Retractions

Last Updated:

If and when I change my mind about any of the views I’ve published in my book or on this blog, I’ll add a link straight to the discussion where I explain my new position and my reasoning behind the change. This list is presented in reverse chronological order, so my newest retractions will appear at the top of the page.

September 4, 2026

When I published my post “Amillennialist Attempts to Redefine “Resurrection”” on April 27th, 2026, I wrote the following in the third-to-last paragraph before the “Revelation 13:3 & 17:11” section, about a quarter of the way through the article:

As noted above, the earliest patristic writer who espoused any teachings we would now class as “preterist” was Eusebius—and that webpage I just linked to acknowledges that the earliest work in which he does so only dates to A.D. 310. Hence, it’s a later invention, totally foreign to the teachings the Apostles passed on to their own students. Moreover, many if not most of Eusebius’ preterist quotes were written in A.D. 325 or later–and thus were prone to including ideas that flattered Constantine’s preferences. Among these were the idea that the Roman Catholic Church (Christianity as Rome’s state church) was Christ’s Kingdom on Earth. That idea couldn’t possibly be correct if Christ’s Kingdom was still to come—this is the primary reason why Constantine chose amillennialism as the Roman Catholic Church’s official position. It’s likely that Constantine chose Eusebius to write his state-sanctioned history of Christianity in part because Eusebius believed OT prophecies about the Kingdom had already been fulfilled (in the second destruction of Jerusalem)–making it easier to scrounge up support for the view that the Roman Catholic Church was the final manifestation of that Kingdom! Either way, preterists seriously need to be asked: “Why should we trust Eusebius’ interpretation of the Olivet Discourse over that of every last Church Father who came before him?”

On the night of September 3, while trying to hyperlink an upcoming article to this paragraph, it dawned on me that I should probably double-check whether I was oversimplifying the history behind this doctrinal development. A preliminary discussion with Google AI suggested that I was, but I was too busy that night to probe further. So I had the following conversation with Google AI on the evening of September 4, 2026:

I was told in a prior session that the idea of the Roman Catholic Church being Christ’s Kingdom on earth started under Constantine, with support from Eusebius, but was short-lived. It then got altered into the current Catholic teaching by Augustine of Hippo. Could you please refresh my memory on the details, focusing on source citations for (a) Constantine espousing this idea, (b) Eusebius’ promotion of it, (c) why the eschatological system resulting from it was short-lived, and (d) Augustine’s modifications to make it stick around in Catholicism all these centuries later?

The transition of the Christian perspective from an persecuted {sic} minority to a dominant state-aligned entity reshaped theology, creating a temporary “Imperial Eschatology” under Emperor Constantine and Eusebius of Caesarea that was later heavily restructured by Augustine of Hippo into modern Catholic amillennialism. While the early imperial model conflated the Roman Empire with Christ’s kingdom on earth, the shocking collapse of Roman stability forced a permanent theological decoupling. [1, 2, 3]

(a) Constantine’s Espousal of the Kingdom Idea

While Constantine did not invent the Catholic Church, his policies after his conversion in 312 AD heavily promoted the idea that his earthly rule was divinely ordained to advance God’s kingdom. [1, 2, 3]

    • Imperial Identification: In his personal letters, Constantine described himself as “the servant of the mighty holy God” and believed his military victories—such as the Battle of Milvian Bridge—were explicit proof of Christ’s backing. [1, 2, 3]
    • State Action as Divine Mandate: By issuing the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, funding massive basilica constructions, and presiding directly over theological councils like the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Constantine acted under the premise that the Roman State was now the primary structural vehicle for executing God’s will on earth. [1, 2, 3]

(b) Eusebius’ Promotion of “Realized” Imperial Eschatology

Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine’s court biographer and imperial theologian, provided the formal political philosophy that synthesized the Roman Empire with the Kingdom of God. [1, 2]

    • The Emperor as the Agent of the Logos: In his 335 AD work Oratio de Laudibus Constantini (Tricennial Oration), Eusebius posited a “realized eschatology”. He argued that Constantine ruled as the earthly interpreter and agent of the Logos (the Word of God). [1, 2, 3]
    • The Empire as Heaven’s Mirror: Eusebius explicitly asserted that Constantine’s Christianized monarchy was designed as an earthly reflection or copy of the heavenly kingdom. Having survived brutal persecutions, Eusebius viewed this shift as a “new world order” where biblical prophecy regarding Christ’s ultimate triumph was effectively being realized through the Roman state apparatus. [1, 2, 3, 4]

(c) Why the Imperial System Was Short-Lived

This framework of identifying the physical Roman Empire with the triumphant, unshakeable Kingdom of God collapsed rapidly due to historical trauma. [1, 2]

    • The Sack of Rome (410 AD): When Alaric and the Visigoths pillaged Rome, it shattered the psychological and theological foundation of imperial eschatology.
    • The Pagan Backlash: Critics and traditional pagans immediately blamed Christianity for Rome’s vulnerability, arguing that abandoning the old gods had provoked divine wrath and caused the empire’s ruin. If the Roman Empire was supposed to be Christ’s invincible kingdom on earth, its obvious political and physical disintegration left the Church’s theology in a massive crisis of legitimacy. [1, 2, 3]

(d) Augustine’s Modifications: The Foundation of Catholic Amillennialism

To save Church theology from dying alongside the Western Roman Empire, Augustine of Hippo meticulously re-engineered Christian eschatology in his masterpiece, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), written between 413 and 427 AD. [1, 2]

Feature

Eusebius’ Imperial Eschatology

Augustine’s Amillennial Modification

The Kingdom Identity

Tangible, political Christian Roman Empire.

Completely spiritualized concept separate from any political state.

The Two Cities

Blended into a singular Christianized Roman order.

Divided into the City of God (love of God) and the City of Man (love of self), which intertwine through history.

The Millennium (Rev 20)

Being physically realized through the Christianized empire.

The entire current Church age spanning from Pentecost/First Coming to the Parousia.

The Binding of Satan

Achieved through the state’s conversion and eradication of paganism.

Spiritually active right now, preventing Satan from totally deceiving the elect, though evil still plods along.

By redefining the “Kingdom of God” as the institutional, sacramental Church operating quietly within the hearts of the faithful rather than a political empire, Augustine effectively decoupled Christianity’s survival from the fate of any earthly government. This shift created the enduring Catholic doctrine of amillennialism, ensuring that when the Western Roman Empire collapsed entirely before 500 AD, the Catholic Church remained standing as an independent, spiritually sovereign institution. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Would you like to explore specific chapters of Book 20 of The City of God where Augustine critiques literal millenarianism, or examine how the Donatist controversy influenced his view of the institutional Church?

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

MDPI

Eusebius of Caesarea’s Representations of Christ, Constantine, and Rome: An ‘Eschatology of Replacement’

Jun 9, 2025 — Eusebius of Caesarea (255–339 AD) initially held an end-time eschatology focused on Christ’s imminent second coming during the per…

Boise State University

Eusebius of Caesareaâ•Žs Oration in Praise of Constantine as the Political Philosophy of the Christian Empire

Eusebius of Caesarea’s 335 AD *Oratio de Laudibus Constantini* establishes the first political philosophy of the Christian Empire,

www.affinity.org.uk

Issue 65 Article 4 – Augustine on Revelation 20: A Root of Amillennialism – Affinity – Affinity

Augustine (354-430) formulated key elements of amillennialism in Concerning the City of God (413-427). Expounding Rev 20 in Book 2…

Show all

Let’s table the discussion on City of God Book 20 for now, unless it becomes relevant to my next two questions: First, given the timing of Constantine’s conversion and the Edict of Milan, is it feasible that Constantine chose Eusebius to flesh out the Imperial Eschatology in part because of his proto-preterist writing from A.D. 310? Second, is it feasible that a desire to portray the Roman State as “the primary structural vehicle for executing God’s will on earth” was part of the reason Constantine rejected Patristic Chiliasm? In either case, do we have any ancient sources for support?

Connecting the specific historical timing of Constantine’s conversion to Eusebius’ theology requires navigating between what is logically feasible and what ancient texts explicitly state.

While Constantine likely did not choose Eusebius specifically because of his proto-preterist interpretations, the two men shared deeply compatible political and theological goals. Both were motivated by a strong desire to suppress Patristic Chiliasm (historical premillennialism). [1, 2]

The Preterist Connection: Feasible, but Unlikely as a Primary Motivation

The Hypothesis: Did Constantine pick Eusebius to shape his Imperial Eschatology because Eusebius had already written “proto-preterist” texts around A.D. 310?

    • Historical Feasibility: Highly feasible contextually, but historically unverified. Around A.D. 310–311, during the height of the Diocletian Persecution, Eusebius was drafting major works like the Chronicle and beginning his Ecclesiastical History. In these, and later in his Demonstratio Evangelica (Proof of the Gospel), Eusebius heavily utilized the Jewish historian Josephus to argue that the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the literal fulfillment of Christ’s Olivet Discourse. This view is the cornerstone of preterism. [1, 2, 3, 4]
    • The Reality of the Relationship: Constantine did not actively “seek out” Eusebius because of his views on A.D. 70. Instead, Eusebius was already the influential Bishop of Caesarea, a major political and intellectual capital. When Constantine took control of the East, Eusebius used his existing theological framework—which taught that the Old Covenant was fully abolished and the nations were now inheriting the Earth—to flatter and legitimize Constantine’s rule. [1, 2, 3]
    • Ancient Source Support: In Book 3, Chapter 7 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius explicitly maps the prophecies of Jesus regarding the end of the age directly onto the Roman siege of A.D. 70. By clearing the deck of a future Jewish fulfillment, Eusebius opened the door to claim that the Roman Empire’s turn to Christianity was the true climax of world history.

The Rejection of Patristic Chiliasm: Highly Feasible and Politically Motivated

The Hypothesis: Was Constantine’s rejection of Patristic Chiliasm driven by a desire to frame the Roman State as the ultimate vehicle for God’s will on earth?

    • Historical Feasibility: Extremely high. Patristic Chiliasm taught that Christ would physically return, overthrow all earthly empires (including Rome), and establish a literal 1,000-year kingdom centered in Jerusalem.
    • The Conflict: For a Roman Emperor trying to unify a fractured empire under a single state religion, a theology that predicted the violent destruction of Rome by a returning Messiah was politically subversive and dangerous. Constantine needed a theology that validated the current state structure, not one that eagerly anticipated its overthrow.
    • Ancient Source Support: We find the clearest evidence for this shift in Eusebius’s own writing. In Book 3, Chapter 39 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius goes out of his way to attack Papias of Hierapolis, one of the earliest defenders of chiliasm. Eusebius mocks Papias, calling him a man of “very small intelligence” who misunderstood the apostles’ symbolic language.
    • The Omission of Revelation: Furthermore, Eusebius openly noted that the canonical status of the Book of Revelation was hotly disputed in the early church. By casting doubt on Revelation and attacking early millenarians, Eusebius cleared a path for the imperial court to adopt an amillennial or realized eschatalogical view. This allowed them to claim that the peace of Constantine was the actual arrival of Christ’s kingdom. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Summary Comparison

Concept

Feasibility

Primary Ancient Source Support

Constantine choosing Eusebius for preterism

Low probability as a cause, but highly compatible in outcome.

Eusebius’s own Demonstratio Evangelica and Ecclesiastical History (Bk 3, Ch 5-7).

Rejection of Chiliasm to protect the State

Very high probability. Chiliasm was an existential political threat to imperial legitimacy.

Eusebius’s assault on Papias in Ecclesiastical History (Bk 3, Ch 39).

If you want to look closer at these transitions, let me know if you would like to:

    • Look into Origen’s earlier allegorical arguments against literal chiliasm, which gave Eusebius his academic ammunition.
    • Examine the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), where the phrasing “Whose Kingdom shall have no end” was formally added to the Nicene Creed to counter millennial concepts.

The Exalted Christ

From Chiliasm to Amillennialism: A Timeline – The Exalted Christ

AD 260-340) – Imperial Theologian/Anti-Chiliast. Constantine’s biographer and church historian who demonstrated ambiguity about Re…

The Gospel Coalition

Eusebius’s Quest for the Historical Jesus – The Gospel Coalition

Dec 11, 2019 — Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263–339 AD), author of Ecclesiastical History, utilized Josephus’s Antiquities and Jewish War as primary…

The Tertullian Project

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) — Book 1

Eusebius of Caesarea’s Demonstratio Evangelica (Book 1) defines Christianity as the ancient, pre-Mosaic religion of patriarchs lik…

Show all

{Boldface, italics, outline formatting, table formatting, content in brackets, and hyperlinks in original.  Thumbnail images omitted. Underlining and content in curly brackets mine.}

In light of all this, I have updated the aforementioned paragraph to read as follows:

As noted above, the earliest patristic writer who espoused any teachings we would now class as “preterist” was Eusebius—and that webpage I just linked to acknowledges that the earliest work in which he does so only dates to A.D. 310. Hence, it’s a later invention, totally foreign to the teachings the Apostles passed on to their own students. Moreover, many if not most of Eusebius’ preterist quotes were written in A.D. 325 or later–and thus were prone to including ideas that flattered Constantine’s preferences. Among these were the idea that the Roman Catholic Church (Christianity as Rome’s state church) was Christ’s Kingdom on Earth. That idea couldn’t possibly be correct if Christ’s Kingdom was still to come–and even worse, Revelation 17-18 prophesied that the city of Rome would be violently destroyed! A state religion that was meant to unite the empire needed to validate the current state, not anticipate its downfall! These were major reasons why Constantine chose amillennialism as the Roman Catholic Church’s official position. Since Eusebius was already convinced that prophecies about the apocalypse had already been fulfilled (in the second destruction of Jerusalem), he had an interpretive mindset primed for scrounging up support for the view that the Roman Catholic Church was the final manifestation of the Kingdom (even if the subsequent sacking of Rome in A.D. 410 eventually made it clear to everyone that it wasn’t; the traditional pagans complaining that it was punishment for the state embracing Christianity and rejecting their old gods provided a major impetus for Augustine to refine amillennialism into the form Catholicism teaches to this day)! Either way, preterists seriously need to be asked: “Why should we trust Eusebius’ interpretation of the Olivet Discourse over that of every last Church Father who came before him?”

November 16, 2025

When I published my post “Alex O’Connor On Animal Suffering: Ironically Reassuring” on May 17, 2025, I wrote shortly before the conclusion:

Will there ever be a time when such sacrifices will cease? As far as I’m aware, the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach that those who are converted during the Millennium will be perfected at the end of it (thereby rendering such sacrifices unnecessary for the rest of eternity after the Millennium, since no sins will be happening at all anymore); but it doesn’t rule out the possibility, either. We’ll have to wait for additional divine revelation to pin down whether or not this will happen for sure, but Morris’ (and Alex’s) idea about God capping land animals’ reproductive abilities to fix their populations at values that would be optimal for the ecosystem as a whole would certainly be feasible if that does come to pass.

In the course of my study of the “Day of the Lord” passages, I came across Jeremiah 31:40, which seems to refer to Gehenna/Topheth/the Lake of Fire: “And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever.” (KJV, boldface added) This implies that a more graphic deterrent to sinning (the burning and decaying bodies of the wicked) will no longer be necessary at some point (presumably once the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 has finished; note that Revelation 20:10 (“and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night — to the ages of the ages.” — YLT) doesn’t contradict this if the word “they” in “they shall be tormented day and night — to the ages of the ages” refers to the beast (the Antichrist) and the false prophet, but not the Devil, since their dead bodies will be in Gehenna throughout the Millennium, but Satan will be destroyed at the Great White Throne Judgment, before Topheth becomes “holy unto the LORD”). This would in turn imply that nobody remaining will be inclined to sin anymore, having received glorified bodies; this would imply that sacrificial offerings as reminders of sin (Hebrews 10:3) will no longer be necessary after that. However, I also failed to consider that some Biblical passages mention sacrifices being offered for reasons that have more to do with gratitude toward God than acknowledging sins (e.g., Genesis 8:20, Leviticus 3, Jeremiah 33:18, etc.); sacrifices in this category could also be offered after Topheth becomes “holy unto the LORD”. Therefore, I’ve revised that paragraph to read as follows:

Will there ever be a time when such sacrifices will cease? As far as I’m aware, the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that those who are converted during the Millennium will be perfected at the end of it; but it doesn’t rule out the possibility, either. Indeed, this is strongly hinted at by the implication of Jeremiah 31:40 that the land on which the Lake of Fire will sit will eventually become “holy unto the LORD” (KJV), meaning that the decaying and burning bodies of the wicked that will serve as a more graphic deterrent to sinning throughout the Millennium (Isaiah 66:24) will no longer be required as a deterrent–because nobody will be sinning anymore, presumably because everyone left will be in glorified bodies. In that case, Morris’ (and Alex’s) idea about God capping land animals’ reproductive abilities to fix their populations at values that would be optimal for the ecosystem as a whole would certainly be feasible. However, while sacrifices as reminders for sins will be unnecessary for the rest of eternity after the Millennium (since no sins will be happening at all anymore), the Bible also records examples of sacrifices that could be voluntarily offered to express gratitude toward God (Genesis 8:20, Leviticus 3, Jeremiah 33:18, etc.). Jeremiah 33:18 in particular implies that such sacrifices will continue being offered into eternity future. So for animals that are offered for this category of sacrifices, that would be an additional restraint to prevent their population growth from reaching detrimental levels.