Regarding the Apostles Creed both the Old Roman form (4th century) and the received form (7th-8th century) came when Premillennialism had declined in the church. Howver, Epihanius (374 A.D.)in his creed does state that and he shall come again, with glory to judge the quick and dead; of whose kindom shall be no end If we regard, then, the present text of the Apostles Creed as a complete whole, we can hardly trace it beyond the 6th, certainly not beyond the close of the 5th century, and its triumph over all other forms in the Latin Church was not completed till the 8th century.. (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, (Vol.1), p.19)
There are two significant problems with your citation from Walvoord:
A.) His account is inaccurate. Many of the ancient church fathers he, in actuality, were not chilliasts.
B.) The 'chilliast' viewpoint of the first few centuries had very little resemblence to todays 'dispensational pre-millenialism'. They most decidedly were not dispensationalists as we now understand the 'dispensational' position to be.
The declarations of Mr. Walvoord as well as Mr. Ryrie have been thoroughly refuted by Dallas Seminary's own Allan Patrick Boyd. Mr. Boyd was attempting to write his master's thesis in support of Mr. Ryrie's and Mr. Walvoord's position. However, once Mr. Boyd studied the actual historical records, he couldn't help but refute his mentors.
According to Mr. Boyd, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid"
[Allan Patrick Boyd, "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr)" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977), page 89]
He goes on to say, "These Churchmen were not literalistic; drew no essential distinction between Israel and the Church; did not have a Dispensational view of history; . . . did not hold to imminency and pretribulationism; and their eschatological chronology was not synonymous with Dispensationalism's." [Boyd, Ibid.]
Mr. Boyd also laments the fact that, while Rylie has now changed his view regarding the historical confirmation of "Pre-Millenialism", he has not corrected his literary works to reflect this.
A study of the works of Church historians D.H. Kromminga, Ned Stonehouse, W.G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and Philip Schaff will undoubtedly show the 'hopeful claim' of the historicity of 'Pre-Millenialism' is false.
Mr. Boyd has declared that the best that can be said is that the early church fathers were 'seminal amillenialists'.
Regarding the view being 'popularized' by the great Augustine. Would one claim that the advent of the Nicene Creed was a change in church belief against Arianism? Abviously, the church has always been anti-Arian. However, the threat to orthodox theology was not evident until that time which is why the Council of Nicea formulated the Creed. Likewise, the chilliasts were a relative minority until the time of Augustine at which point his declarations and clarifications of orthodox eschatology were necessary. Because he argued so persuasivly, 'chilliasm' nearly died out. Putting the beginnings of 'amillenialism' at the time of Augustine is simply false. Rather, history shows that chilliasm was simply a remnant of the false notion of the O.T. Jews who held hope of a triumphant earthly kingdom and thus their rational for the rejection of the Messiah.
Of the church fathers you cite, the following can be demonstrated to be non-chilliasts:
Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Irenaeus.
These names can be added to the following names of church fathers who opposed chilliasm:
Mathetes, Hermas, Didache, Hegesippus, Victorinus of Pettau, Coracion, Methodius, Eusebius, Augustine.
Quotations from all of the above can be supplied upon demand. Due to brevity concerns, they will not be posted here.
Regarding the 'chilliast' view: Little resemblence to today's 'Pre-millenialsim'. Primarily, the chilliast view held that the entire history of earth was to be 7000 years coordinating with the 7 days of creation. Now, quite obviously false.
Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that many of even the 'chilliasts' were anything but 'dispensationalists' as the term is understood today:
According to Dispensationalist Alan Patrick Boyd "The Majority of the writers/writings in this period (70-165 A.D.) completely identify Israel with the church." He specifically cites Papias, I Clement, 2 Clement, Barnabus, Hermas, the Didache, and Justin Martyr.
Boyd notes that in the case of Barnabus, ". . . he has totally disassociated Israel from the precepts of the Old Testament. In fact he specifically designates the Church to be the heir of the covenantal promises made to Israel ."
Elsewhere he writes Papias applied much of Old Testament to the Church.
Of Hermas he notes the "employment of the phraseology of late Judaism to make the Church the True Israel."
Of Justin Martyr he claims that the Church is the true Israelitic race, thereby blurring the distinction between Israel and the Church:
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew "even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ are the true Israelitic race."
So, if the early church's 'chilliast' version so unresembles todays 'dispensational pre-millenialsim', how and why are you attempting to use this 'chilliast' view as support of your dispensational heresy?
RE: The Apostles Creed
I'm not quite sure of what your point is (especially your highlighting of "of whose kindom shall be no end") The fact of the matter is the revisions you cite as well as the original version quite obviously refer to one resurrection and one and only one judgement of the world:
I believe in God the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day He rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, being seated at the right hand of the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, holy church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh.
[Origianl Text as quoted from A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918, p61]
You will notice the quotation "whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead". Quite obviously, the authors of the Creed see Christ coming not to set up a 1000 year literal kingdom after resurrecting and judging only believers. Rather, this is a direct quote from (probably) the second century regarding the purpose and events surrounding Christ's (only) second coming. He comes to judge the living and the dead. If your 1000 year literal kingdom was of such the importance you claim, I'd expect to see it evidenced in the Creeds.
You should also note that the Nicene Creed of 325AD supports this belief in a nearly word for word statement. Also, the ancient (until about the 17th century erroneously credited to Athanasius) Athanasian Creed states "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
History testifies, the creeds testify, but most importantly, the Scriptures undisputedly testify to the rejection of 'Dispensational Pre-Millenialism'
The following uncredited sources were used (some re-wordings for a smooth flow and some click and paste):
The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial -by Martin R. Bachicha
Amillennialism: A Word Direct From The Scriptures -by Tony Warren
The Kingdom of Israel -by John Shepard
Please read and parouse the above sources as they offer far more information and evidence than is proper to place here.
Jean