? Weakest? Are there any glaring problems? Easy fixes? Not every improvement has to be a multi-million dollar renovation. Some of these factors can be radically improved with a simple change in lighting, paint, greenery, decor, fixtures, furniture arrangement, or room assignments.

We all need to continually ask how we can make our facilities welcoming to visitors and conducive for worship and fellowship. No space will be ideal. There will almost always both positives and negatives to any building. But Driscoll raises some excellent thoughts on an issue we often overlook.

You can download all four of Driscoll’s posts here as one pdf article.

Uncategorized

The Purpose of John’s Gospel

Leave a comment

After spending two and a half years in the Gospel of John, I feel something of a bittersweet emotion nearing the end of the book. I hope for our people that as we have traveled along verse-by-verse and chapter-by-chapter, that it has increased our love for John’s Gospel, but more importantly, that it has increased our love for Jesus Christ, who is the focus of the book.

I believe there is great value in studying the Word of God carefully, line upon line and precept upon precept. But there’s also a danger of “staring at the trees and missing the forest.”

In John 20:30-31, John helps us get the “big picture” of his Gospel, finally explaining why he wrote the book. We saw four points as we studied it together last Sunday:

  1. John’s Gospel is a record of signs. There is no way he could have recorded them all (Jn. 21:24-25), so John hand-picked seven of them and arranged the first half of his gospel around them: turning water into wine (Jn. 2:1-12); healing the nobleman’s son from a great distance (Jn. 4:46-54); healing the man who had been paralyzed for 38 years along the Pool of Bethesda (Jn. 5:1-17); feeding over 5,000 people (Jn. 6:1-14); walking on water (Jn. 6:16-21); healing a man blind from birth (Jn. 9:1-34); and raising Lazarus from the dead (Jn. 11). Every one of these was astounding. And the pinnacle of them all was Christ’s own resurrection in John 20. What were these signs for?
  2. The purpose of a sign is to point you to something. In this case, to Jesus Christ. A sign is a marker, a proof, an authenticating work. Jesus made seven bold “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John: I am the Bread of Life (Jn. 6:35); the Light of the World (Jn. 8:12); the Door (Jn. 10:7-9); the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10:11, 14); the Resurrection and the Life (Jn. 11:25); the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Jn. 14:6); the True Vine (Jn. 15:1, 5). Every one of these was a bold and exclusive claim that Jesus was equal with Yahweh, the Great “I AM” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14). What proof did Jesus give? In addition to His own testimony (Jn. 5:31-32), Jesus called forward four other witnesses: John the Baptist (Jn. 5:33-35), Jesus’ miraculous works or “signs” (Jn. 5:36), the verbal testimony of God the Father (Jn. 5:37-38), and finally, the Old Testament Scriptures themselves (Jn. 5:39-40). What more proof could Jesus have given? The evidence is overwhelming that He is truly the Messiah, the Son of God. The only reasonable thing to do is believe.
  3. The result of these signs should be faith. This is not a mere intellectual assent, but a complete trust, a total surrender. It is pictured in a variety of ways throughout the Gospel (drinking of the water He gives, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, entering through the door, etc.). Everyone must make a choice. Either you choose to believe in Jesus, or you choose to reject Him (Jn. 3:36). There is no middle ground. Not choosing to believe is actually choosing not to believe.
  4. The result of true faith will be eternal life. By trusting in Jesus, we can have eternal life (Jn. 3:15-16; 20:31). What a promise! This is John’s desire for every reader of His gospel. He has written primarily that unbelievers will put their trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and receive the free gift of eternal life.

Questions for Thought and Discussion:

  • Do you believe Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, Anointed One)?
  • Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God (making Him equal with God, according to Jn. 5:18)?
  • Are you living as though these statements are true? James tells us that faith without works is dead and useless, and will not save anyone (James 2:17-24)
  • According to John 20:31, what is the result of genuine faith in Jesus Christ?
  • How should this comfort us as Christians?
  • Are you inviting and calling others to believe in Jesus?
  • How does the world view Jesus today?
  • How does this contrast with John’s testimony?
  • Give a one sentence summary in your own words of John’s Gospel
  • What is one key lesson you have learned in our study of this Gospel?

Sunday’s sermon has been uploaded to our podcast site and is available for free download. I apologize for the audio cutting in and out during the message. We will try to resolve this problem before next week.

Thoughts on Life and Leadership