Imminent.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oh really? Or in my Irish Latin: O'Reillius?
LOL, I like that.

One: It's not the last five chapters of his papers, but the fifth of five chapters.
Not true. His work consists of 5 books. The last 5 chapters of the fifth book all pertain to eschatology. I have his works and I have read those chapters myself. Here are the chapter titles so you can see for yourself...


CHAP. XXXII.—IN THAT FLESH IN WHICH THE SAINTS HAVE SUFFERED SO MANY AFFLICTIONS, THEY SHALL RECEIVE THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOURS; ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL CREATION WAITS FOR THIS, AND GOD PROMISES IT TO ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED.


CHAP. XXXIII.—FURTHER PROOFS OF THE SAME PROPOSITION, DRAWN FROM THE PROMISES MADE BY CHRIST, WHEN HE DECLARED THAT HE WOULD DRINK OF THE FRUIT OF THE VINE WITH HIS DISCIPLES IN HIS FATHER’S KINGDOM, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HE PROMISED TO REWARD THEM AN HUNDRED-FOLD, AND TO MAKE THEM PARTAKE OF BANQUETS. THE BLESSING PRONOUNCED BY JACOB HAD POINTED OUT THIS ALREADY, AS PAPIAS AND THE ELDERS HAVE INTERPRETED IT.

CHAP. XXXIV.—HE FORTIFIES HIS OPINIONS WITH REGARD TO THE TEMPORAL AND EARTHLY KINGDOM OF THE SAINTS AFTER THEIR RESURRECTION, BY THE VARIOUS TESTIMONIES OF ISAIAH, EZEKIEL, JEREMIAH, AND DANIEL; ALSO BY THE PARABLE OF THE SERVANTS WATCHING, TO WHOM THE LORD PROMISED THAT HE WOULD MINISTER.



CHAP. XXXV.—HE CONTENDS THAT THESE TESTIMONIES ALREADY ALLEGED CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD ALLEGORICALLY OF CELESTIAL BLESSINGS, BUT THAT THEY SHALL HAVE THEIR FULFILMENT AFTER THE COMING OF ANTICHRIST, AND THE RESURRECTION, IN THE TERRESTRIAL JERUSALEM. TO THE FORMER PROPHECIES HE SUBJOINS OTHERS DRAWN FROM ISAIAH, JEREMIAH, AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.


CHAP. XXXVI.—MEN SHALL BE ACTUALLY RAISED: THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE ANNIHILATED; BUT THERE SHALL BE VARIOUS MANSIONS FOR THE SAINTS, ACCORDING TO THE RANK ALLOTTED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. ALL THINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO GOD THE FATHER, AND SO SHALL HE BE ALL IN ALL.







Two: His writing, which we don't have all, is very limited and it's not about eschatology, but as the title of his papers says, it is against heresy, of which there was no lack in those ancient times, often spawned by sheer ignorance, but mostly from their inability to get accurate information. Irenaeus himself is also guilty of this basic flaw in knowing true facts: he wrote that Jesus was near 50 and ministered for 15 years.
I am failing to see what exactly your point is. My point was simply to establish that early premillennialism was not far from ammillennialism. Irenaeus is just an example of this. Would you like me to quote from other premillennials to show that their thinking on much of Revelation is much more similar to amillennials than dispensationalism? Lets not lose the forest for the trees here.

Does he cite Daniel? No.
Does he draw any conclusions from 2Th 2:1-8? No.
Does he quote Jesus' reference of Daniel 9:27 in Matthew 24:15 and connect it to the Temple by way of His mention of the Holy Place? No.
Does he tie the anti-Cnrist to Revelation chapter 13? No.
Again, you are using circular arguments. You are trying to prove your point by using your view as the foundation for your argument. I.e. proper eschatology gives great attention to timelines and ties 2 Thess. 2, Rev. 13, Daniel 9 and Matt. 24 to the Antichrist. Since he does not do this, he must not be elaborating properly. What if, the focus of these early Christians was more on the prescription of Revelation rather than the predictions of Revelation (as I have been arguing). What if, their focus was on how we should live today, and not what is going to happen and how precisely it will take place in the "end times"? You can't argue from Irenaeus' silence and make conclusions based on what he didnt write! We can only base our conclusions on what he did write and what we know for sure is that he believed in a literal 1,000 year reign, a literal Antichrist and he believed the Church would be the recepients of all the promises of the OT and Revelation...not national Israel. We also know he says nothing about a rebuilt temple, a secret rapture or anything remotely close to what you have been arguing. His view about the Second Coming, how we should live as a result and the recepients of God's promises are very much in line with what Amillennials believe and very different from the views of Dispensationalists....that is all we can say for sure and to imagine he believed otherwise but just didnt elaborate on it is simply your imagination at work and nothing more.

Point is: Irenaeus never states he is writing about his eschatology. Now we can find bits and snatches of it, but it is not well developed. It most certainly is not explicit.
Matthew never says he is writing about eschatology, but clearly there are passages in the Gospel of Matthew that pertain to the subject. Simply because a 5 book work is not specifically focused on eschatology does not mean he doesn't address it and expound upon it to a good degree. Clearly he does.

We can also find "Replacement Theology" in his book, which is also quite in the minority opinion today as a viable view.
According to who? I guess if you dismiss all Catholics and pretty much all Reformed denominations and only include baptists..then yeah, its the minority opinion. lol.

I said it has its origins with Augustine. I did not say he created it. There is a difference: words mean things.
Im sorry, but I am really chuckling here. So I am trying to understand what these words mean....let me consult a dictionary:

or·i·gin

ˈôrəjən/

noun



  1. 1.


    the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.














cre·ate

krēˈāt/

verb





  1. bring (something) into existence.




    • cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions.





    • (of an actor) originate (a role) by playing a character for the first time.





Am I being punked here? LOL
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Its origins. Augustine's world view lead to the formation of Amillennialism; he did not create a complete eschatology as you espouse it. That took time and many authors. But they follow his lead.

Sorry fifth book. His chapters as labeled are hardly explicit in spelling out a distinct eschatology. And his "chapters" are hardly equivalent to what we'd expect today, but are more like short papers which really don't explore anything in depth.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Am I being punked here? LOL
To say that a river that has its origins in the mountains on its run to the sea was created by the snow melt is to ignore all the other sources which flow into it to make it the river it is when it empties fresh water into salt water.

I think you know what I mean, and I think you're "punking" me in trying to say by these very simple definitions that origin and create mean the same.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Its origins. Augustine's world view lead to the formation of Amillennialism;
That just is not true. Augustine "popularized" a view that had been around for some time. Augustine was the originator of views like original sin. He was not the originator/origin of Amillennialism. Do some research on the issue. Amillennialism dates back 200 years prior to Augustine...at least.

Sorry fifth book. His chapters as labeled are hardly explicit in spelling out a distinct eschatology. And his "chapters" are hardly equivalent to what we'd expect today, but are more like short papers which really don't explore anything in depth.
But, that is precisely my point. These early Christians did not go into such detail, primarily because they had a very simple view of the end times. It's hard to write books on Amillennial or historic premillennial views of end times because it is a very simple....Christians will go through trials...Jesus will return....(Jesus will reign for 1,000 years (for the HP))....the living and dead will be judged. The focus on such views is simply, "be ready." That is what Jesus taught, and that is what the early church fathers taught. It is not because they didnt want to go into detail, it is because they had a very straight-forward and basic view of eschatology. At least, that is what I believe.

To say that a river that has its origins in the mountains on its run to the sea was created by the snow melt is to ignore all the other sources which flow into it to make it the river it is when it empties fresh water into salt water.
This is just dodging the point. Amillennialism is a doctrine. The "origin" of the doctrine speaks of the creation of it or its "origin-ator." If I ask about the origin of an idea, I am talking about who first thought it up and created it. I am asking about the origin-ator. I am not asking about the burrito the guy ate the night before that may have led to indigestion and perhaps kept him awake that night which then led to him thinking about the idea. Augustine was not the origin of Amillennialism. It was around hundreds of years before he was born and he made it popular and ultimately led to it becoming accepted eschatological view of the church as a whole. Either way, the point that led us to this is that the early church never had any conception of the ideas you have. Now, maybe it is because Darby and those who follow in his footsteps are more enlightened. But just dont tell me that these things are so evident in the Scriptures. If they were so evident then im sure it wouldnt have taken 1800 years for Dispensationalism to "originate."
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Augustine "popularized" a view that had been around for some time.
And that is not true. That is why we have historic pre-millennialist and scholars like the ones at Bible.org call it Augustinian Amillennialism.

Wormwood said:
Amillennialism is a doctrine.
Eschatology is not doctrine, unless you want us to put on your strait jacket and not think for ourselves.

Wormwood said:
Either way, the point that led us to this is that the early church never had any conception of the ideas you have.
Nonsense. I've been reading some of Irenaeus, and you've missed some eschatological "chapters" in book 5 that make the very same kind of connections I make, and take a literal approach to the end-times.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
CHAPTER 25 -- THE FRAUD, PRIDE, AND TYRANNICAL KINGDOM OF ANTICHRIST, AS DESCRIBED BY DANIEL AND PAUL.

1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped -- that is, above every idol -- for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.

2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be."(3)

3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: "And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom."(4) Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,"(1) that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: "And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming; whose coming [i.e., the wicked one's] is after the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity,"(2)

4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: "I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,"(3) calling Antichrist "the other," because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one "who feared not God, neither regarded man,"(4) to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God, -- that is, the earthly Jerusalem, -- to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice,(5) and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously."(6) And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: "And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs."(7) And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete."(8) Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.

5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet"(9) (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coining and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise(10) of the Son, and called us into His knowledge.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So Irenaeus does make a lot of the connections I make and he speaks of a literal Temple, a Temple that was not there in his day.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Origen, using an allegorical method of interpretation, spiritualized the future kingdom and understood it to be the present Church Age from Adam on. This amillennial eschatology was popularized by Augustine." - Ryrie's Basic Theology, 500.

"The history of amillennialism is significant. It can be traced to the Church Fathers, and particularly the approaches to Scriptures of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who believed that the Bible was to be interpreted allegorically, with the true meaning discovered beneath the surface." - The Handbook to Bible Study, 298.

""Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity. It had at least as many advocates as Chiliasm among the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, supposed to have been the heyday of Chiliasm. It has ever since been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles." - Berkof, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 708.

Marcus, you are wrong. I don't know how else I can prove it.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As far as the Temple is concerned, many of the early church leaders did not believe in the Temple being rebuilt. However, some did. Yet, it is clear, unlike Dispensationalism, these early church leaders saw the rebuilding of the Temple as a wicked act that was used as a means of deception. It is not something God mandated because of unfulfilled prophecies to the Jews.

Here is a quote from Cyril of Jerusalem

"And again he says, Who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped; (against every God; Antichrist forsooth will abhor the idols,) so that he seats himself in the temple of God . What temple then? He means, the Temple of the Jews which has been destroyed. For God forbid that it should be the one in which we are! Why say we this? That we may not be supposed to favour ourselves. For if he comes to the Jews as Christ, and desires to be worshipped by the Jews, he will make great account of the Temple, that he may more completely beguile them; making it supposed that he is the man of the race of David, who shall build up the Temple which was erected by Solomon . And Antichrist will come at the time when there shall not be left one stone upon another in the Temple of the Jews, according to the doom pronounced by our Saviour ; for when, either decay of time, or demolition ensuing on pretence of new buildings, or from any other causes, shall have overthrown all the stones, I mean not merely of the outer circuit, but of the inner shrine also, where the Cherubim were, then shall he come with all signs and lying wonders, exalting himself against all idols; at first indeed making a pretence of benevolence, but afterwards displaying his relentless temper, and that chiefly against the Saints of God. For he says, I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints ; and again elsewhere, there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation upon earth, even to that same time . Dreadful is that beast, a mighty dragon, unconquerable by man, ready to devour; concerning whom though we have more things to speak out of the divine Scriptures, yet we will content ourselves at present with thus much, in order to keep within compass" (Catechetical Lectures, 15:15)."

Also,

"St. John Damascene says that the Antichrist will come a deify himself in a Jewish temple, and that this temple will have nothing to do with the true faith: "not our temple, but the old Jewish temple . For he will come not to us but to the Jews: not for Christ or the things of Christ: wherefore he is called Antichrist" (De Fide Orth. 4:26)."

In sum, Amillennialists do not reject the idea of an Antichrist. Nor, would they likely reject the notion that such a person would attempt to build a Temple to receive worship. What they reject is the Dispensational views that these things are necessary as part of God's future "dispensation" to fulfill unmet promises to the Jews. They would likely mostly agree with historic premillennialists that a Temple could be rebuilt, and if it was, it would not be a part of God's desire or plan, but part of the enemy's plan to thwart and deceive.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Marcus, you are wrong. I don't know how else I can prove it.
No, you've tried a couple of fallacies in argument and still I refuse to bend to your will. If you seek to prove that your conception of the truth is true, the only one you're going to convince is yourself; which brings up an adage: "Don't believe everything you think."

I would desire a discussion rather than argument. Equivocating over "origin" and "create", mixing a noun and a verb so as to say they mean the same thing, in distinct difference to the level of nuance I demonstrated these words can mean with the example of a simple river - is not discussing. It's dismissive as most fallacies in argument are.

Another fallacy is your appeal to authority. To truly say they are correct, we'd have to examine their whole work, theme, and orientation. They could no more objective than you are on this subject; your mind is made up.

Amillennialism also lends itself to another fallacy in argument: Appeal to the populous. By being the predominant view for so long, adherents to this eschatology attempt to exert authority for their view, even elevating it as you have done to "Doctrine."

In general, because the details you're focusing on are ancillary to the real difference between our takes on the book of Revelation. The reason Historical Pre-Millennialism is so named is because it predates Amillennialism. The two are not the same, and every attempt you make to blend the two and increase your argument appealing to the populous for authority for your doctrine, attempts to spin words to their complete opposite. Of course you're frustrated.

I really expected better discussion on the root of our difference. My failing may be that I had an expectation for that from you, a moderator, in the first place.

As it is, I find this petty devolution uninteresting. I dislike when some come and attempt to destroy a completely different take, rather than make an intellectual pro/con argument for their position.

I am quite willing to allow you your view, especially when I can incorporate aspects of a different way of looking at things based on your take on Scripture, but as an American, I am quite unwilling to let someone of equal stature dictate my thinking. God doesn't have any grandchildren. So as Bacchus wrote in "Telling Yourself the Truth", we should constantly question our basis for what we think we know.

This leads to self-examination instead of condemnation of others for not thinking as we do.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, you've tried a couple of fallacies in argument and still I refuse to bend to your will. If you seek to prove that your conception of the truth is true, the only one you're going to convince is yourself; which brings up an adage: "Don't believe everything you think."
I have quoted three theology books. How is this "my will" and what I think? Do you have any books or theological journals that say otherwise? Where are you getting this information that makes you so sure all the sources I quoted are wrong?

Equivocating over "origin" and "create", mixing a noun and a verb so as to say they mean the same thing, in distinct difference to the level of nuance I demonstrated these words can mean with the example of a simple river - is not discussing. It's dismissive as most fallacies in argument are.
I dont think it is equivocating as I cannot have a discussion with you if I cannot follow your basic use of words. I have never heard of anyone speak of a doctrine's origins, but then argue that origins has nothing to do with the creation of a doctrine. If this is how you use words, then I think basic conversation with you is impossible. I still do not know what you were trying to say about the "origins" of Amilinnialism. I said Augustine "popularized" the view....is that what you mean? If not, what exactly were you trying to say? See what I mean? I cannot discuss things with you if I cannot understand the way you use common words...I am trying, but it is becoming impossible if I have to figure out how you are using words in ways that are very foreign to their basic definition.

Another fallacy is your appeal to authority. To truly say they are correct, we'd have to examine their whole work, theme, and orientation. They could no more objective than you are on this subject; your mind is made up.
I dont know what you are saying here. Are you talking about my quoting of published resources? Yes, published works are a good source for learning. Two of those sources I quoted are not supportive of Amillennialism. Moreover, you are suggesting the authors and books are lying about history. Do you have a basis for this? I am trying to quote sources to explain why I believe the way I do. If anyone is being authoritarian it is you. You are the one dismissing ideas with seemingly no sources or rationale other than, "your mind is made up." If not, then point me to some scholarship or sources other than just trying to discredit every book and journal I cite. Why is it that I can quote all kinds of published sources that prove you wrong and you simply say, "Meh, they probably arent objective...you have to prove it and stop just basing it on your own thoughts." Who is basing these ideas on their own thoughts? I am using resources and you are simply dismissing them because they dont agree with you without quoting one single resource or scholar. Where have you gotten these facts that make you so sure that you would assume the books I quote have an agenda?!

Amillennialism also lends itself to another fallacy in argument: Appeal to the populous. By being the predominant view for so long, adherents to this eschatology attempt to exert authority for their view, even elevating it as you have done to "Doctrine."
So just a few messages ago, you were (falsely) saying that Amillennialism is a minority view today. Now, you are accusing those who hold the view as one that merely appeals to the populous. This is ridiculous. Which is it? Is it currently a minority view that didnt exist for 400 years prior to the establishment of the church (your apparent rationale for discrediting the view), or is it a prominent view that seeks to manipulate people by the force of its popular acceptance? You cant have it both ways.

My point (which you seem to continually conveniently ignore) is simply that you were saying that Dispensationalism is "obvious" and acting as if one doesnt believe it, then they dont believe the Bible and I was arguing that no one has believed it for 1,800 years, so how can it be so "obvious?" YOu were the one who then sought to discredit Amillennialism by saying it wasnt developed until the 4th century and has been a minority view in recent history. I have not been trying to appeal to the populous as a means of proving my view. I have simply said that we should not say dispensationalism is so "obvious" if no one thought of it in 2,000 years of studying the Scriptures. So lets not paint this like I am trying to appeal to majority vote and historical precedent (although both do favor my position). I have simply been saying that you are overstating your case by making it sound like Dispensationalism is so obvious and the only way one cannot see it is if they are intentionally overlooking it. History simply tells us another story. Maybe your view is right. But you cannot say it is "obvious" because it clearly isnt since almost 2,000 years of studying the Bible never conceived it. Make sense?

The reason Historical Pre-Millennialism is so named is because it predates Amillennialism.
You really need to do some more study on views other than your own for a while. Historic Premillennialism is named this way to differentiate it from more modern views of Premilennialism (i.e. pretribulationalism, Dispensationalism). It is also often referred to as Classical and Nondispensational Premillennialism). The name has nothing to do with it predating Amillennialism It has to do with it predating other versions of premillennialism.

H. Wayne House summarizes the view this way,
"[These] Premillennialists hold that the return of Christ will be preceded by certain signs, then followed by a period of peace and righteousness in which Christ will reign on earth in person as King. Historic premillennialists understand the return of Christ and the Rapture as one and the same event. They see unity. Therefore they stand apart from the dispensational premillennialist who sees these as two events separated by a seven-year Tribulation."
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
So just a few messages ago, you were (falsely) saying that Amillennialism is a minority view today. Now, you are accusing those who hold the view as one that merely appeals to the populous. This is ridiculous.
You're right. This argumentative style of ridicule seeking to destroy is ridiculous.

I think you're living in a vacuum with only like-minded individuals.

According to a 1987 reader survey of readers by Christianity Today Institute, Amillennial garnered 18%. Pre-Trib adherents (along the Left Behind series) ranked at 60%. Post-Trib adherents ranked at 9%. Those with no opinion ranked at 12%. Mid-Trib garnered only 1%, which is the only eschatology listed that gets anywhere close to my eschatology.

Fallacies in Argument: Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public): This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

So while your eschatology is in the minority, citing those in the public who agree with you, even to the point of maintaining that you're in the majority - is exactly why your argument is a fallacy.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I must say, that I find this whole style of attack posting upon me and my eschatology, which you continually misrepresent, as another form of a fallacy in argument: Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person): This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

You keep directing the argument away from the idea to the point that you want to argue continually that no difference exists between origin and create.

Instead, and along with continuing to spew argument about what Historical Pre-Millenniialism is, is in fact another form of fallacy in argument: Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition): This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again.

And frankly, I'm getting about as disgusted with a lack of real discussion about ideas - and wishfully thinking I'd ever be granted the status of being allowed to have a stance differing from yours - as it is to argue with rabbi keras over what Isaiah 30:26 actually says versus what he says it says.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So I'm a Historic Pre-Millennialist.
So you believe the second coming inaugurates the millennium and there is no such thing as the disappearance of the church during a 7 year Great Tribulation?

So while your eschatology is in the minority, citing those in the public who agree with you, even to the point of maintaining that you're in the majority - is exactly why your argument is a fallacy.
Christianity Today is not a magazine that is not representative of all Christians worldwide. It's focus is primarily Protestant evangelicals. While I am a Protestant evangelical, I would not dismiss all Catholics, Orthodox or mainline denominations as if none of them belong in the category "Christian." Considering Catholics alone outnumber Protestants 3-2...not including mainline Protestants who are also largely amillennial, I think you are misrepresenting the numbers a bit. Either way, I tried to be clear about what my point was and you are the one who continually goes back to arguing about stats and the meaning of words. I have been trying to explain my primary point and you continue to ignore it.

Now you're equivocating on equivocating.
You were the one to start arguing about the meaning of words. I was merely responding to your statements. It seems every time I use some objective proof, be it a definition, statistic, or quote from a theology book, you start attacking my means of argumentation rather than addressing the points being made. If you feel this is unfruitful, you have every right to stop discussing the topic.

I must say, that I find this whole style of attack posting upon me and my eschatology, which you continually misrepresent, as another form of a fallacy in argument: Argumentum ad hominem(argument directed at the person): This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
Marcus, you are accusing me of the very thing you are doing. Go back and read through our discussion. I have been trying to make points and defend those points using defintions, quotes and other literature. You are the one who keeps jumping into issues about definitions, whether my texts are reliable or claiming that the only reason I believe as I do is because im authoritarian, refuse to see the clear teaching of Scripture or am just going with popular opinion. My focus has only been to address your points. I have never attacked you as a person or questioned your heart, faith or intelligence. The only thing I have said is that I feel this doctrine of yours is dangerous and I have tried to show reasons why. Yet these reasons were always and only directed at some of the ideas behind this eschatology and has never been about attacking you as a person or your motives.

I have tried to show: 1. Dispensationalism has an unhealthy focus on nationalities and genealogies rather than the faith of Abraham. 2. Dispensationalism is dangerous because it has a great tendency to tie Biblical texts to contemporary events as "proofs" for the beginning of the end times...and when those "proofs" come up empty, then it causes outsiders to discredit the Bible. 3. Dispensationalism is not, unlike what you were claiming, an "obvious" rendering of Scripture or else it would not have taken 1800 years to conceive it.

Also, I have tried to defend my own views by posting information about the content of Revelation as well as respond to your comments that Amillennialism did not come into being until the 4th century and Augustine was not the originator of it.

In sum, I apologize if you feel I have been attacking you or not addressing issues of eschatology. I have only been trying to address the above points and respond to issues as you bring them up. If there is a point you would like to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you want to argue - I'll argue. It makes for great message board entertainment to watch two people tear each other into pieces...

Wormwood said:
I dont think it is equivocating as I cannot have a discussion with you if I cannot follow your basic use of words. I have never heard of anyone speak of a doctrine's origins, but then argue that origins has nothing to do with the creation of a doctrine. If this is how you use words, then I think basic conversation with you is impossible. I still do not know what you were trying to say about the "origins" of Amilinnialism. I said Augustine "popularized" the view....is that what you mean? If not, what exactly were you trying to say? See what I mean? I cannot discuss things with you if I cannot understand the way you use common words...I am trying, but it is becoming impossible if I have to figure out how you are using words in ways that are very foreign to their basic definition.
Now you said this was the definition of create.

cre·ate
krēˈāt/
verb

bring (something) into existence.
cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions.
(of an actor) originate (a role) by playing a character for the first time.
That's VERY basic.

Here is how Websters' New International Dictionary - Second Edition 1957 (my best dictionary) defines the word. What's funny, is the older I go in dictionaries, (the earliest I have is 1833), the more elaborate and lengthy are their definitions. If you're using a paperback college edition, you might get one that is as short as the one you've used here.

createʹ (krē•ātʹ), v.; CRE•ATʹED (-ātʹĕd; -ĭd; 119); CRE•ATʹING (-ātʹĭng).
Transitive: 1. To bring into being; to cause to exist; –said esp. of the formation of the world from nothing.
God created the heaven and the earth Gen i. 1.
2. Hence, to cause to be, or to produce, by fiat or by mental, moral, or legal action; as a. To invest with a new form, office or character; to constitute by an act of law or of sovereignty; to appoint; as, to create one a peer. b. To produce, form, or bring to pass, by influence over or stimulation of others* as, to create a favorable public opinion. c. To produce as by an act of grace.
Create in me a clean heart Ps. 1i. 10.
3. To cause or occasion; to form; –said of natural or physical causes and especially of social and evolutionary forces; as, new environment creates new forms of life.
4. To produce as a work of thought or imagination, esp. as a work of art or of dramatic interpretation along new or unconventional lines; as Irving created a new Hamlet.
Intransitive: To the act of creating something.
Syn. –Make, build, produce, fashion; invent, originate
Ant. –Exterminate, annihilate. See DESTROY.

Originate is a synonym. It is not the same as create.

Now, in City of God, which I now have thanks to this line or argument, the best point at which you could say Augustine created Amillennialism comes in Book XX, chapter 6 & 7. However, while his reading is rather "thick" - it does not create a wholly new and complete eschatology as Irving created a new Hamlet. While you would like to stretch this fourth possible definition, to me, it does not apply, and furthermore, the primary definition given in 1. as well its secondary and tertiary definitions do not apply at all to Augustine's work seminal work. I would not ascribe "create" to the process by which Amillennialism was formed. I do, as well as many others credit Augustine with the formation of Amillennialism, which was a distinct break from the Chiliasts.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power; but they shall
be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
1339
Those who, on the strength of this passage, have suspected that the first resurrection is future and
bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years,
as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that
period, a holy leisure after the labors of the six thousand years since man was created, and
was on account of his great sin dismissed from the blessedness of paradise into the woes of
this mortal life, so that thus, as it is written, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day,”1340 there should follow on the completion of six thousand
years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and
that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath
. And this opinion
would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall
be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion.

1341 But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate
carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to
shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such
assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the
spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians.1342 It were
a tedious process to refute these opinions point by point: we prefer proceeding to show
how that passage of Scripture should be understood
.1343
-- Augustine City of God, Book XX, chapter 7.
(emphasis added)

Here is where I say Amillennialism originated: with the interjection of a new way in which the Millennium should be understood.
Augustine did not create Amillennialism. He created an manner of interpretation which lead to the formation of a whole eschatology which you and others, over time, have elevated to doctrine.

Now you said this was the definition of origin.

or·i·gin
ˈôrəjən/
noun

1.
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
And here is what Websters' has to say:

orʹi•gin (ŏrʹĭ•jĭn), n. [F. origine, fr. L. origo, -iginis, fr. orior I rise, become visible. See RUN; cr. OREAD.]
1. The fact or process of coming into being from a source; derivation; beginning regarded in connection with its cause.
2. a. Parentage; ancestry. b. That from which anything primarily proceeds; source; fountain; spring; cause.
3. Anat. The more fixed, central, or larger attachment or end of a muscle; – in contradistinction to insertion.
4. Math, See 3d CO-ORDINATE, 2.
Syn. – Source, root; rise, commencement, beginning – ORIGIN, INCEPTION. The ORIGIN of anything is its beginnings; the INCEPTION of anything is its beginning regarded esp. as initiating or inaugurating whatever follows; as, “To the ‘Worship of Sorrow’ ascribe what origin and genesis thou pleasest” (Carlyle); to support an undertaking from its inception. Cf. OCCASION, BEGIN.
Ant. – End, conclusion, termination.

When I say Amillennialism had its origin with Augustine, I mean that he is the source for what became commonly accepted through a millennium and a half in, through, and by which of the Roman Catholic Church which elevated eschatology and interpretation to the level you hold: doctrine.

That Augustine did not create a complete eschatology - that can be concluded from his book, City of God in Book XX. However, his ideas on how the millennium should be understood has become the wellspring of modern Amillennialism. Many of his arguments about aspects of Revelation chapter 20 I find ingrained in Amillennialists when I broach the subject and they repeat in some cases, nearly word-for-word the arguments that Augustine makes. He is the source for their elaborate eschatology which goes beyond what Augustine wrote.

Maybe now, since we defined some terms, the English I use might be understandable to you.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
So you believe the second coming inaugurates the millennium and there is no such thing as the disappearance of the church during a 7 year Great Tribulation?
No, and don't put words into my mouth.

I agreed with the author that Historic Pre-Millennialism saw the return of Christ and the Rapture as one and the same event.

Now I use "event" to differentiate action, but as I see in Scripture, that Jesus returns on the Day of the Lord, and on that same day, we are subsequently gathered up, then yes, I see unity.

I mentioned nothing about the Millennium nor any such thing as the "disappearance of the church during a 7 year Great Tribulation".

- The second thing, this disappearance, that you tried to plaster me with is totally foreign to me and is something out of your understanding of someone else's eschatology and has nothing to do with me.

So before you excoriate my eschatology, indeed blaming it for what it is not, maybe you ought to try to wrestle with the idea of how we even approach chapter 20 in Revelation.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now I find it funny that you want to redefine Historical Pre-Millennialism into an argument that Augustine just "popularized" a view that was prevalent - as is if this adds weight for the authority you seek for your eschatology. That is a fallacy in argument.

But as to the basic fact that Augustine stated he had shared, but then changed, is also summed up in the very same way I put the origin of your eschatology.

Here is the teaching of a professor of church history to try to establish a basic fact:

One of the interesting things about Augustine of Hippo, the famous North African who converted in A.D. 386, is how and why he changed his views during his 45-year writing career as a Christian. Perhaps his most influential change is found in City of God, Augustine's greatest work. Its massive length (about a thousand pages in modern translations) took him a dozen years to complete.

There, in book 22 [sic], Augustine sets out his mature understanding of the "thousand years" of Revelation 20:3-6. His new position—which is often called amillennial—became the view of most Christians in the West, including the Reformers, for almost a millennium and a half.

Professor David Wright, of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, goes on:

Augustine said the "first resurrection" of which John speaks is a spiritual resurrection, and it takes place throughout the church's history as the spiritually dead "hear the voice of the Son of God and pass from death to life." They continue hereafter "in this condition of new life." Those who have not come to new life in this era will, at the second resurrection, pass into the second death with their bodies.

Augustine never left a problem unsolved if he could help it. He took the thrones of Revelation 20:4 as "the seats of the authorities by whom the church is now governed." The judgment they exercise is what Jesus spoke of when he said, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

This interpretation, coupled with his emphasis on the church as the kingdom, led to notions that Augustine could not have envisaged: in the Middle Ages, the church was viewed as the place where God's rule was exercised on earth through a papal monarch.

Heaven's the thing
This was a new way of understanding last things, and the question naturally arises: Why would Augustine abandon the dominant interpretation of Christians, many of whom he deeply respected?

Now if you want to call my citation of authority as a fallacy in argument - what I am attempting to refute is your notion that Amillennialism drew upon Historic Pre-Millennialism and thus render your opinion ~ that you believe to be true ~ to its correct position of a falsehood, a complete fabrication, and a total inversion of word meaning which is why Historic Pre-Millennialism is so-named: because it came before Amillennialism!