Early Church Fathers = "Paragons" of our faith?

[Lysimachus]

Early Church Fathers = “Paragons” of our faith?

by Lysimachus

Dispensationalists refer to the Early Church fathers to support their “Futurist views”, but then when Historicists prove that virtually EVERY SINGLE Church Father believed that the restrainer was the Roman Empire, and that the Roman Empire was the one “taken out of the way”, Dispensationalists choose to ignore it! Why? Because it doesn’t jibe with their Futurist interpretations of scripture! It sounds like Dispensationalists pick what they like from the early Church fathers, and leave out the rest. They would rather pick elements these Church fathers were not unanimous in agreement on, and ignore the concepts they WERE unanimous on!

A pity it is that we must use the early Church Fathers to establish these historic positions, but since Dispensationalists are so bent on attempting to support their Dispensational Futuristic views from these so called “paragons of faith”, we are forced to demonstrate that these so called “futuristic views” emanating from their writings were actually not so “black and white” as Dispensationalists would have us suppose. Rather, it becomes evident that their “futuristic” concepts were not only borrowed from the writings of Hellenistic Jews penned in the pseudepigriphal works, but the very fact that they understood the Antichrist to rise up shortly after the fall of the Pagan Roman Empire offers them far more grounds to place the Antichrist as exclusively “future” than modern-day Futurists have today. But professed Christians today are FAR more responsible than these men! We are living well beyond the 1260 years of Papal Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and we can clearly look back and see that the Papacy meets a DIRECT fulfillment of the Antichrist’s first manifestation from 538 to 1798 A.D. The deadly wound is healing during this “tarrying time” (Hab 2:3), and the Papacy WILL revive for a short period one last time for its second manifestation just prior to Christ’s Second Coming, when all the saints of the earth will be caught up and raptured into the sky to dwell in heaven, in the New Jerusalem, for 1000 years before returning back to the desolated earth where Satan is bound. The Early Church fathers simply cannot be labeled “Futurists” because they lived prior to 538 A.D. But anyone today who claims that the Antichrist is still exclusively some evil man in the future not representing the Papacy must be labeled a “Futurist”.

A dispensational-futurist author once wrote me and stated the following:

Quote:

“When the great Protestant reformers led the way out of the Catholic whore, they came out with much of their grave clothes on, similar to Lazarus. Over the past 450 plus years we have been shedding these graveclothes. It took centuries for any significant percentage of the evangelical world to be free from the worst and the most of the Calvinist defilements…. I believe that going back to Historicism is rejecting the most significant gain in the understanding of the Scriptures since the Reformation. It is forsaking the simplicity of taking the Bible's prophecies at face value and going back to the Catholic darkness and Catholic graveclothes that hindered the saints for 1500 years.”

I often hear this argument that to subscribe to Protestant Historicism is to subscribe to the vestiges of Romanism, simply for the fact that Protestantism came out of Papal Romanism and Augustinianism. But this line of reasoning does not impress me, and I’ll explain why. Using this same analogy, one could beg the question as why we accept the foundational teachings of the Apostles, because they came out of Judaism—which in turn had already been permeated with Greek Hellenism, Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, and Mithraism before the time of Christ and the Apostles! The truth to the matter is, just like Jesus rose up the Apostles to lay the foundation for our knowledge in Jesus Christ, likewise He also raised up the Protestants to the lay the foundation in establishing our knowledge in who the antichrist is! And the Papacy unequivocally matches every single one of the characteristics identified in scripture! I know dispensationalists will argue this point and try to say how the Papacy does not fit the identity of Antichrist, but as we have already seen, these arguments so far hold no water. A correct understanding of Historicism was only faintly beginning to materialize in the 16th and 17th centuries when the great reformers were able to see that they WERE living during the period of the “time, times, and dividing of time” of Daniel 7:25 and the 1260 days/42 months of Revelation 11:2,3; 12:6,14; and 13:5! They understood that a day represents a year in Bible prophecy! They understood that the termination of the 1260 years would end sometime in the near future! And after the Papacy received the deadly wound inflicted by France in 1798, Protestants were able to look back and see a PERFECT fulfillment!

With all due respect, we cannot attribute “Historicism” with “Romanism” solely on the basis that Protestantism came out of Romanism. True Catholicism was never Historicist. In fact, they were originally Amellennialists (which true Historicism is opposed to) as adopted from Augustine (these things we will learn about in more detail later in this study) and primarily adapted a Preterist scheme of prophetic interpretation attributing the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and 8 as Antiochus Epiphanies and the Beast of Revelation 13 as Nero. As has been well demonstrated, however, they were also the propagators of modern Futurism. A Historicist understanding of Bible prophecy was what allowed true Protestants to successfully identify the Papacy as the Antichrist. Whatever these “graveclothes” are, I do not believe it includes the prophetic hermeneutic pillar of Historicism—the core pillar that lead to the reformation. To disqualify the Protestant view of Historicism simply because they were tainted with the “graveclothes” of Romanism, is tantamount to disqualifying the foundational teachings of the Apostles because they came out tainted with the “graveclothes” of Judaism! However, let us not fail to recognize the historical reality of increasing apostasy in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the early church, even beginning in the time of Paul! While the Protestants were carrying their Romish gravelothes, the early Church Fathers were carrying the graveclothes of Greek philosophy, Hellenistic Judaism, Mysticism, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism, Zoroastrianism, Hermeticism, and much more. Origen (185-c. – 254), for example, born in Alexandria, was the chief exponent of the mystical interpretation of Scripture (Mosheim, op. cit., book 1, cent. 3, part 2. chap. 2, vol. 1 p. 223). Although his personal character was above reproach, he did incalculable injury to the faith of the church through his injection of Neo-Platonic mysticism. As knowledgeable and brilliant scholar as he was, his knowledge embraced all departments of philosophy, philology, and theology, in a period when the ecclesiastical language of the church was just being formed, and before the great councils had defined the limits of “orthodoxy.” He applied much of his knowledge to wild and fanciful interpretations. Eusebius recounts Origen’s early life and proclivities, and tells us that while yet a boy he memorized whole sections of the Bible. But, unsatisfied with the plain and obvious intent of the text, he inquired so persistently into its “inner meaning” that he greatly perplexed his father, drawing forth a rebuke for inquiring into things beyond his youthful capacity (Eusebius, Church History, book 6, chaps 2, 3, in NPNF, 2d series, vol. 1. pp. 249-252. See also Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume 1, Chapters 13 & 14, Influences on Christian Interpretation, &, Attacks On The Advent Hope, pp. 283-330.) Origen opposed all millenarianism, and he spiritualized the resurrection and allegorized the prophecies, therefore striking at these inseparable corollaries of the advent. His surroundings were set in Alexandria, Egypt, where he was brought up.

The Jews in the Macedonian, or Hellenistic , period had absorbed into their very life currents the “wisdom of the Greeks.” (See Schaff, History, vol. 2. p. 122, and Origen, Against Celsus, book 8, chap. 68, in ANF, vol. 4, p. 666). More than this, it should be clearly noted that men such as Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 240) was a Christian convert, and he lived in pagan blindness and licentiousness to his thirtieth or fortieth year! Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 220) was originally a pagan philosopher! Irenaeus, although in his youth listened to Polycarp and strongly opposed Gnostic heresies, was himself not free from the tainting of extra-biblical works. He profusely perverted the simple statements of the Bible. Men such as Irenaeus were so imbued with the spirit of heathen philosophy, which consisted simply in a show of learning, to mystify and awe the simple-minded, that they could not come down to the plain, common-sense teaching of the Bible. His intentions may have been good, but whatever influence his work has had, has been blighting to pure Christianity and to reverence for “the sincere milk of the word.” No wonder he is an honored Father in the Catholic Church! (See E. J. Waggoner, Fathers of the Catholic Church, Chapter IX, Irenaeus, pp. 125-145).

Therefore, with all this said, I propose that if Futurists are going to discredit Historicism because its proponents carried the graveclothes of Papal Romanism, Futurists likewise should also discredit Futurism because its so called “proponents” carried the graveclothes of Roman Paganism, Greek Philosophy, Hellenistic Judaism, and Extra-Biblical ideologies. Can one honestly say that to this extent early Protestantism was tainted with such nonsense? It becomes ever so apparent that discrediting Historicism on this premise becomes nothing more than a frivolous charge, and is not based on sound and logical inquiry. How irresponsible it is for modern-day Protestants to take the very platform of Historicism by which our Protestant faith was built on, and for which the saints died for, and completely destroy it in favor for a Jesuit scheme! It is bordering on insanity. If we do this, we cannot truly be defined as “Protestant” by any sense of the word. Rather, we are falling helplessly into the snare of Rome. More than that, prophecy foretells that the Protestant daughters of Rome WILL one day succumb to her ecclesiastical authority, and through the United States give all their power to the first beast before it. The theological elements of Dispensationalism are the very seed to make this union possible. More than this, it is the very theological backbone behind modern ecumenism and Zionism.

I will make this point clear: the Protestants during the Reformation (14th-18th centuries) were FAR, and I repeat FAR more spiritual and less tainted with heresies than the early Christian Church and its fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. And the evidence found in the following radio shows will vindicate this fact.

To unravel just how apostate the early Church was in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, listen to these following 3 radio programs which will unmask the nature of the Christian Church in era from what it really was!

The Great Apostasy Series (Radio Program) – by Mike Warren and D.S. Farris – The falling away of the early Christian Church and the rise of the Man of Sin

(Note: In order to ensure these audio files to stream properly, make sure you have either the latest version of Windows Media Player or iTunes installed as your default media player. If they work fine with another default player, then that is fine.)

1. – The Great Apostasy – Part 1 (Audio)

2. – The Great Apostasy – Part 2 (Audio)

3. – The Great Apostasy – Part 3 (Audio)