Replies

I think it's interesting how amillennialism originated well after the Apostolic Era ended and when this interpretation failed a new interpretation emerged in the 1800's.

there are no acceptable exponents of amillennialism before Augustine, as has been previously discussed. Prior to Augustine, amillennialism was associated with the heresies produced by the allegorizing and spiritualizing school of theology at Alexandria which not only opposed premillennialism but subverted any literal exegesis of Scripture whatever. Few modern theologians even of liberal schools of thought would care to build upon the theology of such men as Clement of Alexandria, Origen or Dionysius. Augustine is, then, the first theologian of solid influence who adopted amillennialism.

Isn't it the Premillennialist's who are often accused of being a recent phenomenon? Augustine lived around 400 AD, well after the Apostolic Era ended.

wmfights:

There is some pre-millennial views in the early Church, but very few. Only a handful of proponents, one of which was a full-blown Montanist [Tertullian] by 210 AD. The overwhelming majority of the early Church was amillennial, including Saint Polycarp, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, are not pre-mellenial. Saint Justin Martyr hold something similar to pre-millennial views, but his views don’t align with the modern dispensationalist views and he states in his Dialogue with Trypho, that there are 2 views that are held by pious men of the Church.

Also before Saint Augustine, in addition to Saint Clement of Alexandria, Dionsysius, Bishop of the Church at Corinth, and Origen [which were correct cited as Amills], Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage was as well.

In addition, all of the major Creeds of the early Church, the Apostles, the Nicene-Constantinoplian, and the not as well known Athansisian Creeds are all very, very, amillennial. The Apostles Creed states, he will come to judge the Living and the Dead. Makes not statement about coming and having a literal reign on earth then another coming. The Nicene is much more explicit, he will come to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. The Athanasian Creed speaks of only a 2nd coming and final judgment.

I think the author misstates his case against amillenialism, if that is a correct reading by me of what he is stating. To be honest, this entire pre-post debate is not something that Catholics are dealing with.

Thanks for letting me chime in.