I have a thread already going that shows the true origins of Premillennialism. It was the heretics that were the originators and promoters of this belief:
The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics No Premil has been able to refute any of that thread. Check it out! That is because it is factual and historic. All you are presenting is your opinions. That is what and other Premils do on this subject. I see no historic evidence.
I'll check it out. But I seriously doubt there is substantial evidence in either direction. Both views were probably there from the beginning since both literal and allegorical interpretations existed at that time. We've gone over how many elements a Chiliast has to hold to in order to be viewed as an Amillennialist?
Chances are, there were a mixture of elements, Premil and Amil, that existed in any of the schools, since any systematic theology likely developed over time. For example, belief that national Israel was completely rejected began early, and is a tenet of Amil. And yet early Chiliasts held to that view, which might make them appear to be Amil? We've been over that type of thing before, if you'll recall?
The orthodox early Church believe that the Church was true Israel and that early Church Fathers. The heretical Premils rejected that. That is my thesis. I supported it with much evidence.
Yea, I can see where you go on this--at least I think so. I do recognize that Israel had been reduced to a mere remnant in Paul's view. It was hardly the nation that Premils believe will be in the future.
I happen to believe Paul expected the Christian remnant to be representative of a future salvation of the whole nation, politically and spiritually. But I do agree that the remnant of Israel was viewed as part of the Church.
And if Gentiles are added to this Jewish Church as branches to a tree, then I suppose you could view the whole Church as part of a "Spiritual Israel?" I don't see it that way, but I do understand it, if that's what you mean?
Commodianus, who wrote between AD 251 and 258, is the first orthodox writer to clearly and unambiguously state that there will be mortal beings in a future millennium that will join in marriage and enjoy sexual relations, producing offspring.
I remember we discussed earlier the heretic Cerinthus, who may have believed the same. Though he was a heretic, it shows a view of mortal humanity was already in existence in the time of the Apostle John. If a heretic could hold this view in a corrupt way, an orthodox believer may have held this view in a pure way?
But importantly, he limits this reality to the righteous alone (those “who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist”). If this one tenant qualifies him to be a Premillennialist, then he is the first that we can find. But one tenet surely doesn’t deem one a full flown Premillennialism. He certainly prepared the way for what we would now know as classic Premillennialism.
This really amounts to an argument from silence. We have no idea what ideas were expressed that were not written down, copied, and preserved for centuries. When Amil became the favored position, any Milllennial descriptions may have been burned? So, I don't know.
Victorinus was the first of the orthodox writers to teach that the wicked populate a future millennial kingdom. He is also the first to detail Satan’s release after a literal thousand years in the future, whereupon he will use his baleful influence successfully on the wicked who supposedly during Satan’s little season. Victorinus wrote mainly around AD 270. Victorinus concisely submits:
Yes, full-blown modern Premillennial thought may not have been preserved in documents from the Early Church. Amil took precedence and dominated over many centuries up even until today.
I'm willing to take a different approach. And I've given my reasons before. But thanks.
