(Pre) Millennialism/Chiliaism

[zone]

[begun in another thread, this will be a new topic]


(Pre)millennialism:

for the most part.....a holdover from the judaic mindset the unbelieving jews (and very early jewish christians) had - that the Kingdom would still be a physical reign with them restored to physical glory in a physical Jerusalem, with Temple and all.

zone

~

Who was Premillennial
Papias, Justin Martyr, Aviricius Marcellus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Nepos, Commodianus, Lactantius.

But note: ALL of these had one or more of the following problems with their thinking:

Their view was inconsistent with modern premillennialism. So how can they really be used to support modern premillennialism?

They referred to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong. Some of these writers based their entire end-time scheme on this idea — if the foundation is bad the conclusions are also bad.

This idea originated with the Jews and was borrowed by some early church fathers.

They believed that the world would end at a certain time and it didn't. Usually this error was in conjunction with the previous one.

from: End Time Prophecy

 

[zone]

The premillennialism that sometimes is expressed by the writers of the early church is no proof of the presence of dispensationalism. Nor is it a necessary deduction that this early chilaism was primarily the result of a study of the Scriptures.

Chiliastic views were extensively circulated in the early church through such Jewish or Jewish-Christian writings as Enoch, 4 Esdras, Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, Psalms of Solomon, and Baruch, all writings which neither Jews nor Christians regarded as canonical. This Jewish chilaism has been well documented and discussed in Geerhardus Vos' The Pauline Eschatology.3

Topical Sermons, Modern Dispensationalism, A Biblical Analysis, Part 1 < click

 

[zone]

Premillennialists of this older kind, while expecting an earthly millennium, do not distinguish two peoples of God, each with separate destinies. But the dispensationalists described above, though they see God's purposes for Israel and the church merging into one in the eternal state, still must be called dispensationalists because they continue to stress the abiding importance of national, ethnic Israel and look to the millennium as that period of time when once again God will fulfill many Old Testament prophecies by pouring out peculiar blessings upon Israel.

...

The extent to which modern dispensationalists reflect these five trends varies considerably. Moreover, differences among them go beyond the degree to which they embrace these modifications. For example, the interpretation of prophecy, supposedly easy to those who employ the principle "literal where possible," has led to a vast array of differing conclusions. For the sake of convenience, however, we will identify four major types of dispensationalists that are prominent at this present time.

...

The third type of dispensationalist is the modified dispensationalist or neo-dispensationalist. Those from this school of thought would generally embrace the first four of the five developments outlined above: the denial of two ways of salvation, the refusal to separate Israel and the church in eternity, the willingness to speak of secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy to the church, and the recognition of the cumulative and progressive character of revelation. They would deny that direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy ever takes place in the church, but would not hesitate to affirm that it is legitimate to recognize secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy with reference to the church. Some modified dispensationalists also go to considerable lengths to repudiate the easy-believism and antinomianism so prevalent in the ranks of hardline dispensationalists.

...

In the fourth place are what may be termed one-people-of-God dispensationalists. These interpreters would assent to all five of the developments presented above. In the thinking of these dispensationalists the church not only makes application of but also actually participates in the promises made to God's ancient people even if only in a preliminary way. To begin with, Israel and the church are distinct. But ultimately their destiny is one. One-people-of-God dispensationalists are very close in their thinking to that of historic premillennialists. But they still look for a millennium in which God will fulfill his promise to national ethnic Israel. God's people are not truly one until the eternal state.

...

Because of the variety that exists among dispensationalists it is not always easy to identify a particular dispensationalist with one of the four categories delineated above. But our purpose has not been to enable the reader to make such a decision in each case. Rather, we have sought to present the two extremes (ultradispensationalism on one end and one-people-of-God dispensationalism on the other) and the various positions on a sliding scale between. The two extremes represent the greatest and the least consistency (within dispensationalism) in the extent to which the church/Israel distinction is applied. Between these extremes are varying degrees of consistency in the application of the principle. Hence, some dispensationalists may indeed take a mediating position between two of the four positions just described.

...


The preserving factor in the thinking of many dispensationalists is that basically they are evangelical. And the more dominant true evangelicalism becomes in such a person's thinking, the more his dispensationalist principles will begin to give way. Blessed inconsistency!

Modern Dispensationalism, A Biblical Analysis, Part 4 of God in All Ages as One < click (excerpts)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Premillennialists of this older kind, while expecting an earthly millennium, do not distinguish two peoples of God, each with separate destinies. But the dispensationalists described above, though they see God's purposes for Israel and the church merging into one in the eternal state, still must be called dispensationalists because they continue to stress the abiding importance of national, ethnic Israel and look to the millennium as that period of time when once again God will fulfill many Old Testament prophecies by pouring out peculiar blessings upon Israel.

The extent to which modern dispensationalists reflect these five trends varies considerably. Moreover, differences among them go beyond the degree to which they embrace these modifications. For example, the interpretation of prophecy, supposedly easy to those who employ the principle "literal where possible," has led to a vast array of differing conclusions. For the sake of convenience, however, we will identify four major types of dispensationalists that are prominent at this present time.

The third type of dispensationalist is the modified dispensationalist or neo-dispensationalist. Those from this school of thought would generally embrace the first four of the five developments outlined above: the denial of two ways of salvation, the refusal to separate Israel and the church in eternity, the willingness to speak of secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy to the church, and the recognition of the cumulative and progressive character of revelation. They would deny that direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy ever takes place in the church, but would not hesitate to affirm that it is legitimate to recognize secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy with reference to the church. Some modified dispensationalists also go to considerable lengths to repudiate the easy-believism and antinomianism so prevalent in the ranks of hardline dispensationalists.

In the fourth place are what may be termed one-people-of-God dispensationalists. These interpreters would assent to all five of the developments presented above. In the thinking of these dispensationalists the church not only makes application of but also actually participates in the promises made to God's ancient people even if only in a preliminary way. To begin with, Israel and the church are distinct. But ultimately their destiny is one. One-people-of-God dispensationalists are very close in their thinking to that of historic premillennialists. But they still look for a millennium in which God will fulfill his promise to national ethnic Israel. God's people are not truly one until the eternal state.

Because of the variety that exists among dispensationalists it is not always easy to identify a particular dispensationalist with one of the four categories delineated above. But our purpose has not been to enable the reader to make such a decision in each case. Rather, we have sought to present the two extremes (ultradispensationalism on one end and one-people-of-God dispensationalism on the other) and the various positions on a sliding scale between. The two extremes represent the greatest and the least consistency (within dispensationalism) in the extent to which the church/Israel distinction is applied. Between these extremes are varying degrees of consistency in the application of the principle. Hence, some dispensationalists may indeed take a mediating position between two of the four positions just described.

The preserving factor in the thinking of many dispensationalists is that basically they are evangelical. And the more dominant true evangelicalism becomes in such a person's thinking, the more his dispensationalist principles will begin to give way. Blessed inconsistency!

Modern Dispensationalism, A Biblical Analysis, Part 4 of God in All Ages as One < click (excerpts)

here we go with the conspiracy theories again. (rolls eyes)

 

[zone]

okay....i'm out.
take it away EG

 

[doulos]

It is also noteworthy that the prenillenial view was not very popular in the Christian church until the writings of Jean de Labadie (17 th century)were incorporated into the pre trib view during the eveolution of that view as it evolved from Ribera’s (16[SUP]th[/SUP] century) original writings to what is now in the C.I.Scofield Bible.

Looks like many are building a definite doctrine on a plural of uncertain affinity.

 

[nathan3]

I dont understand what this post is about ? ?? what is Millennialism/Chiliaism ??? and what is your post saying Zone ?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I dont understand what this post is about ? ?? what is Millennialism/Chiliaism ??? and what is your post saying Zone ?

she is trying to argue the fact that premillenialsim did not start until long after scripture was complete. and where it came from.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It is also noteworthy that the prenillenial view was not very popular in the Christian church until the writings of Jean de Labadie (17 th century)were incorporated into the pre trib view during the eveolution of that view as it evolved from Ribera’s (16[SUP]th[/SUP] century) original writings to what is now in the C.I.Scofield Bible.

Looks like many are building a definite doctrine on a plural of uncertain affinity.

considering the church of rome (a hugely antisemit group) ruled the world since the 3rd century,, This is not hard to understand, in fact it is easy to comprehend.. Premil would have been considered heresy in the church (pro jew) and the punishment would have been severe. as with all heresies, a heretic could be put to death by the roman church. who would admit openly they believed in a doctrine which the ruling power who had power over your property and life considered heresy.

 

[nathan3]

she is trying to argue the fact that premillenialsim did not start until long after scripture was complete. and where it came from.

still not following : /

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Premillennialism holds that the second coming of Christ will occur before the millennuim and will inititate the final battle between good and evil which will be followed by the establishment of the 1000 year kingdom on earth or in heaven.

Is that correct, zone?

Just thinking out loud. . if Christ is ruling in heaven now, and he gathers together the believers (the church, his body) to reign with him for 1,000 years. . .wouldn't that reign be in heaven and not on the earth? Then when he comes to earth for "the day of the Lord" or the "Lord's day" for judgment . . . he will be bringing his saints with him. . .

Man oh man, I really have to do more studying on this . . .

 

[eternally-gratefull]

still not following : /

thats ok. stick with the word of God, it will not lead you wrong.. and get away from theories of men..

The jews made that mistake the moment they returned from babylon.. they turned to history outside the word of God.. and it became their downfall.. why should we make the same mistake based on things which are not from God and not inspired.

lets stick to the word of God and stop with all the conspiracy theories.. Zone gave hers, I gave mine,, now lets all get back to the word of truth,,

 

[zone]

if everyone is through having fits over amillennialism in my thread, i'll continue.

 

[zone]

There Is No Future Physical Millennium


The belief in a literal future Millennium is called "Chiliasm", derived from the greek word for one thousand years in Revelation 20. This doctrine is false because it is based upon derived conclusions and not explicit teaching in the New Testament. The doctrine of Pre-millenarianism is one and the same as Chiliasm.

It proposes that there are two future resurrections and two future judgments that will yet occur. One at the end of the church age and another at the end of the millennium. This is actually a confusion of the one and the same resurrection to come and the one and the same judgment to come. Chiliasts confuse this and make two different sets of each.

Chiliasm also confuses the rule of Jesus Christ that now occurs and claims it will be earthly after the church age is over, whereas it is spiritual now.

This is a repetition of the same mistake in all three cases of Christ's rule, resurrection and judgment. The three issues are doubled-up, when in actuality there is one of each.

And there is a fourth error they make like this. Christ' return. They claim He comes at the rapture, and then again after the future 1000 years. Once again, there is only ONE MORE COMING OF JESUS.

Chiliasm totally mistakes the reference to the "FIRST RESURRECTION", and that is the basis of it's error.

But the myths of an earthly Utopia have weaved their way into the Chiliasts' thoughts, as a major source of this confusion.

Revelation 20 cannot be taken in a Chiliast fashion due to the contradictions that it proposes when it does so.

The first resurrection is not physical. It is spiritual.


CHILIASM < click
cont....

 

[zone]

cont....

"But the myths of an earthly Utopia have weaved their way into the Chiliasts' thoughts, as a major source of this confusion.

Revelation 20 cannot be taken in a Chiliast fashion due to the contradictions that it proposes when it does so.

The first resurrection is not physical. It is spiritual.


Eph 5:14
(14) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Col 3:1
(1) If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Col 2:12
(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Eph 2:5-6
(5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
(6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Rom 6:4-13
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
(9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
(11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
(13) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."



CHILIASM < click
cont...

 

[zone]

cont....

"All the above are references to spiritual resurrection with Christ. Never did the apostles ever write about a resurrection after the church age followed by another resurrection one thousand years after that.

This makes the 1000 year reign a representative picture of the entire church age, when one bases one's understanding of Revelation 20 with the rest of the epistles that clearly taught one future resurrection.

Then we read of the "second death" in Revelation. It is spiritual and not physical because it speaks of being cast into the Law of Fire in Revelation 20 after one's physical death. And it has nothing to do with those in the first resurrection. The first resurrection involves believers born again and risen with Christ right now.

If Chiliasm were correct, then Revelation teaches thoughts about resurrection that no other book in the bible teaches. However, one is not to derive doctrine from the book of Revelation! Revelation is not a series of explicit teachings. One receives one's teaching from the epistles and gospels for doctrine. Not Revelation. And furthermore, one interprets Revelation based upon the explicit statements found in the rest of the Bible that are not amidst visions and symbolic speech. Since we are never to assume anything, not even what is symbolic and what is not, we need plain and explicit examples of what is symbolic in order to determine what is and what is not. That is why I learned to study this issue by looking to the rest of the Bible for the meanings of Revelation's visions. I found that every single vision in revelation has an actual Old Testament story that it alludes to. And the only safe basis I could then stand upon regarding the visions in Revelation was not that it was a series of "movies" of what will happen in the future, but references to everything Jesus and the apostles said, using the stories of the Old Testament as symbols for Jesus' and the apostles' explicit teachings."


CHILIASM < click
cont...

 

[zone]

"Instead of a future thousand year physical reign of Jesus, Revelation is actually saying that the devil is defeated once and for all at the end of the world, after dealt a blow at the cross.

By erringly taking the first resurrection to be physical, Chiliasts claim a new teaching that is not in the epistles anywhere, and never taught in explicit form.

No, Revelation is repeating what the epistles and Gospels already explicitly taught!

Such assumption of futurism is a right that such teachers will absolutely NOT GIVE to any other doctrine. I would like them to respond to people who assume just as much concerning the plan of salvation as they themselves assume about prophecy."



CHILIASM < click
cont....

 

[zone]

cont....

"A quote from 1911 Edition Encyclopedia.

http://34.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MI/MILLENNIUM.htm

“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 (neither 1 Cor. xv. 23 seq. nor 1 Thess. iv. 16 seq. points in this direction).”

And the writer claims that the prophets only suggested an eternal kingdom.

“At first it was assumed that the Messianic kingdom in Palestine would last for ever (so the prophets; cf. Jer. xxiv. 6; Ezek. xxxvii. 25; Joel iv. 20; Dan. vi. 27; Sibyll. ~ 49 seq., 766; Psalt. Salom. XVII. 4; Enocn lxii. I4), and this seems always to have been the most widely accepted view (John xn. 34).”

And the writer says that the thought of a thousand physical years is a derived conclusion.

“But from a comparison of prophetic passages of the Old Testament learned apocalyptic writers came to the conclusion that a distinction must be drawn between the earthly appearance of the Messiah and the appearance of God Himself amongst His people and in the Gentile world for the final judgment. As a necessary consequence, a limited period had to be assigned to the Messianic kingdom. According to the Apocalypse of Baruch (xl. 3) this kingdom will last, donec finiatur mundus corruptionis. In the Book of Enoch (xci. 12) a week is specified, in the Apocalypse of Ezra (vii. 28 seq.) four hundred years. This figure, corresponding to the four hundred years of Egyptian bondage, occurs also in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 9911). But this is the only passage; the Talmud has no fixed doctrine on the point. The view most frequently expressed there (see Von Otto in Hilgenfelds Zeitschrift, 1877, p. 527 seq.) is that the Messianic kingdom will last for one thousand (some said two thousand) years. In six days God created the world, on the seventh He rested. But a day of God is equal to a thousand years (Ps. xc. 4). Hence the world will last for six thousand years of toil and labor; then will come one thousand years of Sabbath rest for the people of God in the kingdom of the Messiah. This idea must have already been very common in the first century before Christ.”



CHILIASM < click
cont....

 

[zone]

cont....

"A quote from 1911 Edition Encyclopedia.

http://34.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MI/MILLENNIUM.htm


cont.....


"Ancient jewish apocalyptic thought, that was never mentioned by Jesus nor tha (sic) apostles, was adopted by writers long after the New Testament was written.

“Other ancient Christian authors were not so cautious. Accepting the Jewish apocalypses as sacred books of venerable antiquity, they read them eagerly, and transferred their contents bodily to Christianity. Nay more, the Gentile Christians took possession of them, and just in proportion as they were neglected by the Jewswho, after the war of Bar-Cochba, became indifferent to the Messianic hope and hardened themselves once more in devotion to the law they were naturalized in the Christian communities. The result was that these books became Christian documents; it is entirely to Christian, not to Jewish, tradition that we owe their preservation. The Jewish expectations are adopted for example, by Papias, by the writer of the epistle of Barnabas, and by Justin. Papias actually confounds expressions of Jesus with verses from the Apocalypse of Baruch, referring to the amazing fertility of the days of the Messianic kingdom (Papias in Iren. v. 33). Barnabas (Ep. 15) gives us the Jewish theory (from Gen. i. and Ps. xc. 4) that the present condition of the world is to last six thousand years from the creation, that at the beginning of the Sabbath (the seventh millennium) the Son of God appears, to put an end to the time of the unjust one, to judge the ungodly and renew the earth. But he does not indulge, like Papias, in sensuous descriptions of this seventh millennium; to Barnabas it is a time of rest, of sinlessness, and of a holy peace. It is not the end, however; it is followed by an eighth day of eternal duration the beginning of another world. So that in the view of Barnabas the Messianic reign still belongs to o&ros i~ aic~w.”



CHILIASM < click
cont...

 

[zone]

cont...

"The following quote notes how that Irenaeus and others simply adhered to it because it was traditional. And note how that some stood on the grounds that the disciples of the apostles, who wrote AFTER the bible was written, noted a physical 1000 years, implying the actual bible did not teach it. (Now, in order to state this, one has to believe that such thoughts in Revelation cannot be considered doctrine, since Revelation is not explicit teaching, as is the epistles and Gospels in whcih ther eis no mention of a 1000 year period.).

“The earlier fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, believed in chiliasm simply because it was a part of the tradition of the church and because Marcion and the Gnostics would have nothing to do with it. Irenaeus (v. 28, 29) has the same conception of the millennial kingdom as Barnabas and Papias, and appeals in support of it to the testimony of disciples of the apostles.”



CHILIASM < click
cont....