Thanks SG, I really appreciate this. I agree that many use the teachings of the ECF with a biased eschatology in attempt to show "look the ECFs do agree with [insert eschatological view]".
Looking back on your post #143 with the list of 12 Amils, would you be able to provide any writings from them where they comment on the millenium or revelation 20 or even condemn chiliasm?
I agree that as time went on, the ECFs became more vocal in their condemnation of Chiliasm, but I am having a hard time finding this in the earlier Church fathers, specifically the list of 12 that you provided.
thanks again SG.
As you explore the developing theological rivalry between ancient Chiliasm and ancient Amillennialism over the 400 years after the cross you see that the main charge from ancient Chiliasts toward ancient Amillennialists was that they were siding with Gnostic heresy, while the charge from ancient Amillennialists in the opposite direction was that ancient Chiliasts was siding with apostate Judaism.
Chiliasts Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian all acknowledged that there were many genuine established orthodox advocates who rejected the Chiliast viewpoint. Irenaeus testifies:
"Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere Deum)" (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32)
Basically, these notable orthodox opponents rejected the Chiliast blueprint concerning the gradation of believers after death. This involved the idea of a purgatory-style intermediate state in Hades before the second coming and then the idea of another purgatory-style age in between “this age” (time) and “the age to come” (eternity). It also involved a stripping that supposedly equipped the saints to partake of the divine nature.” These early Amillennialists also never accepted the existence of and the gradual improvement of the resurrected saints on a future millennial earth. They rather held that glorification perfected the people of God for all eternity when Jesus comes.
We should not overlook the fact that Irenaeus saw “the resurrection of the just” ushering in “the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption.” This is notable because Irenaeus later places the judgment of believers after the completion of his future millennium. This phrase “the commencement of incorruption” intimated that the saints still had training to undergo in a future millennium before they were prepared for the eternal state.
Irenaeus attacked the Amillennialists who believed that the dead in Christ ascended immediately into the presence of God after their departure from this life. He censured those who opposed his belief that the righteous dead went direct to Hades to be tested upon death to await the second coming. He likened their views to those of the heretics:
"Since …
some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, despising the handiwork of God, and not admitting the salvation of their flesh, while they also treat the promise of God contemptuously, and pass beyond God altogether in the sentiments they form, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned.
Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man (universam reprobant resurrectionem), and as far as in them lies remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme], how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection?" (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:1).
Irenaeus wasn’t suggesting that the orthodox Amillennial advocates in any way rejected the physical resurrection when Jesus comes, after all, to believe such would immediately nullify their orthodox credentials; it would also invalidate the distinction and comparison between the mainstream and the heretics. It would place them far outside the pale of orthodoxy. He simply disagreed with them dividing up the ascent of the inward man and the physical man in the whole process. He believed that soul and spirit would not be perfected until the physical is at the second advent. In his reasoning, he is out of step with most sound Premillennialists today of whatever shade.
Basically, Irenaeus rebuked his opponents for (1) rejecting “the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just” – which he held to involve an intermediate state in Hades, and a millennial kingdom in-between the second coming and the new heavens and new earth. Also, he challenged (2) their “ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption,” essentially their denial of a two-tier method of refining the elect after death in Hades and in a future millennial kingdom, preparing them for eternity.
Fellow Chiliast Justin also acknowledged that there were many sincere brethren among the orthodox who rejected this theology. Justin asked Trypho (his Jewish opponent):
"Tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?" I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware;
but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (Dialogue with Trypho: Chapter 80).
Justin admits that there were many sincere non-millennialist believers in his day. But like Irenaeus, he tried to discredit his opponent’s theology by partially linking their beliefs to the heretical Gnostics. The only apparent difference between Justin and Irenaeus’ teaching seems to be that Justin advanced nothing in regard to the just being “disciplined beforehand for incorruption.” That in itself does not prove that he didn’t believe such. He definitely held to the general format Irenaeus taught. He argued:
"I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist, Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him" (Dialogue with Trypho: Chapter 80).
While Justin’s disagreement with those Amillennial brethren “who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians” was focused on the destiny of God’s people after death, and the state and duration of the earth after Christ’s return, Justin like Irenaeus outlined his full opposition to the Gnostics, and their belief that “there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven.” Again, there is no suggestion that his opposition to his non-Chiliast brethren was based on their denial of a future physical resurrection but rather that they shared an opposition to the intermediate state of the elect being in Hades and a future age in between this age and the eternal state.
Tertullian agrees with the general theology of the previous Chiliast writers and also shares their concern of fellow believers rejecting the idea of the immediately movement of the souls of dead believers to stay in Hades. He explains:
"Although Christ is God, yet, being also man, He died according to the Scriptures, and according to the same Scriptures was buried. With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (This being the case), you must suppose
Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm's length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions. These persons, who are servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master, would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham's bosom" (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 55).
Tertullian is clearly frustrated by his fellow orthodox brethren who do not see the elect populating Hades since the cross. While opposing the non-Chiliast position, Tertullian still recognizes these adversaries as “servants” of “their Lord,” “the faithful” and “disciples” of “their Master.” Tertullian then outlines the theology of these orthodox teachers, which we will see is nothing more than classic mainstream dogma within Christendom today. This shows us that early Chiliasm is a completely different animal to that of modern Premillennialism.
Irenaeus also supports his position by alluding to our Lord’s journey after death:
"For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master. As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege]" (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:2).
Support for the idea that the righteous will temporarily stay in Abraham’s bosom is taken from Christ’s journey after death. The writer contends that because Christ had to travel this journey after death then so should His followers. Irenaeus claims the Lord’s disciples followed the exact same pre-arranged path as their Lord.
Tertullian mocks a heavenly intermediate state, attributing such a belief to the pagans, in The Apology, Chapter XLVII:
"And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure, the Elysian plains have taken possession of their faith. Whence is it, I pray you have all this, so like us, in the poets and philosophers?"
We should not overlook that early Premillennialists considered “Paradise” as “the place of heavenly bliss.” Hades (Abraham’s bosom) was not such a place. They believed that the New Jerusalem with descend from the heavenly abode when Christ comes to set up His millennial kingdom. It is only then that the souls of the righteous dead would experience final bliss. Elsewhere he confronts the Amillennialist position:
"But it was for this purpose,
say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend there. Well, then, what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead?" (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 55).
The whole thrust of Tertullian’s argument revolves around the fact that a heavenly intermediate state should be rejected because the Gnostics poets and philosophers believed such. This is certainly weak reasoning. The belief attributed to the early Amillennialists is certainly a solid orthodox statement of faith and one that would be broadly held by most Bible believing Christians in our day – regardless of their eschatological perspective.
Tertullian responds to his Amillennial opponents, refuting the idea of a heavenly paradise upon death:
"How, indeed, shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father's right hand, when as yet the archangel’s trumpet has not been heard by the command of God, — when as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming, in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise?
To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened. Shall we then have to sleep high up in ether, with the boy-loving worthies of Plato; or in the air with Arius; or around the moon with the Endymions of the Stoics?
No, but in Paradise, you tell me, whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades in the retinue of the Lord's resurrection. How is it, then, that the region of Paradise, which as revealed to John in the Spirit lay under the altar, displays no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs?"
He adds:
"How is it that the most heroic martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam? A new death for God, even the extraordinary one for Christ, is admitted into the reception-room of mortality, specially altered and adapted to receive the new-comer. Observe, then, the difference between a heathen and a Christian in their death: if you have to lay down your life for God, as the Comforter counsels, it is not in gentle fevers and on soft beds, but in the sharp pains of martyrdom: you must take up the cross and bear it after your Master, as He has Himself instructed you. The sole key to unlock Paradise is your own life's blood."
Tertullian is relentless in his pursuit of the early orthodox Amillenialists. The time and passion that he and other Chiliasts put into refuting their brethren is testimony to the popularity of the opposing view among the early Church. Plainly, Amillenialism was a definite threat to the influence of Chiliasm. In fact, outside of their refutation of the heretics, there was nothing that was stronger challenged. This was an evidently a thorn in their side.
From the many censures that the main early Chiliast writers presented, it is safe to say there was a strong movement of non-Chiliasts who held to a different view on the intermediate state and the impending new earth. But their biggest concern did not seem to be their view of the millennial earth but rather their conviction that the spirit of the deceased elect rises to be with immediately with Christ at the moment of death.
Finally, in another place, Tertullian refutes the idea that mediums have the ability to call up spirits from Hades. He argues:
God forbid, however, that we should suppose that the soul of any saint, much less of a prophet, can be dragged out of (its resting-place in Hades) by a demon … the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul, has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment. No one, (he said,) could possibly be despatched from those abodes to report to us how matters went in the nether regions,—a purpose which, (if any could be,) might have been allowable on such an occasion, to persuade a belief in Moses and the prophets (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter LVII)
