The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

For some reason, the author in your link, under the Abrahamic Covenant, concluded his first quote from Irenaeus immediately before Irenaeus declared the following:

For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise." And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, "The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." And again, confirming his former words, he says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, fore-seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

Why would that be?

I find the beginning premise of Replacement Theory irrelevant to the question. Irenaeus proposed the popular Sexta Septa Millennial Theory, in which a future Millennium would fulfill the "7th Day." We are, according to him, still in the 1st 6 days, making the 7th day, the Millennium, future.

I am not, myself, a Dispensationalist. Some people focus on Israel in the Millennium and some, like myself, do not. I happen to believe Israel will be restored as a Christian nation, along with many other Christian nations. But I do not see Israel as an "elite nation" like many Dispensationalists.

Again, this has no bearing on the argument as to whether there will be, in fact, a future Millennium. With or without Israel being front and center, Irenaeus and others like him, believed in a future Millennium.

 

[WPM]

You can't be bothered with evidence, nor is anything of value needing to be refuted?--that by authority of your own word. Sounds like you really enjoy arguing all by yourself? Next time you suggest I'm not bringing anything, consider the fact you won't consider anything. It's really a sham.

It goes like this. WPM, you bring nothing, you're ignorant, and whatever you bring has been thoroughly refuted. I say this on authority of my own word. Sound familiar? ;)

And by the way, anything you bring is ruled out as evidence because by my rules it isn't worth my time considering. It's completely biased against my position.

If you want anyone to take your rebuttals serious, then present actual hard ancient historic evidence. Give us quotes that the early writers and the early heretics made. But you cannot go there because you have not researched this. You do not know what they believe, apart from what you have read from Ice. He is the source of your opinions. You let the cat out of the bag bro.

 

[WPM]

I was quoting Ice because of his quotations, and you attack him personally in order to avoid responding to the quotations. If I insult you, brother, it's only because your entire thread is predicated on your declared association of my view, Premill, with the heretic Cerinthus.

Furthermore, you insult me by saying I "bring nothing" when my very first response was to say that early Premills and modern Premills both reject Cerinthus as a heretic. You simply declare such a response of no value, and insist I bring "nothing."

You claim I bring nothing of "historical" value, with the underlying assumption that your continual, repetitive references to old arguments makes you a reliable contributor of "historical material." Again, I responded by pointing out that these arguments, between Amill and Premill, are already well-known and were already brought to the table many times.

But you seem to think by bringing them again and again that that makes you someone bringing "historical value" to a discussion. On the other hand, you seem to think that renders what I bring void of historical value, even after I point out that I already know what those arguments were, eg the argument by Amills vs Premills suggesting that they are, like Cerinthus, interested in a luxurious, material Kingdom, dripping with sinful lusts.

You insult me by saying this is way over my head, whereas you don't even seem to understand by my comments that I already know all of these arguments. You should begin with a more reasonable subject for a thread. It begins with an insult. You'd have to be pretty thick if you didn't expect that to bring a negative reaction from Premills. Perhaps that is precisely what you wished to provoke?

My aim is not to insult, but enlighten. Christians need to know their history, not the fake news being presented by Dispies about Church history. I have no issue with people challenging what I write. What i object to is you parading yourself as an authority on the ECFs when you have not studied this subject for yourself. You are totally ignorant to the facts! You lean upon sources that have been repeatedly shown to be spurious. Thomas Ice is where you run to for historic info. Sad!

 

[WPM]

That's the point. Context is king. Any scholar knows this. What Solomon said about the beginning and end has one context, and what Jesus said about the age of Jewish Punishment has a different context. It is an Interpretive Fallacy to declare a single "beginning and end" for the entire Bible. Each reference has its own context and must be considered individually.



You have nothing to bring, are ignorant, and I don't respond to biased statements. I say this on the authority of my own word. ;)--I'm mirroring, in jest, your own approach.

What I'm really saying is, don't bring me any more arguments when you don't respond to any of my arguments

I'm trying very hard not to be insulting like you. My answers here are only to defend the truth against provocative Christians like you.

I'd really like to have honest discussions with you. But you can't begin by posting threads insulting the "founders of Premill as heretics!" That indicates you do not begin on equal ground. You begin with a committed bias, not hoping for any real discussion with your opponents.

I mean, you could have started by asking the question. But no, you declared this without inviting any serious response.

Facts are stubborn things! What i present is the conclusion of years of study that were instigated by reading many dubious claims that could not be supported by historic evidence. That is why I studied it for myself. I wanted to see what the facts were. What I am presenting is hard actual watertight evidence for which you have no response. All you have is your personal attacks and filibuster tactics.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't understand. The quote I provided from Liberty University is "ridiculous and completely biased?" Why don't you and WPM actually respond to what's in the statement?

Your whole post, including your own comments and the comments you quoted from others, was ridiculous. You said "However, in the earliest part of Church history, Premil was dominant". That is not true. And the quote from the early church father Justin Martyr proves that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What? Your rebuttal is Thomas Ice. Honestly? The main advocate of the Pretrib hoax in America and the Left Behind novels. Enough said! This confirms everything I have been alleging about your ignorance of this subject. Your reliance upon Ice steals the biscuit. This confirms everything I have suspected. How do you expect any of us to take you seriously on this thread?

Why am I not shocked?

Ice is totally discredited in many orthodox circles.

When someone's primary source to back up their claim is Thomas Ice then you know their claim is on shaky ground! LOL!

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you want anyone to take your rebuttals serious, then present actual hard ancient historic evidence. Give us quotes that the early writers and the early heretics made. But you cannot go there because you have not researched this. You do not know what they believe, apart from what you have read from Ice. He is the source of your opinions. You let the cat out of the bag bro.

Empty rhetoric can't hide your inability to answer real questions. I don't hope, anymore, to have real answers from you. My posts are strictly for those who are really interested, and to defend truth on their behalf. You don't debate. You don't set the terms for me, and your evaluations are strictly your own.

 

[Randy Kluth]

My aim is not to insult, but enlighten. Christians need to know their history, not the fake news being presented by Dispies about Church history. I have no issue with people challenging what I write. What i object to is you parading yourself as an authority on the ECFs when you have not studied this subject for yourself. You are totally ignorant to the facts! You lean upon sources that have been repeatedly shown to be spurious. Thomas Ice is where you run to for historic info. Sad!

you don't enlighten anybody when you begin by discounting Premill as the product of heresy. anybody who presents real evidence is for you "discredited and biased." you don't debate. you hide behind your own rules of what's considered "of value."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Facts are stubborn things! What i present is the conclusion of years of study that were instigated by reading many dubious claims that could not be supported by historic evidence. That is why I studied it for myself. I wanted to see what the facts were. What I am presenting is hard actual watertight evidence for which you have no response. All you have is your personal attacks and filibuster tactics.

You're afraid of challenge. That's why you label any response as invalid, and everyone who presents evidence as not credible or "discredited." You don't debate. You don't allow your "facts" to be challenged.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your whole post, including your own comments and the comments you quoted from others, was ridiculous. You said "However, in the earliest part of Church history, Premil was dominant". That is not true. And the quote from the early church father Justin Martyr proves that.

There was nothing ridiculous--don't know what you're talking about? Don't be like WPM--he hides behind insulting rhetoric, and refuses to engage challenges. You're better than that.

 

[WPM]

Empty rhetoric can't hide your inability to answer real questions. I don't hope, anymore, to have real answers from you. My posts are strictly for those who are really interested, and to defend truth on their behalf. You don't debate. You don't set the terms for me, and your evaluations are strictly your own.

Please know: "those who are really interested" need hard evidential facts, something your posts on the ECFs are totally devoid of. You depend upon Thomas Ice for your material. What is more, you depend on ad-hominem and derailing tacts to distract the subject. That says it all!

I rest my case!

 

[WPM]

You're afraid of challenge. That's why you label any response as invalid, and everyone who presents evidence as not credible or "discredited." You don't debate. You don't allow your "facts" to be challenged.

LOL. I am refuting your false opinions, ignorance of the subject, and dependence upon (discredited) Thomas Ice. You do not like that, but it is spot on. So far, you have brought no historic quotes to the table to rebut the Op. The Op remains unchallenged, apart from you quoting Thomas Ice, who i refuse to read, because i have read his fake news on this matter in the past, and he is grossly ignorant of the facts and unobjective like you.

 

[Taken]

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

I would say it depends on if One chooses to believe Scripture is literally True or if Scripture is confined to Ones figurative understanding.

Personally I believe all Scripture is True and the Understanding thereof is According to Gods Understanding that measures beyond mans understanding.

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL. I am refuting your false opinions, ignorance of the subject, and dependence upon (discredited) Thomas Ice. You do not like that, but it is spot on. So far, you have brought no historic quotes to the table to rebut the Op. The Op remains unchallenged, apart from you quoting Thomas Ice, who i refuse to read, because i have read his fake news on this matter in the past, and he is grossly ignorant of the facts and unobjective like you.

If you were really interested in the truth, and you thought T. Ice. uninformed and misrepresentative you would be interested in rebutting him. The fact that you double down personally attacking him tells it all--it's a cover for your inability or unwillingness to debate him.

I can understand your not wanting to check out someone who is truly off the wall, or if you wish to avoid long-winded references. But this isn't the case. You just don't like the guy because he contradicts what you want to claim is the only objective reality. Well, you're not objective--not in the least. Everything I've seen about you screams bias.

When you're actually willing to debate, I'll be here.

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL. I am refuting your false opinions, ignorance of the subject, and dependence upon (discredited) Thomas Ice. You do not like that, but it is spot on. So far, you have brought no historic quotes to the table to rebut the Op. The Op remains unchallenged, apart from you quoting Thomas Ice, who i refuse to read, because i have read his fake news on this matter in the past, and he is grossly ignorant of the facts and unobjective like you.

I bring proofs when someone challenges the points I've made. You dismiss my comments in advance of that. There is nothing at all wrong with quoting T. Ice! You quote Cerinthus, for crying out loud! ;)

I'm not ignorant of the subject, and I think you know that. But you call anyone "ignorant" who doesn't agree with you. After all, how could anyone who reads what you read think any different from you, or come up with any different conclusion from you? ;)

But if you can't discuss the information Ice brings, I don't suppose anything will suffice? Well, I suppose you decide what you're going to listen to?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There was nothing ridiculous--don't know what you're talking about? Don't be like WPM--he hides behind insulting rhetoric, and refuses to engage challenges. You're better than that.

Randy, you're not paying attention. You're better than that. Did you not see the quote of Justin Martyr that I showed you? He was an early church Premil and he said there were many true Christians who believed otherwise from his Premil belief. Shouldn't we believe an actual early church father over Thomas Ice when it comes to what people in the early church believed? I think so.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I would say it depends on if One chooses to believe Scripture is literally True or if Scripture is confined to Ones figurative understanding.

Personally I believe all Scripture is True and the Understanding thereof is According to Gods Understanding that measures beyond mans understanding.

This seems like a non-answer to the question. Surely, we can determine if the "thousand generations" referenced in Deuteronomy 7:9 is literal or not. It's actually quite easy to determine. We know that God's promises never expire, so it can't possibly be referring to a literal thousand generations because that would imply that God's promises could eventually expire, which is not true. See how easy that was? But, you seem to think whether it's literal or not can't be determined. Sure, it can.

 

[Taken]

This seems like a non-answer to the question. Surely, we can determine if the "thousand generations" referenced in Deuteronomy 7:9 is literal or not. It's actually quite easy to determine. We know that God's promises never expire, so it can't possibly be referring to a literal thousand generations because that would imply that God's promises could eventually expire, which is not true. See how easy that was? But, you seem to think whether it's literal or not can't be determined. Sure, it can.

it can't possibly be referring to a literal thousand generations because that would imply that God's promises could eventually expire, which is not true

I don’t agree with your limited assessment.
God’s Promises that become Fulfilled do come to an end.

But, you seem to think whether it's literal or not can't be determined.

I expressed my thinking, that my understanding is not equal to Gods.
If Deut 7:9 that you brought up was a Great concern of mine, I would turn my attention to a deep study of that. It isn’t.

 

[WPM]

I bring proofs when someone challenges the points I've made. You dismiss my comments in advance of that. There is nothing at all wrong with quoting T. Ice! You quote Cerinthus, for crying out loud! ;)

I'm not ignorant of the subject, and I think you know that. But you call anyone "ignorant" who doesn't agree with you. After all, how could anyone who reads what you read think any different from you, or come up with any different conclusion from you? ;)

But if you can't discuss the information Ice brings, I don't suppose anything will suffice? Well, I suppose you decide what you're going to listen to?

This is all a distraction away from the subject at hand. Where are your historic quotes?

 

[WPM]

If you were really interested in the truth, and you thought T. Ice. uninformed and misrepresentative you would be interested in rebutting him. The fact that you double down personally attacking him tells it all--it's a cover for your inability or unwillingness to debate him.

I can understand your not wanting to check out someone who is truly off the wall, or if you wish to avoid long-winded references. But this isn't the case. You just don't like the guy because he contradicts what you want to claim is the only objective reality. Well, you're not objective--not in the least. Everything I've seen about you screams bias.

When you're actually willing to debate, I'll be here.

No. I do not come to debate with any old questionable website that cannot respond to me. I have never done that. I come to interact with posters on the subject at hand. You hide behind outside links because you do not have the interest or discipline to do the donkey work, yet, you always present yourself on these boards as the main Premil objector to the facts. Ridiculous!