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
The second point was already acknowledged. I had stated that the early church was not strongly dispensational as was developed in the 19th century.
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.
They have!!! according to who?
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.]
So far, all you are saying is that has been acknowledged with the second point, that the early church fathers were not as dispensational as the dispensationalists today. What they were though were Premillennialists, who believed in a literal, physical reign for a thousand years (unlike Amillennialists)
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.
I did not cite Ryrie, I cited Walvoord, who cited Peters.
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.
It is Peters work that has to be refuted, since his is the definitive work in the area.
Regarding Schaff, he writes,
It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinquished teachers such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaneus, Tertullian, Methodius and Lactantius while Caius, Origen, Dionysisus the Great, Eusibius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.2,p.614)
Mr. Boyd has declared that the best that can be said is that the early church fathers were 'seminal amillenialists'.
Not according to Schaff as noted above.
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.
That chiliasts were in a minority n the 4th century has already been conceded. The rise of the Alexandrian school of interpretation and the combination of church and state made Premillennialism seem to be irrevlant. After all, the 'church' now was in control!
In the first 2 centuries it was Chiliasm which was the dominant point of view, with Amillennial theology coming to the forefront with the advent of Romanism.
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.
Do you guy ever believe in proving anything? Your assertions mean zero. History shows that it was Premillennial theology that dominated, not Amillennial. It was only with the advent of allegorization of scripture and the rejection of the literal reading that Amillennial theology could gain its dominance.
Of the church fathers you cite, the following can be demonstrated to be non-chilliasts: Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Irenaeus.
Not according to Schaff as already cited. In fact, regarding Barnabas Schaff notes,
He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of 6,000 years of labor ro the world, each lasting a thousand years and of a millennium of rest...The millennial sabbath on earth will be followed by and 8th and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord's day...is a type (Ibid,p.615)
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.
for not against, what era were the rest in? After the 3rd century Premillennialism waned as the Alexanderian school gained dominance (Origen, Eusbius)
Quotations from all of the above can be supplied upon demand. Due to brevity concerns, they will not be posted here.
No need, since they were not the ones that I had cited from the 1st and 2nd century (other then Barnabas which as I have cited was strongly Premillennial)
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.
Except for Barnabas which did hold that view. Moreover, the issue is not how closely they adhered to dispensational views, but did they believe that a literal thousand year Kingdom would be set up with the return of the Lord. That runs counter to Amillennial theology.
Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that many of even the 'chilliasts' were anything but 'dispensationalists' as the term is understood today:
Again, you are beating a 'dead horse'. I had stated when I first posted that these men could not be regarded as strongly dispensational, only Premillennial.
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 ."
I just wonder if you guys are such sloppy thinkers by accident or purpose. The issue was not whether they were dispensational but whether they believed in a visible return of Christ to set up a physical Kingdom, as opposed to the Amillennial view.
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."
Regarding Justin Martyr, Schaff writes,
Represents the transition from the Jewish Christian to the Gentile Christian chiliasm. He repeatedly of the second parousia of Christ in the clouds of heaven, surrounded by the holy angels. It will be preceded by the near manifestation of the man of sin who speaks blasphemies against the most high God and will rule three and half years. He is preceded by heresies and false prophets. Christ will then raise the patriarchs, prophets, and pious Jews, establish the millennium, restore Jerusalem, and reign there in the midst of his saints, after which the second and general resurrection and judgment of the world will take place. He regarded the this expection of the earthly perfection of Christ's kingdom as the keystone of pure doctrine....After the millennium the world will be annihilated or transformed. (Schaff, Hist.p.616-17)
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?
The issue was never dispensationalism, but that fact that one, a literal hermenutic must lead to conclude that the Lord is returning to set up a real Kingdom. Two, that was the dominate view of the first 2 centuries when the literal hermenutic dominated. When the spiritualization of Scripture began (with Origen, then Augustine) then the Amillennial view became prevelant.
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 do? How come there is nothing about election and predestionation in any of the early creeds? Also, Irenaeus (A.D.170) wrote in his Creed, and his coming from heaven to the glory of the Father to comprehend everything under one head...and to execute righteous judgement over all Moreover,as I have already noted the creeds were not coming into being until the 3rd century,after the Pre-Millennial system was dominate. It was not until the 3rd-4th centuries that Creeds became an issue, as scripture was taken less seriously and the Church united with the State.
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.
Note the date, is it in the 4th century?
History testifies,
History testifies that Premillennialism was the dominate view in the first two centuries.
the creeds testify,
I will gladly give you the creeds
but most importantly, the Scriptures undisputedly testify to the rejection of 'Dispensational Pre-Millenialism'
Only if you accept the bizare allegorization of scripture, where anything can mean anything as long as you want it to (2Pet.3:16)
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 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.
As I noted with another Calvinist (but not Amillennial), you guys are very long on rhetoric but short on facts
The works I would recommend reading are:
George N. Peters (3Vol.) The Theocratic Kingdom
John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom
For a view of all the major views on the Millennium a good work is The Meaning of the Millenium, edited by Robert G.Clouse. In it there are discussions by George Ladd, Herman Hoyt (the Premillennial view), Loraine Boettner and Hoekema.
This was not on the link you gave me, where did you get if from?