Question on Historic (post-trib) Premillennialism

[RamistThomist]

Come on, Chris, Jacob, and Paul - time to quit cutting and pasting the whole post - the earliest items are totally unreadable in your reply, and anyone interested can scroll up the thread to see the earlier exchanges. If you think you are making points somehow, you aren't.

Cut and paste the comment (or portion thereof) that you are replying to.

I actually thought it looked kind of neat--and since I am not debating a single topic or point right now, nothing is lost

 

[sovereigngrace]

My own timeline. I started out roughly theonomic postmil then shifted to a vaguely Augustinian take on the millennium (but with very definite views on Antichrist!) to a loosely historic premil. I say that simply because I am not committed to any one system. Most of premil works with me and the difficulties in it aren't any worse than other systems.

But it's not my main point of history. Philosophical theology patristics and the like are and that takes up most of my time.

I am actually studying the eschatology of the church fathers over the first 400 since the cross. I was under the false impression when I started they were mainly Premil. i have since learned: they were not. They were mainly Amil from what I can see.

 

[RamistThomist]

My own timeline. I started out roughly theonomic postmil then shifted to a vaguely Augustinian take on the millennium (but with very definite views on Antichrist!) to a loosely historic premil. I say that simply because I am not committed to any one system. Most of premil works with me and the difficulties in it aren't any worse than other systems.

But it's not my main point of history. Philosophical theology patristics and the like are and that takes up most of my time.

I am actually studying the eschatology of the church fathers over the first 400 since the cross. I was under the false impression when I started they were mainly Premil. i have since learned: they were not. They were mainly Amil from what I can see.

It's a mixed bag. I try to avoid things like "The fathers say..." because a) it is a Eastern Orthodox method and b) the fathers usually don't speak uniformly on complex doctrine early on.

St Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were definitely premil. They acknowledge, however, that there are other views. That right there means there is no uniformity. Scholars have said Methodius of Olympus and St Cyril of Jerusalem (not Alexandria) were premil. I'm not so sure. They all have exciting views of the Tribulation (and they all believe in a definite Tribulation period) but they don't have any clear millennial frameworks.

In the West Augustine dominated and few would challenge that paradigm. In the East eschatology was more along the lines of a) condemning Origen's apakastasis and b) condemning the vaguely-defined Chiliasts.

Now to throw a few monkey wrenches into everything.

1. Regardless of where they landed on millennial frameworks, they all held to a mutation of futurist/historist interpretation.
2. British monks made many historicistic prophecies about the end times (some of which have been fulfilled).

In other words, this might be "amillennialism," but it's not the academic tenured respectable amillennialism. St Cyril of Jerusalem said we will fight Antichrist in his person.

 

[RamistThomist]

They all have exciting views of the Tribulation (and they all believe in a definite Tribulation period) but they don't have any clear millennial frameworks.

I guess that would be my own position.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It's a mixed bag. I try to avoid things like "The fathers say..." because a) it is a Eastern Orthodox method and b) the fathers usually don't speak uniformly on complex doctrine early on.

St Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were definitely premil. They acknowledge, however, that there are other views. That right there means there is no uniformity. Scholars have said Methodius of Olympus and St Cyril of Jerusalem (not Alexandria) were premil. I'm not so sure. They all have exciting views of the Tribulation (and they all believe in a definite Tribulation period) but they don't have any clear millennial frameworks.

In the West Augustine dominated and few would challenge that paradigm. In the East eschatology was more along the lines of a) condemning Origen's apakastasis and b) condemning the vaguely-defined Chiliasts.

Now to throw a few monkey wrenches into everything.

1. Regardless of where they landed on millennial frameworks, they all held to a mutation of futurist/historist interpretation.
2. British monks made many historicistic prophecies about the end times (some of which have been fulfilled).

In other words, this might be "amillennialism," but it's not the academic tenured respectable amillennialism. St Cyril of Jerusalem said we will fight Antichrist in his person.

I do not believe Cyril of Jerusalem was Premil (or Chiliast). What is your evidence? My findings are:

Asia Minor

Papias
Hierapolis, Turkey
(A.D. 98-117
Justin Martyr
Asia Minor
(AD 100-166)
Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons, Gaul, (now France)
(AD 150)
Aviricius Marcellus
Bishop of Hieropolis, Lesser Phrygia, Asia Minor
(flourished 163AD)
Methodius
Bishop of Olympus, Asia Minor
(died 311 A.D).

Europe

Hippolytus
Rome, Italy
(AD 170 – 236)
Victorinus
Pettau, Hungary
(270AD)
Gaudentius
Bishop of Brescia, Italy
(Bishop from about 387 until his death 410)

Africa

Tertullian
Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia)
(AD 145-260)
Commodianus
Africa
(wrote between AD 251 and 258)
Lactantius
Africa
(250 - 317 AD)
Quintus Julius Hilarianus
Africa
(written AD 397)

Egypt

Nepos
Egyptian bishop
(AD 230-250)