I read this book by Michael Svigel, “The Fathers On The Future.” Svigel teaches graduate and doctrinal courses in both systematic theology and church history at Dallas Theological Seminary.

This book sets forth that many of the early church fathers (2^nd and 3^rd Centuries) held to a futurist view of eschatology (last things). “Futurist” meaning that certain prophecies that many would say were fulfilled in the past (particularly in AD70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the Romans) are yet unfulfilled, being prophecies that relate to the time of the end just before Christ's return (the “Second Coming”) and the 1000 year kingdom (the “Millennium”) that follows. Particular focus is on the writings of Irenaeus of the 2^nd Century.

The futurist view of the Millennium is called “Pre-Millennialism” because it says that Christ comes back before the Millennium. Other views believe the Millennium comes before Christ returns, either literally as a 1000 years of the Church reigning on earth or in a spiritual sense in the Church for an indefinite period of time; these views are called “post-Millennial” or “A-Millennial.”

Those who were Pre-Millennial... in the 2^nd century, were, Papias Hierapolis (Asia), Justin Martyr (Italy), Apollinaris (Asia), Irenaeus of Lyons (Gaul); aand in the 3^rd century, were, Tertullian (Africa), Hippolytus (Italy), Commodianus (Africa), Victorinus (Pettau), and Nepos (Egypt).

One thing I found interesting is that Svigel believes, as I do, that being created in the image of God, as mankind was, means mankind was given dominion over the earth. During the Millennium, man will again be exercising that dominion in restoring the earth—there will be a gradual restoration of all things, beginning with that Kingdom.

Svigel points out that when Jesus spent time with the disciples after his resurrection, he spoke “to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:1-8), and before his ascension into heaven, they asked Jesus if the kingdom would at that time be restored to Israel. This reveals that he did not teach against such an idea, and Jesus did not deny such an idea, only that the timing of it was not for them to know.

Irenaeus wrote: “Then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father...Bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom...and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'” Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 5.30.4

Irenaeus' writes about the Antichrist reigning for 3 years and 6 months and sitting in the temple at Jerusalem. This is definitely a futurist view, because non-futurists see these things as have happening before Irenaeus' time, except for historicists who believe the Antichrist is the office of the pope, and the temple is the church.

Irenaeus seems to say some contradictory things about the Church in relationship to the persecutions/ tribulation of the time of the Antichrist. Svigel tries to explain it to support his view that the Church will be “raptured” out (the Latin word for “caught up” 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Greek is “harpazo”) from the earth before that tribulation period begins. Svigel also suggests that the male child “caught up (“harpazo”) to God” in Revelation 12:5 is not just about Christ, but the rapture of the church before the tribulation--using that term to speak of the last 7 years (Daniel 9:27: the “70^th Week of Daniel”) before Christ returns, and not just the second half of the 7 years, which is the “great tribulation” when the Antichrist does his thing.

I'm sure a lot of what I just wrote lost a lot of people—its for those who have “ears to hear.” Anyway, Svigel's book will be of interest to a limit audience, being for those interested in prophecy and what some of the earliest Church fathers believed about the end times. And you will get some of Svigel's views about those end time events.

fear of ostracism

 The fear of ostracism can result in not speaking the truth.

The fear of losing one's status or being labeled will cause people to say nothing or to go along with a lie.

Speaking the truth requires bravery. But why be brave?

Because it's the right thing to do? Yes.

But why is it the right thing to do?

What's at stake? Conscience? Integrity? Accountability? The truth?

“... even among the rulers many believed in Him [Jesus],

but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him,

lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

for they loved the praise of men

more than the praise of God.” John 12:42-43

“But the Jews did not believe concerning him,

that he had been blind and received his sight,

until they called the parents of him who had received his sight.

And they asked them, saying,

'Is this your son, who you say was born blind?

How then does he now see?'

His parents answered them and said,

'We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;

but by what means he now sees we do not know,

or who opened his eyes we do not know.

He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.'

His parents said these things because they feared the Jews,

for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed

that He was Christ,

he would be put out of the synagogue.

Therefore his parents said, 'He is of age; ask him.'" John 9:18-23

Armor of God

The Apostle Paul speaks of putting on the "whole armor of God" to stand against the cunning ways of Satan. 

Paul uses the analogy of a heavily armed infantry soldier of Rome for the believer's preparedness for spiritual conflict.

“10  Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.  11  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly [places].  13  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”   Ephesians 6.10-13

This “armor” is so the believer can “withstand” and “stand.”

I believe the armor is more defensive than offensive. 

Spiritually speaking, the withstanding would be to not give into temptation, while to stand would be to hold your position: stand firm in the truth and trust in God.

The evil day would be any day when evil comes, whether temptation to sin or being challenged in one's faith through some difficulty. 

I believe the “devil” works where he can have the greatest and broadest impact in opposing the purposes of God.  He wants believers to fail, so that they are ineffective.

“14  Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,  15  and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  16  above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.  17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”   Ephesians 6.14-17

This armor analogy begins with having the waist "girded" (like with a belt) with truth, and since the word of God is connected with the "sword," I tend to think this is that character of one who speaks the truth.    Paul said to put away lying in Ephesians 4.25: “Therefore, putting away lying, Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.”

The breastplate protected the vital organs, such as the heart. I think the "breastplate of righteousness" portrays  personal righteousness instead of justification.  In addition to being truthful, moral character is essential.  I believe the devil will defeat you, if you are continuing in immorality.  This isn't about being sinlessly perfect, but the believer is not to continue in a sin, less his heart condemn him and render him powerless. Paul wrote: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts."   Romans 13:12-14   Paul uses "breastplate" elsewhere which speaks of certain qualities one is to put on: "You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober.  For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night.  But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation." 1 Thessalonians 5:5-8  

Paul speaks of having the feet covered with the "preparation of the gospel of peace."
One commentary said that Roman Soldiers wore hobnailed sandals that allowed them firm footing in combat. In reference to standing in the evil day, believers need to have a firm grip on the truth of the gospel and always be ready with its presentation and to keep it foremost in a spiritual conflict. 

The "shield of faith" is to protect the believer from another attempt by the devil to defeat them.  The faith here is trusting God in difficulties in which the devil throws everything at you to get you to question God.  How many believers in difficult times question God and become angry at Him.  In difficult and uncertain times, “the just shall live by faith”--as it says in Habakkuk 2:4.

The "helmet" protected the head.  I think this "helmet of salvation" is the understanding of salvation, past, present, and future.  Believers are saved from the penalty of sin, but deliverance from the experience of sin is only potential in this life, depending on your walk, but the believer will be finally removed from the experience of sin in the resurrection.  Understanding this will protect from Satan's attempt to deceive about salvation.

The sword is both an offensive and defensive weapon.  Here the sword is said to be "of the Spirit" being the "word of God."  The word of God is used by the Spirit to transform and edify the believer.  In the battle to stand and withstand, we can think of how Christ stood on the truth of the word of God in withstanding the temptations of Satan.

“18  praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints--  19  and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,  20  for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”  Ephesians 6.18-20

Paul sets forth the importance of prayer.  He doesn't give it any armor analogy, but it is definitely part of weaponry in spiritual warfare. Requests need to be according to God's will, not only for us but for other believers. Paul asks the Ephesians for prayer support that he would speak appropriately and boldly according to the ministry for which he has been chosen.

Svigel, Irenaeus and Pretrib

 

I recently read Michael Svigel's book "The Fathers on the Future" which shows that several early church Fathers were futurists, and especially Irenaeus. 

Svigel discusses a statement by Irenaeus that he believes supports a pre-70th week rapture (Svigel is a pre-70th week rapturist, that is "pretrib"). 

“When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” (Against Heresies V, 29, 1)

The statement by Irenaeus seems unclear and maybe contradictory because elsewhere Irenaeus speaks of Christians on earth during the tribulation (pretribs usually identify the whole 70th Week as "the tribulation"), but Svigel seeks to explain this as Irenaeus believed faithful Christians (those "truly" saved) will be caught up before the tribulation, while the unfaithful (professing Christians that are not really saved) are left behind to face the antichrist.

“And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings… And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” (Against Heresies V, 26, 1)

“…so that when this man comes WE may avoid him, being aware who he is.” (Against Heresies V, 30, 3–4)

“…the resurrection of the just… takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.” (Against Heresies V, 35, 1)

From   "Search Assist"

• Caught Up Statement: Irenaeus wrote, “When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’” This statement is frequently referenced by proponents of the pretribulation rapture.

• Context of Tribulation: Despite the above statement, Irenaeus also indicated that the Church would face persecution during the tribulation. He described the tribulation as “the last contest of the righteous,” suggesting that believers would endure trials before being rewarded.



While some interpret Irenaeus' writings as evidence for a pretribulational rapture, a closer examination reveals that he did not have a clearly defined rapture theology. His belief that the Church would face tribulation before being caught up aligns more closely with a post-tribulation perspective.

From joelstrumpet.com:

Few debates in eschatology today are as heated as the question of whether the early church fathers taught a pretribulational rapture. In recent years, teachers such as Lee Brainard and Mike Golay have made the audacious claim that Irenaeus, one of the most significant second-century fathers, supported a pretribulational view. Does the evidence support this? 

 The answer is clear: no. Both the academic consensus and Irenaeus’ own words demonstrate that he expected the church to face the Antichrist and the tribulation before being gathered to Christ. Attempts to portray him as pretribulational are either careless or deliberately misleading.

Scholars across the spectrum—whether premillennial, amillennial, or dispensational, agree that the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, did not teach a pretribulational rapture.

  “The Church Fathers believed that the Church would be on earth during the tribulation period. This is seen in the earliest writers and there is nothing in the other writers to contradict this.” —Charles August Hauser, Jr., The Eschatology of the Early Church Fathers

 “…the early fathers largely held to a period of persecution that would be ongoing when the return of the Lord takes place and most would see the church suffering through some portion of the tribulation period.” —James Stitzinger, The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation

 “The preponderance of evidence seems to support the concept that the early church did not clearly hold to a rapture as preceding the endtime tribulation period…. the early church fathers … should be classified as posttribulational.” —John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation

 “One of [the early Church’s] distinctive features is that it places the Rapture of the Church at the end of the Tribulation, combining it with the Second Coming as one event.” —David Reagan, Wrath and Glory

Even dispensationalist historian and director of the Pretribulational Research Center, Dr. Tommy Ice concedes: “When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus’ writings, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism.”

Richardson writes:

Svigel suggests that Irenaeus may have envisioned something like a “partial pretribulation rapture.” 

 He argues that when Irenaeus speaks of the Church being “suddenly caught up” (Against Heresies 5.29.1), he may have meant that the truly “spiritual” Christians, those living faithfully like Enoch and Elijah, would be taken before the tribulation. 

Meanwhile, the “carnal” or “unprepared” Christians would remain and endure the persecutions of Antichrist, being purified through that ordeal. 

Svigel grounds this reading in Irenaeus’ pre-Augustinian soteriology (salvation as a process) and in parallels with the Shepherd of Hermas, which also depicts some escaping tribulation while others are tested. In this way, Svigel tries to reconcile Irenaeus’ seemingly contradictory statements: one passage possibly suggesting the Church being caught up before the tribulation, and another showing the Church facing Antichrist, and yet another showing survivors entering the kingdom.

While Svigel’s approach... still strains against the plain reading of Irenaeus’ words, as we summarized above. 

Again, briefly: 

 1. Irenaeus makes multiple explicit Post-Trib statements: 

 • He says the resurrection of the just occurs after the Antichrist (5.35.1). Since Paul unites resurrection and rapture (1 Thess 4:16–17), this is decisively post-trib. 

 • He warns believers to recognize the Antichrist (5.30.3–4). This only makes sense if they are present during his rise. 

 • He states that the Antichrist will “put the Church to flight” (5.26.1), which contradicts any safe removal beforehand. 

 2. One can also argue that even the “Caught Up” passage itself (5.29.1) points to a post tribulational scenario. Irenaeus explicitly connects the Church’s assumption with “the last contest of the righteous”—a climactic trial to be endured, not an escape to be avoided. 

 3. The “partial rapture” theory, proposed as a solution, while interesting and possible, is not actually found in Irenaeus’ words. Irenaeus doesn’t divide believers into two classes with separate destinies. 

 4. Scholarly consensus remains to view Irenaeus as postribulational. Even Svigel concedes that Irenaeus cannot be straightforwardly claimed for pretribulationism. At most, he sees ambiguity. The broader scholarly consensus, from Hauser, Stitzinger, Walvoord, and Ice, still classifies Irenaeus as post-trib. 

To suggest that Irenaeus contradicted himself, teaching both pretrib and posttrib in different passages, makes him incoherent. A far better solution is to take him at his word: 

 • The Church will face the Antichrist. 

 • Believers must be prepared to recognize him.

 • The resurrection and rapture occur after his destruction. 

 • The gathering of the Church is one climactic event at Christ’s return. 

This interpretation is consistent across his writings and with the broader early church tradition.

Did John write

 

A man on Facebook recently said to me that “we do not know who wrote the Gospel of John.” I didn't ask him who “we” were. I figured he meant that nobody knows.

His point was that if we can't confirm the historical accuracy of the writing, since we don't even know who the author was, then we can't confirm the words in it attributed to Christ.

I was showing from the Gospel of John that Jesus said things that were in agreement with the Apostle Paul.

There are these claims out there that the Apostle Paul and Jesus are not in agreement.

There is the claim that Jesus and Paul differed on what the terms of salvation/ eternal life are.

I showed that both Jesus (from the Gospel of John) and Paul said that eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ.

But that got shot down because “we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John”--so the man claimed.

I said to him that we know that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple who leaned on Jesus' breast during the last Passover the disciples had with Jesus right before His crucifixion.

The man said that that was not true.

So I quoted the Gospel of John to him:

“²⁰ Then Peter, turning around,

saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following,

who also had leaned on His breast at the supper,

and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

²¹ Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, 'But Lord, what about this man?'

²² Jesus said to him, 'If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.'

²³ Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, 'If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?'

²⁴ This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.”

John 21:20-24

I did not hear again from that man.

It is interesting that one of the oldest manuscript fragments of the New Testament is of the Gospel of John, dating to the early 2^nd Century, possibly even AD 100. It was found in Egypt. The Apostle is believed to have lived into his 90's, dying of old age and not martyrdom like the other Apostles.

What must I do

THE QUESTION:

What must I do to be saved?

THE ANSWER:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

Acts 16:31

The word saved (or salvation) is used with the understanding that one is not right with God and needs deliverance from the resulting consequence (to be identified later).

The word saved simply speaks of “deliverance.”

The question is seeking the answer (or solution) to one's present situation of not being right with God and the consequence.

The answer is that one is saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for that deliverance.
Sin is why one is not right with God and faces the consequence.

The issue with sin is that it is a violation of God’s nature and moral law.

Everyone is guilty of sin: For all have sinned.... Romans 3:23

Sin is subject to consequence or penalty.

The penalty is also called death: The wages of sin is death.

Romans 6:23

The wages of sin is the penalty of sin, being death.

Death means one is separated from God, and if this is not corrected, it continues forever.

Salvation can also be understood as the forgiveness of sins.

To Him all the prophets witness that, through His [Jesus'] name, whoever believes in Him [Jesus] will receive forgiveness of sins.  Acts 10:43

Forgiveness of sins speaks of being released from the penalty of sin being death.

This release is salvation.

This forgiveness is according to God’s word and promise.

This forgiveness is offered through Jesus because He died for those sins as the substitute for everyone.

This forgiveness through Jesus has the witness of all the prophets.

The death that Jesus died on the cross was to bear the penalty (wages) of sin.

Who Himself [Jesus] bore our sins in His own body on the tree [the cross]. 1 Peter 2:24

This death of Jesus was how God so loved the world.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

It is because of the death of Jesus for our sins that we can be forgiven and be delivered from death, resulting in everlasting life.

Everlasting life is salvation, because the alternative is to perish, which is death.

That death is ultimately being assigned to that place called Hell, apart from God, forever.

Jesus said, do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10.28

Hell is destruction of body and soul apart from God, while everlasting life is life with God forever.

Why must it be this way?

It is because God created man with a free will. Man in his free will sinned against God, and the result was separation from God. This separation is death.

Yet God made provision for this through the death of Jesus for our sins who Himself did not sin:

God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. 2 Corinthians 5:21

This forgiveness and life comes through believing in Jesus who was made sin for us.

Consider that we did not choose our parents, and yet our parents usually love us and want a relationship with us, and us with them.

The situation is similar with God.

Most people want to enjoy life and have meaningful relationships.

These things are fulfilled by God through that salvation which is through believing or trusting in Jesus for that salvation.

This life and salvation is the possession of those who believe in Jesus for it:

That whoever believes in Him [Jesus] should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:15

This answers the question as to how to be saved.

Inordinate desire

 I see the sin nature as an inclination we all have of inordinate desire. By inordinate desire, I mean desire outside the moral will of God. That inordinate desire could be stronger in certain areas, differing from person to person. Maybe one has more of inclination to steal or lie or lose their temper. The evidence of the inordinate desire is brought out by God’s moral law when we try to keep the law, as Paul talks about in Romans 7, when he discovered the inability of the law to keep him from coveting, because of a “law” that “evil” was present within him. So why couldn’t homosexual attraction be that inordinate desire that is unique in a person like lying or stealing in another? In my youth, I had this inclination to steal. I knew it was wrong, but I chose to give into that drawing to do so. Does an inordinate desire have to hurt someone to be a sin—as some will claim? Covetousness doesn’t really hurt anyone, but it is still sin, and I believe it is equated with idolatry. We all can have a tendency towards covetousness. Anyway, it has been my understanding of the sin nature that it is inordinate desire within us, being a desire outside the moral will of God, and it can be stronger in some areas than others depending on the person.