Millenarianism why is is wrong?

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

By this are you asking if any of these ECF were bishops? Many were. But remember, not everything that a bishop says is infallible teaching. Only the when the bishops speak as a whole, with the endorsement of the pope, can they teach infallibly. That doesn’t mean they were necessarily speaking heresy when they spoke about a literal 1000 years, they were just enunciating one possible, though not defined, interpretation.

OK, so here are the options. Correct me if I am wrong:

1. The Bishops recieved the apostolic tradition and they knew that there was not a 1000 year millennium, but they lied and taught it anyway.
2. The Biships recieved the apostolic tradition that rejected the literaly 1000 years and they rejected it in favor of the 1000 year millennium.
3. The Bishops did not recieve this information, but the RCC church had new revelation that came later.
4. The Biships did recieve this information about the 1000 years and the Apostles were premillennial, but the RCC rejected this later.
5. The Bishops did not recieve any revelation about this, they just did their best to interpret the Scripture the way that seem best to them.

Are there any options that I am missing?

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Are there any options that I am missing?”

Yeah, how about “I am hostile to the Catholic Church, and therefore no explanation offered by a Catholic will suffice”?

Shzeesh…seriously, Michael, go and read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” before posting further.

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Are there any options that I am missing?”

Yeah, how about “I am hostile to the Catholic Church, and therefore no explanation offered by a Catholic will suffice”?

Shzeesh…seriously, Michael, go and read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” before posting further.

I am sorry if I offended you. This was a serious question. I am really trying to think through this. I am in no way hostle to the Catholic Church. Can’t people ask you serious questions? This is what learning is about, is it not? I don’t accept things very easily and this should be understanable since there are so many different interpretations.

If you have read my post in the past, I don’t think that you would say that I am hostile to RC.

Again, I am sorry for offending you. I will not post questions to you anymore.

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michael,

I appreciate the apology. But my suggestion was quite serious: read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”. He was a Protestant when he started to write it, with some of the exact questions and misunderstandings that you have. And he was a top-notch scholar to boot.

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michael,

I appreciate the apology. But my suggestion was quite serious: read Newman’s “An Essay on the Deveopment of Christian Doctrine”. He was a Protestant when he started to write it, with some of the exact questions and misunderstandings that you have. And he was a top-notch scholar to boot.

Sherlock, I have had so many books recommended to me on this (and I have thus far bought them all) and they have not answered these questions. I understand the concepts that Newman has, but you cannot ask questions like these to a book. I would pose this to him if I could, but since I can’t, I pose it to you and others.

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michael,

What Newman does is examine how doctrine develops, and does so with extensive historical research. The book is considered a classic (even in Protestant circles), and yes, I do think that it addresses the kinds of questions you have. Or perhaps a better way of putting that would be to say that after reading Newman, your current questions may seem completely off-base, while other questions may occur to you as you get a better understanding of the process.

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michael,

What Newman does is examine how doctrine develops, and does so with extensive historical research. The book is considered a classic (even in Protestant circles), and yes, I do think that it addresses the kinds of questions you have. Or perhaps a better way of putting that would be to say that after reading Newman, your current questions may seem completely off-base, while other questions may occur to you as you get a better understanding of the process.

I have read Newman and I respect him on many things. I also understand and, to some degree, agree with his and your concept of doctrinal development. How do you think he would answer that question that I posed?

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

OK, so here are the options. Correct me if I am wrong:

1. The Bishops recieved the apostolic tradition and they knew that there was not a 1000 year millennium, but they lied and taught it anyway.
2. The Biships recieved the apostolic tradition that rejected the literaly 1000 years and they rejected it in favor of the 1000 year millennium.
3. The Bishops did not recieve this information, but the RCC church had new revelation that came later.
4. The Biships did recieve this information about the 1000 years and the Apostles were premillennial, but the RCC rejected this later.
5. The Bishops did not recieve any revelation about this, they just did their best to interpret the Scripture the way that seem best to them.

Are there any options that I am missing?

Michael

Yes, the very one that explained to you!

1. The Church as a whole does not seem to have had a defined teaching on this issue until, I suspect, it became an issue that needed defining because of some heresy or other. As you know much of what we Christians believe was not explicitly defined until an occasion arose that called for it, for example, the Trinity. It isn’t that the Church recieved new revelation on this, there was just no need for a long time to make a formal definition of it.

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

Yes, the very one that explained to you!

1. The Church as a whole does not seem to have had a defined teaching on this issue until, I suspect, it became an issue that needed defining because of some heresy or other. As you know much of what we Christians believe was not explicitly defined until an occasion arose that called for it, for example, the Trinity. It isn’t that the Church recieved new revelation on this, there was just no need for a long time to make a formal definition of it.

Forgive me for being so persistant. The answer that you offered is not in opposition to the ones that I posed. Therefore, it must still fall into one of those categories doesn’t it? If not, please explain how they are all false. I know that this is alot to ask and I understand if you don’t want to.

Michael

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

Forgive me for being so persistant. The answer that you offered is not in opposition to the ones that I posed. Therefore, it must still fall into one of those categories doesn’t it? If not, please explain how they are all false. I know that this is alot to ask and I understand if you don’t want to.

Michael

The answer that I offered is probably closest to No. 5 of your proposals., except that I would substitute *the Church as a whole * rather than “Bishops”, since not all the ECF’s were bishops and as it was worded implied that the bishops (as a Magisterial group) tried to find an interpretation to this and failed. As I said, I doubt if they concerned themselves with it very much since there doesn’t seem to be a dangerous heresy attached to it at that time. I suspect they had bigger fish to fry, loke hammering out the nuances of the personhood of Christ, etc.