Amillenialism and Catholicism

[Triple_H]

Catholicism holds to amillenialism, but how does this agree with the Bible?

There are many Scriptures which give us insight into the conditions on earth during the Millennial reign of Christ. These include Isaiah 35, 60-62, 65; Ezek. 40-48; Micah 4; and Rev. 20-22.

From these passages we understand that the Millennial kingdom will be an earthly kingdom, with Christ ruling from the New Jerusalem which will descend from heaven and reside above Mt. Zion. Christ will rule in righteousness over the inhabitants of earth. During this time the earth will have been restored to conditions similar to before the Fall of Adam: wild animals will be tame, there will be no war, trees will give abundant fruit, sin will be punished. Ezekiel 47 points out the fact that fishermen will fish in the waters of the rivers and will catch “very many” fish. So the activities of life continue in a normal fashion, only with righteous government, peace and perfect conditions.

The saved but non-glorified group of individuals will enter the Millennial kingdom in natural, human bodies and so will be subject to death and disease. Revelation 22 and Ezekiel 47 tell us that the leaves of the trees that grow along the river of life are for the healing of the nations. Isaiah 65 tells us that people on earth at that time will live long lives, and if someone dies at 100 he will be considered accursed. Evidently, similar to those days prior to the flood, people will live hundreds of years.

During these 1000 years, Israel will be the chief nation of the world and will be restored to the full dimensions of her land which God promised. Mt. Zion will be raised up as the chief mountain in the world and it is from here that Christ will reign from the New Jerusalem (Ps. 68:16; 132:13-14; Micah 4:1-8). King David will be resurrected and will be the chief prince over the nation of Israel (Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 37:24-25). All other nations will honor Israel and will worship God in Jerusalem. Zechariah 14 tells us that those nations who do not come up to Jerusalem every year to worship God will be punished with no rain.

Isa 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.
Isa 65:20 "No longer will there be in it an infant a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.
Isa 65:22 "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.
Isa 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food…

Obviously this hasn’t been fulfilled yet. And this can’t be referring the future coming of Christ, because when that happens, there will be no more death. But this passage says there will be death, but humans will live for a very long time, as long as trees. Doesn’t this speak of a yet future kingdom of God on Earth?

 

[chrisg93]

I don’t know much about this but I will add a few crumbs because it’s always an interesting topic.

I heard on the radio that Protestant “Pre-Trib” theology started in the 1850’s. So it’s not a Tradition of anything since it’s only 150 years old.

I am totally unsure of the role of the Jews/Israel in the final days. I have heard many different versions. It seems counterintuative that they would be honored. They don’t believe in Jesus so I can’t see them being honored.

The Catholic Church will be there. Where? How? When?

Thanks,
Chris G

 

[gomer_tree]

From these passages we understand that the Millennial kingdom will be an earthly kingdom, with Christ ruling from the New Jerusalem which will descend from heaven and reside above Mt. Zion.

Amillenialism doesn’t suggest it isn’t an earthly kingdom. It means that the 1000 year reign is a symbolic number, not a literal one. It also looks at the New Jerusalem as the Church, in symbolic terms. This reign, however will precede the final (second) coming of Christ. We are in the Church age where Christ is truly present on our tabernacles within the NEw Jerusalem.

Christ will rule in righteousness over the inhabitants of earth. During this time the earth will have been restored to conditions similar to before the Fall of Adam: wild animals will be tame, there will be no war, trees will give abundant fruit, sin will be punished. Ezekiel 47 points out the fact that fishermen will fish in the waters of the rivers and will catch “very many” fish. So the activities of life continue in a normal fashion, only with righteous government, peace and perfect conditions.

I believe all this is symbolic, but not necessarily of the 1000 year reign. I think it is symbolic of heaven and the new earth after time is complete. These do not necessarily point to the 1000 year reign in Revelation. The point is, in heaven there will be no more worries. As for the first part, Christ does rule, and through baptism, we are restored to sonship as Adam and Eve before their fall.

The saved but non-glorified group of individuals will enter the Millennial kingdom in natural, human bodies and so will be subject to death and disease.

No, this is a fundamentalist interpretation of end times events. We are in that time now, and yes we are subject to death and disease. The kingdom right now is incomplete. It exists in the Church, but it is battled against. When Christ comes again, His work will be completed.

For more answers to these kinds of questions, I’d suggest Scott Hahn’s tapes on Revelation. There are other good Catholic resources as well.

It simply makes no sense, though, from a theological point of view, that Christ will come, establish a kingdom, rule for a 1000 years, and still be subject to a final battle. When Christ comes again, all things are made new and good has won its final victory over evil.

 

[Fidelis]

Triple_H:

Catholicism holds to amillenialism, but how does this agree with the Bible?

To interpret the Bible in the way that believers of the pre-millenial theology do, you have to start with one VERY BIG assumption: that before Christ ascended into heaven, he did not establish his Kingdom on earth in the form of his Church. All the errors of pre-millenial dispensationalism flow from this error. Once you make this unbiblical assumption, anyone can construct any kind of end times scenario they choose by mixing and matching any parts of the Scripture they choose.

I would challenge those who subscribe to pre-millenialism to try a little experiment. Start with the assumption that Christ did establish a Church before he ascended; a Church that is his kingdom here on earth that will last here on earth for a symbolic 1000 years until he comes back in glory at the end of time to take all believers–not just a few in a secret rapture.Then read the Scriptures–especially the OT prophets and the Book of Revelation in this light.

If you try this, you will be amazed at how the Scriptures all fall together without the cutting and pasting necessary to hold to the pre-millenialist position. I’d also recommend a great book by Carl Olsen called Will Catholics Be Left Behind? You can learn more about and download several articles here.

carl-olson.com/wcblb_home.html

 

[Triple_H]

chrisg93:

I don’t know much about this but I will add a few crumbs because it’s always an interesting topic.

I heard on the radio that Protestant “Pre-Trib” theology started in the 1850’s. So it’s not a Tradition of anything since it’s only 150 years old.

I am totally unsure of the role of the Jews/Israel in the final days. I have heard many different versions. It seems counterintuative that they would be honored. They don’t believe in Jesus so I can’t see them being honored.

The Catholic Church will be there. Where? How? When?

Thanks,
Chris G

I’m not talking about the rapture. I’m talking about premillenialism. The Early Church was premillenial. The first Church Father that disagreed was Augustine. Before that time every single Church Father believed a 1,000 year reign of Christ was yet to come.

If A-millenialism is true, I can’t see how it agrees with everything I’ve shown in this topic.

 

[Triple_H]

gomer tree:

It simply makes no sense, though, from a theological point of view, that Christ will come, establish a kingdom, rule for a 1000 years, and still be subject to a final battle. When Christ comes again, all things are made new and good has won its final victory over evil.

This is what all the early Church Father believed before Augustine. How do you interpret what I’ve shown you from Isaiah. That’s my main focus, and that is a MAJOR evidence used by premillenialists to support premillenialism.

 

[Triple_H]

Fidelis:

I would challenge those who subscribe to pre-millenialism to try a little experiment. Start with the assumption that Christ did establish a Church before he ascended; a Church that is his kingdom here on earth that will last here on earth for a symbolic 1000 years until he comes back in glory at the end of time to take all believers–not just a few in a secret rapture.Then read the Scriptures–especially the OT prophets and the Book of Revelation in this light.
carl-olson.com/wcblb_home.html

Look at the evidence and the Scriptures I’ve shown you above. It all points to premillenialism. Tell me how you interpret those passages from Isaiah.

 

[Fidelis]

Triple_H:

Look at the evidence and the Scriptures I’ve shown you above. It all points to premillenialism. Tell me how you interpret those passages from Isaiah.

I am very familiar with the verses you cited. As I said, the only way you can get the intepretation that you do out of them is to start with the assumption that they have not been spiritually fulfilled in the Church, which is the Kingdom of God. These verses have all been fulfilled.

The Early Church was premillenial. The first Church Father that disagreed was Augustine. Before that time every single Church Father believed a 1,000 year reign of Christ was yet to come.

This is inaccurate. Several of the Church Fathers believed in a literal 1000 year reign of the Church (maybe because they lived early in the first 1000 years of Church history!), but NONE of them were dispensationalist, an 18th century theology upon which your futurist interpretation of these verses rests.

 

[Les_Richardson]

I’m a pan-millenialist.

Sorry, couldn’t resist sticking my nose in.

 

[Triple_H]

Les Richardson:

I’m a pan-millenialist.

Sorry, couldn’t resist sticking my nose in.

What’s that?

 

[copland]

Here is a really helpful chart that you can use to compare views.

ms101.mysearch.com/jsp/GGcres.jsp?id=2PvlsOAdOy0J&su=http%3A//ms101.mysearch.com/jsp/GGmain.jsp%3Fsearchfor%3Damill+chart&u=http%3A//www.reformedreader.org/mchart.htm&searchfor=amill+chart

 

[Triple_H]

Fidelis:

I am very familiar with the verses you cited. As I said, the only way you can get the intepretation that you do out of them is to start with the assumption that they have not been spiritually fulfilled in the Church, which is the Kingdom of God. These verses have all been fulfilled.

Tell me when it the people of God living as long as trees do was fulfilled. It hasn’t been. Are the animals still eating each other? Are the fox and the sheep grazing together? None of this has been fulfilled. Are all nations going to Jerusalem to get the healing from the Tree of Life? No. Nor is rain being used to punish those that aren’t. As I’ve said, none of this has been fulfilled!

This is inaccurate. Several of the Church Fathers believed in a literal 1000 year reign of the Church (maybe because they lived early in the first 1000 years of Church history!), but NONE of them were dispensationalist, an 18th century theology upon which your futurist interpretation of these verses rests.

First of all, I’m a Catholic, I can’t stand dispensationalists. Second of all, from what I know, the Early Church Fathers, before Augustine, believed in a literal and future thousand year reign of Christ. But I don’t know much about this so I can’t say for sure.

 

[Fidelis]

Not all the Church Fathers were in unanimous agreement about this. Here’s what Catholic apologist Carl Olsen, who has written numerous articles and a new book about this topic, has to say.

Debate over the matter existed in the early Church. An example can be found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written in the middle of the second century. When asked by Trypho if he really believes that there will be an earthly millennial reign of Christ in the future, Justin states, “I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place.” He then admits “that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” (Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 70).

The greatest opponent of early Christian millenarianism was Augustine of Hippo (354-450). In The City of God, he rejected millenarianism and offered a view of history largely free of end times speculation. Throughout time and history, Augustine taught, the City of God and the city of Satan constantly war with one another. At the end of time, at the Last Judgment, the citizens of these two cities will finally be separated––the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:32-46). Augustine saw God orchestrating time and history like an “unchanging conductor,” ordering events according to his providential will.

Here is a link to the whole article:

carl-olson.com/articles/bkrevelation_thisrock.html

 

[LauraL]

Les, Triple H –

I hadn’t heard that one in a LONG TIME!

I had a Baptist pastor once, out in California, who told us in one of his sermons that he was sick and tired of all the quarrelling between the pre-millenialists, the post-millenialists, and the amillenialists; he was announcing right then and there that he is a pan-millenialist:

“I believe it will all pan out in the end!” he said.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

LauraL:

Les, Triple H –

I hadn’t heard that one in a LONG TIME!

I had a Baptist pastor once, out in California, who told us in one of his sermons that he was sick and tired of all the quarrelling between the pre-millenialists, the post-millenialists, and the amillenialists; he was announcing right then and there that he is a pan-millenialist:

“I believe it will all pan out in the end!” he said.

Was he pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib ? Anyone give me an ?​

 

[Melchior]

Many of the fathers were either Postmillennial or Amillennial and a smaller number classic premillennial. But none were dispensational since it did not even exist. Postmill and Amill are essentially the same view only one is opimistic and one is pessimistic. Augustine was Postmillenial.

The idea of a premillennial rapture is no more than 150 years old. And the only thing similar to it in the early church was Chilaism which was condemned as heresy.

I prefer Postmill or an optimistic Amill since all of scripture from OT to NT talks about God’s Kingdom gradually eexpanding throughout the world. To me this is optimistic. Pre and pessimistic Amill rely almost entirely on one chapter in Revlelations while a Postmill eschatology can be found all throughout scripture.

Mel

 

[pnewton]

Triple_H:

If A-millenialism is true, I can’t see how it agrees with everything I’ve shown in this topic.

The scriptures you listed (the one’s I’m familiar with, anyway) can be used to support a premillinium theology **if **taken literal. But then you are using your point to prove your point.

However, if I look at the symbolism behind, say Revelations, I can see many first centruy ideas and history in the imagery. Then I am using my point to prove my point.

Eschatology is a great example of why the Bible alone often falls flat. We must have the Holy Spirit working through the divine interpreter of the body of Christ, His Church.

The only view to which I I persuaded is the pan-millinialist listed above. I think I will be a pre-pan.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Triple_H:

What’s that?

I believe that it will all pan out in the end.

Heard that years ago from a Baptist minister. As I said, I couldn’t resist. Lame attempt at humor. Not intended to belittle the serious nature of the conversation.

I see by LauraL’s post that it has been the rounds. The minister I heard it from was my father. Where he got it, I’m not sure.

 

[gomer_tree]

Triple_H:

First of all, I’m a Catholic, I can’t stand dispensationalists. Second of all, from what I know, the Early Church Fathers, before Augustine, believed in a literal and future thousand year reign of Christ. But I don’t know much about this so I can’t say for sure.

Keep in mind that there is such a thing as doctrinal development. Before doctrine is developed, good and holy men may disagree on some things as the Holy Spirit guides discussion. Just because a few Church Fathers believed something doesn’t make it right. It also doesn’t mean they were heretics. It means a process was taking place.

The issue has been settled. The Catechism 676 states “…The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of milleniarism…”

680 “Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him.”

Regarding the language in Isaiah 65, I really see that as allegorical. It simply describes the triumph of the Lord and the peace associated with it.