[This theory I've semi-abandoned, I'm planning to revise it.]
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Chilialsm vs Premillennialism.
I am definitely a Premillennialist but I'm not comfortable with being called a Chilialist. That might confuse you since enemies of Premillennialism treat the two terms as utterly synonymous.
I'm Premillennial because I believe the visible Parusia of Jesus Christ (and Bodily Resurrection of Church Age Believers) precedes the start of the Millennium described in Revelation chapter 20, and thus since that Parusia obviously hasn't happened yet, the Millennium hasn't started yet.
However what Chiliasm seems to refer to, especially when spoken of negatively by some early Christians, qualifies as that but also seems tied to fundamental misunderstandings of what the Millennium is. Though those misunderstandings are to varying degrees also held by a lot of my fellow contemporary Premillennialists.
What I'm referring to is also distinct from the disagreements Dispensationalists and Supersecenists and Two House Theology have about what the Millennium is.
I've already discussed on this blog how The Millennium is not a Utopia or a Paradise, the paradise we await comes after that in Revelation 21-22. The Millennium will probably be better then the world currently is, but it is still to a large extent an era in which the battle against Sin isn't over. The main place I point to as being an allusion to the Millennium outside Revelation is 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, what Paul places between the Parusia and the General Resurrection.
I have already expressed on this blog annoyance at how many Christian prophecy teachers will refer to various Hebrew Bible Prophecies as being about the Millennium when they are clearly about the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem, and in fact they are the very Prophecies Revelation 21-22 is quoting, like Isaiah 65-66 and Ezekiel 40-48.
I do think there are some Old Testament allusions to the Millennium, like Daniel 7:12. My current view of Ezekiel 38-39 means we possibly see glimpses of the Millennium in those chapters, as well as possibly the chapters preceding those. And Maybe also the end of Zechariah 14.
I've also noticed a tendency for Chilialsm to be linked to viewing the Millennium as the last era of the Physical Word, that Revelation 21-22 are just describing a purely spiritual existence in which anything that looks physical there is merely an allegory, that it's really just about our Spirits becoming one with The Force. Of course Amillennial and Postmillennial views are often also guilty of that heresy in their own way. Especially since any view that we're already in the Millennium is an obvious gateway drug to rejecting the Bodily Resurrection altogether.
In my view Revelation 21-22 is a physical carnal world, in fact it is our world perfected to it's Pre-Fall condition. And any desire to reject or weaken that is Platonic, Neo-Plaotnic or Gnostic heresy.
Basically what most Chiliasts think the Millennium is like is how I view Revelation 21-22.
My last post already addressed the misconception that Premillenialists think the Kingdom has an end.
When I say there was no Amillennial or Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation 20 before Augustine and certainly not before Nicaea, I'm open to being proven wrong on that. But you need more then just the existence of people not liking Chilialsm and it's implications. You need to specifically prove that they interpreted the Thousand years of Revelation 20 as not a literal time period and/or having already began.
And again, many people who wanted to reject any notion of a Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea.
Update Correction: Ticonius does beat Augustine to forming a Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation, in fact he is who Augustine got it from. Still his Commentary was published in 380 AD, same year Christianity formally became the state religion of the Empire and after over half a century of being effectively the state region. And it went hand in hand with being a purely Spiritual interpretation of Revelation. And he was a Donatist, so officially a Heretic according to the Council of Nicaea.
I'm Premillennial because I believe the visible Parusia of Jesus Christ (and Bodily Resurrection of Church Age Believers) precedes the start of the Millennium described in Revelation chapter 20, and thus since that Parusia obviously hasn't happened yet, the Millennium hasn't started yet.
However what Chiliasm seems to refer to, especially when spoken of negatively by some early Christians, qualifies as that but also seems tied to fundamental misunderstandings of what the Millennium is. Though those misunderstandings are to varying degrees also held by a lot of my fellow contemporary Premillennialists.
What I'm referring to is also distinct from the disagreements Dispensationalists and Supersecenists and Two House Theology have about what the Millennium is.
I've already discussed on this blog how The Millennium is not a Utopia or a Paradise, the paradise we await comes after that in Revelation 21-22. The Millennium will probably be better then the world currently is, but it is still to a large extent an era in which the battle against Sin isn't over. The main place I point to as being an allusion to the Millennium outside Revelation is 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, what Paul places between the Parusia and the General Resurrection.
I have already expressed on this blog annoyance at how many Christian prophecy teachers will refer to various Hebrew Bible Prophecies as being about the Millennium when they are clearly about the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem, and in fact they are the very Prophecies Revelation 21-22 is quoting, like Isaiah 65-66 and Ezekiel 40-48.
I do think there are some Old Testament allusions to the Millennium, like Daniel 7:12. My current view of Ezekiel 38-39 means we possibly see glimpses of the Millennium in those chapters, as well as possibly the chapters preceding those. And Maybe also the end of Zechariah 14.
I've also noticed a tendency for Chilialsm to be linked to viewing the Millennium as the last era of the Physical Word, that Revelation 21-22 are just describing a purely spiritual existence in which anything that looks physical there is merely an allegory, that it's really just about our Spirits becoming one with The Force. Of course Amillennial and Postmillennial views are often also guilty of that heresy in their own way. Especially since any view that we're already in the Millennium is an obvious gateway drug to rejecting the Bodily Resurrection altogether.
In my view Revelation 21-22 is a physical carnal world, in fact it is our world perfected to it's Pre-Fall condition. And any desire to reject or weaken that is Platonic, Neo-Plaotnic or Gnostic heresy.
Basically what most Chiliasts think the Millennium is like is how I view Revelation 21-22.
My last post already addressed the misconception that Premillenialists think the Kingdom has an end.
When I say there was no Amillennial or Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation 20 before Augustine and certainly not before Nicaea, I'm open to being proven wrong on that. But you need more then just the existence of people not liking Chilialsm and it's implications. You need to specifically prove that they interpreted the Thousand years of Revelation 20 as not a literal time period and/or having already began.
And again, many people who wanted to reject any notion of a Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea.
Update Correction: Ticonius does beat Augustine to forming a Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation, in fact he is who Augustine got it from. Still his Commentary was published in 380 AD, same year Christianity formally became the state religion of the Empire and after over half a century of being effectively the state region. And it went hand in hand with being a purely Spiritual interpretation of Revelation. And he was a Donatist, so officially a Heretic according to the Council of Nicaea.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
His Kingdom Shall Have no End.
In Luke chapter 1 verse 33 the Angle Gabriel tells Mary about her Son.
http://francisgumerlock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Millennialism%20and%20the%20Early%20Church%20Councils.%20Gumerlock.pdf
However more important then if that was the reason for the line being added, is the matter of if this line even is in conflict with Premillenialism, because in my view it's not.
Every Premillenial agrees that Christ's Kingdom is without end. Some may start by saying this declaration is more about the Kingdom of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 then what Revelation 20 is about.
But I prefer to stress that in Revelation 20 the Kingdom doesn't end when the Thousand Years ends, the only thing that happens exactly when the Thousand years are over is Satan being let out of the Abyss. He then deceives Gog and Magog, the nations in the four corners of the Earth, to wage war on the Camp of the Saints, but then they are defeated. The whole point of the Narrative is that the Kingdom doesn't end.
I would argue it's interpretations of the book that make the Millennium and New Jerusalem basically the same thing that are more likely to be hindered by this deceleration.
"And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."This verse is the basis for one of the additions to the Nicene Creed.
whose kingdom shall have no end.I have recently learned that many Amillenial scholars want to use this line as evidence that the Second Ecumenical Council condemned Premillenialism. This PDF I found refuted the notion that Premillenialism was the reason for adding that line.
http://francisgumerlock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Millennialism%20and%20the%20Early%20Church%20Councils.%20Gumerlock.pdf
However more important then if that was the reason for the line being added, is the matter of if this line even is in conflict with Premillenialism, because in my view it's not.
Every Premillenial agrees that Christ's Kingdom is without end. Some may start by saying this declaration is more about the Kingdom of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 then what Revelation 20 is about.
But I prefer to stress that in Revelation 20 the Kingdom doesn't end when the Thousand Years ends, the only thing that happens exactly when the Thousand years are over is Satan being let out of the Abyss. He then deceives Gog and Magog, the nations in the four corners of the Earth, to wage war on the Camp of the Saints, but then they are defeated. The whole point of the Narrative is that the Kingdom doesn't end.
I would argue it's interpretations of the book that make the Millennium and New Jerusalem basically the same thing that are more likely to be hindered by this deceleration.
If anything this statement of Luke 1:33 is more of a problem for a face value reading of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 then it is Revelation 20, but even then it's just a matter of exactly what Paul means. I think Christ is still Reigning after He gives all Authority to The Father, there's merely a nuanced difference in how exactly it looks one the Material and Spiritual are no longer separated.
As I've said before, Amillennial or Post-Millennial interpretation of Revelation were very rare before Augustine, those who didn't like the Millennium as a doctrine instead rejected Revelation altogether.
The Origenist attitude condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council is ironically to me exactly the same attitude that leads to Amillenialism.
As I've said before, Amillennial or Post-Millennial interpretation of Revelation were very rare before Augustine, those who didn't like the Millennium as a doctrine instead rejected Revelation altogether.
The Origenist attitude condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council is ironically to me exactly the same attitude that leads to Amillenialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)