[wmfights]

It may be concluded, therefore, that the first century is barren of any real support to the amillennial viewpoint. While, indeed, the evidence is not altogether clear and not abundant for this century, it is significant that amillennial polemics have contented themselves with minimizing premillennial claims without attempting to support their own view by historical evidence. The first century is a lost cause for amillennialism.

The second century like the first is devoid of any testimony whatever for amillennialism except at its close.

At the very close of the second century and the beginning of the third we come upon the first bona fide amillennialists, Gaius (or, Caius) who wrote early in the third century; Clement of Alexandria, a teacher at the school there from 193 to 220; his pupil, Origen (185-254); and Dionysius (190-265). It was from these men that premillennialism suffered its first vocal and effective opposition.

[wmfights]

Dispensational Caucus Ping

I think Dr. Walvoord does a great job of explaining how amillennialism was not the view of apostolic era Christians, or the century immediately following. The view held was premillennial.

[Lee N. Field]

I know nothing will come of the suggestion, but, I recommend you take a look at Charles Hill's Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity .

[Iscool]

At the very close of the second century and the beginning of the third we come upon the first bona fide amillennialists, Gaius (or, Caius) who wrote early in the third century; Clement of Alexandria, a teacher at the school there from 193 to 220; his pupil, Origen (185-254); and Dionysius (190-265). It was from these men that premillennialism suffered its first vocal and effective opposition. The nature of this opposition, its exegetical grounds, and the effect upon premillennialism are all significant.

With the close of the third century, the evidence indicates a distinct increase in power in amillennialism and a corresponding loss of power for the premillennialists. In the church, it is clear that the rising tide of amillennialism comes almost entirely from the Alexandrian school, in particular, from Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, all of this locality. Accompanying this change in the church was the corresponding political change under Constantine which became effective more and more in the fourth century. With the coming of Augustine a new day and a new chapter in the history of millennialism was written.

As can be seen, this refusal to believe scripture and insert private interpretation started in Alexandria, Africa...It started with the Catholic religion, of course...Why would a Christian follow a religion that has its roots in Africa???

This false (non)interpretation serves the Catholic religion very well...With it, they gave themselves the role of being the true religion which will last to eternity...They secured their position by joining with the worldwide Roman army and wiping out as many of the 'heretics' as they could find...

With a literal reading of the scriptures with a real Millennium, Rome doesn't exist...There is no legitimate Church of Rome...They must deny the Millennium...

I don't know what happened to the Reformers...They apparently fell off the wagon some time ago, for some reason...

If the Millennium is allegorical, people have to dump countless numbers of passages in the O.T. since they become meaningless and are a waste of good ink and paper...I don't believe God had the O.T. prophets go out and tell stories for what, entertainment???

[ravenwolf]

It has only been lately that I have even been familiar with the words premillennial and amillennial but I guess I have always been the latter

And I base my belief mainly on the following scriptures

Mathew 24
26
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27
For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

28
For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Meaning there will be no carcass

John 14
14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

John 6
40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

He receives the saved unto himself at the last day.

Rev 20
4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 20:6
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

So I suppose I believe that we have been living in a physical kingdom with Christ in his spiritual kingdom.

Luke 9:27
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

The ones in Rev 20:4 may have literally lived again and reigned in the spiritual kingdom of God.

Rev 20:16 may actually be saying that the rest of the dead would literally live again after the thousand years were finished.

We are getting prepared in this world to go to the one Christ is preparing, but it is hard for me or any one else to separate the two.