Origen was wrong about a lot of things. I invite you to read Irenaeus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Victoranius, and Hippolytus for yourself--they hardly come across as simpletons, despite Origen and Eusebius' slander against them. I could post the quotes for you, but I'm working late tonight, so you'd have to wait for a couple of days for me to pull them if you don't want to do the reading yourself.
Cerinthus was a Jew who joined the Church and began drawing Christians away from the orthodox faith.
Yes, yes, yes, and if you carefully read my post, you'll see that I acknowledge that he was an enemy of the Apostle John. I was hardly holding him up as a model of Christianity. My point was simply that everyone connected to the author of the Apocalypse (and many besides in those early days, like Martyr) was premillennial, which demonstrates that that was the teaching of the Apostle too. Amillennialism came later, as your own quotes demonstrate.
You'll notice that except for Origen, who was mid-third century, all of your quotes come from the fourth and fifth centuries. That hardly demonstrates that amillennialism preceded premillennialism. Indeed, since it was during that period that the Church started merging with the state, I would argue that it demonstrates the later contamination of the original theology as the Church compromised with paganism and Greek philosophy.
For Eusebius, all I can say is that if he was so willing to lie about Papias' connection to John, despite Irenaeus' clear testimony to the contrary, in order to discredit Papias' clear premill POV, then how exactly is that a point in favor of those who attempted to discredit the view by slander in the days of the Constantinian compromises?
The people I cite, on the other hand, are all late-first and early-to-mid seconed century fathers who are very well respected by later scholars. Indeed, Eusebius quotes Irenaeus as authoritative in other matters of history.
And for Spurgeon . . . so what? What has his single opinion, one among many who were far distanced from the man who wrote the Revelation in the first place, have to do with anything?
Most importantly, of course, is what the Bible itself says . . . and the Bible says that those killed by the Beast that is empowered by the Dragon are raised before the Millennium, which in turn occurs after the Lord Jesus Christ defeats the Beast and the False Prophet in the Last Battle, and has the Dragon that empowered them cast into the Abyss for that same period.
Furthermore, the Bible, particularly the Tanakh, speak of a number of events that haven't happened yet and clearly happen after the Lord's Coming, but which also could not happen in a perfect, eternal age in which there was no more death and suffering: All the nations having to go up to Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkot, with rain being withheld if they refuse in Zech. 14, for example. Or the survivors of the Day of the Lord bringing the Jews to Jerusalem by any means that they can in Isa. 66. The rebuilding of the Temple, in which the Prince will oversee the sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48, and so on.
Amillennialism has no answer to these many passages that speak of Israel's destinty as the seat of the King or of a time when the Son of Man will rule with a rod of iron over the nations from Jerusalem, so it has to either simply ignore them, or else explain them away in absurd fashion as somehow applying to the present age. However, if God cannot keep even His direct promises of earthly blessings to His people Israel, how then can we expect Him to keep His promises of eternal life and adoption to the Church?
"Amillennialism has no answer to these many passages that speak of Israel's destinty as the seat of the King or of a time when the Son of Man will rule with a rod of iron over the nations from Jerusalem, so it has to either simply ignore them, or else explain them away in absurd fashion as somehow applying to the present age. However, if God cannot keep even His direct promises of earthly blessings to His people Israel, how then can we expect Him to keep His promises of eternal life and adoption to the Church?" ~ Buggman
Your questions are easily answered.
Amillennialism is not a "no millennium" viewpoint. The basic idea here is that the "thousand years" described in Revelation 20 is figurative of Christ's spiritual reign in this Gospel Age -- i.e., now.
All the OT promises were fulfilled in Christ; Satan was "bound" at the cross and resurrection of Christ; there is now only one "Israel" -- the Church made up of both Jews and Gentiles; Satan will be "loosed" just before the Second Coming; the gathering of the saints, the resurrection, and Christ's Second Coming are all a simultaneous event, followed immediately by the one general Judgment and then the eternal state (the "new heavens and new earth").
We don't disagree that Scripture speaks of the "millennium", we just disagree as to its meaning.
Below, I have set forth the basis for where what I believe comes from --- BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER I set forth [reiterate] --- FROM WHOM you get the basis for your beliefs.
THIS IS THE GUY WHOSE IDEAS YOU EMBRACE:
"One of the antichrists who afflicted the early church was Cerinthus, the leader of a first-century Judaistic cult. Regarded by the Church Fathers as "the Arch-heretic," and identified as one of the "false apostles" who opposed Paul.
Cerinthus was a Jew who joined the Church and began drawing Christians away from the orthodox faith. He taught that a lesser deity, and not the true God, had created the world (holding, with the Gnostics, that God was much too "spiritual" to be concerned with material reality). Logically, this meant also a denial of the Incarnation, since God would not take to Himself a physical body and truly human personality.
And Cerinthus was consistent: he declared that Jesus had merely been an ordinary man, not born of a virgin; that "the Christ" (a heavenly spirit) had descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism (enabling Him to perform miracles), but then left Him again at the crucifixion. Cerinthus also advocated a doctrine of justification by works in particular, the absolute necessity of observing the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Covenant in order to be saved.
Furthermore, Cerinthus was apparently the first to teach that the Second Coming would usher in a literal reign of Christ in Jerusalem for a thousand years. Although this was contrary to the apostolic teaching of the Kingdom, Cerinthus claimed that an angel had revealed this doctrine to him." (Chapter 12,Paradise Restored)
NOW MY BELIEFS, AND THE BASIS FOR THEM:
The Premillennial view appeals to the traditions of men. It is basically an offshoot of the old Judaic traditions in the law-bound belief in nationalism, earthly Kingdoms, and genealogical glory. When studied carefully, it is both inconsistent, contradictory, and like national Israel before, it continually denies God's fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies (which scripture clearly declare have already been fulfilled).
When God's Word says something is fulfilled (completed), then it's fulfilled. The emphasis of God's Word is on the spiritual nature of Messiah's Kingdom and of those who reign in it. It confirms that we are citizens of that kingdom (now) as prophesied, and we presently reign in Peace, as Kings and Priests unto our God. Not an earthly or political government of Christ in worldly Jerusalem, but a spiritual government in a spiritual city from above (Gal. 4:26). A Government wherein we obey the laws thereof 'in Christ,' who rules over us.
The prevailing view that the historic early church was premillennial is quite misleading. They are applying the name Premillennialism to the historically traditional Old Testament Jewish belief that an earthly Messiah would come to reign in Israel. After the cross, this Old Testament tradition found it's way into some parts of the early Church, as did many other fables.
Blending Old testament Judaic traditions and beliefs of a coming earthly Messiah establishing a political government, with New Testament Christianity - that Messiah reigns 1000 years is an accommodation to old Judaic worldly ideas.
They (as the nation of Israel before them), refused to accept that Messiah had already established His Kingdom in everlasting Peace, and delivered the people from bondage.
In the late 1850's John Nelson Darby put forth a new form of premillennialism, called Dispensationalism. In this was taught that God interacts with man in epochs (periods of time) or dispensations. This view was brought into the mainstream by Cyrus Scofield with the publication of his "Scofield Reference Bible." Many others, getting ideas from his bible, wrote their own conclusions about it, one building on the writings of another, until we have the dispensational doctrine in it's present flavors today. Premillennialism finally gained general recognition among Protestants after the rise of these errors in the first half of the nineteenth century.
In our day, Christians have been told over and over again by these Premillennial writers (and their advocates) that God has a special love for the Jewish race, no matter what evil they might do or how they may continue to deny God's Anointed Christ.
This (besides being in direct contradiction to God's own written Word), makes no biblical sense.
Scripture makes no such claim, as it is written, "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel -Romans 9:6".
There is individual Salvation, not national salvation. The bottom line of this doctrine is that it teaches that a person's racial descent (being Israel) makes them God's Chosen People. i.e., merely by being born, and regardless of lifestyle, faithfulness or obedience. They are chosen people by blood line, or genealogy. Israel (to these theologians) is a matter of race or ethnicity, and not faith in God.
Again, in direct contradiction to all God stands for. The truth is that all Israel is not Israel and all jews are not Jews.
God has declared that Israel will be defined by Him, not the pride of men.
Truly if the captivity of Israel is made free by Christ, then the Kingdom of God has come, and those who wait for another kingdom of Christ, wait in vain.
"The lack of understanding of the scriptures, and the promises concerning the nation of Israel, is what drives doctrines such as Premillennialism to condemn what is obviously Biblical. To these Theologians, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah refers exclusively to the nation of Israel, and the promises of redemption to Israel is yet future. But they are unable to explain how Christ did all His redeeming at the cross, and yet their doctrine declares scripture speaks of Him coming again for a future redemption for Israel to fulfil the prophesy that, "all Israel shall be saved." Is Christ going to the cross a second time to take away sin of Israel? No, all those scriptures were fulfilled, and that lack of acceptance of Christ's word of fulfillment is the root of their error. The answer is in receiving the New Testament explanation of the old. Receiving what is Revealed! All Israel shall Be saved, but it will be all the Israel of God. For God has already explained (to those listening) that ALL Israel (the nation) are not Israel! Therefore, the All Israel could never be the nation. "He who hath an ear, let him hear!' " ~ Tony Warren
Christ speaks of a 'final day'. He speaks of a singular general judgment and resurrection. He speaks of a single 2nd coming.
Acts tells us that the heavens must receive him until the restitution of ALL things.
That's the New Heavens and the New Earth.
2 Peter 3 destroys any and all forms of premillennialism - especially when read along side of 1 Corinthians 3.
2 Peter 3 never tells us about any "1000" years - let alone a "1000 years" after the resurrection.
There is neither Jew nor Greek..." [Gal.3:28, Col 3:11]