• 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.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

In defence of Chiliasm (or premillenialism)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the pre-millenial view of the return of Christ. Indeed the permillenial view point has numerous advocates:

1. In the First Century: (1)Andrew, (2) Peter, (3) Philip, (4) Thomas, (5) James, (6) John, (7) Matthew, (8) Aristo, (9) John the Presbyter, The disciples of Jesus held to the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the fist part of this century, (10) Clement of Rome, (11) Barnabus, (12) Hermas, (13) Ignatius, (14) Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.

2. In the Second Century: (1) Pothinus, (2) Justyn Martyr, (3) Hegisippus, (4) Melito, Bishop of Sardis, (5) Tatian, (6) Irenaeus, (7) The Churches of Vienne and Lyons, (8) Tertullian, (9) Hippolytus.

3. The Third Century: (1) Cyprian, (2) Commodian, (3) Nepos, (4) Coracion, (5) Victorinus, (6) Methodius, (7) Lactantius.

When surveying the historical ground we are forced to the conclusion that those writers who insisted upon the great extent of Chiliasm in the Apostolic and Primitive Church are most certainly correct.

However it was not until the third Century that the premillenial view was challenged. Origen's spiritualising method of interpretation brought about the termination of the iteral method on which premillenialism rested. Origen wished to have the literal and obvious sense of the words disregarded, and an archane sense, lying concealed in the envelope of the words, to be sought for. The advocates of an earthly kingdom of Christ rested their cause solely on the natural and proper sense of certin expressions of the Bible. It has been remarked upon by some that the opposition to Chiliasm because of the rise of false doctrines which changed theological thinking, i.e. Gnosticism, Asceticism and Docetism. In addition to this was the influence of Augustine through whom amillenialism was systemised and the Roman system got its ecclesiology. Another important factor was the rise of the Roman church which taught that it was the kingdom of God on earth and its head the vical of Christ on earth.

So to bring to an end my point was thus: Chiliasm is correct, historic and Biblical.
 

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,559
4,834
58
Oregon
✟877,223.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Millennium doctrine started in an ungodly heretic by the name of Cerinthus, who lived in the first century. It is true that the Jews generally believed that the Messiah would establish a literal or earthly kingdom. And even some of them believed that Messiah's reign would last a thousand years. We here give an extract from Neander's History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. 1, Page 248.

"The idea of a Millennial reign proceeded from Judaism; for among the Jews the representation was current that the Messiah would reign a thousand years upon earth. . . . Such products of Jewish imagination passed over into Christianity."

As before stated, Cerinthus was the first to attempt to introduce this doctrine under Christianity. Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:

"But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."

This is the true origin of the Millennium theory. The reader will observe how lightly our author speaks of Cerinthus's idea of the kingdom of Christ being set up on earth after the resurrection. He says this doctrine was "something which he [Cerinthus] pretends was shown to him by angels." Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming. Observe also that Caius calls Cerinthus "an enemy to the scriptures of God," and one who was "wishing to deceive men." This language he uses with special reference to the one thousand years Cerinthus claimed would be spent in sensuality. Notice also that Cerinthus believed in an earthly kingdom.

Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John. We will now call your attention to the attitude of the beloved apostle toward this Millennial teacher. Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John, [Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., V. 24], states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28).

Let this be a rebuke to modern Millennial advocates. They claim their doctrine is well founded in the Apocalypse of John. But John called the founder of their theory "that enemy of the truth."

"Cerinthus required his followers to worship the supreme God.... He promised them a resurrection of their bodies, which would be succeeded by exquisite delights in the Millenary reign of Christ.... For Cerinthus supposed that Christ would hereafter return . . . and would reign with his followers a thousand years in Palestine." (Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Page 50)

"Cerinthus required his followers to retain part of the Mosaical law, but to regulate their lives by the example of Christ: and taught that after the resurrection Christ would reign upon earth, with his faithful disciples, a thousand years, which would be spent in the highest sensual indulgences. This mixture of Judaism and Oriental philosophy was calculated to make many converts, and this sect soon became very numerous. They admitted a part of St. Matthew's Gospel but rejected the rest, and held the epistles of St. Paul in great abhorrence." (Gregory and Ruter's Church History., Page 30)

"Even though the floods of the nations and the vain superstitions of heretics should revolt against their true faith, they are overcome, and shall be dissolved as the foam, because Christ is the rock by which, and on which, the church is founded. And thus it is overcome by no [16] traces of maddened men. Therefore they are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to say, with the heretic Cerinthus. For the kingdom of Christ is now eternal in his saints." (From a commentary on the Apocalypse, by Victorinus, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Thank God for the united testimony of history. Observe how closely the modern Millennium teachers cling to the doctrines of their founder. Cerinthus taught that "Christ will have an earthly kingdom." "After the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth." "The resurrection would be followed by exquisite delights in the Millenary reign of Christ." " That Christ would hereafter return, and would reign with his followers a thousand years in Palestine." The only difference is that his modern followers have dropped the idea of sensuality. But how did the early church regard the doctrine of Cerinthus? The apostle John called Cerinthus "that enemy of the truth." They taught that "they are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years."

What was the doctrine of the early church according to history? "Christ is the rock on which, and by which the church is founded." "The kingdom of Christ is now eternal in his saints." "It was the universal feeling among primitive Christians that they were living in the last period of the world's history." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VIII.. Page 534). The reason they believed this was because the New Testament was their faith, and this is the doctrine of the New Testament throughout. No wonder Cerinthus and his followers "rejected part of St. Matthew's Gospel, and held the epistles of Paul in great abhorrence." Just so do modern Millennium teachers dwell very little in the plain Gospels and Epistles to prove their doctrines, but speculate in prophecy and revelation.

Having seen that Cerinthus and his false doctrine were rejected by God's church we will now come to its next chief advocate, Papias, who lived in the first half of the second century. Eusebius, under the heading "The Writings of Papias," says of him:

"The same historian also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise some strange parables of our Lord, and of his doctrine, and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain Millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., Book m, Chap. 39, Page 115).

Historians generally tell us that Papias was a very zealous advocate of this imaginary reign of Christ on earth. "The first distinguished opponent of this doctrine was Origen, who attacked it with great earnestness and ingenuity, and seems, in spite of some opposition to have thrown it into general discredit." (Wadington's History, Page 56). "This obscure doctrine was probably known to but very few except the Fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first two centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the great majority. In fact we find Origen himself asserting that it was confined to those of the simpler sort."(Wadington's History, Page 56).

Next among the advocates of this doctrine was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt. He advocated the doctrine about A. D. 255. We here insert the following from Eusebius's History, Book VII, Chapter 23, under the heading "Nepos, and His Schism."

"He taught that the promises given to holy men in the scriptures should be understood more as the Jews understood them, and supposed that there would be a certain Millennium of sensual luxury on this earth: thinking, therefore, that he could establish his own opinion by the Revelation of John . . . He (Nepos) asserts that there will be an earthly reign of Christ." "Though Millennialism had been suppressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Dr. Schaff's History, Page 299). "

Nowhere in the discourses of Jesus is there a hint of a limited duration of the Messianic kingdom. The apostolic epistles are equally free from any trace of Chiliasm."(Encyclopedia Brittanica--Articles on Millennium).

To sum up the uniform voice of history, the theory of a literal kingdom and reign on the earth was gathered from Jewish fabulous "apocalypse," "unwritten tradition," "carnal misapprehensions," "pretended visions," "suppositions," and "superstitious imaginations." Its advocates were said to be "very limited in their understanding," and "of the simple sort." Millennialism had the worst heretic in the first century for its founder, and its chief advocates thereafter were rejected by the early church. From time to time it was revived by "heretical sects." The vain worldly expectation that the Messiah would establish a literal kingdom caused the Jews to reject him, and his spiritual kingdom. They only wanted an earthly kingdom; hence rejected and crucified the Son of God. As soon as the church began to apostatize, and lost the glory of his spiritual kingdom, vain ambitions awakened the old Jewish desire for a literal kingdom. And so it has come to pass that we have at this time of dead formality a multitude of men teaching the same abominable lie and false hope which crucified Christ nearly nineteen hundred years ago; namely, a literal kingdom of Christ.

Source: H. M. Riggle, "History of the Millennium," The Kingdom of God, 1899.
 
Upvote 0

GW

Veteran
Mar 26, 2002
1,760
62
54
USA
✟25,338.00
Faith
Christian
Amillennialism opposed Chiliasm from the very start, before Chiliasm was utterly rejected as heresy in the 300s. Even Justin Martyr, who was a Chiliast, admits that his millennial views were opposed by many pious, true Christians:


Justin Martyr (165 AD)
"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [a temporal 1000 years], 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." (Trypho, 80)​
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
The problem that you both have is that Premillenialism was taught by the Apostolic and Primitive church and it was not until Popery came onto the scene that premillenialism was replaced by amillenialism even though the true position was carried via the Waldensians, Paulicians, Cathari, Albenses, Lollard, Wickliffites and the Bohemian Protestants. It was not until the rise of the Catechetical School of Alexandria and the spiritualising of scripture that premillenialism was declared heretical...
 
Upvote 0
A

agenes

Guest
GW said:
Amillennialism opposed Chiliasm from the very start, before Chiliasm was utterly rejected as heresy in the 300s.


The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm? written by Michael J. Svigel http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/st-essay/phantomheresy.htm

Introduction
One popular Catholic apologetic resource states, “As far as the millennium goes, we [Catholics] tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists… . In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism ‘cannot safely be taught,’ though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.” On the other hand, one writer commenting on the history of millennial thought notes, “Following Augustine, the Church had long believed that the reign of the saints foretold by Revelation was already in operation through its own good offices, and shown little enthusiasm for the idea that Christ would return imminently to set up an earthly kingdom: indeed, the Council of Ephesus declared such a belief heretical in 431.” The problem here should be immediately evident. Did the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 condemn Chiliasm as heresy or not? Surely, the truth of the matter must lie somewhere between “the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue” and “the Council of Ephesus declared such a belief heretical.”


The Phantom Heresy: Two Traditions
The student of the history of millennialism will soon learn that two separate traditions regarding this issue are currently being propounded. The oldest tradition of writers on the history of millennialism appears to be ignorant of any alleged condemnation of Chiliasm in any official and dogmatic capacity in early Christian history. Any mention of an official condemnation at the Council of Ephesus is conspicuously missing from what appear to be otherwise thorough works on the history of millennialism. Although D. T. Taylor suggests that Pope Damasus “formally denounced Chiliasm” at Rome in A.D. 373, he refers to no condemnation by the third ecumenical council. Likewise, D. H. Kromminga makes no mention of the alleged condemnation in his standard work on millennialism, but rather describes a “gradual subsidence of chiliasm in the ancient church,” and writes, “Of suppressive efforts against chiliasm no trace appears.” C. Cooper notes, “From the third to the fifth centuries Chiliasm was vigorously fought and ruthlessly put down, although it was not officially declared a heresy. It was all really rather awkward, because previously nearly everybody of note had been a Chiliast… . Between Chiliasm and the charge of heresy stands the canonization of Justin the Martyr and Irenaeus.” In another work on the history of millenarianism, under a subsection entitled “The Church Turns Against Millenarians,” Michael St. Clair makes no indication of any condemnation at the Council of Ephesus. Finally, Frederic J. Baumgartner appears to be in utter ignorance of any official condemnation at Ephesus when he writes, “The solution to millennial anxiety offered by Augustine of Hippo quickly became the accepted one for Latin Christianity, while by 400, for the Greek Church, more concerned with disputes over Christ’s nature, the absence of Donatism reduced the sense of millennial urgency.”


On the other hand, a newer tradition, since the late 1950s, alleges that the third ecumenical council of Ephesus did, in fact condemn millennialism in some fashion. Norman Cohn writes, “This [view of Augustine] at once became orthodox doctrine, and so definitively that in 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned belief in the Millennium as a superstitious aberration.” Similarly, Robert Clouse states, “This doctrine [of Augustine] was so fully accepted that at the Council of Ephesus in 431, belief in the millennium was condemned as superstition.” Peter Toon, progressing in tone from condemnation as simply a “superstitious aberration” to nearly a charge of heresy, writes, “This teaching [of Augustine] soon became accepted as orthodoxy and has in general been so regarded in both Catholic and Protestant Churches ever since the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned belief in a literal, future millennium as superstition” and “[T]he Council of Ephesus in 431 accepted amillennialism as orthodox eschatological teaching.” By 2001 Andrew Bradstock claims, “[T]he Council of Ephesus declared such a belief [that Christ would return imminently to set up an earthly kingdom] heretical in 431.”


Chasing the Heresy Down the Hole

A perusal of works on the history of the ecumenical councils and the Council of Ephesus in particular reveals that a condemnation of Chiliasm is far from obvious and certainly not in the category of common knowledge, as would be, say, the condemnation of Arius at Nicea. In fact, a reading of the primary sources available on the Council of Ephesus reveals little more than the Nestorian controversies and its ecclesiastical effects.

Moreover, when one attempts to start with the various secondary sources that make mention of a condemnation of Chiliasm by the Council of Ephesus and work backwards to the primary source, one is disappointed by what is ultimately found. In 2001, Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke refer to “the condemnation of premillennialism at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E.” Although they cite no primary or secondary source for this statement in particular, the authors do rely on other secondary sources in this chapter that make the same claim: Peter Toon’s “Introduction” to Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel and Stan Grenz’s Millennial Maze. In the same year, Andrew Bradstock claims that the Council of Ephesus declared Chiliasm “heretical.”

Bradstock himself relies on an earlier secondary source, that of Richard Kyle, who writes in 1998, “In 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned as superstition the belief in a literal millennium.” Kyle apparently relies on Paul Boyer’s work of 1992 in which he asserts, “With the condemnation of millennialism by the Council of Ephesus in 431, Augustine’s views became orthodoxy.” Boyer relies on Peter Toon (“Introduction,” 1970) as his own secondary source for this assertion.

Stanley Grenz, in his popular and influential work, The Millennial Maze, appears to rely upon both Peter Toon’s 1970 work and an earlier book by Norman Cohn (1957) when he writes that at Ephesus the church “condemned as superstition the belief in a literal, future thousand-year reign on the earth.”

In 1977, in his introduction to a widely-read book on the subject of the millennium, Robert G. Clouse states, “His [Augustine’s] teaching was so fully accepted that at the Council of Ephesus in 431, belief in the millennium was condemned as superstitious.” For this statement Clouse relies upon Peter Toon (“Introduction,” 1970).

Although several authors above relied on Peter Toon’s assertion in 1970 that “the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned belief in a literal, future millennium as superstition,” Toon himself relied upon the original 1957 edition of a work by Norman Cohn entitled The Pursuit of the Millennium, in which he wrote, “This [view of Augustine] at once became orthodox doctrine, and so definitively that in 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned belief in the Millennium as a superstitious aberration.” It is this same 1957 first edition that Robert Clouse relied upon in a 1968 article in which he states in similar terms, “This doctrine [of Augustine] was so fully accepted that at the Council of Ephesus in 431, belief in the millennium was condemned as superstition.”

Norman Cohn’s 1957 and 1961 editions of his Pursuit of the Millennium both contain this same assertion. In those books, Cohn refers to a 1904 work in French by Léon Gry. In Gry’s work on the history of millennialism, he writes regarding the eventual unfavorable opinion towards Chiliasm: “On ne parlat pas autrement au Concile d’Ephèse de 431.” In a footnote at this point, he explains, “Au Concile d’Ephèse, les Orientaux posèrent cette question à saint Cyrille: «Num iterum erit secundum revolutionem et naturae consequentiam dispensationis opus, juxta deliramenta, fabulosique mille annorum infausti Apollinarii dogmata?»” Gry thus uses the original Latin quotation to illustrate the attitude toward the notion of a thousand year reign among the Eastern bishops, not bothering to inform indicate what Cyril’s answer to the question was. He is not asserting that the Council at large was making an official condemnation of the doctrine. Cohn apparently realizes this by the time he publishes in 1970 the revised and expanded edition of his Pursuit, for the reference to the condemnation at the Council of Ephesus is conspicuously missing.

Finally, what of the Latin source quoted by Gry in his footnote? This original source is not easy to track down, but an examination of the context in which the passage is found reveals that the question posed by the Eastern bishops to Cyril is not indicative of any sort of official condemnation of Chiliasm at the Council of Ephesus. In fact, the context of the question as well as the failure of Cyril to even respond to the matter of Chiliasm makes this clear. Yet it was not Gry’s contention that Ephesus officially condemned Chiliasm. Rather, he was demonstrating the attitude of the Eastern bishops concerning the concept of the earthly millennium in the early fifth century. This is likely why it appears that Cohn’s misunderstanding or mistranslation of the comments by Gry was subsequently—though quietly and justifiably—corrected by him in his later edition.
 
Upvote 0
A

agenes

Guest
As can be seen from the reconstruction of the history of the claim that the Council of Ephesus condemned Chiliasm in 431, the original source records no such condemnation, anathema, decree, or declaration. Cohn appears to have misunderstood or mistranslated his source in Gry (or failed to check Labbe directly!) and made the false assertion in his 1957 and 1961 editions of The Pursuit of the Millennium, but, apparently being corrected of his error, removed the statement from his 1970 edition. However, by then it was too late, for already others who had relied on the earlier editions were doomed to repeat the error without consulting either Gry or, more importantly, Labbe. Having been made by able scholars with a far-reaching influence in popular volumes, this error has now reproduced itself at the popular level with no hope for restraint.

Implications and Conclusion
The purpose of this article was twofold. First, by tracing the error to its source, I have attempted to counter the assertion that the Council of Ephesus condemned Chiliasm in A.D. 431. In light of the conclusions of this article, any continued assertion of this nature must satisfy a weighty burden of proof with reference to primary source evidence. Given the plentitude of untranslated, unedited, or perhaps even presently non-extant material on this subject, the case will of course never be finally closed. Nevertheless the burden of proof has been re-shifted to those who maintain an official ecumenical condemnation of Chiliasm.

Second, this article has illustrated a methodological problem to which all researchers and writers are prone. The temptation is always great to “trust” a secondary source when we believe that author to be quoting a primary source accurately, or to have done the right work in the primary sources to authorize a claim, or to simply have enough expertise in a particular area of study to be free from gross inaccuracies. I may add that all of us have likely succumbed to this temptation at times, especially under the pressure of deadlines. However, if proper methods of source verification are not followed, it is wisest to simply leave out the minor point that has not been corroborated. I suspect, though, that the phantom condemnation of Chiliasm at Ephesus is not an isolated occurrence, but that our fields of research may be riddled with similar shortcuts leading to unwitting inaccuracies and errors.

Yet few errors of scholarship are as literally damning as the alleged condemnation of Chiliasm at the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. For the growing number of evangelicals who take seriously the authority of the Tradition of the church, its rule of faith, and the expression of these in especially the first four ecumenical councils, an assertion that one of those councils has condemned a particular doctrine is a serious and sobering charge. Naturally, one may be tempted to consider whether the proliferation of the unwarranted assertion of an early ecumenical condemnation of Chiliasm is sometimes motivated by a present-day anti-premillennialism that unconsciously wishes the early church had universally condemned Chiliasm after all. Nay, it seems both ancient and contemporary orthodoxy will still need to make room for premillennialists.





Sources and other thoughts:
The pronouncement by the Holy Office referred to therein occurred in July of 1944 in answer to the following question: “Quid sentiendum de systemate Millenarismi mitigati, docentis scilicet Christum Dominum ante finale iudicium, sive praevia sive non praevia plurium iustorum resurrectione, visibiliter in hanc terram regnandi causa esse venturum?” The response to the question, confirmed by Pope Pius XII, was short and direct: “Systema Millenarismi mitigati tuto doceri non posse,” i.e., “A mild millennial system is not able to be taught safely” (Henricus Denzinger, ed., Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 36th emended ed., ed. Adolfus Schönmetzer [Freiburg: Herder, 1976], 759). What is meant by “mitigated” or “mild” millennialism and by the qualifier “safely” renders the official answer ambiguous.

Andrew Bradstock, “Millenarianism in the Reformation and the English Revolution,” in Christian Millenarianism: From the Early Church to Waco, ed. Stephen Hunt (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2001), 77


Indeed, apart from isolated papal or magisterial opinions as in note 1 above, the first “official” and “dogmatic” condemnation of Chiliasm appears to be that of the Lutheran Augsburg confession of 1530, when the notion of an earthly kingdom was condemned in the following terms: “They condemn others also, who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being every where suppressed” (Damnant et alios, qui nunc spargunt Judaicas opiniones, quod ante resurrectionem mortuorum pii regnum mundi occupaturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis). Original Latin and English translation are taken from Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom with A History and Critical Notes, vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, 4th ed. rev. and enlarged, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiae Universalis (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 18. Following suit, Bullinger’s Second Helvetic (Swiss) Confession of 1566 condemns “Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth” (Damnamus praeterea Judaica somnia, quod ante judicii diem aureum in terries sit futuram seculum, et pii regna mundi occupaturi, oppressis suis hostibus impiis) (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3: 257).

Cf. Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

D. T. Taylor, The Voice of the Church on the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer; or, A History of the Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on Earth, rev. and ed. H. L. Hastings (Peace Dale, RI: H. L. Hastings, 1855), 115.

D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church: Studies in the History of Christian Chiliasm (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), 102, 113.

C. Cooper, “Chiliasm and the Chiliasts,” Reformed Theological Review 29 (1970): 12.

Michael J. St. Clair, Millenarian Movements in Historical Context (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), 85-87.

Frederic J. Baumgartner, Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 47.

Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Messianism in Medieval and Reformation Europe and Its Bearing on Modern Totalitarian Movements (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 14

Robert Clouse, “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Thomas Brightman and Joseph Mede,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 182.

Peter Toon, “Introduction,” in Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology 1600 to 1660 (Cambridge, MA: James Clarke, 1970), 14, 17.

Bradstock, “Millenarianism in the Reformation,” 77.

Cf. Adhemar d’Alles, Le dogma d’Éphèse (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1931); Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, Theology and Life Series, no. 21 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987).

More thorough translations of the primary texts include James Chrystal, ed. and trans., The Third World Council, That Is, The Third Council of the Whole Christian World, East and West, Which Was Held A.D. 431 at Ephesus in Asia, 3 vols., Authoritative Christianity (Jersey City, NJ: James Chrystal, 1895); and A. J. Festugi, Les Actes des Conciles d’Éphèse (431) et Chalcédoine (451): Première traduction française, Textes Dossiers Documents, ed. Charles Kannengiesser (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1982).

Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 242.

Toon, “Introduction,” 14, 17

Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 44.

Those familiar with the proceedings at Ephesus will immediately realize the problems with reading Gry and concluding that he is referring to an official condemnation of Chiliasm. Most Eastern bishops were at odds with Cyril throughout the whole council and were not reconciled until after the proceedings. Any question posed to Cyril by the Eastern bishops would not have been to establish the dogmatic and universally-binding opinion on the matter.

Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Messianism and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, rev. and exp. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 29. Any excision from an “expanded” edition ought to attract attention, though it did not seem to have had much of an effect on those who have continued to repeat the allegation of the 431 condemnation based on the 1957 or 1961 editions.

Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, ed., Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta, 16 vols. (Lutetiae Parisiorum: Societatis typographicae Librorum Ecclesiasticorum jussu Regis constitutae, 1671-72), 3: col. 834-37. The questions posed to Cyril in challenge of his third anathema focused on the divine and human natures of Christ. I will quote the passage at length here to set forth the Eastern bishops’ barrage of questions preceding the final question excerpted by Gry: “Quomodo igitur, quasi oblitus suorum verborum, ad unam hypostasin cogit, naturas confundens, naturalem divinam unitionem nominans? Et quis unquam admittet naturalem divinam unitionem in sacramento dispensationis? Si enim naturalis unitio, ubi gratia? Ubi divinum sacramentum? Naturae enim, ut edocti sumus, semel ab ordinante Deo ordinatae, necessariis consequentiis serviunt. Num etiam iterum erit secundum revolutionem & naturae consequentiam dispensationis opus juxta deliramenta, fabulosaque mille annorum infausti Apollinarii dogmata?” In Cyril’s defense of the Anathema against the Eastern bishops’ objection, he makes no mention of Apollinarius’s Chiliasm, focusing his discussion entirely on the Christological issues at hand. Certainly, there was no official condemnation of Chiliasm in this passage and the opinions of Eastern bishops especially held no authority at the synod.

Cf., for example, D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) for a contemporary expression of this movement.
 
Upvote 0

GW

Veteran
Mar 26, 2002
1,760
62
54
USA
✟25,338.00
Faith
Christian
AV1611 said:
:) Nice try...Chiliasm came BEFORE amillenialism!

It did not. Note that it existed at the time Justin wrote the following:

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [a temporal 1000 years], 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." (Trypho, 80)

The many pious and true Christians that didn't agree with Jusin's premillennialism were the AMILLENNIALISTS. So we know that at the time of Justin (100-165) the Amils were opposing the premils.
 
Upvote 0

GW

Veteran
Mar 26, 2002
1,760
62
54
USA
✟25,338.00
Faith
Christian
AV1611
The problem that you both have is that Premillenialism was taught by the Apostolic and Primitive church

GW:
It was not. The gospels and epistles completely disprove a literal thousand years.



AV1611
It was not until the rise of the Catechetical School of Alexandria and the spiritualising of scripture that premillenialism was declared heretical...

GW:
Leading advocates of the so-called literal Antioch school of thought were amils like Theodoret and Ignatius. So, it was not just the Alexandrian school of thought that led to nonpremil views. Even as early as the first century. Not to mention that the creeds, starting with the ancient Roman, were seminally amil in nature.
 
Upvote 0

GW

Veteran
Mar 26, 2002
1,760
62
54
USA
✟25,338.00
Faith
Christian
There is one solitary passage pertaining to "1000 years" in the entire Bible (Rev 20:1-9). There are zero mentions of it in the Old Testament, gospels or epistles. One can't find a single other mention of the so-called "millennium" anywhere else in scripture. Not anywhere.

The fact is, there is no literal 1000 years. Here's how we know the "1000 Years" of Rev 20 is a symbol and cannot be a true time period:

#1) Christ's judgment of the living and the dead together occurs at his coming (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15,17-18). Thus, premillennialism is false.

#2) The resurrection of the dead occurs at his coming (1 Cor 15:22-23), and that resurrection is of the just and unjust together (John 5:27-29, Acts 24:15, Daniel 12:1-2). Thus, premillennialism is false.

#3) It is on "the Last Day" that Jesus both raises to life (Jn 6:44,54) AND judges the wicked, (Jn 12:48). Thus, premillennialism is false.

#4) Paul says the "Day of the Lord/Thief in the Night" occurs at the Second Coming (1 Thess 5:2-5); Peter says the "Day of the Lord/Thief in the Night" occurs at the passing of "heavens and Earth" (2 Peter 3:10); Jesus says the Thief in the Night related to the first-century churches (Rev 3:2-3). As we see, no literal 1000 years can be made to fit in here anywhere. The New Heavens/Earth and Second Coming are clearly simultaneous. Thus, premillennialism is false.

#5) Christ's reign isn't limited to 1000 years, nor are we still waiting for it to begin. Rather, It is eternal (Isa 9:6-7). He has been the King of Kings for 20 centuries now and is the only Sovereign of Heaven and Earth (Matt 28:18-19/Rev 1:5-6/1 Tim 6:15/1 Pet 3:22). We are not waiting for Christ to reign. He reigns, and the increase of his government has no end. Thus, premillennialism is false.
As we know, Premillennialists wrongly divide these singular events of His coming into many scattered events and intersperse them over a long period of a thousand years, with some parts happening at some "rapture," some happening at the coming, and some happening after the completion of a literal thousand years. Quite simply, this is false. Scripture fully refutes premillennialism.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
agenes said:
Greetings AV1611

I was wondering if you would be willing to have a debate on an issue of Dispensationalism. When you say you are a Classic Dispensationalist, you assert that the Church began at Pentecost, correct? Do you hold to the Scofield Reference Bible?
Yes on all counts.:)
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
GW said:
Not to mention that the creeds, starting with the ancient Roman, were seminally amil in nature.
The rise of the RCC led, almost, to the end of the premillenialism held to by the Apostles and the Primitive church. It was through the RCC that amillenialism flourished based upon the spirtualising method of Biblical interpretation. Literalism leads to premillenialism and through the RCC literalism was to a greater extent abandoned. And so I concur with agenes in saying "In light of the conclusions of this article, any continued assertion of this nature [premillenialism declared heretical] must satisfy a weighty burden of proof with reference to primary source evidence."

Shew me how chiliasm is wrong! :D
 
Upvote 0

GW

Veteran
Mar 26, 2002
1,760
62
54
USA
✟25,338.00
Faith
Christian
AV1611:
The rise of the RCC led, almost, to the end of the premillenialism held to by the Apostles and the Primitive church.

GW:
First, there was no "rise of the RCC." Next, I have shown you that the premillennial view was started by the heretic Cerinthus, a person the Apostle John is reported to have called "that enemy of truth" (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28). The origin of the premillennial doctrine is tied to someone St. John considered a serious heretic.

While John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28)​


AV1611:
It was through the RCC that amillenialism flourished based upon the spirtualising method of Biblical interpretation.

GW:
I have disproved this. Justin Martyr (100-165) claimed that many true Christians disagreed with his premillennialism, and leading advocates of the so-called literal Antioch school of thought were amils like Theodoret. The creeds also refute the premill position, saying "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead" -- they knew nothing of a temporal 1000 years that separated Christ's coming from the judgment.


AV1611:
Literalism leads to premillenialism

GW:
Rather, inconsistent and unbiblical applications of literalism lead to premillennialism. Please give you literal rendition of the following verse:

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
AV1611 said:
It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the pre-millenial view of the return of Christ. Indeed the permillenial view point has numerous advocates:

1. In the First Century: (1)Andrew, (2) Peter, (3) Philip, (4) Thomas, (5) James, (6) John, (7) Matthew, (8) Aristo, (9) John the Presbyter, The disciples of Jesus held to the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the fist part of this century, (10) Clement of Rome, (11) Barnabus, (12) Hermas, (13) Ignatius, (14) Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
I would hope that you recognize the fact that even according to amills, the 1000 years had not begun. Of course these people would await the return! And, if you could provide actual support for these people believing in a literal 1000 years, that would be great.
 
Upvote 0

Breetai

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...
Dec 3, 2003
13,939
396
✟31,320.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I would hope that you recognize the fact that even according to amills, the 1000 years had not begun.
You are incorrect. According to amil., the 1000 years has been going on for 2000 years. It had already begun.:)
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
I would hope that you recognize the fact that even according to amills, the 1000 years had not begun. Of course these people would await the return! And, if you could provide actual support for these people believing in a literal 1000 years, that would be great.
They are referenced in Pentecost's Things to Come.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Breetai said:
You are incorrect. According to amil., the 1000 years has been going on for 2000 years. It had already begun.:)
Not quite. Even the 1000 years had a beginning. I place this after 70 but before about 300
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.