Author Topic: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm  (Read 12368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« on: November 22, 2009, 12:19:17 PM »
Chiliasm: the belief Christ will return and rule for a thousand years before finally binding Satan in eternal flames and bringing down the New Jerusalem, as spoken of in Revelations 20. 

Some common objections:

1) Chiliasm was condemned in the early Church.

Answer: Not true, no authoritive council declared it heretical.  It only fell out of favor with the allegorical interpretation taking its place.  St. Irenaeus, St. Justin among others believed it.

2) Nicene Creed states that Christ will come to judge and His kingdom will have no end.  The literal thousand years assumes His kingdom has an end and therefore contradicts the Creed.

Answer: Not true.  A closer look at Rev 20 can have us see that although Christ returns and will reign with some for a thousand years
that need not assume "it ends" before the New Jerusalem comes down.  Christ's reign merely extends into the time when the new Jerusalem comes and so there is no contradiction with the Creed's statement on Christ's return, judgement, and eternal reign.

3) Orthodox don't read Revelations literally like those ignorant fundamentalists.

Answer: They used to, at least on this part they did.  Also the chiliast "Pre-millenial" belief only takes Chapter 20 in a fairly literal sense.

So can one be Orthdox and believe Christ will come and reign for a thousand years?  I don't see why not.

K

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,774
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2009, 12:37:38 PM »
Quote
1) Chiliasm was condemned in the early Church.

Answer: Not true, no authoritive council declared it heretical.  It only fell out of favor with the allegorical interpretation taking its place.  St. Irenaeus, St. Justin among others believed it.

According to tradition, the Second Ecumenical Council condemned chiliasm as part of Apollinarianism. I'm sure that would suffice for most Orthodox, even if the evidence is somewhat lacking.

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2009, 12:39:02 PM »
If we didn't have John 18, 36, I would agree with you.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 12:42:38 PM by mike »
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2009, 02:11:15 PM »
If we didn't have John 18, 36, I would agree with you.

Then come, Mike, I will show you how you can agree with me, St. Justin, Iranaeus, and the other Fathers:

John 18:36 says Christ's kingdom is not of this world.  This is true.  Revelations 21:1 tells us that a new heaven and new earth were formed.  This is the place Christ's kingdom will continue to exist from the previous 1000 year reign.  There is no contradiction with John or with the Creed.

Asteriktos, Appolinarus was condemned by the 2nd Ecum Council because of his views on the nature of Christ.  Where is the part that condemns his view of Chiliasm? 

K

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,774
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2009, 03:33:44 PM »
Quote
Asteriktos, Appolinarus was condemned by the 2nd Ecum Council because of his views on the nature of Christ.  Where is the part that condemns his view of Chiliasm? 

It's right underneath the part that condemns his views on the nature of Christ. ;)

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2009, 03:56:16 PM »
For clarification, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, as Revelations and Gospel of John confirm.  Nevertheless, He will reign for a thousand years on this post apocalyptic scorched earth as Revelations 20 explains before that Kingdom comes.  That 1000 year reign on earth is not His Kingdom, it is a lesser version of it.  It is a precursor to the Kingdom that will come down (extending not beginning His reign) to a "new" earth, as Rev 20 says.  The "Kingdom" will be in a new earth "not of this world, agreeing with your quote from John.  

Christ comes, rules for 1000 years on earth, continues His rule in His new Kingdom unto eternity. 

Asteriktos, maybe I'm missing your sarcasm, but I cannot find anything about chiliasm in the council.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

Orthodox can believe this, just as they can a literal 6 days of Creation.

K  
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 04:09:06 PM by Kaste »

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,774
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2009, 04:07:16 PM »
Quote
Asteriktos, maybe I'm missing your sarcasm, but I cannot find anything about chiliasm in the council.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

My point was that there isn't a lot of information that we have on the 2nd Ecumenical Council, and to deny that chiliasm was condemned there you must 1) deny what tradition says about that council, and 2) make an argument based on the absence of evidence ("I don't see chiliasm condemned in the surviving documents, thus it must not have been condemned"). If that's the route you want to go, that doesn't bother me, I just don't think such a route is going to convince many here.

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2009, 04:12:29 PM »
Asteriktos,

Yes, then that is the route I wish to go.  Let us go there then.  So what is the highest authority/tradition some Orthodox look to that says chiliasm was condemned at the 2nd Ecum Council? 

K

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,334
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 04:48:04 PM »
Kaste,

Are you Orthodox?  Your profile says merely that you're a Christian with membership in the Invisible Church.  Most Orthodox don't identify themselves with an invisible church.  If you're not Orthodox, why are you on the Faith Issues board telling Orthodox what they are permitted to believe?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 04:49:13 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,667
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2009, 09:46:30 PM »
What the 2nd Ecumenical Council did was, in its completion of the creed, add the clause "He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end."  That "his kingdom will have no end" was given as a response to chiliasm. 

As for Rev. 20, it clearly says that Christ will reign for 1000 years with "the souls of those beheaded" (vs. 4).   Are they alive?  No, as we see, they were beheaded, and vs. 5 says "but the rest of the dead lived not..."   It is referring not to the reign of Christ on earth with the living in some future age, but rather the present reign of the faithful departed with Christ in their souls, as clearly the text says, for clearly the strong man was bound at Pascha.     

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2009, 10:18:08 PM »
What the 2nd Ecumenical Council did was, in its completion of the creed, add the clause "He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end."  That "his kingdom will have no end" was given as a response to chiliasm. 

As for Rev. 20, it clearly says that Christ will reign for 1000 years with "the souls of those beheaded" (vs. 4).   Are they alive?  No, as we see, they were beheaded, and vs. 5 says "but the rest of the dead lived not..."   It is referring not to the reign of Christ on earth with the living in some future age, but rather the present reign of the faithful departed with Christ in their souls, as clearly the text says, for clearly the strong man was bound at Pascha.     

FatherHLL,

That's not how Ss. Iraneaus, Justin or Papias and other early Fathers interpreted it, and I do not read it that way either.  Those souls who were beheaded were those who did not wear the mark of the beast on their foreheads or arms.  This has not yet come to pass, but refers to those Christians who stand strong during the tribulation.  And when vs 5 mentions that some came to life and others did not, it is referring to those who are found in favor with God being resurrected, wheras those not will wait to be resurrected until after the thousand year reign to be judged.  I think this is a good example of 2 Christians disagreeing on a non-essential topic of the faith.  Literal 6 day creationism falls under the same category. 

I have adressed how the Creed's addition of "His kingdom will have no end" as being compatible in my previous posts.  However Asteriktos says that there may be a strong tradition showing that that phrase was put in to combat chiliasm specifically.  I would like to see statements from the Fathers backing this up.

K

Offline John of the North

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,533
  • Christ is Risen!
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2009, 10:28:51 PM »
That's not how Ss. Iraneaus, Justin or Papias and other early Fathers interpreted it, and I do not read it that way either.

Church Fathers can be wrong.
"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

Offline Pilgrim

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 304
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2009, 10:37:00 PM »
Which is something many people sometimes forget (St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, etc have views on certain issues contradicting the Faith).
Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,429
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2009, 11:12:13 PM »
Clearly the first death isn't a physical death but rather a revival through baptism. As explained here in Ephesians. Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2009, 11:42:35 PM »
The Church has always understood the Millennium to be "a very long time/forever", not "365,242.199 rotations of the earth precisely".

"for by the number of a thousand he denoted not the quantity of time but the universality, with which the Church excercises dominion." -Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job

"By the number of one thousand years, by no means is it reasonable to understand so many (years).... We infer the number one thousand to indicate either a great many or perfection.... The one thousand years, therefore, is the time from the year of the incarnation of the Lord until the coming of the Antichrist." - Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, ch 60

He also says, after describing some alternative theories: "it is unnecessary to note that the Church has accepted none of these." (ibid, ch 63)  Just because some church fathers believed something doesn't mean it was true. It must be accepted by the whole church-- and millennialism/chiliasm was not.

The Bible often speaks symbolically using numbers. I don't know, but I dare say more often than not that's the case. Taking some of the numbers in Revelation literally leads to crazy theology of the LaHaye sort.

 

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2009, 12:08:06 AM »
Clearly the first death isn't a physical death but rather a revival through baptism. As explained here in Ephesians. Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

That interpretation is not clear at all.
If Baptism is the "first death" then why are the Baptised described as "sleepers"?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2009, 12:45:05 AM »
Also Revelations 20:7 says after the 1000 years Satan will be released for a little while. 

If we are to take 1000 years to mean eternity this would not make sense. 

I think Ss Justin, Iranaeus, Papias etc... had it right.  In any event since no Ecumenical Council has declared this heretical, Orthodox are allowed to believe this, just as they are a literal 6 days of creation. 

The only thing that would pursuade me otherwise is if it can be shown that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was placed on the end of the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ec Council specifically to combat chiliasm.  I don't think it was placed for that reason for the reasons I've already stated above, but I will hold my final judgment if such evidence can be shown.

K

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,334
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2009, 12:52:59 AM »
Also Revelations 20:7 says after the 1000 years Satan will be released for a little while.  

If we are to take 1000 years to mean eternity this would not make sense.  

I think Ss Justin, Iranaeus, Papias etc... had it right.  In any event since no Ecumenical Council has declared this heretical, Orthodox are allowed to believe this, just as they are a literal 6 days of creation.  

The only thing that would pursuade me otherwise is if it can be shown that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was placed on the end of the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ec Council specifically to combat chiliasm.  I don't think it was placed for that reason for the reasons I've already stated above, but I will hold my final judgment if such evidence can be shown.

K
Kaste, you still haven't answered my question.  Are you Orthodox?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 12:53:23 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2009, 01:05:50 AM »
Also Revelations 20:7 says after the 1000 years Satan will be released for a little while. 

If we are to take 1000 years to mean eternity this would not make sense. 

I don't think it means "eternity", but it does mean "a long unspecified amount of time." Not, as you suggest, "365242 days, 4 hours, 46 minutes, and 33.6 seconds."  Again from Andrew's commentary:

"For as it had been written above, it is not necessary to understand the one thousand (years) so much by the (literal) number. For neither what is being said in the Canticles, a man will lay down one thousand pieces of silver for his fruit, nor, one thousand to Solomon and two hundred to those who keep his fruit, meant this number, but (it means) the great quantity and the perfection in harvest, just as here also the harvest of the faith in perfection (is implied) after which the son of perdition, the man of lawlessness, will come..." (emphases in original)
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 01:09:51 AM by bogdan »

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,710
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2009, 08:43:43 AM »
Also Revelations 20:7 says after the 1000 years Satan will be released for a little while.  

If we are to take 1000 years to mean eternity this would not make sense.  

I think Ss Justin, Iranaeus, Papias etc... had it right.  In any event since no Ecumenical Council has declared this heretical, Orthodox are allowed to believe this, just as they are a literal 6 days of creation.  

The only thing that would pursuade me otherwise is if it can be shown that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was placed on the end of the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ec Council specifically to combat chiliasm.  I don't think it was placed for that reason for the reasons I've already stated above, but I will hold my final judgment if such evidence can be shown.

K
You consistently refer to the last book of the New Testament as "Revelations". Your lack of attention to detail undermines your credibility. Yes, I know I'm being picky on this, but you seem to be expecting to find specific and accurate references, so it is only fair that you likewise be specific and accurate.

I don't make any claims about being a scholar on the Ecumenical Councils or the Church Fathers, but it seems to me that since the issue of the details of the end of the age doesn't appear to have been a focus in the early church  I must wonder why you and others like you (I know very well you're not alone  :) ) want to make it so important. Please note that the book you refer to begins "The Revelation of Jesus Christ...." It is important to let our focus be on Jesus Christ - not on some pet doctrine over which Christians have squabbled throughout the ages.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 08:49:46 AM by genesisone »

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2009, 11:27:58 AM »
The Alexandrians opposed Chiliasm, from the early writers to St. Cyril himself, as did the Cappadocians in Asia Minor and Augustine in the West.

Although most modern scholars argue that Constantinople I (381) did not condemn chiliasm per se, St. Gregory the Theologian thought it had -- and I imagine he would know, since he was the president of the council for a short time after Meletius of Antioch died. In his mind, Apollinaris' reputed chiliasm was another example of why he was clearly unorthodox. More importantly, there aren't any major advocates of the position after the fourth century. As far as Orthodox Christians are concerned, that's all that matters. A belief that didn't make it out of the 3rd century, except in a few (often heretical) examples, doesn't pass the smell test.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2009, 11:40:13 PM »
Kaste,

As a former advocate of pre-nicene chillism myself, I will second what pensateomnia had to say.

It is true that chillism was popular among many early fathers and nonfathers, but it is also true that it was opposed by some in early Alexandria and Rome, and so it wasn't universally tought, and I agree with pensateomnia when he said it was condemned in the second council. Pelagainism was condemned in the 3rd council, and yet, we don't just look at only one teaching when it comes to that condemnation. The same is true with Origenism. We just don't point to "one" teaching and say, "this is all Origenism is and nothing else, no, Origen had multiple errors, and the same is true with Apollinarianism.

Now when I debated this issue last year...or the year before.....I forgot what year, but when I did, I didn't know anything of what St. Gregory the Theologian had to say. The council was mostly an eastern council and so the westerners probably wouldn't of known the contents of it anyway. Chillism was extremely unpopular in the east in the 4th century. Chillism seemed more popular in the west around that time, eventhough it was dying out overthere as well, and since very few in the west attended that council, there would of been little to no restraint to stop the  christian east from condemning chillism.

It took about 70 something years for the 2nd council to be seen as ecomenical, and so, for a number of decades, you will still see small pockets of those who still believed in chillism, even after 381 A.D., but eventually it died out.

Like I said, before I became Orthodox, I use to advocate pre-nicene chillism. Now, if you want to know what Orthodoxy will or won't accept, then you will have to go to your local Orthodox priest and have a long talk with him..........that's what I did.

They may or may not allow you to struggle over that issue, for we all may have doubts about something every now and then, but it will be something you will have to talk about with the local priest in your area.

However you seem to want to teach the idea or advocate it, and that's just not gonna fly. Now I don't know what type of chillite you are, but the transition from pre-nicene chillism to eastern christian amill is not hard at all.

It's fairly easy. If I can do it, you can do it.


Takecare and best wishes!







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 11:43:05 PM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Global Moderator
  • Merarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,678
  • Michał Kalina's biggest fan
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2009, 01:34:02 AM »
I think Ss Justin, Iranaeus, Papias etc... had it right.  In any event since no Ecumenical Council has declared this heretical, Orthodox are allowed to believe this, just as they are a literal 6 days of creation. 

Where exactly do they say these things?  Do you have sources or are you just fabricating lies about the fathers?
I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that

Offline John of the North

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,533
  • Christ is Risen!
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2009, 02:16:51 AM »
Elder Cleopa on Chiliasm: http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_cleopa_thousand_year_reign.htm

"As I explained to you earlier, the True Church of Christ understands the “millennium” of Holy Scripture mystically and symbolically to mean an indeterminate number of years. Do you think that Scripture only in this passage speaks in a mystical and veiled manner, or could it be that many hard to comprehend subjects are approached in this way? Are there not, in fact, many mystical, symbolic and allegorical expressions or events that cannot be explained literally (Rev. 5:1) but carry exalted and spiritual meanings often completely different from that readily apparent? How can we explain the book of Revelation literally when it is bound with seven seals? (Rev. 6:4) What is the red horse that is like unto fire? And what of the seven angels who were given seven plagues? (Rev. 15:1-7) How should we understand them?"
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 02:17:01 AM by Ukiemeister »
"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2009, 08:20:07 AM »
The debate I was talking about from last year:

This was my second time defending nonchillism, for most of my life I have been fighting for chillism. And so I personally feel that I slightly lost this debate, but I learned alot in the process. In the future, I can only get better at defending eastern christian amill.

Part 1
http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-rejoinder-to-jason-engwer-of.html

Part 2
http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-rejoinder-to-jason-engwer-of_26.html










ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 08:24:27 AM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2009, 09:32:51 AM »
Where exactly do they say these things?  Do you have sources or are you just fabricating lies about the fathers?

Both Justin and Irenaeus were chiliasts, in large part because of how they understood the broader stream of Judaic politico-apocalypticism, especially as it interpreted Isaiah and Ezekiel. Ezekiel in particular speaks of the gathering of Israel from amongst the nations and the creation of a new, sanctified land for the Jews. Justin, Irenaeus and other second/third century chiliasts understood these prophecies as literally true: God would overthrow the Romans and establish a new, holy empire in Jerusalem. Kind of fits nicely into the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic polemic against Rome.

Check out Dial. Trypho 80 and Adv. haer. 5.35.

Other Christian writers from the second and third century saw this kind of talk as Judaizing, as did the great fourth century fathers.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 09:41:01 AM by pensateomnia »
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2009, 05:49:37 PM »
Jnorm,

Good advice to talk to a priest.  Do you know of any priests saying it's ok to believe in chiliasm?  

What part of St. Gregory Theologian's opposition to chiliasm convinced you?  

I don't see the problem with believing this.  How petty to come down hard (not you Jnorm) on someone for believing this.  This is no different than believing in 6 literal days of creation.  

K
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 05:52:00 PM by Kaste »

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Global Moderator
  • Merarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,678
  • Michał Kalina's biggest fan
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2009, 06:21:10 PM »
Where exactly do they say these things?  Do you have sources or are you just fabricating lies about the fathers?

Both Justin and Irenaeus were chiliasts, in large part because of how they understood the broader stream of Judaic politico-apocalypticism, especially as it interpreted Isaiah and Ezekiel. Ezekiel in particular speaks of the gathering of Israel from amongst the nations and the creation of a new, sanctified land for the Jews. Justin, Irenaeus and other second/third century chiliasts understood these prophecies as literally true: God would overthrow the Romans and establish a new, holy empire in Jerusalem. Kind of fits nicely into the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic polemic against Rome.

Check out Dial. Trypho 80 and Adv. haer. 5.35.

Other Christian writers from the second and third century saw this kind of talk as Judaizing, as did the great fourth century fathers.

Much thanks!  now that you put the sources i vaguely remember looking at these two in particular...interesting.  I will definitely look into it! 

What do you think about the later fathers' assessment of Justin & Ireneus?
I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that

Offline Andrew21091

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,272
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2009, 11:13:24 PM »
Quote
Kaste, you still haven't answered my question.  Are you Orthodox?

Since he isn't answering, I would guess the answer is no.

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,281
  • City of Light
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2009, 12:47:54 AM »
Jnorm,

Good advice to talk to a priest.  Do you know of any priests saying it's ok to believe in chiliasm?  

What part of St. Gregory Theologian's opposition to chiliasm convinced you?  

I don't see the problem with believing this.  How petty to come down hard (not you Jnorm) on someone for believing this.  This is no different than believing in 6 literal days of creation.  

K


I have a question. When it comes down to it what difference does it make if we believe in chiliasm or some other kind of "ism" about the book of Revelation? What practical bearing does it have on anyone's salvation? How does it help anyone grow in communion with God?

Maybe I just don't get it...........???



Yours in Christ
Joe

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2009, 11:32:11 PM »
Jnorm,

Good advice to talk to a priest.  Do you know of any priests saying it's ok to believe in chiliasm?

No, but that one issue shouldn't stop you, for if you agree not to advocate it nor teach it to the faithful, but to only keep it to yourself, then I don't see the problem. But this is something you will have to work out with the local priest........I really don't want to tell you what my priest told me.

 I don't know if I should tell you the story about my own sponsor/godfather falling into the error or not. He picked it up for a time through reading some of the pre-nicene fathers, nonfathers, schizmatics, and heretics.

But like I said before, it's a pastoral issue. If one knows that we don't have infallible fathers, and that they can error on certain topics, then it's easy to overlook some of the errors in the pre-nicene world. But that takes time, patience, and humility on the part of the seeker.

 
Quote
What part of St. Gregory Theologian's opposition to chiliasm convinced you?
 

He didn't convince me for at the time I didn't know what he said about it. Most of my reading from 1997/1998 to 2007 have been mostly in the early nicene, and pre-nicene world. I did read Saint John Cassian, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine, as well as a few others, but I never really read St. Gregory the Theologian before 2007. ......and so, I didn't know what he had to say about it.

Before 1997/1998 I was a dispensationalist and so the chillism I was raised in came from that tradition. After 1997/1998 to 2007 I was strictly pre-nicene chilism, and so what convinced me was the fact that I knew that pre-nicene chillism wasn't the only pre-nicene eschatological view, and I knew that those who opposed it were true christians just like those in whom I looked up to who held it were true christians.........I am only saying this because I want you to know my mindset at the time........you see, being raised the way I was, and it might be similar for you as well........but for me, it was all about being a true christian!!! Being saved......etc. And since I saw them as being just as saved as the ones in whom I favored, I knew that it would be safe to make the switch if I ever had to.

And that time came when I was tired of being alone. You see, alot of the people who follow David Bercot end up alone with no fellowship to run to. I know I didn't mention Bercot before, but I tried to become Orthodox back in 1997/1998. I called an Antiochian parish over here in Pittsburgh.....right around Christmass time, and no one returned my phone call.

And so, I went back to school, surfed the net, and found Bercot's website, and I was sidetracked for almost 10 years. I became interested in the convergence of the streams movement, and I stopped following Bercot around 2003 when his fellowship in Texas fell apart.....as well as him changing his mind over a number of issues. Also in 2003 I became Anglo-Catholic within the ECUSA.......I had an extremely hard time taking the Lord's supper in most protestant churches.......a really really hard time, and I thought that an Anglo-Catholic parish was my best bet in not only trying to find fellowship, but to also partake of the Sacraments. My conscience at the time wouldn't allow me to partake in any other protestant church.

 And when the main group within the convergence movement had their scandel in Semptember of 2006, that's when I decided to look east again.

And so, giving up chillism as well as my rejection to our Blessed Mother being ever-virgin were the two things I gave up in order to become EO.

1.) I was tired of being an odd ball in most protestant churches for reading the church fathers
2.) I was tired of being alone without anywhere to fellowship
3.) I knew that the early pre-nicene nonchillites were just as true and saved as my pre-nicene chillite favorites

And so I changed.


Quote
I don't see the problem with believing this.  How petty to come down hard (not you Jnorm) on someone for believing this.  This is no different than believing in 6 literal days of creation.  
K


Hey, as long as I can believe in a future Anti-christ/man of sin, with a future tribulation, as well as a future second coming, then I'm willing to give up pre-nicene chillism.

The switch isn't that hard to make Kaste, it's not that hard to make. You can still love your favorite pre-nicene chillite Saints, for we don't have infallible fathers in EO. Our fathers and nonfathers can error, and so it really shouldn't be a problem. You may not be able to understand why now, but you might after being Baptized or Chrismated. The Divine Mysteries should be pretty high on your list, for at the end of the day, a belief or a nonbelief in chillism isn't gonna spiritually feed you.

So learn what you can about the Divine mysteries.........for I found that in the same pre-nicene chillite fathers, and that is what ultimately drove me to EO. I need the Mysteries Kaste. I needed the Mysteries more than I needed the other things, and so I dropped them.

Take care and God bless! I hope you have a happy thanksgiving with your loved ones.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 11:41:25 PM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2009, 03:06:36 AM »
Thanks Jnorm, a good post and very fitting for me. 

You said: "Hey, as long as I can believe in a future Anti-christ/man of sin, with a future tribulation, as well as a future second coming, then I'm willing to give up pre-nicene chillism."

So Orthodox at least believe in these things?  And also do they think "Christ's 1000 year reign" began in the 1st Century and goes until he returns?  If so, how do Orthodox account for the period of the anti-Christ (which comes before Christ returns)?...That would conflict with Christ's reign that according to the allogorizors began in first century and continues uninterrupted until His return. 

I appreciate your sharing, especially the part that the Mysteries are important.

K

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2009, 09:00:45 AM »
Thanks Jnorm, a good post and very fitting for me. 

You said: "Hey, as long as I can believe in a future Anti-christ/man of sin, with a future tribulation, as well as a future second coming, then I'm willing to give up pre-nicene chillism."

So Orthodox at least believe in these things?  And also do they think "Christ's 1000 year reign" began in the 1st Century and goes until he returns?  If so, how do Orthodox account for the period of the anti-Christ (which comes before Christ returns)?...That would conflict with Christ's reign that according to the allogorizors began in first century and continues uninterrupted until His return. 
Most Orthodox believe that some of things written in Revelation have been fulfilled, some are being fulfilled now, and still others are to come. Most would say that the Tribulation began with the Age of the Church. It is characterised by persecution and the reign of Anti-Christ, who is not a single person but any person or entity which sets themselves up as contrary to Christ's will. In addition, the Second Coming of Christ itself is a once and future event. Christ comes to us in the Liturgy every time we celebrate it, yet we also eagerly await His Coming. For us, though, it is not a return, because Christ never left us. He is and always shall be Immanuel, God With Us. He will never leave us nor forsake us.

As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ. By trusting in Christ, all who repent can find eternal life. The lake of fire is to come, but the devil has already been defeated, and we believe that Christ reigns over all the earth even now.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 09:02:55 AM by ytterbiumanalyst »
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline John of the North

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,533
  • Christ is Risen!
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2009, 10:41:08 AM »
Thanks Jnorm, a good post and very fitting for me. 

You said: "Hey, as long as I can believe in a future Anti-christ/man of sin, with a future tribulation, as well as a future second coming, then I'm willing to give up pre-nicene chillism."

So Orthodox at least believe in these things?  And also do they think "Christ's 1000 year reign" began in the 1st Century and goes until he returns?  If so, how do Orthodox account for the period of the anti-Christ (which comes before Christ returns)?...That would conflict with Christ's reign that according to the allogorizors began in first century and continues uninterrupted until His return. 

I appreciate your sharing, especially the part that the Mysteries are important.

K

"The Second Coming of Christ will be unmistakable: it will be sudden, from heaven and it will mark the end of this world. There can be no preparation for it save only the Orthodox Christian preparation of repentance, spiritual life, and watchfulness. Those who are preparing for it in any other way who say that He is anywhere here who preach that Jesus is coming soon without warning of the great deception that is to precede His Coming: are clearly the prophets of Antichrist, the false Christ who must come first and deceive the world, including all Christians who are not or do not become truly Orthodox. There is to be no future millennium. For those who can receive it, the millennium of the Apocalypse is now; the life of Grace is the Orthodox Church for the whole thousand years between the First Coming of Christ and the time of Antichrist. That Protestants should expect the millennium in the future is only their confession that they do not live in it in the present--that is, that they are outside the Church of Christ and have not tasted of Divine Grace." - Fr. Seraphim Rose
"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2009, 02:38:54 PM »
First: how do I quote multiple pieces of people's statements?  :)

Ytterbiumanalyst said:

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  

Another poster, appologies to whom this was, stated I can believe in Chiliasm as long as I don't teach it or ask other Orthodox to believe this.  Afterall it's not heretical, merely discouraged.  

Ukiemeister,

Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks.  I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism.  Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

K
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 02:40:14 PM by Kaste »

Offline EofK

  • Mrs. Y
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,976
  • lolcat addict
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2009, 03:18:45 PM »
First: how do I quote multiple pieces of people's statements?  :)

I usually copy and paste the sections I want to quote, highlight them, and click the Quote button above (looks like a dialog box from a cartoon).  If you prefer to type it out, it's [ quote ]Text text text [ / quote ] without all the spaces between the brackets (that was just so you'd see it and it wouldn't activate the tag).  To include the quoted author, it's [ quote author = INSERTNAMEHERE ] text text [ / quote ].  Here's the rest of your post quoting the authors (which is in nested quotes; basically, you just quote each author and be sure to close each set of tags, so [ quote author = Kaste ] [quote author = ytterbiumanalyst] and then close Mr Y's text block with [ / quote ] and then your text box with [ / quote ].


Quote from: Kaste
Quote from: Ytterbiumanalyst

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  

Another poster, appologies to whom this was, stated I can believe in Chiliasm as long as I don't teach it or ask other Orthodox to believe this.  Afterall it's not heretical, merely discouraged.  

Ukiemeister,

Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks.  I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism.  Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

K

Hope that makes sense.  :)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 03:23:40 PM by EofK »
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams

Offline John of the North

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,533
  • Christ is Risen!
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2009, 03:31:07 PM »
Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks.  I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism.  Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

The Church does not waver on this. The Church simply says that a certain position either way on this matter is not essential for one's salvation. Church tradition also says that the first Ikon written was written by St. Luke. This is church tradition, not church dogma. One is certainly allowed--although not many do--to believe that St. Luke did not write the first ikon.

At the Judgment, we will not be asked what our position was on the interpretation of Genesis, or who wrote the first Ikon. We will be asked whether or not we fed the poor, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, visited the prisoner, cared for the sick and suffering. To allow ourselves to be distracted by such trivial matters as interpretations of Genesis is beside the point.
"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2009, 03:40:54 PM »
Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.
This is not a "current" view of the Orthodox Church, it has been around from the time of the Early Fathers who were in fact divided over the issue of a literal 6 x 24 hour days. See http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Nazarene

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 520
  • David ben Yessai
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2009, 04:19:04 PM »
First: how do I quote multiple pieces of people's statements?  :)

Ytterbiumanalyst said:

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  

Another poster, appologies to whom this was, stated I can believe in Chiliasm as long as I don't teach it or ask other Orthodox to believe this.  Afterall it's not heretical, merely discouraged.  

Ukiemeister,

Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks.  I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism.  Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

K


I have to agree with Kaste on this one, to suggest that the devil was "bound" at Messiah's resurrection is in direct conflict with what St. Peter wrote here, years after Messiah ascended into Heaven:

{1 Peter 5:8} Be watchful and remember, because your enemy, Satan, roars as a lion and walks about and seeks whom he may swallow.

A person who is "bound" cannot walk or do anything - they are powerless, Satan has been defeated but he is not powerless, he wouldn't still be trying deceive the nations if he truely acknowledges his defeat. Satan has been deceiving the nations ever since the Cross and is still deceiving them today, in fact if anything, he's been even more determined to deceive them since Messiah's resurrection, because Messiah being the true light showed us the way, so now it's harder for Satan to keep mankind in the dark.

Consider this, if Satan has been bound all this time then how do we explain the biggest deception in human history, namely Islam? Or do we credit this to the angel Gabriel? The interesting thing the nations that have fallen prey to this deception are the "nations" specifically mentioned in Scripture by name (read the Prophets). So Satan has successfully deceived the nations, and therefore has not been bound yet, or perhaps the millenium officially ended in the 7th century? If 1000 years is symbolic for an unspecified time, which I feel is a valid interpretation, then if the "literal" period could equal more than 1000 years, then it stands to reason that it could also equal less than 1000 years. Islam was the first major deception to arise after the Apostolic age, all the other major world deceptions (like Hinduism & Buddahism) date before Messiah's 1st comming, and no other deception, either before or since, has equalled Islam in power, influence, number, brutality and sheer hatred against Christians and Jews.

I used to be a staunch Premillenialist, now I'm undecided. I need to study Amillenialism in greater detail before I form an official stance on it. I will say that when it comes to studying Eschatology chronologically, I'm not 100% satisfied with either position. I can't get all the pieces of the puzzle to fit with either, but I can get more pieces to fit with Premillenialism than with Amellinialism, but then again chronology isn't the only thing to consider in Eschotological study.

So far I see little evidence that Satan was ever bound, sure when the Church was established in Jerusalem and moved into the Greco-Roman world, Satan must've felt really beaten up with all them Church Fathers condemning all his attempts of raising heresies. But did that discourage him from his ultimate mission? Did he throw in the towel after that? No, he went "roaming through the earth and walking back and forth in it" among heathen nations till he made his way to Arabia and found the "opportunity of lifetime" - the result was his most successful brainchild ever, his greatest masterpiece.

For now I'm of the opinion that if the millenium hasn't began yet, then it ended 610 CE.


Offline Mivac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2009, 04:43:44 PM »
First: how do I quote multiple pieces of people's statements?  :)

Ytterbiumanalyst said:

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  

Another poster, appologies to whom this was, stated I can believe in Chiliasm as long as I don't teach it or ask other Orthodox to believe this.  Afterall it's not heretical, merely discouraged.  

Ukiemeister,

Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks.  I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism.  Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

K


I have to agree with Kaste on this one, to suggest that the devil was "bound" at Messiah's resurrection is in direct conflict with what St. Peter wrote here, years after Messiah ascended into Heaven:

{1 Peter 5:8} Be watchful and remember, because your enemy, Satan, roars as a lion and walks about and seeks whom he may swallow.

A person who is "bound" cannot walk or do anything - they are powerless, Satan has been defeated but he is not powerless, he wouldn't still be trying deceive the nations if he truely acknowledges his defeat. Satan has been deceiving the nations ever since the Cross and is still deceiving them today, in fact if anything, he's been even more determined to deceive them since Messiah's resurrection, because Messiah being the true light showed us the way, so now it's harder for Satan to keep mankind in the dark.

Consider this, if Satan has been bound all this time then how do we explain the biggest deception in human history, namely Islam? Or do we credit this to the angel Gabriel? The interesting thing the nations that have fallen prey to this deception are the "nations" specifically mentioned in Scripture by name (read the Prophets). So Satan has successfully deceived the nations, and therefore has not been bound yet, or perhaps the millenium officially ended in the 7th century? If 1000 years is symbolic for an unspecified time, which I feel is a valid interpretation, then if the "literal" period could equal more than 1000 years, then it stands to reason that it could also equal less than 1000 years. Islam was the first major deception to arise after the Apostolic age, all the other major world deceptions (like Hinduism & Buddahism) date before Messiah's 1st comming, and no other deception, either before or since, has equalled Islam in power, influence, number, brutality and sheer hatred against Christians and Jews.

I used to be a staunch Premillenialist, now I'm undecided. I need to study Amillenialism in greater detail before I form an official stance on it. I will say that when it comes to studying Eschatology chronologically, I'm not 100% satisfied with either position. I can't get all the pieces of the puzzle to fit with either, but I can get more pieces to fit with Premillenialism than with Amellinialism, but then again chronology isn't the only thing to consider in Eschotological study.

So far I see little evidence that Satan was ever bound, sure when the Church was established in Jerusalem and moved into the Greco-Roman world, Satan must've felt really beaten up with all them Church Fathers condemning all his attempts of raising heresies. But did that discourage him from his ultimate mission? Did he throw in the towel after that? No, he went "roaming through the earth and walking back and forth in it" among heathen nations till he made his way to Arabia and found the "opportunity of lifetime" - the result was his most successful brainchild ever, his greatest masterpiece.

For now I'm of the opinion that if the millenium hasn't began yet, then it ended 610 CE.



I don't think the binding is such that it would not keep the accuser from roamning around.  I believe that he no longer has the ability to completely blind humanity to God as he once did, hence the binding.  I am sure, trying to remember, were scripture says that there will be a time when a great delusion comes over mankind near the end sent by God.  It is possible a reference to the  unbinding of satan to blind those not of Christ completely for a short time.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 04:44:25 PM by Mivac »

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2009, 04:58:09 PM »
Ytterbiumanalyst said:

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  
I apologise. I was under the impression you actually wanted to know what the Orthodox believe. Now I see you just want to tell us we're wrong. Sorry for trying to provide you with information; you can rest assured I won't be making the same mistake again.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline GammaRay

  • The Awful Preacher
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Alexandros Papadiamantis
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2009, 05:08:50 PM »
Suppose Orthodoxy never officially (or clearly) condemned chiliasm. Why should we believe that it's about a literal 1.000-year of Christ ruling on Earth?



P.S.: I thought that visions were to be interpreted, not taken literally.
Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Offline Nazarene

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 520
  • David ben Yessai
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2009, 05:24:56 PM »
I don't think the binding is such that it would not keep the accuser from roamning around.  I believe that he no longer has the ability to completely blind humanity to God as he once did, hence the binding.

OK but that's assuming that he ever had this ability to begin with. I don't believe this has ever been the case, as St. Paul specifically said that it was Eve who was deceived not Adam, Eve was blinded but Adam willfully and consciously chose to listen to Satan and disobey God. That story is a good illustration of how evil works in the world - half of it is due to Satan's deception, the other half is due to man's deliberate disobediance to God's commandments.

Messiah defeated Satan not only in His death but also in His life. He exposed Satan and the tactics Satan uses. The Prophets had almost nothing to say about Satan, back then he was a hidden enemy, when Messiah exposed Satan in broad daylight his power, which was limited to begin with, decreased signifanctly, "darkness hates light".

I am sure, trying to remember, were scripture says that there will be a time when a great delusion comes over mankind near the end sent by God.  It is possible a reference to the  unbinding of satan to blind those not of Christ completely for a short time.

{2 Thessalonians 2:9-12} For the coming of that [one] is by the working of Satan, with all power pand signs and lying wonders and with all the asdeception of wickedness that is in the perishing [ones], because they did not receive the love of the truth by which they should have life. Because of this, God will send them the asworking of deception that they should believe the lie and [that] all of them would be condemned, those who did not believe with truthfulness, but delighted in wickedness.

That's an interesting observation, thanks. And yes I think this could be directly linked to Satan "being released for a short time", since God bound him (through His angel) only God can release him. For a possible historical fulfillment, the rise of Islam is the best candidate IMO.


Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2009, 07:20:57 PM »
Mrs. Y, yes thank you that helps :)

Ytterbiumanalyst, realize not everyone is bound to agree with you.

Ukiemeister, yes agreed, the proper interpretation in Genesis won't get us into Heaven, but the same can be said about Revelations.  There is room for disagreement yet salvation for both sides.

Gamma Ray, a thousand year literal interpretation isn't mandatory but I believe it makes the most sense.

Nazarene, excellent idea: since some groups don't view the 1000 years as literal, maybe it could be less.  I hadn't thought of that, but the thousand years (which you interpret as 600 years from Christ to Islam) would not seem to account for Rev 20:4 which talks about rewarding those who rejected the beast's mark on their foreheads or hands.  Where would that fit in along with all the other actions that were supposed to have taken place by the time the thousand year (or 600 in your interpretation) reign takes place, such as the beast performing great signs and miracles such as healing its mortal wounds, demanding that all inhabitants of the earth make an image of it, and finally the marks everyone must have as found in Rev 13? 

Your interpretation would mean that all this must have already occurred. 

I think people are going to be very surprised and unprepared, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches when these events do take place in a manner very similar to what Ss Justin and Iranaeus believed, and as the book seems to read.

As for me, since no Ecumenical Council condemned it, I will most likely hold to the more literal interpretation as a theologoumen and will wait it out for the Orthodox to either support or officially condemn it.  Until then it falls under "sententia communis" doctrine

K


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,334
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2009, 07:38:07 PM »
As for me, since no Ecumenical Council condemned it, I will most likely hold to the more literal interpretation as a theologoumen and will wait it out for the Orthodox to either support or officially condemn it.  Until then it falls under "sententia communis" doctrine
If you're not Orthodox, then what does the decision of an Ecumenical Council even matter to you?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2009, 07:55:55 PM »
As for me, since no Ecumenical Council condemned it, I will most likely hold to the more literal interpretation as a theologoumen and will wait it out for the Orthodox to either support or officially condemn it.  Until then it falls under "sententia communis" doctrine

I think you are misunderstanding what Ecumenical Councils are for. They don't exist to compile lists of heresies to condemn. If heresies can be weeded out without an Ecumenical Council, they won't be condemned. As several of us have shown, many or most Church Fathers were against Chiliasm. The belief was never accepted by the Church in any case.

Waiting for an Ecumenical Council to condemn something is akin to saying you won't accept a judge's ruling on a traffic ticket unless you can appeal to the Supreme Court. Things can be handled at a lower level. The final court of appeal need not review every case for a definitive ruling.

But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 07:58:10 PM by bogdan »

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2009, 09:10:25 PM »
Bogdan said:
Quote
But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

Show me, Bogdan, a statement of a Church Father that backs up the assertion that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was inserted to specifically condemn chiliasm. 

K

Offline Jimmy

  • Maronite
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2009, 09:29:56 PM »
But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

My understanding of that part of the creed is that it was meant to condemn Marcellus of Ankyra who was a modalist.  Essentially the Son would hand the kingdom over to the Father in the end.  The creedal statement though is that "His kingdom shall have no end" and therefore also Christ shall have no end.  It was a backdoor way of opposing Marcellus without condemning him since he was supported by Athanasius.  There were attempts by Basil to get Athanasius to condemn Marcellus but he refused.  I think that eventually he did call Marcellus on it and eventually Marcellus rejected modalism. 
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 09:45:12 PM by Jimmy »

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2009, 09:56:00 PM »
Bogdan said:
Quote
But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

Show me, Bogdan, a statement of a Church Father that backs up the assertion that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was inserted to specifically condemn chiliasm. 

K


I got that from Fr Andrew Stephen Damick's "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" podcast, but I can attempt to dig something up. But it doesn't matter, because it still was not accepted by the Church in any official way. I and others have already provided quotes from Fathers that condemn chiliasm by name.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 10:06:32 PM by bogdan »

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2009, 11:53:32 PM »
First: how do I quote multiple pieces of people's statements?  :)

Ytterbiumanalyst said:

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  

Another poster, appologies to whom this was, stated I can believe in Chiliasm as long as I don't teach it or ask other Orthodox to believe this.  Afterall it's not heretical, merely discouraged.  

Ukiemeister,

Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks.  I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism.  Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

K


I have to agree with Kaste on this one, to suggest that the devil was "bound" at Messiah's resurrection is in direct conflict with what St. Peter wrote here, years after Messiah ascended into Heaven:

{1 Peter 5:8} Be watchful and remember, because your enemy, Satan, roars as a lion and walks about and seeks whom he may swallow.

A person who is "bound" cannot walk or do anything - they are powerless, Satan has been defeated but he is not powerless, he wouldn't still be trying deceive the nations if he truely acknowledges his defeat. Satan has been deceiving the nations ever since the Cross and is still deceiving them today, in fact if anything, he's been even more determined to deceive them since Messiah's resurrection, because Messiah being the true light showed us the way, so now it's harder for Satan to keep mankind in the dark.

Consider this, if Satan has been bound all this time then how do we explain the biggest deception in human history, namely Islam? Or do we credit this to the angel Gabriel? The interesting thing the nations that have fallen prey to this deception are the "nations" specifically mentioned in Scripture by name (read the Prophets). So Satan has successfully deceived the nations, and therefore has not been bound yet, or perhaps the millenium officially ended in the 7th century? If 1000 years is symbolic for an unspecified time, which I feel is a valid interpretation, then if the "literal" period could equal more than 1000 years, then it stands to reason that it could also equal less than 1000 years. Islam was the first major deception to arise after the Apostolic age, all the other major world deceptions (like Hinduism & Buddahism) date before Messiah's 1st comming, and no other deception, either before or since, has equalled Islam in power, influence, number, brutality and sheer hatred against Christians and Jews.

I used to be a staunch Premillenialist, now I'm undecided. I need to study Amillenialism in greater detail before I form an official stance on it. I will say that when it comes to studying Eschatology chronologically, I'm not 100% satisfied with either position. I can't get all the pieces of the puzzle to fit with either, but I can get more pieces to fit with Premillenialism than with Amellinialism, but then again chronology isn't the only thing to consider in Eschotological study.

So far I see little evidence that Satan was ever bound, sure when the Church was established in Jerusalem and moved into the Greco-Roman world, Satan must've felt really beaten up with all them Church Fathers condemning all his attempts of raising heresies. But did that discourage him from his ultimate mission? Did he throw in the towel after that? No, he went "roaming through the earth and walking back and forth in it" among heathen nations till he made his way to Arabia and found the "opportunity of lifetime" - the result was his most successful brainchild ever, his greatest masterpiece.

For now I'm of the opinion that if the millenium hasn't began yet, then it ended 610 CE.



What I personally call "eastern amill" is different from alot of "amill" views you will see in the west. Just so you know......the interpretations in certain areas aren't always the same.







ICXC NIKA
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2009, 12:09:18 AM »
Ytterbiumanalyst said:

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.  
I apologise. I was under the impression you actually wanted to know what the Orthodox believe. Now I see you just want to tell us we're wrong. Sorry for trying to provide you with information; you can rest assured I won't be making the same mistake again.

When you are raised in certain sola scriptura groups, it is hard to overlook certain super literal readings of a text.

He may eventually get over this just by simply looking at how Jesus and the Apostles mostly interpreted the Old Testament.

I know that helped me out alot........he just wants to be "faithful" to the text, but being faithful to the text may not be what he thinks it is.

Arius errored when it came to the word "created" in the Old Testament, and in modern times, the protestant Reformed Baptist John Macauther errored once in regards to the first chapter of Hebrews, in thinking that Jesus.....as th the Son.... didn't exist before the incarnation.

And so hermeneutics has something to do with it as well.

And so when posting to kaste, just keep these things in mind.........for he will be looking at the text in a way you may not.







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 12:11:44 AM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2009, 12:42:17 AM »
Quote
Thanks Jnorm, a good post and very fitting for me. 

You said: "Hey, as long as I can believe in a future Anti-christ/man of sin, with a future tribulation, as well as a future second coming, then I'm willing to give up pre-nicene chillism."

So Orthodox at least believe in these things?

Yes, some may talk about it in more sophisticated ways.........like the "already and not yet" paradigm, but to keep it simple........yes!

If you read the ancient chillites, then you should already know that they believed that alot of things were already fullfilled when the Jewish Temple of 70A.D. fell. Well, that idea isn't unique to them.......it's pretty much across the board in the ancient christian world.

And so the focus should be on chillism, and not on the issue of what was fullfilled vs what wasn't fulfilled.....for that will only get us sidetracked.




Quote
  And also do they think "Christ's 1000 year reign" began in the 1st Century and goes until he returns?  If so, how do Orthodox account for the period of the anti-Christ (which comes before Christ returns)?

I don't put a limit on Christ's reign, for the creed says:

Quote:
"He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end."


So why put an "end" to it......"like the second coming".......if His reign has no end?




Quote
...That would conflict with Christ's reign that according to the allogorizors began in first century and continues uninterrupted until His return. 

I appreciate your sharing, especially the part that the Mysteries are important.

K

Did you know that Jesus and the Apostles allegorized the Old Testament alot? And why are you upset with us being allegorizers of a Scripture text filled with allegory?


And how could it conflict with Christ's reign when His reign is eternal? Don't forget............eastern amill isn't necessarily the same as it's western counterparts.


Oh, and anytime Kaste, and yes the Divine Mysteries are important. Don't allow the semi-atheistic, and humanistic views of Zwinglyianism mislead you on this.


How was your thanksgiving? Take care!







ICXC NIKA
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2009, 01:41:12 AM »
Yes, bogdan, please substantiate your claim that the phrase "and His kingdom shall have no end" was inserted into the Nicene Creed specifically to condemn Chiliasm.  Jimmy has stated he understands it to have been inserted for a different reason. 

It does matter because simply showing Church Fathers opposed to Chiliasm does not hold the weight as a Father who (especially as some on this forum remarked without substantiating their claims) was at the Ecumenical Council, such as Gregory the Theologian, and wrote that the phrase was inserted to combat chiliasm.  If this is true, then you will win me over.  If not I will consider it acceptable as a theologoumena. 

Jnorm, 1) so you're saying Orthodox can believe the whole bit about the Anti-Christ taking over the world, a real beast healing its wound to fool the world and get universal worship, and have people stamp the mark of the beast on their forheads and a great war that ensues when Christ comes back just before the last judgement.......but just no belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ?

2) When do you believe the allegorical 1000 year reign began?  I asked this before since if it began already, Rev 20:3,4 gets in the way along with other difficulties.  Or perhaps you believe that allegorical 1000 years occurs after the Last Judgement? 

continuing in another post because of the constant jumping of the text box.....

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #53 on: November 28, 2009, 01:47:40 AM »
Jnorm (Part 2 of 2),

3) Can you give me an example of when Jesus and the Apostles allegorized a passage in the OT?

4) Also you say the early Chillites thought the events in Revelation already occurred?  Can you tell me who? 

5) How is eastern and western amill different?

Thanks, and my Thanksgiving was good.
Kind Regards,

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #54 on: November 28, 2009, 02:32:12 AM »
I'm about to sleep soon, and so I'll re-answer this again in the coming days.

Jnorm (Part 2 of 2),

3) Can you give me an example of when Jesus and the Apostles allegorized a passage in the OT?

I'll show a few examples later. Fow now, you can pick up Dr. Peter Enns book, he talks about it in a few chapters.

http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incarnation-Evangelicals-Problem-Testament/dp/0801027306

I know I have quotes and resources on my blog about it, but I'm tired right now, and so, I'll post it in the coming days.


Quote
4) Also you say the early Chillites thought the events in Revelation already occurred?  Can you tell me who?
 

No, I said that they tought that some things were fullfilled when the Jewish Temple of 70A.D. fell, but that wasn't just their belief, but a belief held in common by all early christians back then.


Quote
5) How is eastern and western amill different?


It's different in some of the details, to be honest, I doubt if we even have a name to describe our view. "eastern amill" is what I call it.

When I was protestant, I recall arguing with full-preterists, and other postmillers....well, I still argue with them now, but you don't have all that over here.

There are western views that reject a future 2nd coming of Christ( full-preterists), a future tribulation( some post millers)......oh, I am friends with some western amillers that reject a future tribulation.

And I have friends that reject not only a future tribulation, but also a future man of sin/anti-christ.

Many of them reject all that, and so, you shouldn't always assume that the east is 100%ly the same as the west, because they may not be. And in this case, no, they are not.

 







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 02:34:29 AM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #55 on: November 28, 2009, 03:39:46 AM »
Yes, bogdan, please substantiate your claim that the phrase "and His kingdom shall have no end" was inserted into the Nicene Creed specifically to condemn Chiliasm.  Jimmy has stated he understands it to have been inserted for a different reason. 

It does matter because simply showing Church Fathers opposed to Chiliasm does not hold the weight as a Father who (especially as some on this forum remarked without substantiating their claims) was at the Ecumenical Council, such as Gregory the Theologian, and wrote that the phrase was inserted to combat chiliasm.  If this is true, then you will win me over.  If not I will consider it acceptable as a theologoumena.

I am not finding anything yet, but will continue to look. I do trust that Fr Andrew knows what he's talking about though.

I think you are looking at this in very black-and-white, legalistic terms that are alien to Orthodoxy. Orthodox beliefs do not generally come in neat categories that were endlessly defined by councils. Ecumenical Councils were called only when major heresies could not be wiped out any other way (there is a reason there were only 7 [or so]). If a heresy can be suppressed at lower levels, it is.

In my experience, this seems to be a common ploy that Protestants use. When arguing, they set the bar unreasonably or impossibly high, then claim victory when none of the evidence is good enough for their unreasonable standards.

The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.

You may consider it theologumena, but the Church considers it a misunderstanding and bad theology, if not heresy.

I'll keep looking, but I think it is unreasonable to base this belief on whether or not an Ecumenical Council condemned it.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 03:40:59 AM by bogdan »

Offline Jimmy

  • Maronite
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #56 on: November 28, 2009, 05:10:57 AM »
I think from the fourth century onward it was pretty much rejected.  Some of the earlier fathers accepted chiliasm as an option but eventually it was rejected by all.

Offline GammaRay

  • The Awful Preacher
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Alexandros Papadiamantis
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #57 on: November 28, 2009, 11:22:03 AM »
Gamma Ray, a thousand year literal interpretation isn't mandatory but I believe it makes the most sense.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(I didn't say anything. :-X)
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 11:22:10 AM by GammaRay »
Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #58 on: November 28, 2009, 11:20:56 PM »
Ytterbiumanalyst, realize not everyone is bound to agree with you.
I don't care if you agree with me. But if you dismiss out of hand any answer that doesn't meet your pre-conceived notion, as you are obviously doing here, I don't see the point in discussing anything with you. Such behaviour is usually called "trolling," and it's frowned upon on most forums.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Global Moderator
  • Merarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,678
  • Michał Kalina's biggest fan
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2009, 11:17:44 AM »



The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.



Yah you know...the more and more I think about this the more I wonder when exactly Revelations was accepted to be part of the cannon of scripture.  I didn't think it was accepted until MUCH later (perhaps 4th century?)...

Something to think about as a factor...

[edited to fix tags]
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 11:18:40 AM by serb1389 »
I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2009, 01:43:15 PM »



The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.



Yah you know...the more and more I think about this the more I wonder when exactly Revelations was accepted to be part of the cannon of scripture.  I didn't think it was accepted until MUCH later (perhaps 4th century?)...

Something to think about as a factor...

[edited to fix tags]

That's a great point. I think Revelation wasn't really accepted in the East until the 5th century.

One of the main arguments for not including it was (surprise, surprise) it was too difficult to interpret correctly and led too many people into heresy because of that. I'm not one to question the canon, but we can see that has continued through the centuries.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 01:43:46 PM by bogdan »

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Global Moderator
  • Merarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,678
  • Michał Kalina's biggest fan
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #61 on: November 29, 2009, 06:35:35 PM »



The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.



Yah you know...the more and more I think about this the more I wonder when exactly Revelations was accepted to be part of the cannon of scripture.  I didn't think it was accepted until MUCH later (perhaps 4th century?)...

Something to think about as a factor...

[edited to fix tags]

That's a great point. I think Revelation wasn't really accepted in the East until the 5th century.

One of the main arguments for not including it was (surprise, surprise) it was too difficult to interpret correctly and led too many people into heresy because of that. I'm not one to question the canon, but we can see that has continued through the centuries.

Yah i know that...that's why i'm wondering about when it became part of the cannon.  I think its a factor because if chiliasm was a real problem with Ireneus and Justin, then we have to see it as a wrong interpretation of maybe the wrong manuscript.  Just something we havn't thought about yet...
I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,919
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #62 on: December 04, 2009, 05:31:15 PM »
if chiliasm was a real problem ...

An irrelevant comment perhaps, as I haven't been following this thread (have been away): chiliasm is very out-of-fashion among British Evangelicals, though it lingers on in the fringes; but is very common among American Evangelicals.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Global Moderator
  • Merarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,678
  • Michał Kalina's biggest fan
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2009, 01:43:18 AM »
if chiliasm was a real problem ...

An irrelevant comment perhaps, as I haven't been following this thread (have been away): chiliasm is very out-of-fashion among British Evangelicals, though it lingers on in the fringes; but is very common among American Evangelicals.

Yah but what version of Chiliasm, what does it say, etc.  who knows what derivatives there have been made in protestantism.  Would you like to bring up a possible concrete example we can take a look at?
I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,919
  • 2015, Baptist chapel, Llay
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2009, 07:09:38 AM »
what version of Chiliasm?

I cannot speak about American Evangelicalism, though I suspect the beliefs are similar if not identical. As I understand it, chiliasm re-emerged in the mid-19th century and was popularised as part of the Dispensationalism set before readers of the Schofield Reference Bible, which attained very wide circulation. It was particularly espoused by the Brethren (Plymouth Brethren, Christian Brethren, whatever name) and adopted later by the Pentecostals. I believe that those two denominations held it almost to a man; but many others, including a good number of Anglicans, likewise held the same or similar views. The idea is that God, as it were, pressed the pause button on his programme with the Jews and opened the Gospel to the Gentiles, which is "the church age", extending from Pentecost till the Second Coming. Then God snatches away the church ("the Rapture") and resumes his programme for the Jews, in the form of the Millennium, or thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. People who hold these views have various time-tables for how the final seven years will unfold before Christ appears in glory.

I could go into further detail, but I am not persuaded it would be edifying or even accurate, seeing I do not hold chiliastic views myself; what might be worse, it probably wouldn't do justice to that system of belief, which would be unfair to those who do hold them. I read a book against Fundamentalism, by James Barr, an Oxford University theologian, and one of his interesting comments was that if one is going to be a Fundamentalist, then this system is the only one that can be consistently held.

Hitherto Cleopas and I have agreed 100%, I think, on all our posts; being American, he may well be "Pre-Mill" and could probably expound it better than I could. But this brief reply may give some idea of the views held by some Protestants.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #65 on: December 09, 2009, 07:53:48 AM »
if chiliasm was a real problem ...

An irrelevant comment perhaps, as I haven't been following this thread (have been away): chiliasm is very out-of-fashion among British Evangelicals, though it lingers on in the fringes; but is very common among American Evangelicals.

Very interesting.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #66 on: December 09, 2009, 08:11:16 AM »
Yes, bogdan, please substantiate your claim that the phrase "and His kingdom shall have no end" was inserted into the Nicene Creed specifically to condemn Chiliasm.  Jimmy has stated he understands it to have been inserted for a different reason. 

It does matter because simply showing Church Fathers opposed to Chiliasm does not hold the weight as a Father who (especially as some on this forum remarked without substantiating their claims) was at the Ecumenical Council, such as Gregory the Theologian, and wrote that the phrase was inserted to combat chiliasm.  If this is true, then you will win me over.  If not I will consider it acceptable as a theologoumena. 

Jnorm, 1) so you're saying Orthodox can believe the whole bit about the Anti-Christ taking over the world, a real beast healing its wound to fool the world and get universal worship, and have people stamp the mark of the beast on their forheads and a great war that ensues when Christ comes back just before the last judgement.......but just no belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ?

2) When do you believe the allegorical 1000 year reign began?  I asked this before since if it began already, Rev 20:3,4 gets in the way along with other difficulties.  Or perhaps you believe that allegorical 1000 years occurs after the Last Judgement? 

continuing in another post because of the constant jumping of the text box.....


I followed the thread, but didn't intervene until I read this post. I am really amazed of what your saying here. Since you belong to the "invisible church" which ISN'T the Orthodox Church, how do you think the opinion expressed in the Ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church might be binding for you? We are NOT Orthodox, nor Catholic, so the contents of the Ecumenical Councils shouldn't be more infallible then the other councils. The ambiguity of your opinions regarding the identity of this "infallible church" is making my head explode: if you believe the ECs to be infallible, you must recognize that the authority of the Fathers assembled in them... but if you reject their consent, then it is like to say that the Fathers receive some extraordinary inspiration at the Councils to prevent them from error otherwise they would be just as fallible as any other man on Earth. Now, if you believe that the ECs are infallible by divine inspiration, you must prove it in Scriptures or in the ECs, which is impossible, and which means you are supporting the private inspiration of the ECs based on your own personal opinions, and not on the Apostolic Tradition as contained in the ECs and in the Holy Bible.
I hope you would clarify this BEFORE continuing the discussions on the ECs.

In Christ,   Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #67 on: December 10, 2009, 12:52:57 AM »
Alexander, you are welcome to read my thread "How long does it take to be confident in the Church's teachings?"  and another titled "Ecumenical Councils".  That will answer your questions.  Suffice to say it's not as easy as simply accepting the authority of the Fathers that called the councils. 

K

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,098
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #68 on: December 10, 2009, 01:29:25 AM »
So using Protestant terminology, is the Orthodox position Amillennialism?

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #69 on: December 10, 2009, 02:24:30 AM »

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #70 on: December 10, 2009, 10:59:57 PM »
So using Protestant terminology, is the Orthodox position Amillennialism?

I like to call it "Eastern Amill" for there are alot of Amill views in the west that are not necessarily the same.









ICXC NIKA
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2009, 02:21:51 PM »
Thank you everyone for your answers on this.  It seems many here believe Revelation's prophesies already occurred during the Roman Empire.

Do Orthodox believe Revelation 19:11 (describes Christ coming from Heaven on a white horse) has already happened?

Chapter 20 says after this image of Christ coming down a battle ensues where the Dragon/Satan is locked into an abyss for a thousand years. Then it comes out again, and then finally the last judgment happens.

First off, please note the interpretation I favor as being a legitimate one, does not say Christ comes back multiple times but once, as stated above when He comes on a horse, and stays with us on earth.

Now how do Orthodox solve this part about Rev 19:11: Christ coming back, then locking Satan away for a long time, then letting him out followed by Last Judgment?

Do Orthodox say Rev 19:11 already happened?

Thanks,
K

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,501
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2009, 02:25:42 PM »
Thank you everyone for your answers on this.  It seems many here believe Revelation's prophesies already occurred during the Roman Empire.

Do Orthodox believe Revelation 19:11 (describes Christ coming from Heaven on a white horse) has already happened?

Chapter 20 says after this image of Christ coming down a battle ensues where the Dragon/Satan is locked into an abyss for a thousand years. Then it comes out again, and then finally the last judgment happens.

First off, please note the interpretation I favor as being a legitimate one, does not say Christ comes back multiple times but once, as stated above when He comes on a horse, and stays with us on earth.

Now how do Orthodox solve this part about Rev 19:11: Christ coming back, then locking Satan away for a long time, then letting him out followed by Last Judgment?

Do Orthodox say Rev 19:11 already happened?

The Orthodox do not read Revelation in Church, except on Great and Holy Saturday.

This thread is a demonstration of the wisdom of that.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Kaste

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 158
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #73 on: December 17, 2009, 03:12:02 PM »
Quote
The Orthodox do not read Revelation in Church, except on Great and Holy Saturday.

This thread is a demonstration of the wisdom of that.

That is unfortunate because "Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the appointed time is near." 

Oh and that's taken from Rev 1:3.

This is an important book, and Orthodox can believe, as a theologumena, (as did Ss. Justin and Iranaeus) that after a great tribulation and rule of Anti-Christ, Jesus really truly will come back from the clouds on a horse and fight a great battle and bind Satan for a long time (perhaps even 1000 literal years), let him go for a short while, then conquer him once and for all just before the last judgment.

Jnorm, didn't you agree except for the literal thousand years part (which however you allow represents a long time)?

K

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,001
  • "Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2012, 04:30:51 AM »
Resurrecting an old thread, I realize. But this issue has troubled me since reading through this thread. As a former Protestant, I was steeped in dispensational theology. Upon becoming Orthodox and learning that the Church condemns Chiliasm based on the clear words of the Nicene Creed, that was enough for me to abandon my dispensational eschatology. But now it seems the issue may not be as clear cut as I thought.

Here is what I believe Orthodoxy teaches, so correct me if I am wrong on any of these points:

1. It is wrong to apply a literal interpretation to years when interpreting eschatological teachings in the Bible. Orthodoxy teaches that "1,000 years" is symbolic for either a very long period of time or for eternity.

2. The "Great Tribulation" and the "Kingdom of Heaven" co-exist for the time being. Christians have been living in tribulation from the time of the Resurrection until the Second Coming. But during this time of Tribulation we also experience the Kingdom of Heaven on earth whenever and wherever the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in the world. Just as the Church militant co-exists and has fellowship with the Church triumphant.

3. There will eventually be an ultimate "antichrist" who will deceive many prior to the Second Coming of Our Lord. However, even now, we are living in the "last hour," many antichrists have already come [I John 2:18], and the devil is prowling the earth [I Peter 5:8].

4. It is reasonable to assume from Scripture that evil in the world and the persecution of Christians will increase prior to the Second Coming. However, it is also reasonable to assume from Scripture that we can hope to see the Church strengthened and the Faith multiplied even as evil and persecution increase.

5. The Orthodox eschatological focus is simply that Christ will come again and that His kingdom will have no end. His coming is imminent, and therefore we should live with the awareness of this constant expectation, hope, and reverential fear. To focus on specific time frames, to predict dates, or to try and identify who the antichrist will be only leads to confusion and distraction from the essential aspects of our Faith.

OK, that's my limited uderstanding anyway. Am I off base here in anything I've stated?

Thanks.


Selam
""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it."    Selam, +GMK+

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,001
  • "Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
Re: Orthodox never condemned Chiliasm
« Reply #75 on: September 18, 2012, 01:06:55 AM »
^ *** BUMP***


Selam
""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it."    Selam, +GMK+