• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Amillenial Baptists?

Codger

Regular Member
Oct 23, 2003
1,066
144
83
N. E. Ohio
✟1,926.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You can see a quick outline of the three major positions here : http://www.christianforums.com/t7499901/

I've recently accepted or admitted the Amillennialism. It was a difficult journey considering the stigma many Baptists attach to the Amil position but I had been moving in toward Amil since I shed Dispensationalism.

A quote below from : Fide-O Blog

Dr. John Walvoord, a dispensational premillennialist, admitted, “Reformed eschatology has been predominantly amillennial. Most if not all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were amillennial in their eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine.” (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-Mar., 1951)

Just to name a few Amillenarians and a couple of the many like-minded Postmillers:

Jay Adams
Oswald Allis
Augustine of Hippo
Richard Barcellos
Herman Bavinck
G. K. Beale
Louis Berkhof
G. C. Berkouwer
James P. Boyce
John Calvin
B. H. Carroll
Everett I Carver
Adam Clark
William Cox
John L. Dagg
Mark Dever
J. Ligon Duncan III
David Engelsma
Eusebius of Caesarea
Sinclair Ferguson
John Frame
Richard Gaffin, Jr.
William Grier
Henry Halley
Floyd Hamilton
Hank Hanegraaff
William Hendriksen
Charles Hill
Herschel Hobbs
Anthony Hoekema
Michael Horton
Lee Irons
Dennis Johnson
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Tim Keller
Simon Kistemaker
Meredith Kline
Abraham Kuyper
Martin Luther
C. J. Mahaney
William Masselink
Phillip Mauro
Edward McDowell
Melancthon
Leon Morris
Edgar Mullins
George L. Murray
Iain Murray
John Murray
J. I. Packer
Albertus Pieters
A. W. Pink
Vern S. Poythress
Richard Pratt
Robert S. Rayburn
Herman Ridderbos
Kim Riddlebarger
Jason E. Robertson
O. Palmer Robertson
William Rutgers
L. R. Shelton
Sam Storms
Robert Strimple
Augustus H. Strong
Ray Summers
Cornelius Van Til
Cornelis Venema
Geerhardus Vos
Samuel Waldron
Bruce Waltke
B. B. Warfield
James White
Knox White
Martin Wyngaarden
E. J. Young
Huldrych Zwingli

Council of Ephesus, 431
Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva, 1848
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647
The London Baptist Confession, 1689
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, 1833
Confession of the Free-Will Baptist, 1834
The Augsburg Confession

Finally, after all these years - a brother with the same experience as me - you are a rare breed. I notice that you are a "Book Worm," that's what it takes to get away from the false doctrine of Futurism (Dispensationalism.) Also friends with Nilloc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I just finished "What does the Future Hold?" by Progressive Dispensationalist C. Marvin Pate.

He states over and over how Premillennialists have inherited their hermeneutics from Judaism.

Judaism is a false religion. At the first coming Christ rebuked them for their faulty hermeneutic.

jm
 
Upvote 0

MrJim

Legend 3/17/05
Mar 17, 2005
16,491
1,369
FEMA Region III
✟50,122.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just finished "What does the Future Hold?" by Progressive Dispensationalist C. Marvin Pate.

He states over and over how Premillennialists have inherited their hermeneutics from Judaism.

Judaism is a false religion. At the first coming Christ rebuked them for their faulty hermeneutic.

jm

Yeah, though it would seem with some that being a Jew is almost as good as being a Christian, like there are two paths of salvation.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟25,389.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just finished "What does the Future Hold?" by Progressive Dispensationalist C. Marvin Pate.

He states over and over how Premillennialists have inherited their hermeneutics from Judaism.

Judaism is a false religion. At the first coming Christ rebuked them for their faulty hermeneutic.

jm

Yeah, though it would seem with some that being a Jew is almost as good as being a Christian, like there are two paths of salvation.


The true never dies!

Let me see if I have this right: because Progressive Dispensationalists believe that "Premillennialists have inherited their hermeneutics from Judaism," it is a credible statement?

Did the book read also speak of their belief that "Michael" is the Lord Jesus Christ? Is that also credible?

In this thread it seems that there are some amillennial believers here, to which I would ask a few questions:

Why is it that those that embrace a pre-tribulational view are accused of embracing "new theology" while amillennialism is immune from the same charge? Is it not held that the pre-millennial view was found first in the Church and not until the fourth century that amillennialism became popular?

Also, could you tell me how a thousand years is not a thousand years?

I would also ask how it is that if the Lord taught...

Matthew 24:21

King James Version (KJV)


21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.



...and we saw tribulation in the 20th century far exceed that of the first, does it not stand to reason that something worse than both those times can be expected?

Lastly, Consider:

Revelation 17

King James Version (KJV)


1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

Four aspects in this vision I think to be relevant to the conversation: the woman; the beast; seven heads; ten horns.

The best commentary on scripture is always going to be scripture.

It is just my view that the "woman" represents false religious systems which have plagued the earth since Cain, who chose his own way to sacrifice rather than that prescribed by God. "Harlotry" is often the term given to idolatry, and represents the unfaithful to God.This harlot will sonn be destroyed (vv.15-16).

Consider:


7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


The Angel says, "I will tell thee the mystery," so, we simply listen to the mystery explained.

The "beast" John sees was, and is not, shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition. Again it is just my view that we see in this beast Satan, Antichrist, and the kingdom which is in view in the Tribulation.


9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.


Remember, "the beast has seven heads and ten horns." The seven heads are said to be mountains and there are seven kings. Five are fallen (no more), one is (currently existing, the likely candidate Rome, who was in power at this time), and the other is not yet come (the last king who I believe is Antichrist). The last king's reign is said here to be short.

Now, how about the seven mountains?

Consider:

Egypt

Assyria

Babylon

Medo-Persia

Greece

Rome


Those in black have fallen (five have fallen), and Rome in red was in existance at the time of this writing (one is), and the one that "has not yet come and will have a short reign" is the last kingdom and king.

How can It be said, when Rome did not cease until several centuries later, that this is fulfilled in the first century?


11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.


The beast, the power behind every empire the world has seen (Satan), as well as his figurehead, the Antichrist, is said to be the "eighth," speaks, I believe, of the twofold power of Antichrist. Antichrist will arrive on the scene as a great bringer of peace. Acording to Daniel, he will break a covenant in the middle of a seven year period:


Daniel 9:27

King James Version (KJV)


27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Having done this, he will then...


2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

King James Version (KJV)


3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


I believe this is the "abomination which makes desolate."



11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.


In other words, a kingdom will arise, and those given strong delusion will buy into this king and kingdom, just as we see people being primed today for a "New World Order." Many in the world are seeking to unite the earth as one community. Sounds great, but there are only two peoples upon the face of the earth, The People of God, and the children of the Devil. This ruler will be similar to Obama: loved worldwide, expected to bring peace, a political virtuoso, so to speak. I believe he will bring a pseudo peace in the middle east for the space of 3 1/2 years. I believe there will be a Temple built in Jerusalem during this time. It is not necessary that the Temple be finished (though with modern technology this could be accomplished) for the Jews to worship there.

While I assume that most amillennial consider the prophecy to have been fulfilled in time past, Christ used the very same terminology and prophecy to foretell events of the Tribulation:


Matthew 24:14-21

King James Version (KJV)


14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.



And while I do believe that a partial fulfillment can be seen in ancient times, both in Antichus Epiphanes as well as even having application in the first century, we see in this passage that Christ gave a future application to the Abomination which makes desolate.

When Revelation was written, regardless of whether one believes it to be before AD70 or after, it is said that five kings are fallen, one is, and one is to come. How would you guys reconcile this particular prophecy in your theology?

I ask that if you cannot from scripture answer this, then you show the source of the commentary you find the answer. I would much prefer to speak with an amillennial that can of himself respond to this.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Why do Dispensationalist insistent on using HUGE fonts and bold lettering when they post?

^_^

P1LGR1M,

You are preaching to the choir in this forum. The Baptists here agree with you so relax a little and try not to take it personal if I don't read what you post. If you take your time and study the history of Rapturism you will soon see it was made up in the early 1800's, probably by John Nelson Darby but it could have been one in his circle and disseminated in North America by the Niagara Conferences and the Scofield Reference Bible.

The fairy tale you Darbyites believe just isn't credible...at all.

jm
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟25,389.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do Dispensationalist insistent on using HUGE fonts and bold lettering when they post?

^_^


I cannot speak for dispensationalists but as for my posting I use a standard font size of two for what I say, and three for the scriptures I post. Within the sciptures I embolden and underline the relevant or focal portions for emphasis, and ebboldening makes this more pronounced than italics.

You seem to use a three for everything you post. I have known some guys that do this due to their vision, so I do not take it for granted that one does this because they have inflated opinion of their own words or that they are "yelling."

;)


P1LGR1M,

You are preaching to the choir in this forum. The Baptists here agree with you so relax a little and try not to take it personal if I don't read what you post.


I don't. It is more an exercise to illustrate that amillennials are seldom capable of scripturally backing up their views. This is almost as instructive to bible students and potential bible students as a discussion between opposing views.

Very telling.

We have to question those that seek only to speak to people and are incapable of speaking with people.

Among certain groups it is taboo to read the material that is not sanctioned by their "higher ups." Yet it is needful for us to study scripture, that when we run across doctrine that is questionable we can identify error. And unless we actually talk to those we believe are in error, we will never be confronted with other viewpoints.

But when we do, we should be able to give an answer.

Another aspect, my friend, to discussing opposing views is that just as I do with my own premillennial beliefs, including a Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, is to test even that which I believe. No one is a higher critic of my own views than I am myself. So far I have found the amillennial view to one of the least valid views to hold, as it makes havoc of many passages of scripture. And while the amil may dismiss a conservative literal view of scripture, I have found a greater harmony in God's word in this view.

I have a couple of friends that became amillennial in their view and they have one thing in common: "higher education." What I mean by that is they place an importance on the beliefs of those from centuries ago, "Church Fathers" and Church History. Yet we have a need to study for ourselves, rather than take it for granted that what we are taught is entirely correct.

I would ask of you, JM, if you consider your shift in belief, if you would say it was due to study of God's word, or if it due to study of the study of other men?

If you take your time and study the history of Rapturism you will soon see it was made up in the early 1800's,



I have been studying this for many years, my friend. As I told you in probably the first response to you, my belief spans all of Church History, as Paul taught a pre-trib rapture in the first century.

Would you admit that the Pre-millennial view was initially the more popular view? That it was several centuries before the amillennial view became more popular?

It does not matter, though, because we must all make a decision as to what we believe God's word is teaching.

So I look at it as I stand with the more ancient view, and that amillenialism is the result of many in the Church being disheartened because the Lord did not return as soon as they expected. Paul expected it in his day, yet the Lord did not return. To counter this, I believe the amillennial view was a quick answer to explain why the Lord had not returned yet.

probably by John Nelson Darby but it could have been one in his circle and disseminated in North America by the Niagara Conferences and the Scofield Reference Bible.


One thing is for certain: the "popular view" does not mean it is the correct view. I think if we look at the Church, in reality, even today, that the Body of Christ has always been a minority in the world. Add to that the number of men gifted by God to preserve the once delivered faith, and sound doctrine and the teaching of it has also been in the minority, rather than the huge numbers statistics would have us to believe.

Underlying the amillennial view is a trust in a popular view, which is about as certain for them as the trust in tradition by many faith groups is.

So it is necessary, if we give credence to Luther, in opposition on some very critical points with the "popular view" of his day, for us to examine what we believe and guage itt according to the word of God...not the works of men.

Having been away for about a week, I had only enough time to look at the first link you provided, yet the false charges of that link should be enough for one to question the link. Much of it was a likening to cults and their practice, and I ask you...do you hold pre-trib rapturists as cultish? Is that how you see it?

There is quite a difference between my beliefs and someone like Camping, Joseph Smith, and Charles Taze Russell. I do not date set, or date tease...I simply adhere to the teaching of the imminency of Christ's return. I simply adhere to the teaching of a restored Kingdom of Israel. And I simply take God's word as it is written, rather than cancel it out with my own interpretation compounded by the works of men.

And...I readily admit my potential for error, and constantly challenge my own beliefs in both study as well as dialogue with those that have opposing views. To date, I have found not one amillennial that is will to carry on a detailed conversation.

The fairy tale you Darbyites believe just isn't credible...at all.

jm

You call me a Darbyite, despite the fact I have never once read a single sentence the man has spoken. You call me a dispensationalist, when I myself do not consider myself dispensational. If what I believe corresponds in areas with Dispensationalism, it is no wonder, as there is going to be corresponding issues between many diverse groups. Your link corresponds what pre-trib rapturists believe with Jehovah's Witnesses, which I can tell you as a pre-trib rapturist...no such tie exists.

So that leaves me to consider the likeness of your actions with them: you, like them, want to promote and spread your belief but are unwilling to consider another's. You, like them, want only to disperse your material, but are unwilling to examine other's.

Does that mean your faith is like unto theirs? No. I would not charge you with that. Yet you, like them, are willing to condemn others' beliefs as false and to proclaim your own theology to be correct.

Salvation does not require doctrinal flawlessness, but faith in Christ. Among those that have trusted Christ there are going to be different views. There are going to be varied levels of understanding. And there will be differences concerning both secondary and essential doctrines. Before we get into the habit of condemning and hating others because they do not believe the way we do, we should take the time to get to know the basis of their beliefs.

And it may be that in the course of establishing that relationship, our own view might be tested, and also that God might use us to help another concerning doctrinal matters.

For me, doctrinal discussion has helped me greatly in many areas. It has helped to direct me away from an inward view and to consider those around me. It has helped give me direction which has more emphasis on compassion for the lost, and this through understanding not just what someone believes, but why they believe what they do.

As I said...it is great exercise.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
You may have the time to write protracted posts but I don't. With so many resources readily available to the earnest Bible student I don't see the point of arguing...especially in this forum. Some nice folks were willing to post resources for me in the past which allowed me to take up the study on my own time and I hope to continue being of similar assistance to others.

What is very telling is the inability for some Christians, Darbyites I mean, to read scripture without their Dispensational goggles interfering with the plain meaning of scripture. Sacred and profane history are both witnesses to the veracity of our eschatological positions and the Pre-Trib bail card is found wanting.

The wooden literalism of Dispensationalism, and other isms for that matter, bends scripture to fit its presupposed hermeneutic. This literalistic, forced manner of handling scripture isn't something you can clear up in afew posts on an internet forum, it takes time. It has been my experience, especially dealing with Arminian Dispensationalists, that once entrenched in their view discussion is futile.

I'll continue to post links and articles for my fellow Baptist brethren to read, test their own views against and make up their minds.


jm
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟25,389.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You may have the time to write protracted posts but I don't. With so many resources readily available to the earnest Bible student I don't see the point of arguing...especially in this forum. Some nice folks were willing to post resources for me in the past which allowed me to take up the study on my own time and I hope to continue being of similar assistance to others.

What is very telling is the inability for some Christians, Darbyites I mean, to read scripture without their Dispensational goggles interfering with the plain meaning of scripture. Sacred and profane history are both witnesses to the veracity of our eschatological positions and the Pre-Trib bail card is found wanting.

The wooden literalism of Dispensationalism, and other isms for that matter, bends scripture to fit its presupposed hermeneutic. This literalistic, forced manner of handling scripture isn't something you can clear up in afew posts on an internet forum, it takes time. It has been my experience, especially dealing with Arminian Dispensationalists, that once entrenched in their view discussion is futile.

I'll continue to post links and articles for my fellow Baptist brethren to read, test their own views against and make up their minds.


jm

Fair enough.

If there is one with an amil view that would like to discuss it the invitation is open.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
You can see a quick outline of the three major positions here : http://www.christianforums.com/t7499901/

I've recently accepted or admitted the Amillennialism. It was a difficult journey considering the stigma many Baptists attach to the Amil position but I had been moving in toward Amil since I shed Dispensationalism.

A quote below from : Fide-O Blog

Dr. John Walvoord, a dispensational premillennialist, admitted, “Reformed eschatology has been predominantly amillennial. Most if not all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were amillennial in their eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine.” (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-Mar., 1951)

Just to name a few Amillenarians and a couple of the many like-minded Postmillers:

Jay Adams
Oswald Allis
Augustine of Hippo
Richard Barcellos
Herman Bavinck
G. K. Beale
Louis Berkhof
G. C. Berkouwer
James P. Boyce
John Calvin
B. H. Carroll
Everett I Carver
Adam Clark
William Cox
John L. Dagg
Mark Dever
J. Ligon Duncan III
David Engelsma
Eusebius of Caesarea
Sinclair Ferguson
John Frame
Richard Gaffin, Jr.
William Grier
Henry Halley
Floyd Hamilton
Hank Hanegraaff
William Hendriksen
Charles Hill
Herschel Hobbs
Anthony Hoekema
Michael Horton
Lee Irons
Dennis Johnson
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Tim Keller
Simon Kistemaker
Meredith Kline
Abraham Kuyper
Martin Luther
C. J. Mahaney
William Masselink
Phillip Mauro
Edward McDowell
Melancthon
Leon Morris
Edgar Mullins
George L. Murray
Iain Murray
John Murray
J. I. Packer
Albertus Pieters
A. W. Pink
Vern S. Poythress
Richard Pratt
Robert S. Rayburn
Herman Ridderbos
Kim Riddlebarger
Jason E. Robertson
O. Palmer Robertson
William Rutgers
L. R. Shelton
Sam Storms
Robert Strimple
Augustus H. Strong
Ray Summers
Cornelius Van Til
Cornelis Venema
Geerhardus Vos
Samuel Waldron
Bruce Waltke
B. B. Warfield
James White
Knox White
Martin Wyngaarden
E. J. Young
Huldrych Zwingli

Council of Ephesus, 431
Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva, 1848
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647
The London Baptist Confession, 1689
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, 1833
Confession of the Free-Will Baptist, 1834
The Augsburg Confession

Postmil/Amil...very similar.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
On Kingdom Come by Storms:

"Using a redemptive-historical and grammatical-historical approach, Storms then wades through the most important Bible texts related to eschatology: Daniel’s 70 weeks, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians and the Antichrist, and of course, a volume of passages in Revelation.

While Storms works through these passages as a master exegete, he calmly (and without a divisive spirit I am glad to report!) shows how many of these texts have been misread through the dispensational lens, often without the critical reflection that the texts themselves demand. Storms reveals an absolute mastery of Biblical Greek, and employs this trade in the most intricate details of these Biblical passages." Source: Book Review: Sam Storms, “Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative”

Plenty of myths are repeated about Amil and this book will help sort out issues of hermeneutics.

You can get the first 40 pages for free here: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative Storms Sam 9781781911327
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Can you cite an amil from the first or second century?

Hey brother,

The Apostle Paul.

-----------------------------------

One of the myths that gets repeated often is that Amil was the creation of Roman Catholicism when, in fact, modern Dispensationalism (aka futurism) is.

The pioneers of Dispensationalism admit this. Larkin did in Dispensational Truth! | Feileadh Mor
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Quick quote to get you interested in reading the article:
The hermeneutical question is indeed an important one, but to put the debate in terms of literal against allegorical is overly simplistic. Both sides used literal exegesis and both used allegorical exegesis when they deemed it best. For example, despite Origen’s intentional use of the allegorical method, his essential critique of chiliasm had real theological and traditional motivations. These motivations were not his alone but belonged to large segments of the Church. The early Montanists, it turns out, were not chiliasts and were never criticized for being so.3 Tertullian, who became a Montanist, did not get his chiliasm from them, but from Irenaeus. There is no evidence that chiliasm was hurt by any association with Montanism. By the time Constantine proclaimed Christianity the state religion in the fourth century, a non-chiliastic eschatology was surely the norm in most places, and in many it had been so ever since Christianity had arrived there. Many signs thus tell us that even without the aid of Augustine, chiliasm was probably in its death-throes by the time he wrote the last books of The City of God in a.d. 420[bless and do not curse]26.

So why did the Church reject chiliasm? As with most historical questions, the answers are complex and have social as well as hermeneutical and theological aspects. It would take a long time to compare and evaluate the exegesis of individual biblical passages by a number of given authors. One common criticism, however, can serve as a convenient organizer for what are probably the most important factors in chiliasm’s demise. That common criticism, known from Origen to the Augsburg Confession and beyond, is that chiliasm is a “Jewish” error.4 This criticism is open to grave misunderstanding today if one views it as part of the Church’s shameful legacy of anti-Semitism. But this is not what lay at the base of such criticism of chiliasm as “Jewish.” Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his apostles. “Salvation is of the Jews,” Jesus said, and all the Church fathers knew and agreed with this. There is no embarrassment at all in something being “Jewish” and the ancient and honorable tradition of the Jews, in monotheism, morals, and the safeguarding of Holy Scripture, is something Christian leaders always prized.

Another modern misunderstanding of this criticism must also be avoided. Certain current forms of premillennialism, particularly dispensationalism, might seem “Jewish” to some because they promise that the kingdom of God will be restored to ethnic Jews as the just fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Abraham and his descendants. But this was not the case with ancient Christian chiliasm. The New Testament’s revelation of the Church as the true Israel and heir of all the promises of God in Christ was too well-established and too deeply ingrained in the early Christian consciousness for such a view to have been viable. Ancient Church chiliasts like Irenaeus did indeed argue that some of God’s promises to Israel had to be fulfilled literally in a kingdom on earth, but they recognized that the humble recipients of this kingdom would be spiritual Israel, all who confessed Jesus as God’s Messiah, regardless of their national or ethnic origin.5 Ancient chiliasm was not criticized because it “favored” the Jews as having a distinct, blessed future apart from Gentile Christians.

What then did critics mean by calling chiliasm “Jewish”? Their use of the label meant “non-Christian Jewish,” or even, “anti-Christian Jewish.” These early critics believed that chiliasm represented an approach to biblical religion that was sub-Christian, essentially failing to reckon with the full redemptive implications of the coming of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. They saw it as an under-realized, a not-fully-Christian, eschatology. We can outline at least three aspects of this criticism.

http://fortheloveofhistruth.com/2013/07/01/why-the-early-church-finally-rejected-premillennialism/
Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism | For the Love of His Truth
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
35,289
4,189
On the bus to Heaven
✟84,626.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey brother,

The Apostle Paul.

-----------------------------------

One of the myths that gets repeated often is that Amil was the creation of Roman Catholicism when, in fact, modern Dispensationalism (aka futurism) is.

The pioneers of Dispensationalism admit this. Larkin did in Dispensational Truth! | Feileadh Mor

Hey brother, I hope and pray that you are well.

Is Paul then in disagreement with the apostle John?
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,654.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Hey brother, I hope and pray that you are well.

Is Paul then in disagreement with the apostle John?

John and Paul are in agreement. It is interesting how Premil folks rely on a Roman Catholic method of polemics to provide support for their position...appealing to history in place of scripture. I believe scripture and history support Amil/Postmil positions. Don't get me wrong I do see evidence of Premil in the ECF's but it is inconsistent and does not resemble Dispensationalism.

"...Charles E. Hill has demonstrated in a ground-breaking study that alongside this eschatological tradition [premillennialism] there is another tradition, just as ancient, if not older that would not have been at home within the premillennial camp. In fact, this amillennial perspective, for so we may call it, became so influential in the patristic era that after the Council of Nicaea (325) it is rare to find a Christian leader who opts for premillennialism." (pg. 48)

I found this post on another forum that's worth a read:


by Paulma
Aug 11 05 9:08 AM

Y'all

I can't find one exegesis of Revelation 20 from the ECF's prior to Victorinus of Pettau in 270 A.D. Victorinus was the Bishop of Pettau, or Petavium and died a martyr in the year 303. Interestingly, he was an Amil. It seems that (1) there is not one single direct exegete of Revelation 20 prior to him, (2) there is not one single ECF that taught that sin, death and the wicked survive the Coming of the Lord.

This is amazing when you consider how boisterous Premils are to portray the opposite. Premil have boasted for many years (without any solid evidence) that all of the ECF's were Premils. However, whilst a few of the ECF's believed in a 1,000 years period preceding the Coming of the Lord it was not sourced in Revelation 20 and had more in common with Amil than modern Premil.

If my conclusion is wrong, Premils must answer the following questions re Rev 20:

(1) Where do any of the early Chiliasts refer to Gog and Magog?
(2) Where do any of the early Chiliasts refer to Satan living 1,000 years after Christ's Coming?
(3) Where do any of the early Chiliasts refer to sin existing 1,000 years after Christ's Coming?
(4) Where do any of the early Chiliasts refer to the wicked existing 1,000 years after Christ's Coming?
(5) Where do any of the early Chiliasts refer to death existing 1,000 years after Christ's Coming?

Paul(end quote)

The first commentry on Revelation was Amil and Historicist.

Yours in The Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0