A Millennial Ism and Augustine of Hippo
A Millennial Ism and Augustine of Hippo
A Millennial Ism and Augustine of Hippo
1
with denial of the doctrine of the millennial by the
antichiliasts, Rome refused to Canonize the book of
Revelation. Although they were fearful not to
include it among the accepted writings because of
the threats within it, it was not until the Council of
Trent [1545 AD], that the book of Revelation was
Canonized.
2
AD in the wrong light of Scripture. Events that will
lead up to the appearance of the man of sin, will be
pooh poohed as foolish and hair-brained
sensationalism, incited by a few apostates not in
the main-stream Churches. This turns attention
from the antichrist system and focuses upon those
who might condemn their Augustine
reinterpretations. This leads to the amillennialist
openly condemning everyone who is a millennialist,
while at the same time ignorantly endorsing the
antichrist movement, because they believe it was
already destroyed by the end of the year in 70 AD.
This is a dangerous posture, and will cause many
millions to be deceived and lost. Believing that
antichrist has already come and Revelation 13 has
already been fulfilled, they have no doctrinal
reason to expect or to attempt to identify the man
of sin or the antichrist, which is soon to appear. It
is so easy to deceive millions when the devil can
change the interpretation of the Word of God, like
he did with Eve: "Ye shall NOT surely die," adding
one word, and changing the true interpretation of
what God had said. Jesus told John there would be
a millennial. The devil comes along and says:
"There will NOT be a millennial. Same trick word
used each time to deceive God's children.
3
universal monotheism, or ONE GOD over all
religions. Instead of uniting to bring into being the
Kingdom of God and convert pagans to Christ, they
have brought into being the antichrist world
movement of universal monotheism, out of the
midst of which, will come the man of sin to rule all
multi-cultural nations and religions from Jerusalem.
4
converted to Manichaeanism which in one aspect
many were Monarchian. He rose in the sect of
Manichaeans from a hearer to a teacher and then a
wonderful debater. In 383 at the age of 29 he went
to Rome with the encouragement of his
Manichaean friends to debate the trinity and on
other issues. There, he became acquainted with the
doctrine of Neo-Platoism (Plato he loved), that the
Catholic Church had adopted in 325 AD as an
explanation of the trinity. He gave up his
Monarchian (oneness) doctrine for this new trinity
doctrine. Within three years of his visit, in 386 AD
he converted to the papacy and was promoted
quickly as one of the Pope's greatest theologians
and neo-Platonic philosophers. Augustine left his
wife and became a monk and founded the
Augustinian Benedictine Monk Order (Martin
Luther's). While he altered many of his views to
those of the papacy, he also brought to it many
Manichaean ideas and theories which he adopted
over into and applied these to his new Catholicism.
5
In Augustine's day, much of the doctrine of the
Catholic Church was not in any creed or statement
of faith. The amillennial doctrine was one of them.
It is this writers belief and contention that
amillennialism, clearly a Manichaean doctrine, and
having wide-spread acclaim by reason of the
saturation of the nations with Manichaeanism, was
brought into Catholicism by Augustine from his
former religion. No one denies that amillennialism
rose within Augustineism and then existed against
the Chiliaist or believers of the future 1,000 year
reign of Christ upon the earth. What is still being
debated, is whether those who held the amillennial
theory were not in fact originally the Manichaeans.
The fact that amillennialism existed and was wide-
spread in opposition to "historic" Chiliaism, is no
proof that it was the doctrine of the Apostles. The
earliest we have traced it is to Clement and Origen,
both of whom were gnostics. Until the root of
amillennialism is discovered, the only conclusion
that can be drawn is that until Augustine, it was
not an established doctrine of the Catholic Church
or he would not have been the one to establish it,
but would have received it in an already accepted
form as would have been held in all Catholic
Churches in fellowship with Rome.