The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Ronald Nolette]

1. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?
2. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described corruption existing on a future millennial earth?
3. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the wicked existing on a future millennial earth?
4. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described mortals existing on a future millennial earth?
5. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described decay existing on a future millennial earth?
6. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the curse existing on a future millennial earth?
7. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described Satan existing on a future earth?
8. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium which involved the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups as Premil does?
9. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system as Premil does?
10. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come as Premil does?
11. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
12. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
13. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as Premil does?
14. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that taught that Jesus would be reigning over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne?

these are not inks but questions.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Now: will you answer these questions that Premils cannot answer?

Ask me the questions? I went through this thread and did find a few references you cited (not nearly enough for all your accusations but at least a start).

The accusers are true reinterpreters of Scripture. They take all the OT promises of God about paradise earth and simpluy spiritualize them away!

And teh Moromons and Jw's are not premils. they are mor like you - a mil but you do follow closely teh roman line of eschatology popularized by that heretic Augustine.

I shall be offline for a week. My wife has taken very ill on a vacation with one of our daughters and granddaughters and I am flying out to care for her.

 

[WPM]

I'm laughing right back at you. The reason I asked for an argument from silence was precisely because that's what you're doing. I would have to assume from John's message that those who followed John and taught Premill likewise had his view, that mortal humanity would eventually rebel against God when Satan is released at the end of the Millennium.

That is hard evidence, and you want me to prove this is not in the minds of those who followed John and taught Premill! That is the very definition of an argument from silence! You would normally assume that a Millennial Kingdom, based on John's record, would be the same. And yet you want proof of something different.

Your real problem is that you think John's version should require others to come along and reaffirm his story by emphasizing the Sin aspect of the Millennial era, even though the era is to be characterized by Christian rule, and not by sin. But this, I know, flies over your head. Not so funny now, huh?

That is all i was looking for: you realizing that Premil has no support for it core tenets in the first 210 years after the cross. I appreciate your admission. That was my only aim. Thanks!

 

[WPM]

Well this topic doesn't. all you have deone is vomit out accusations without showing the evidence to validate said vomitous charges. If this were a court, the judge would throw your xhargfes outr for lack of any evidence. Just saying so is not ewnough.

I am offline for at least a week, my wife took very ill on vacation with one of our daughters and granddaughters, so I shall shortly be leaving to go and care for her,

Sorry to hear about this. I hope all get well. God bless.

 

[WPM]

Because on this thread you are more concerned with what ECF writers said and who is and is not a heretic. NOt according to Scripture but according to what the other ECF said. And as I have no point of reference from where you are getting all these claims, I do not have time to pore over 30 volumes to find or not find your supposed allegations if they be true or not.

YOu are being very dodgy by not provifing sources. Why is that?

I have attached references to each quote I have made. Please check! I cannot do more than that. You can copy many of these quotes to Google to examine them and verify their bonafides.

 

[WPM]

Ask me the questions? I went through this thread and did find a few references you cited (not nearly enough for all your accusations but at least a start).

The accusers are true reinterpreters of Scripture. They take all the OT promises of God about paradise earth and simpluy spiritualize them away!

And teh Moromons and Jw's are not premils. they are mor like you - a mil but you do follow closely teh roman line of eschatology popularized by that heretic Augustine.

I shall be offline for a week. My wife has taken very ill on a vacation with one of our daughters and granddaughters and I am flying out to care for her.

The Mormons and JW's are Premil. Not sure why you would question this reality. But you are doing the same with the historic quotes I am presenting, so it looks like you are struggling to be objective here.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Because on this thread you are more concerned with what ECF writers said and who is and is not a heretic. NOt according to Scripture but according to what the other ECF said. And as I have no point of reference from where you are getting all these claims, I do not have time to pore over 30 volumes to find or not find your supposed allegations if they be true or not.

YOu are being very dodgy by not provifing sources. Why is that?

In my experience, the brother has sought to win followers by overwhelming his listeners with information. Much like filibustering, when you overcome others with info overload, they can get the notion his info his highly credible--who has the time to check things out? You think he must have amassed thousands of books and articles, and I can't hope to challenge this, since he will simply cite hundreds of more articles.

He has issued robotic answers to every question, and I say this not so much because I know him personally, but only because he constantly cites arguments I've heard before that directly contradict what I've just said. For example, I've told him numerous times that I don't use Dispensationalist arguments, and he follows that by arguing with me against Dispensationalist arguments.

I tell him his attack on Premills by associating them with the heretic Cerinthus is invalid, since Premills generally reject Cerinthus as a heretic. He then quotes all of the old Amill arguments against Premills because they also associated early Premill teaching with Cerinthus.

It is an unthinking catalogue of old arguments, and not worth the time reading. I do so because I share his interest in the topic, but from the opposite point of view. I don't, however, fall into his own tactic of citing the same arguments with no regard for the person I'm talking to.

I don't, like him, give 50 reasons why Premill is wrong when 40 of the reasons are the same arguments worded differently. I like to meet the person I'm talking to head on with respect for their issues, since I know we're really all the same.

The irritating thing is he regularly will accuse you of being "frustrated" or being generally "inept" in the exchange. Consequently, I'm giving him the necessary "feedback."

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is all i was looking for: you realizing that Premil has no support for it core tenets in the first 210 years after the cross. I appreciate your admission. That was my only aim. Thanks!

Oh, I know what your aim is. I'll try not to be too rude about it.

I recently posted this on a different Christian forum, on the subject of Amil resistance to the truth of early Premill dominance...

Christian historian Philip Schaff confirms this in a very explicit statement in this regard. I recently shared that with someone who then chose to view Schaff as a "nobody witness!" So much for open-mindedness among some!

Another person who "makes a living" denouncing Premill claims the jury is still out on this, and believes there is a noticeable lack of evidence Premills believed in mortal humanity with a Sin Nature in the Millennium, because he can't find any of them talking about "Sin-Rabid People" in the Millennial Era!

 

[WPM]

In my experience, the brother has sought to win followers by overwhelming his listeners with information. Much like filibustering, when you overcome others with info overload, they can get the notion his info his highly credible--who has the time to check things out? You think he must have amassed thousands of books and articles, and I can't hope to challenge this, since he will simply cite hundreds of more articles.

He has issued robotic answers to every question, and I say this not so much because I know him personally, but only because he constantly cites arguments I've heard before that directly contradict what I've just said. For example, I've told him numerous times that I don't use Dispensationalist arguments, and he follows that by arguing with me against Dispensationalist arguments.

I tell him his attack on Premills by associating them with the heretic Cerinthus is invalid, since Premills generally reject Cerinthus as a heretic. He then quotes all of the old Amill arguments against Premills because they also associated early Premill teaching with Cerinthus.

It is an unthinking catalogue of old arguments, and not worth the time reading. I do so because I share his interest in the topic, but from the opposite point of view. I don't, however, fall into his own tactic of citing the same arguments with no regard for the person I'm talking to.

I don't, like him, give 50 reasons why Premill is wrong when 40 of the reasons are the same arguments worded differently. I like to meet the person I'm talking to head on with respect for their issues, since I know we're really all the same.

The irritating thing is he regularly will accuse you of being "frustrated" or being generally "inept" in the exchange. Consequently, I'm giving him the necessary "feedback."

Why can you not just admit that what has been presented is historical facts? If there was an authentic rebuttal it would've come by now. All you can do is attack the messenger, rather than the message. The message is watertight. I suspect you know that. That is why we are getting these constant frustrated rants and ad-hominem.

You have admitted many times that you have not researched this subject in any detail. This shows in your evasive responses and your lack of historic material.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why can you not just admit that what has been presented is historical facts?

Same old rhetoric... The answer is in post #227.

 

[Taken]

You have been clearly answered and shown pre-millennialism is the invention of men

Salvation is NOT an “invention” of man.
Salvation has ALWAYS been an “offering” by, through, of God.

Tribulation Among men is not “new”.
Men have routinely from the beginning caused other men strife, difficulties, hard time.

Tribulations From God is not “new”.
Weather, rains, withholding rains, insects that help, insects that cause famine, have always been in the power of God to Release or Withhold.

Great Tribulations From God ARE More “specific”...
One Great Tribulation From God HAS Occurred;
Another Great Tribulation From God SHALL Occur.

Great Tribulations From God HAVE Express INTENT to SEPARATE the Divided WITH God, From the Divided WITHOUT God.

Nothing new under the Sun. What was, shall be again.

Ecc: 1:
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

IF you are of the knowledge, belief, understanding, of Gods First Great Tribulations and Gods Next Great Tribulations....

Do you not as well, Know, Believe, Understand...HOW...8 persons of the entire global population WERE Saved From Gods First Great Tribulations, would be in the SAME manner of Gods NEXT Great Tribulations?

Review Ecc 1:9 again. Do you Believe Ecc 1:9?
Review HOW exactly God Saved 8 persons FROM Gods First Great Tribulations...
Review Gen 7 & Gen 8.

?

 

[WPM]

Same old rhetoric... The answer is in post #227.

You have nothing to bring to the table but insults. The reader can examine this whole thread and see that you have not brought anything of historic evidential value to this discussion. You have nothing.

 

[Taken]

Why can you not just admit that what has been presented is historical facts? If there was an authentic rebuttal it would've come by now. All you can do is attack the messenger, rather than the message. The message is watertight. I suspect you know that. That is why we are getting these constant frustrated rants and ad-hominem.

You have admitted many times that you have not researched this subject in any detail. This shows in your evasive responses and your lack of historic material.

Your “watertight” facts, are your opinions.
Facts Apply to “individuals”.
You attempt to LUMP sum “individuals”, according to your FACTS and OPINIONS.

IF you ARE preaching every man involved in the Founding of America was a “heretic”, again you attempt to LUMP sum “individuals”, according to your FACTS and OPINIONS.

 

[Taken]

...the Old Testament prophets, Jesus or the New Testament writers mention this supposed literal thousand years period? Nowhere!

Rev 20:
[2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
[3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
[5] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
[6] Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
[7] And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison...

If you are NOT included in “they”, you simply are not included.
Others ARE included in “they”, apparently not to your liking, or belief, or understanding.

Fact is what you fail to know, believe or understand does NOT affect others, who do understand.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have nothing to bring to the table but insults. The reader can examine this whole thread and see that you have not brought anything of historic evidential value to this discussion. You have nothing.

I have no wish for you to continue to insult those who respond to your points by saying "they are frustrated, inept, and don't give valid answers." If you view this reality as an insult, then you should either change your ways or wear it like a badge of honor.

You regularly say I'm frustrated to incite me, when I'm not. You say I don't "bring anything to the table" when I do. You say I have "nothing" when I've been answering your points *for years.* You say I bring nothing of "historical value" when I've quoted the Church Fathers and Christian authorities and scholars for years.

Unless you have love in your rhetoric, you're only going to be a "sounding gong," and collect drones for followers. People who disagree with you do have facts on their sides.

For example, I cited a non-Premill Philipi Schaff to show that Premill was early the dominant eschatology in the Church. You just continue to say I'm frustrated and bring nothing of historical relevance to the table. How do you not define this as credible, historical, and valid?

But let me anticipate your answer, after years of hearing you: "You are frustrated, Randy, and have nothing of historical merit. You have nothing! "

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no need for posting endless historical scholarly material proving that historical arguments exist in the Amil vs. Premill controversy. For much of Church history, Amil has had a dominant position. However, in the earliest part of Church history, Premil was dominant. I will here provide evidence of that, in brief. You can check out the url if you wish to read more.

I would quote here from a Dispensationalist website, Liberty University, which gives a brief view of this from the Premill perspective. I'm not a Dispensationalist, but I find the statements credible and scholarly on this particular subject. Premill appears to be dominant early on.

The reason, I personally believe, Premill was the early position is because that was John's position in Rev 20. He taught Premill! And John's followers followed that position quite literally.

So why was this position abandoned for Amill? It was abandoned because in the OT Scriptures the eschatological Kingdom of God was closely associated with Israel's renaissance and restoration. At that time, only Israel was God's people, and only they were addressed with respect to God's Kingdom.

It's not that other nations were being left out of the future Messianic Kingdom, but that only Israel was the audience in the OT period. And so, as Christians saw the hard-heartedness of the Jewish nation, they began to challenge the Premill view of the Kingdom in which Israel had a dominant position.

And I don't disagree with the idea of equality among nations in the Millennium. This was basically just a misunderstanding of OT prophecy as it addressed Israel exclusively, without excluding other nations from the same inheritance. But the root cause was doubt that Jewish hard-heartedness could ever be cured. And certainly, many generations of hard-hearted Jewish majorities were indeed incapable of leading the nation to repentance.

But what added to the Amil trend after a couple of centuries of Premill belief was the rise of the Catholic Church, which wanted to view itself as "God's present Kingdom," which is another form of Amill. Jesus, however, never gave up on Israel's ultimate restoration, and he never ceased to depict the eschatological Kingdom as being *future,* beginning at his Coming.


I provide this because in this thread and elsewhere I'm told "I have nothing" to offer in this regard. I could post in detail support for all of my statements. But this is a tactic to shut down close scrutiny with an avalanche of quotes, which are not needed except on occasion.

So here is evidence by Liberty University that Premill was the early dominant position. The modern rise of Premill seems, in my view, to take place in conjunction with the fall of Catholic dominance and with the rise of questions about its eschatology.


It is generally recognized within the scholarly world of early church historians that premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest church tradition. One of the leading experts on the doctrine of the early church is J. N. D. Kelly, who says, “millenarianism, or the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years, came to find increasing support among Christian teachers. . . . This millenarian, or 'chiliastic', doctrine was widely popular at this time.”17 "The great theologians who followed the Apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, were primarily concerned to defend the traditional eschatological scheme against Gnosticism,” explains Kelly. “They are all exponents of millenarianism." 18 Philip Schaff, the dean of American church historians and himself a postmillennialist, provided the following summary of the early church’s view of the millennium: The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius. 19 European scholar and church historian, Adolph Harnack echoes Schaff and tells us, “First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ’s second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned whether it ought not to be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion.” (https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=pretrib_arch)

 

[WPM]

Rev 20:
[2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
[3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
[5] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
[6] Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
[7] And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison...

If you are NOT included in “they”, you simply are not included.
Others ARE included in “they”, apparently not to your liking, or belief, or understanding.

Fact is what you fail to know, believe or understand does NOT affect others, who do understand.

Lol. Corroboration to Premils is interpreting their faulty opinion of Revelation 20 by their faulty opinion of Revelation 20. This is the most absurd and foolish form of hermeneutics imaginable.

 

[Taken]

Lol. Corroboration to Premils is interpreting their faulty opinion of Revelation 20 by their faulty opinion of Revelation 20. This is the most absurd and foolish form of hermeneutics imaginable.

You are the one with the issue of a 1,000 year reign (clearly taught in Scripture)....not me.
No effect on me, of your own teaching.
No reason for you to comprehend that which does not include you.

 

[WPM]

You are the one with the issue of a 1,000 year reign (clearly taught in Scripture)....not me.
No effect on me, of your own teaching.
No reason for you to comprehend that which does not include you.

It is a figurative term in Scripture and history. What is more, the text oozes symbolism. Finally, your view contradicts numerous Scripture that shows the second coming is the end of time, sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his demons.

 

[Taken]

It is a figurative term in Scripture and history. What is more, the text oozes symbolism. Finally, your view contradicts numerous Scripture that shows the second coming is the end of time, sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his demons.

Text “oozing” symbolism. Men love to tag Scripture with terms, of symbolism, not literal, blah, blah....

Personally I trust the simplicity THAT God CAN NOT LIE, THAT the WORD of God CAN NOT LIE...

YOUR CALIM...my view “contradicts numerous Scripture” ?
Nah!
I understand, this day, that day, these days, those days, IN Context.

Matt 24: gives a prelude..
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
[5] For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
[6] And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
[7] For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
[8] All these are the beginning of sorrows.
[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
[10] And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[12] And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

All nations shall Hear the Gospel...
Since you are UNBELIEVING, of Jesus’ 1,000 year reign, you obviously are UNKNOWING, Jesus’ shall Reign as KING of kings, LORD of lords...
“Those kings and lords” are mortals reigning over their own Nations outside of Jesus’ KINGDOM!
Satan loosed After 1,000 years, expressly DOES WHAT?
Deceives the Nations of mortal kings, lords, and people of those Nations!
Satan Deceives the Nations, TO DO WHAT?
Come AGAINST Jesus’ KINGDOM!
The kings, the lords, the people who come AGAINST KING Jesus, LORD Jesus, shall be killed.
Satan coming against the Nations, against Jesus’ Holy Angels SHALL be defeated and bound in the pits of Hell.

THEN shall “THIS” world end...in complete harmony between Matt & Revelations Teaching!