Let me explain where I am at right now. Mind you, coming from the amil position, there is probably a lot of furniture I need to toss in the dumpster moving forward. I see Christ coming in the cloud at the consummation of the age to gather His church unto Himself. So, now where does this leave me?
Some believe this to be the rapture of the church and ushering in the beginning of the seven years trib. Now, in the Chialist view, what takes place after 1 Thessalonians 4 happens?
Keep in mind I do see a nuanced difference between what some call Chialism and historical premillennialism. I prefer the latter term, particularly because it is broader and has not been hijacked by dispensationalists.
I would suggest that 1 Thess 4 occurs alongside the events between Rev 19 and 20. There is only rapture which occurs at the end of the age, prior to the millennial reign of Christ. The tribulation is a dubious concept which I reject in any limited timeline, and likewise, I also reject the notion of a singular anti-Christ.
Chialist eschatology wasn't very refined in patristic thought (which is where the Chialist interpretation is limited) so it is difficult to get a precise angle on their positions.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I see both Jew and Gentile being placed in Christ via the same means...grace through faith, both having to have the circumcision of the heart as Paul wrote in Romans 2 and Colossians 2.
There is only one covenant whereby mankind is saved, the new covenant and all are equals in its application and their participation.
So, how does the Chialist view the AC? Is he an actual person? Does he typify something, as I view the AC being symbolic of the Papalcy of the RCC?
My personal view on the notion of chialism is that it effectively ends in the patristic period and historical premillennialism extends during their medieval and into the Reformation era. The challenge of eschatology in the Patristic period is that, by the time you get to Augustine, most are moving towards amillennialism. So it is unlikely to find a standard position on issues like you've listed above.
Some, for instance Irenaeus, do view a personal figure as an anti-Christ (e.g.
AdvHaer 3.8.2; 5.25.1) but also talks generically about anti-Christ (e.g.
AdvHaer 3.16.8.) Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn't take shape until the seventh century, and even well before during Nicaea, there isn't much to rebel against. One would be hard pressed to show any correlation, patristically, of an anti-Christ figure with a singular leader in the Catholic Church. You might find more of an indication in the arch-heretics (Arius, Marcion, Montanus, etc) of this era than a Christian view. The worst that could've happened at this point of time was that orthodox (small-o) Christians start accusing each other of being the anti-Christ.
I will note this, that from the NT and even documents from the Apostolic or near post-Apostolic age, we get a sense of waning immanence of Christ's return. Particularly in Paul we see him, in the early writings, anticipating a quick return of Christ for the end of the age, but in his late, near death, works, he hedges his language. This happens with other documents too. It shouldn't be surprising that in the 1st century there is a sizable move to see Christ returning soon, and very soon, and this carries into the second and third centuries. It becomes more inflamed during severe persecutions for sure, but then the nature of the Second Coming is pushed farther out it seems as we wander into the middle of the third century. The real challenge for the pre-trib, pre-mil dispensationalist is showing that any of their perspectives live on in the documents following the NT. You just don't get the sense that it does. Anyways...this is fruitful. Thank you for the conversation.
