Ok, I have a few minutes so I will try to address a few of your points.
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.
Again, Augustine did not create a break from Chiliasts as such a break already existed. I took an entire seminary course on this so I am pretty familiar with the development of early Christian doctrine. Symbolism and allegory were methods of interpretation that predated Augustine by many hundred years. Perhaps the most prominent biblical proponent of allegory was Philo the Jew (25 B.C. - 45 A.D.). Very early in church history you had two distinct schools of biblical interpretation. In the East, based out of the school in Alexandria, you had those who saw multiple levels of meaning in Scripture and that "spiritual" meanings were often understood as being the most profound. Out of this school of thought came figures like Clement of Alexandria (155-200 AD), Origen (185-254 AD). These men and others who came from this school of thought were prone to developing allegory and sought to establish a rule of faith in order to be the guide that would prevent various allegorical interpretations from stretching too far.
In the West, based out of the school of Antioch, there was a group known as the Historicists. These men taught that the interpreter is to discern the meaning of the text in its historical context without recourse to allegory and that the literal sense provided the fullest meaning. They accepted typological interpretation, but it was to be based in o the historico-grammatical meaning of the text. Men who came from this school of thought were peopl like Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom.
Obviously, Augustine would have been much more comfortable with the Alexandrian school of thought as he was very comfortable with utilizing allegory and believed that truth could be apprehended at many different levels. He believed a text could have many different meanings.
Consider some of the following references that show how those from the school of Alexandria dealt with passages such as the millennium:
There was also a movement to spiritualize or allegorize the millennium (amillennialist), partly in response to chiliasm. Origen (De prin. 2.11.2–3; 3.6) allegorized the millennium to be the spiritual rule of Christ in the believer until Christ hands over the believer to God. Tyconius, the Donatist theologian, taught that the millennial rule was from the passion to the second coming of Christ, a position which influenced Augustine to abandon millenarianism for amillennialism.
Duane F. Watson, “Millennium,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 900.
• First Epistle of Clement (AD 90/97) speaks of the Second Coming of Christ and the future resurrection, but gives no hint of two comings or two resurrections, or of a millennial kingdom.
• Polycarp (c. AD 110), Ignatius, the Didache (the ‘teaching of 12 Apostles’) and the Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 130) do not give any support to many aspects of the pre-millennial view. Although the Didache does seem to indicate the idea of a millennium, no actual reference is made.
• Papias and Justin Martyr (c. AD 150) both held to a future reign of Christ on earth for 1,000 years after the resurrection. Eusebius (c. AD 300) did not think highly of Papias’ view. Justin Martyr did speak contradictorily but was insistent on a thousand-year reign in Jerusalem. But he had no special place for Jewish conversion, believing that Christians are ‘the true Israelite race’. There were other views held at the time.
• AD 150–250. Millennialism was widely held but it was not the catholic faith, as embodied in the Catholic Creeds. Origen argued against an earthly millennium and his view found general acceptance. Augustine (AD 354–430) also spoke against it and influenced the church for centuries.
Ian McNaughton, Opening up 2 Thessalonians, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2008), 79–80.
So, as referenced above, Augustine did believe in a literal millennium until he was influenced by Tyconius. So it wasn't Augustine's pagan background that caused him to see the millennium as symbolic but the influence of another Christian teacher. Origen wrote extensively in rejection of a literal millennium 200 years before Augustine was born. The school in Alexandria was very fond of using allegory and spiritual meanings in interpreting Scripture and so seeing the millennium as a literal 1,000 years would not have been their first inclination by any means.
In future posts, I will quote some early Christian documents that speak for themselves on the issue.
No, and don't put words into my mouth.
I wasnt putting words in your mouth. If you look at my quote, you will see a question mark at the end of the sentence. I was asking if that was what you believed. Hence, I was asking for more information. You need to relax a little, friend.
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.
Marcus, almost all of my comments have been directed specifically at "dispensationalism." Since you have defended dispensationalism, I can only assume you agree with its major tenents. How am I supposed to know if you do not? And, why would you defend dispensationalism if you disagree with its major tenents? If there is confusion, I believe it is because you have associated yoruself with a belief you do not hold....if that is indeed the case. Allow me to quote House again in his summary of dispensationalism:
"Adherents of this school are represented by those who generally hold to the concept of two-stages in the coming of Christ. He will come for his church (rapture) and then with his church (revelation). The two events are separated by a seven-year Tribulation. There is a consistent distinction between Israel and the church throughout history."
Likewise, Dr. Jack Cottrell summarizes the view this way:
Since this view is a form of premillennialism, it agrees with the previous view that Christ’s second coming will precede the millennium. But what distinguishes it from the previous view? One of the main differences is that this view has a unique approach to the history of God’s dealings with the world in general, an approach that determines its view of the end time. According to dispensationalism world history is divided into at least five and perhaps as many as seven distinct stages or periods (“dispensations”). For our purposes the three main dispensations are the past Mosaic era, the present church age, and the future millennial kingdom. The key to understanding how these are related is to maintain an absolute distinction between Israel and the church. Underlying the entire historical schematic is the literalist approach to biblical interpretation and especially to prophecy, especially as it applies to Israel. As Ryrie says, “Dispensational theology grows out of a consistent use of the hermeneutical principle of normal, plain, or literal interpretation” (“Dispensation,” 322).
In the dispensational scheme all the OT prophecies about the kingdom of God were intended to be fulfilled in an earthly kingdom to be established by the Messiah for physical Israel. That was actually the purpose for which Christ came the first time. But when the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God simply postponed the kingdom until Christ could return to earth in his second coming. Only then would all the OT prophecies about the Jews and their kingdom be fulfilled. In the interim, as a kind of substitute for the kingdom, Jesus established the church. This present church age has no real continuity with either the OT period or with the millennial kingdom yet to come. It has been called a parenthesis in God’s real purpose, which has to do with the Jews. It is like the halftime events that separate the two halves of a single football game.
When God is ready to restart his postponed program for the Jews, he will begin the countdown for the second coming of Jesus in a very dramatic way. This could happen at literally any moment, since there are no special conditions that must precede it. What is this dramatic, any-moment event? It is the secret rapture of all Christians out of the earth. This coincides with Christ’s first second coming (second coming #1), which itself will be secret and invisible from the standpoint of earth’s normal activities. This event is called the parousia, the coming or presence of Christ. All at once, in some unexpected moment, all living Christians will suddenly disappear (evaporate, in a sense) from this world and will instantly receive their glorified bodies. They will then join all previously dead Christians, who have just been raised from the dead in their new bodies in what is called the first resurrection; then all will be taken up together to meet their Savior, who has returned for them to take them up to heaven. All Christians, now glorified, will then stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10) for the assignment of their rewards. Then as the bride of Christ they will join their Bridegroom for a seven-year wedding feast (Rev 19:7–9), which takes place in heaven.
What is the purpose of this secret rapture? Why does God suddenly remove all Christians from this world? There are two reasons. First, God has no more use for the church upon the earth. It has served its purpose; the halftime events are over. God is now ready to resume the real game, where the main players are the Jews (physical Israel). Second, the next seven years of earth’s history are about to be filled with some of the greatest suffering the world has ever witnessed, most of it the result of Satan’s attacks on the people of God. In an act of untold mercy God removes the church from the world just so it will not have to go through the “great tribulation.” Thus this view is called pretribulational premillennialism.
Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 484–485.
In sum, dispensationalism clearly states that there is the Church dispensation ends at the rapture/part 1 of the Second Coming which is followed by a 7 year Great Tribulation and reign of the Antichrist which is ended at Armageddon and Christ coming with the saints (part 2 of Second coming), followed by a 1,000 year reign of Christ after which Satan is released and destroyed, the wicked raised and the Great White Throne judgement.
I have no idea if you agree with the above or not. However, that is what dispensationalists believe and is the view that I have been questioning. Since you were defending the view, I assumed you believed it. I dont know how I can be expected to know anything different.
. I will try to get back to your other points perhaps on Monday. Weekends tend to be a busy time for me so I am not able to comment as much. Have a blessed day.
