It is dishonest, to put it mildly, to identify the premillennial view of the Early Church Fathers with the pre-tribulation-dispensationalism developed by John Nelson Darby in about 1830. You know that as well as I do agedman!
The topic here is pre-millennialism, something you don't believe in. In fact you don't even believe in an earthly kingdom, a Millennial Kingdom of one thousand years. So your contribution to this discussion remains fairly small.
Agedman has shown quite successfully that premillennialism has been around since the nicene fathers, and since Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John, he takes it right back to the Apostle. Almost all would agree that premillennialism was a doctrine believed by the ECF. It was called Chiliasm. It was the prevailing eschatological stance of that day.
But what about amillennialism? When and where did it come from?
4. Amillenniallism from Augustine to Modern Times
Article contributed by
www.walvoord.com
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Augustine in the history of theology. Not only did his thinking crystallize the theology which preceded him, but to a large extent he laid the foundations for both Catholic and Protestant doctrine. B. B. Warfield, quoting Harnack, refers to Augustine as “incomparably the greatest man whom, ‘between Paul the Apostle and Luther the Reformer, the Christian Church has possessed.’“1 While the contribution of Augustine is principally noted in the areas of the doctrine of the church, hamartiology, the doctrine of grace, and predestination, he is also the greatest landmark in the early history of amillennialism.
The importance of Augustine to the history of amillennialism is derived from two reasons. First, there are no acceptable exponents of amillennialism before Augustine, as has been previously discussed. Prior to Augustine, amillennialism was associated with the heresies produced by the allegorizing and spiritualizing school of theology at Alexandria which not only opposed premillennialism but subverted any literal exegesis of Scripture whatever. Few modern theologians even of liberal schools of thought would care to build upon the theology of such men as Clement of Alexandria, Origen or Dionysius. Augustine is, then, the first theologian of solid influence who adopted amillennialism.
The second reason for the importance of Augustinian amillennialism is that his viewpoint became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church, and it was adopted with variations by most of the Protestant Reformers along with many other teachings of Augustine. The writings of Augustine, in fact, occasioned the shelving of premillennialism by most of the organized church. The study of Augustine on the millennial question is a necessary introduction to the doctrine as a whole.
1. It was first considered as a heresy (still is IMO).
2. It had to use an allegorical method of interpretation, such as Augustine used.
3. It came from Augustine.
4. It has been the prevailing doctrine of the RCC throughout the ages.
Those four points in and of themselves should be enough to make one run as far as possible from the doctrine.
Premillennialism implies two things: That Jesus is coming again, and the he is coming before the Millennial Kingdom. And, secondly that there is a literal 1000 year Kingdom still in the future to be set up by Christ. Having at least this much basic information we may infer that these early believers were dispensationalists. The Kingdom is one dispensation. The eras on either side were other dispensations. It has been observed that people throughout history have differed how many dispensations there are. The number really doesn't matter; it is irrelevant. They believe that God works in different ways at different times through different people. (dispensationalism).
The also believe in a rapture. Today people differ on the rapture: whether it is pretrib, midtrib, or post-trib. But they do believe in it. For many it is is simply called the resurrection of the just compared to the resurrection of the unjust. It is a matter of timing--when it takes place. The Chiliasts believed in the rapture. They may have believed it took place post-trib, as many still do today. They may have called it by another name.
They spoke a different language and called things using different terminology. They didn't deny the trinity, nor did they use the word trinity. That came into usage later. The word "rapture" didn't come into usage until the 20th century. Would you expect a first century Christian to use a 20th century term? Well, maybe some on this board would!
The premill, dispensationalism has been around since the end of the first century. There are plenty of historical facts to back it up so that it cannot be denied.
The Amil position was originally cited as heresy. It was and is the official eschatological position of the RCC.
I know which camp I would want to be identified with.
