Chiliasm Defended, From Sources Ancient And Modern (Chapter 6)

Chapter VI.

  Having already written so much preliminary matter, in which we have attempted to show, as clearly as possible, that Christ’s coming will be pre-millennial, and that the kingdom will be inaugurated at His return, it remains for us to devote at least one chapter to the subject of ecclesiology.  For greater reason why some men reject the doctrines of Chiliasm, is that they are not fully grounded in truths relating to the Christian church.  Whether this church is visible, invisible, or both; whether it is in the world to reign, or to bear testimony prior to that reign; whether it is a continuation of the Jewish church, or something entirely new; and many like questions, have beset us so often in our conversations with others, that we feel it incumbent upon ourselves to outline what we believe to be the correct notions regarding ecclesiology.

  It will already be understood, by those who have read the previous chapters of this work, that we date the church, in both its visible and invisible forms, from the resurrection of Christ, and no sooner.  Repeating this position now will render unecessary explanations that might make this book unreasonably prolix.  We prefer, rather, to back our assertions in a manner which may be called illustrative; for instead of erecting a mass of argumentation which could be easily brushed down by one skilled in debate, we shall proceed to “compare spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2: 13); and fix our proofs upon such a foundation as will render the superstructure impregnable to the assaults of the natural man..

Listening To 2,000 Years Of Christian Teaching

    I was recently contacted by Joe Heschmeyer, co-author of the “Shameless Popery” blog, who posted a counter-response to my rebuttal of his contention that in order to accept the historical argument consistently, one must embrace Roman Catholicism.  Joe’s post is entitled “Listening To The Church Fathers,” and is actually a pretty solid defense of the Roman Catholic position.  In fairness, I have to tip my hat to Heschmeyer, because he is a first-class debater  —  much better than myself.  But despite his rhetorical excellence, he is lacking the true perspective..

Brief Response To A Papist

During the last couple days, there has been a heated debate at this blog concerning whether the fundamental truths of Christianity may or may not be found preserved in the history of Christendom.  Yesterday, a Roman Catholic named Joe Heschmeyer commented on my post entitled “The Fallibility Gradient,” alleging that in order to use the historical argument consistently, one must become a Catholic.  Being a staunch Protestant, I rejected such a notion, affirming that historicity in no wise requires one to join the Roman church.  Since Heschmeyer made his response to my position the subject of a blog post entitled ‘Proving Too Much, Part 2,’ I have written a counter-response, which is given below.  Needless to say, this is classic apologetics, and just the kind of stuff I enjoy.