The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

You cannot destroy me. Who do you think you are?

The question is: who do you think you are? I think you're very mixed up, and think of yourself more highly than you ought. You clearly have a lack of discernment. You can't even tell that you're the one who is insulting, and that I'm just trying to bring you down to earth.

But you're a wild stallion, and think you're not answerable to anybody. The Scriptures say, "submit yourselves to one another." And, "do all things for edification." (my version) And yet, here you are, spewing out hostility and then claiming that I am the hostile one. ;)

I look upon all posters here as equals. That is not the issue, or ever has been. The objective onlooker will know that.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, words come easier for you than actions. You constantly talk down to gentlemen like Mr. Ice. You insult me by claiming you know things about me when you don't know me at all. You claim I haven't studied any of this, and don't provide any quotes. Do you think I only spend my time on this website?

My issue is your habitual lack of addressing the historic evidence with hard quotes.

I've heard all of your "hard quotes," and they are copies and pastes of the same thing I heard years ago! I'm not going to endlessly repeat the same arguments over and over again, unless they are required to make a point.

You seem to think this place is just for writing a treatise of some kind. In reality, it is whatever form Christian fellowship should take. For you that seems to be on the backburner while you constantly harass those you disagree with.

You don't think that's harassment? Try getting on the receiving end of your insulting evaluations!

Like many, I do not care for Ice. I have not read anything you have presented from him because I am here to interact with other posters and I do not accept him as a reputable or objective historian. He is also not here to defend himself.

That's a copout. You treat Cerinthus, and he isn't here, is he? You attack Premill, and you could care less if any of them are here or not. In fact, you don't even want to hear from them, because you seem to only be looking for followers of your own position.

I do not engage with web-links. I suspect you know that. You will never force me to change that.

I don't care what you do. You seem to do what you want. My concern is to defend what I believe to be the truth. And you've called that position a "heresy," or the product of "heretics!" So you are the aggressor, the insulter, and unwilling to address any comebacks. Your choice.

 

[WPM]

No, I'm addressing what your tactics are, and they aren't noble. If that offends you, then change your ways.



I'm not hiding behind anybody--I'm here right now! ;) But you see, you aren't debating anything. You just pour out rhetoric to defend your style of avoiding websites, rebuttals, and quotations when the wrong people provide them. I don't think you can answer Thomas Ice. If you can't debate him now, then you can't debate him if he was here.

I've heard everything you have on this years ago. There is absolutely nothing new, nothing that needs debating. Your insulting approach towards Premill is on full display, and it is hardly evangelical in spirit. On the contrary, it is insulting and divisive.

I am done talking to you with your antagonistic and accusatory approah. What is more, you have nothing of evidencial worth to bring to the table. The facts can be seen throughout this thread.

You are clearly here to derail and insult. I am not prepared to get into the gutter with you.

God bless, and good bye.

 

[WPM]

Op Note

Ancient Chiliiasts, like modern Amils and Postmils, saw the redeemed Church as true Israel. There was nothing in the early Chiliasts writings that taught God had two peoples, elevated Israel or saw the restoration in any way of the old covenant apparatus.

Both ancient Amils and ancient Chiliasts opposed these fundamental Premil beliefs.

· The binding of Satan on a future millennial earth after the second coming is a modern-day Premil fundamental; ancient Chiliasm taught it happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
· The elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups is a modern-day Premil innovation; that was done away with at the cross in ancient Chiliasm. All nations were considered chosen equally by God in the old belief.
· The living and the dead will be destroyed when Jesus comes in ancient Chiliasm; in modern-day Premil they invent 3 groups of humans: saved, lost and a 3rd group unknown to Scripture too righteous to be destroyed and too wicked to be glorified.

· Modern-day Premil postpones Christ reigning over His enemies as God with all power in heaven and on earth until the Second Coming. They also make it a temporal limited earthly rule. Ancient Chiliasm has Christ reigning now in heaven over His enemies.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the renewal of the old abolished Jewish sacrifice system, ancient Chiliasm abhorred and renounced such a proposition.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the multiplication of carnal pleasures on its future new earth involving the abundant indulgence of feasting elect and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come. Most ancient Chiliasts rejected such a carnal proposition.
· Modern-day Premil advocate the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil advocates the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates sin continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates corruption continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates the wicked continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates mortals continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates decay continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates the curse continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates Satan operating on a future new earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that. It believed Satan was destroyed at the Second Coming.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the restoring of Israel back to their ancient borders and their place of favor over all other nations.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am done talking to you with your antagonistic and accusatory approah. What is more, you have nothing of evidencial worth to bring to the table. The facts can be seen throughout this thread.

You are clearly here to derail and insult. I am not prepared to get into the gutter with you.

God bless, and good bye.

No, I'm here to defend a position I strongly believe in, a position that you began by trashing it and by associating it with heretical founders. Don't be surprised that I would strongly defend this.

You try to determine the rules of debate on this forum, obviously avoiding anything that challenges your arguments. You rule out Dr. Ice. You rule out websites that have historical evidence, even though you falsely claim I bring no historical evidence.

You want others to play softball on your threads. Enjoy it in your own backyard, but don't play it in my front yard.

Hope to meet you when you come down to earth. May I suggest that next time you title the subject: Did Premill begin with heretics? At least that asks the question rather than state, unequivocally, what you don't want anybody to challenge unless they meet the requirements of your own rules of debate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Op Note

Ancient Chiliiasts, like modern Amils and Postmils, saw the redeemed Church as true Israel. There was nothing in the early Chiliasts writings that taught God had two peoples, elevated Israel or saw the restoration in any way of the old covenant apparatus.

Both ancient Amils and ancient Chiliasts opposed these fundamental Premil beliefs.

Opposition to Judaism is not outside of fundamental Premil belief! It is true that many modern Premils, namely Dispensatioinalists, emphasize the centrality of Israel in the future Millennium, and elevate the Jews over others. However, this belief is not essential to Premil belief.

As in the Early Church Fathers, today's Premil beliefs see the Jews as intransigent and lost apart from Christian salvation. It is believed by Premils that Jews can obtain salvation as a people, once again, after Christ returns. In the meantime, a remnant is preserved from among the Jews, as a down payment on the future deliverance of the nation from pagan Gentiles. As such, the nation will be forced to conform to Christian standards following Christ's Coming.

That Justin Martyr, a Premil, believed that Jews are still being preserved as a remnant:

Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)

And Trypho remarked, "What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?"

CHAPTER XXVI -- NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain...


CHAPTER XXXII -- TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS.

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation.

· The binding of Satan on a future millennial earth after the second coming is a modern-day Premil fundamental; ancient Chiliasm taught it happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

There is sometimes a basic confusion among Amils between binding Satan, as in exorcism, and binding Satan during the Millennium. I don't know of any early Premil Church Father who denied that Satan will be bound during the Millennium? And no Christian denies Christ presently has power over Satan and demons.

· The elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups is a modern-day Premil innovation; that was done away with at the cross in ancient Chiliasm. All nations were considered chosen equally by God in the old belief.

Modern Premils also believe in the equality of races and nations through Christian conversion of the individual. No Premil that I know of believes in racism, prejudice, and bigotry!

Dispensationalists do tend to elevate Israel in the Millennium by attributing to them things that OT prophecy indicated, but were channeled to them at a time when only they, as a people, existed as the People of God. None of this means, in my view, that Israel's exclusivity was intended to continue in the future Kingdom of God. In other words, I as a Premil disagree with Dispensationalists on this point.

· The living and the dead will be destroyed when Jesus comes in ancient Chiliasm...

Why should the dead be killed again, unless you're talking about the 2nd Death? All positions believe that the "living" will be destroyed, to some degree, at the 2nd Coming, including modern Premil adherents. When Christ returns, he will destroy the Antichrist and his forces, and many cities across the world will be destroyed, I believe, because they have supported his cause. The idea of the annihilation of earth's population obviously didn't exist in early Chiliasm.

CHAPTER XXXI -- IF CHRIST'S POWER BE NOW SO GREAT, HOW MUCH GREATER AT THE SECOND ADVENT!
..And the kingdom, and the power, and the great places of the kingdoms under the heavens, were given to the holy people of the Most High, to reign in an everlasting kingdom: and all powers shall be subject to Him, and shall obey Him.

· Modern-day Premil postpones Christ reigning over His enemies as God with all power in heaven and on earth until the Second Coming. They also make it a temporal limited earthly rule. Ancient Chiliasm has Christ reigning now in heaven over His enemies.

This is just another language issue, and does not divide modern Premil with ancient Chiliasm. All Premils and Chiliasts believe that Christ's power presently exists over all the earth. Christ's enemies have been *legally* defeated--they just have not yet been physically defeated--Satan's Kingdom still reigns, and will be defeated when Christ comes back to defeat Antichrist.

CHAPTER XXXVI -- HE PROVES THAT CHRIST IS CALLED LORD OF HOSTS.
...Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, that He who is King of glory may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm.

· Modern-day Premil promotes the renewal of the old abolished Jewish sacrifice system, ancient Chiliasm abhorred and renounced such a proposition.

Dispensationalists do, but not all Premils do. I don't, for example.

Many Premils do not. Regardless, Dispensationalists do not advocate for justification by the Law. Many Dispensationalists view ceremonial worship as symbolic, and no longer redemptive. It would be like Americans observing the 4th of July--it is traditional, celebratory, and memorial--not legalistic (soteriological) and redemptive.

· Modern-day Premil promotes the multiplication of carnal pleasures on its future new earth involving the abundant indulgence of feasting elect and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come. Most ancient Chiliasts rejected such a carnal proposition.

Early Chiliasts were accused of believing this. Modern Premils are also falsely associated with belief in future carnal pleasures by their detractors.

· Modern-day Premil advocate the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.

I don't know that ancient Chiliasm *denied* the release of Satan at the end of the Millennium. Clearly, they knew the Scriptures that said that. Not denying it they likely believed it.

· Modern-day Premil advocates the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that....
· Modern-day Premil anticipates Satan operating on a future new earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that. It believed Satan was destroyed at the Second Coming.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the restoring of Israel back to their ancient borders and their place of favor over all other nations.

You are using many lines to say the same thing, that ancient Chiliasts did not spend time speculating on what they read in Rev 20. Clearly, they read it since they believed in the thousand years. Perhaps they felt no need to speculate about things that is of little relevance to the present age? That doesn't mean they rejected it--just that they may have preferred to treat more important subjects to them.

I agree with you that certain Dispensationalist beliefs are in error. But I do agree with their belief in Rev 20 that a future Millennial Kingdom is Coming. Christ taught that. The ancient Chiliasts taught that.

I have no problem with your arguments--just the subject line indicating the founders of Chiliasm and Premil were heretics like Cerinthus, etc. As well, I don't like attacks on the *people* who advocate against Amil the same way you advocate against Premil. A simple disagreement will suffice as far as I'm concerned. Thanks.

 

[WPM]

Opposition to Judaism is not outside of fundamental Premil belief! It is true that many modern Premils, namely Dispensatioinalists, emphasize the centrality of Israel in the future Millennium, and elevate the Jews over others. However, this belief is not essential to Premil belief.

As in the Early Church Fathers, today's Premil beliefs see the Jews as intransigent and lost apart from Christian salvation. It is believed by Premils that Jews can obtain salvation as a people, once again, after Christ returns. In the meantime, a remnant is preserved from among the Jews, as a down payment on the future deliverance of the nation from pagan Gentiles. As such, the nation will be forced to conform to Christian standards following Christ's Coming.

That Justin Martyr, a Premil, believed that Jews are still being preserved as a remnant:

Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)

And Trypho remarked, "What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?"

CHAPTER XXVI -- NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain...


CHAPTER XXXII -- TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS.

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation.

Thanks for actually addressing the historic issues and desisting from ad-hominem. If is is a sign of things to come, I will re-engage. I will not be getting into a mud-slinging match.

Justin Martyr, above, is not speaking about Israel becoming a theocracy as you claim. He is arguing the classic Amil line on a believing remnant of true Israel inside ethnic Israel. In the text you quote, Justin goes on to reinforce the Amil position that Christ is now reigning over His enemies, something Premils broadly reject.

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His, -- one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, -- then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation.​

He nowhere talks about national salvation or an ethnic theocracy as you continually do.

There is sometimes a basic confusion among Amils between binding Satan, as in exorcism, and binding Satan during the Millennium. I don't know of any early Premil Church Father who denied that Satan will be bound during the Millennium? And no Christian denies Christ presently has power over Satan and demons.

Ok. The burden of proof is with you: He who alleges must prove! List any quote from any Chiliast writer in the first 210 years after the cross (AD30-AD240) teaching a binding of Satan during a supposed future millennium after the second coming?

Modern Premils also believe in the equality of races and nations through Christian conversion of the individual. No Premil that I know of believes in racism, prejudice, and bigotry!

Dispensationalists do tend to elevate Israel in the Millennium by attributing to them things that OT prophecy indicated, but were channeled to them at a time when only they, as a people, existed as the People of God. None of this means, in my view, that Israel's exclusivity was intended to continue in the future Kingdom of God. In other words, I as a Premil disagree with Dispensationalists on this point.

Premil separate Israel from the NT Church in God's outworking with them and teach a restoration of all the old covenant land boundaries. Where is is this taught in the NT and when did the early Chiliasts teach this?

Why should the dead be killed again, unless you're talking about the 2nd Death? All positions believe that the "living" will be destroyed, to some degree, at the 2nd Coming, including modern Premil adherents. When Christ returns, he will destroy the Antichrist and his forces, and many cities across the world will be destroyed, I believe, because they have supported his cause. The idea of the annihilation of earth's population obviously didn't exist in early Chiliasm.

CHAPTER XXXI -- IF CHRIST'S POWER BE NOW SO GREAT, HOW MUCH GREATER AT THE SECOND ADVENT!
..And the kingdom, and the power, and the great places of the kingdoms under the heavens, were given to the holy people of the Most High, to reign in an everlasting kingdom: and all powers shall be subject to Him, and shall obey Him.

Your quote relates to the final subjugation of all rebellion at the end by Christ. This does not say what you say. Justin agrees with Amils on the destruction of all the wicked at the second coming. Justin teaches:

Shall He not on His glorious advent destroy by all means all those who hated Him, and who unrighteously departed from Him, but give rest to His own, rewarding them with all they have looked for? (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 121).​

The appearing of the Lord is shown here to be climactic. It sees the dividing up of man for all eternity. There are no mortal survivors. There are no wicked left to populate the millennial earth. Justin enlarges upon his position:

For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils … And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: “Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;” and then shall they repent, when it profits them not (The First Apology of Justin, Chapter 52).​

No one could deny that the appearing of Christ was looked upon by the advocates of ancient Chiliasm as a decisive and all-consummating event. It is here that the judgment occurs. Men are brought to account for their lives. Justin carefully relates the return of Christ to the resurrection and the final judgment of all mankind. This is classic Amillennialism. This instruction is totally contrary to modern-day Premillennialism. He teaches in another work:

[T]wo advents of Christ were predicted to take place—one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious and Judge of all (Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 49).​

In these two passages, in keeping with Irenaeus, Justin definitely portrays a general resurrection/judgment, telling us that Christ will come and raise all and then judge all men, yet he also proposes the same after a future millennium elsewhere.

 

[WPM]

This is just another language issue, and does not divide modern Premil with ancient Chiliasm. All Premils and Chiliasts believe that Christ's power presently exists over all the earth. Christ's enemies have been *legally* defeated--they just have not yet been physically defeated--Satan's Kingdom still reigns, and will be defeated when Christ comes back to defeat Antichrist.

CHAPTER XXXVI -- HE PROVES THAT CHRIST IS CALLED LORD OF HOSTS.
...Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, that He who is King of glory may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm.

You are misrepresenting the position of Justin and the Ancient Chiliasts on this issue. They and modern Amils believe[d] that Satan's kingdom has been defeated. They believe Christ is currently reigning over His enemies now. They believe that Jesus is coming to totally destroy them at His return.

Justin Martyr said in the Dialogue with Trypho Chapter XXXII:

The Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation …The words, then, which were spoken by David, are these: 'The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of Thy strength out of Sion: rule Thou also in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee shall be, in the day, the chief of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints. From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at Thy right hand: He has crushed kings in the day of His wrath: He shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill [with] the dead bodies. He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall He lift up the head.'
​

Dispensationalists do, but not all Premils do. I don't, for example.

Many Premils do not. Regardless, Dispensationalists do not advocate for justification by the Law. Many Dispensationalists view ceremonial worship as symbolic, and no longer redemptive. It would be like Americans observing the 4th of July--it is traditional, celebratory, and memorial--not legalistic (soteriological) and redemptive.

Most Premils i have engaged with on these type of boards believe in the rebuilding of a millennial temple, the re-starting of animal sacrifices and the restoration of the old covenant priesthood.

Early Chiliasts were accused of believing this. Modern Premils are also falsely associated with belief in future carnal pleasures by their detractors.

Modern Premils advocate the continuation of earthly carnal pleasures (including excessive feasting, continued marriage, ongoing sexual passion and procreation) and materialistic prosperity after the resurrection.

I don't know that ancient Chiliasm *denied* the release of Satan at the end of the Millennium. Clearly, they knew the Scriptures that said that. Not denying it they likely believed it.

You are arguing from silence. The burden of proof is again with you. Ok. The burden of proof is with you: list any quote from any Chiliast writer in the first 210 years after the cross (AD30-AD240) teaching the release of Satan 1000 years after after the second coming to create more carnage?

You are using many lines to say the same thing, that ancient Chiliasts did not spend time speculating on what they read in Rev 20. Clearly, they read it since they believed in the thousand years. Perhaps they felt no need to speculate about things that is of little relevance to the present age? That doesn't mean they rejected it--just that they may have preferred to treat more important subjects to them.

I agree with you that certain Dispensationalist beliefs are in error. But I do agree with their belief in Rev 20 that a future Millennial Kingdom is Coming. Christ taught that. The ancient Chiliasts taught that.

I have no problem with your arguments--just the subject line indicating the founders of Chiliasm and Premil were heretics like Cerinthus, etc. As well, I don't like attacks on the *people* who advocate against Amil the same way you advocate against Premil. A simple disagreement will suffice as far as I'm concerned. Thanks.

You are avoiding this. This is calssic Premil, and you know it.

• Do you believe there will be a revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium?
• Do you anticipate Satan operating on a future new earth?
• Do you believe in the restoring of Israel back to their ancient borders and their place of favor over all other nations?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for actually addressing the historic issues and desisting from ad-hominem. If is is a sign of things to come, I will re-engage. I will not be getting into a mud-slinging match.

As I said, the "mud-slinging" began with the title of your thread. I don't care if you wish to engage me--it would be nice, but I'm interested in honest responses.

I provided Dr. Rice as a reference to various quotations, and you avoid this by denouncing him personally. That's called "mud-slinging," even if it is your personal assessment of him. He's educated, and he deserves an honest assessment. But in this case, the issue involves the quotes he provided. And you won't answer them.

I know you want to own the narrative, as do I. Why don't we just agree to disagree on this? Let God and readers decide who is doing the mud-slinging? It's occupying too much space presently.

Justin Martyr, above, is not speaking about Israel becoming a theocracy as you claim. He is arguing the classic Amil line on a believing remnant of true Israel inside ethnic Israel. In the text you quote, Justin goes on to reinforce the Amil position that Christ is now reigning over His enemies, something Premils broadly reject.

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His, -- one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, -- then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation.​

He nowhere talks about national salvation or an ethnic theocracy as you continually do.

My argument was that in referring to Israel as a "remnant," as Paul did in Rom 11, Justin Martyr was admitting that the end of this remnant would be the "salvation of all Israel."

Rom 11.25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

Ok. The burden of proof is with you: He who alleges must prove! List any quote from any Chiliast writer in the first 210 years after the cross (AD30-AD240) teaching a binding of Satan during a supposed future millennium after the second coming?

Well, we have to disagree--the burden of proof is with you. John, who wrote about the Millennium, also wrote about the binding of Satan. So if those who spoke of the future Millennium, among the Church Fathers, referenced it in the authority of John's words, we must assume that they accepted the authority of John's words in stating there would be a binding of Satan. This is another literal rendering vs. symbolic rendering thing.

Premil separate Israel from the NT Church in God's outworking with them and teach a restoration of all the old covenant land boundaries. Where is is this taught in the NT and when did the early Chiliasts teach this?

I have already stated that Dispensationalists have an ethnocentric, Israel-centric view of the Millennium because they take as over-literal OT language that at the time made sense under the OT administration. I do not agree with Dispensationalists, as such.

The Church Fathers, including Premillennialists, did not present Israel and the "Jewish Hope" as a matter of interest. I did read among them some question as to their place in prophecy, in terms of national salvation. But I have yet to find a particular reading of that again.

However, you're right--there is little interest in promoting things from the Jewish point of view when the Jews had largely rejected Jesus and had incurred God's curse upon their nation, at the very least for the entirety of the NT period. Premil today, however, has two separate facets to it. One group, like the Dispensationlists, hold on to a future Jewish hope, replete with OT imagery and Jewish paraphernalia. The other part of Premil rejects the ethnocentric role of Israel, and rejects, outright, any new temple or a return to OT practices. I belong to the latter group.

Your quote relates to the final subjugation of all rebellion at the end by Christ. This does not say what you say. Justin agrees with Amils on the destruction of all the wicked at the second coming. Justin teaches:

Shall He not on His glorious advent destroy by all means all those who hated Him, and who unrighteously departed from Him, but give rest to His own, rewarding them with all they have looked for? (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 121).
​

Since Justin was Premil, he could not have meant anything other than the complete defeat of Antichrist and his supporters. I differ with you on the notion of "subjection." To render nations "subject" to Christ at his Coming is to retain those who he makes his "footstool." This is not annihilation, but forced submission, aka rule with a "rod of iron."
​

 

[WPM]

As I said, the "mud-slinging" began with the title of your thread. I don't care if you wish to engage me--it would be nice, but I'm interested in honest responses.

I provided Dr. Rice as a reference to various quotations, and you avoid this by denouncing him personally. That's called "mud-slinging," even if it is your personal assessment of him. He's educated, and he deserves an honest assessment. But in this case, the issue involves the quotes he provided. And you won't answer them.

I know you want to own the narrative, as do I. Why don't we just agree to disagree on this? Let God and readers decide who is doing the mud-slinging? It's occupying too much space presently.



My argument was that in referring to Israel as a "remnant," as Paul did in Rom 11, Justin Martyr was admitting that the end of this remnant would be the "salvation of all Israel."

Rom 11.25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.



Well, we have to disagree--the burden of proof is with you. John, who wrote about the Millennium, also wrote about the binding of Satan. So if those who spoke of the future Millennium, among the Church Fathers, referenced it in the authority of John's words, we must assume that they accepted the authority of John's words in stating their would be a binding of Satan. This is another literal rendering vs. symbolic rendering thing.



I have already stated that Dispensationalists have an ethnocentric, Israel-centric view of the Millennium because they take as over-literal OT language that at the time made sense under the OT administration. I do not agree with Dispensationalists, as such.

The Church Fathers, including Premillennialists, did not present Israel and the "Jewish Hope" as a matter of interest. I did read among them some question as to their place in prophecy, in terms of national salvation. But I have yet to find a particular reading of that again.

However, you're right--there is little interest in promoting things from the Jewish point of view when the Jews had largely rejected Jesus and had incurred God's curse upon their nation, at the very least for the entirety of the NT period. Premil today, however, has two separate facets to it. One group, like the Dispensationlists, hold on to a future Jewish hope, replete with OT imagery and Jewish paraphernalia. The other part of Premil rejects the ethnocentric role of Israel, and rejects, outright, any new temple or a return to OT practices. I belong to the latter group.

Since Justin was Premil, he could not have meant anything other than the complete defeat of Antichrist and his supporters. I differ with you on the notion of "subjection." To render nations "subject" to Christ at his Coming is to retain those who he makes his "footstool." This is not annihilation, but forced submission, aka rule with a "rod of iron."​

​

I have been down this road with you before. You are (once again) doing to the ECFs what you do to Scripture: imposing your opinions on them. You make the sweeping claims yet are slow to support these with actual hard quotes. You have absolutely nothing until 240 AD supporting modern-day Premil. Your argument is essentially based on silence, whereas I gave actual quotes that support my assertion.

BTW, the remnant of Israel is exactly that - a believing element of Israel, the true elect, a redeemed company in the ethnic nation.

What is more the Justin demonstrates that the ruling of Christ over His enemies occurs between the First and Second Advents. Justin Martyr said in the Dialogue with Trypho Chapter XXXII:

The Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation ​

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have been down this road with you before. You are (once again) doing to the ECFs what you do to Scripture: imposing your opinions on them. You make the sweeping claims yet are slow to support these with actual hard quotes. You have absolutely nothing until 240 AD supporting modern-day Premil. Your argument is essentially based on silence, whereas I gave actual quotes that support my assertion.

Actually no, your arguments are equally based on silence--at least the ones whereby you argue that the early Chiliasts don't speak of the crude sinfulness of the Millennial population. Failing to speak of that is not proof that they disbelieved it--an argument from silence. In my defense, those who believed a literal Millennium from John's account likely believed the *entire* account! They likely believed that there will be a rebellion of humanity towards the end of the Millennial Age, just as John indicated.

I will concede, however, that some of the Church Fathers may have precluded there being mortals in the Millennial Age, simply by making the focus on the regeneration of the saints an *exclusive* reality. For example...

Irenaeus

• 
  Chapter XXXV.-He Contends that These Testimonies Already Alleged Cannot Be Understood Allegorically of Celestial Blessings, But that They Shall Have Their Fulfilment After the Coming of Antichrist, and the Resurrection, in the Terrestrial Jerusalem. To the Former Prophecies He Subjoins Others Drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse of John.

1. If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: "When the cities" of the Gentiles "shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate." "For, behold," says Isaiah, "the day of the Lord cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it." And again he says, "Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God." And when these things are done, he says, "God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth." "And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves." For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it, saying, "Look around Jerusalem towards the east, and behold the joy which comes to thee from God Himself. Behold, thy sons shall come whom thou hast sent forth: they shall come in a band from the east even unto the west, by the word of that Holy One, rejoicing in that splendour which is from thy God.

Furthermore, you misrepresent me. One, I don't give detailed references until they are actually needed. If someone else has already summed up the argument on a website, such as with Dr. Rice, I will make use of him for purposes of brevity. You find this to be not to your liking. So be it.

When you refuse to deal with the generalities of my position, then we cannot get into the specifics of my position, along with needed proofs from the Early Church Fathers. I will say it again, however--I do not hold to the Dispensationalist version of Premil, even though you constantly refer to Dispensationalist type insinuations when attacking modern Premil views.

Again, I am *not* a Dispensationalist, nor are all Premils Dispensationalists. So proving that the Early Church Fathers focused on Christian regeneration in the Millennial Age, rather than on a possible mortal population in the Millennial Age proves nothing at all, except in individual cases such as above.

And the focus on the international Church in place of focusing on Israel is very natural for all Christians whatever their position, Amil or Premil. Dispensationalists do a good service, in my opinion, of emphasizing the fact that Israel will be regrouped as a nation at the Coming of Christ, and so fulfill what God promised to Abraham. This does not indicate, in any way, that Israel obtains salvation apart from Christ. It only indicates the nation can return to a state of national blessing and preservation by conforming to Christian truth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are misrepresenting the position of Justin and the Ancient Chiliasts on this issue. They and modern Amils believe[d] that Satan's kingdom has been defeated. They believe Christ is currently reigning over His enemies now. They believe that Jesus is coming to totally destroy them at His return.

I believe the Ancient Chiliasts believed that Christ won a complete legal victory over Sin and Satan at the Cross, and is able to employ that power on a limited basis in the present age. Jesus is in the process of defeating every enemy, including death, which will be completed for the present age at his Coming. Establishing his rule in the new age will focus on the authority of the glorified, resurrected saints, instead of on those who will be ruled over.

I think there may have been a variety of opinions on what the Millennium will consist of precisely because of these things, that the Christian focus is more on what the present saints are to inherit, instead of on speculating about future realities. So each Church Father may have to be consulted on how they viewed the Millennium, if they even provided enough material to give a clear picture of it.

• Do you believe there will be a revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium?
• Do you anticipate Satan operating on a future new earth?
• Do you believe in the restoring of Israel back to their ancient borders and their place of favor over all other nations?

John said there will be a rebellion, which implies mortals, towards the end of the Millennium. Satan will be bound for most of the thousand years, but spurs on this rebellion towards the end of the Millennium. Satan will be defeated, along with the rebellion, and finally cast into the Lake of Fire, which suggests eternal separation from the blessed new earth.

I do not believe Israel will enjoy favor *over* the nations in the Millennium. Israel is among the smallest nations of God, but was the first nation of God. God intentionally began His program of international redemption with them, to show His power and His grace.

God's promises are irrevocable--He will restore the nation Israel, regardless of whether all citizens of the State will be saved as Christians. The nation will be saved from their enemies, politically. That is the point. The nation was promised deliverance from their enemies if they would repent and return to God.

Can entire peoples come to God, or come *back* to God? Of course. They have in the past, and Israel will, I believe, in the future.

When Israel returns to God in the Millennial Age, by embracing Christianity in their Constitution, then many former Christian nations will be restored as well, I believe. That was God's promise to Abraham, and I don't believe that promise has yet been fulfilled in the present age.

I do *not* feel the need to provide biblical quotes or quotes from the Church Fathers on every point I make, particularly when speaking among the educated. It is unnecessary, unless I'm asked where something is specifically said.

So rather than expect me to quote the Church Fathers, as you often do, or quote the Scriptures, as many demand I do, you simply need to ask when you need such quotes. Otherwise, this chews up time.

Most of the issues do not require references and quotes, just as you find no need to deal with websites. Providing them will likely not resolve the issue, because the problem is how we interpret those quotes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have been down this road with you before. You are (once again) doing to the ECFs what you do to Scripture: imposing your opinions on them. You make the sweeping claims yet are slow to support these with actual hard quotes. You have absolutely nothing until 240 AD supporting modern-day Premil. Your argument is essentially based on silence, whereas I gave actual quotes that support my assertion.

BTW, the remnant of Israel is exactly that - a believing element of Israel, the true elect, a redeemed company in the ethnic nation.

What is more the Justin demonstrates that the ruling of Christ over His enemies occurs between the First and Second Advents. Justin Martyr said in the Dialogue with Trypho Chapter XXXII:

The Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation ​

Did you read the last part, "the times now running on to their consummation?" That means "until He makes His enemies His footstool," there is a process that only began at Christ's ascension, and continues until the "consummation." That means there is an all-consuming moment at which Christ's rule becomes eschatological, and not progressive. In my view, that means the Kingdom of Christ does not yet come until it becomes eschatological. And I don't see it any different in the Church Fathers.

I do think it possible that focus on Israel as a "remnant" may not infer the "salvation of all Israel," as Paul indicated for the Church Fathers. They were much more in line, I think, with Amil than with Dispensationalist Premils. But once again, I'll tell you that I am *not* Dispensationalists Premil! I hope you have that by now? And yes, I do add my own beliefs when considering the views of the Church Fathers, without trying to read my own beliefs into theirs.

So it doesn't prove to me that these early Chiliasts were really much out of sorts with modern Premils, who are either Dispensationalists or non-Dispensationalists. Focus on human mortality and focus on Israel's reconstitution of an earthly government are not, it seems, the major concerns of the early Church Fathers. If they looked at the Millennium as a future reign at all, it was without a lot of speculation as to whether Israel is reconstituted or whether mortal humanity continues for another thousand years. Instead, the focus is on current saints who at that time will "inherit the earth" as regenerated human beings.

So your evidence that there are clear differences between ancient Chiliasm and Modern Premil is valid, and yet of little significance in terms of indicating the differences are of any major import. Both ancient and modern Premils base their Premil belief on John's words in Rev 20. The lack of focus on Israel's future hope in the Early Church I already gave my view on, explained as a loss of confidence that Jews would repent.

The lack of emphasis on detail of a mortal Millennial age can be explained by several notions: 1) Christians were less inclined to speculate about things that did not directly concern them. 2) Cerinthus and Jews had tarnished any sense of a future mortal earth that could possibly be blessed and prosperous.

Yes, this is speculative, and I see nothing wrong with it. Your arguing that the differences between ancient Chiliasm and modern Premil are significant lacks merit. How are these differences significant at all with respect to a common literal belief in Rev 20?

I never really had an issue with your sense that the ancient Chiliasts had a somewhat different emphasis on things than modern Premils. In contrast with the Amil focus on the international Church, in place of Israel, my own view includes the salvation of national Israel. But unlike Dispensationalists I do not agree with the supremacy of Israel, nor in the restoration of their legal paraphernalia.

My concern is 2-fold. 1) Neither ancient nor modern Premil embraces Cerinthus as founder of their position. They would both credit John the Revelator as the source of their Premil belief. 2) Amil, in its interpretation of Rev 20, defines the present age as the "Kingdom of God."

And I find that troubling--the mixing of eschatological truth with the present era. Dominion Theology, Post-Millennialism, Faith Doctrine--these all emphasize Christ's power in the present age in an imbalanced way, not recognizing the essential unfulfilled nature of the present age. Unless we do so, we will find ourselves frustrated and unable to apply Christ's power and achieve results that we would normally associate with an eschatological Kingdom.

Can you imagine trying to cast Satan out of the universe today? How about claiming healing for all sickness immediately? How about trying to establish a theocracy in various nations in the present age? Well, I believe we can have Christian theocracies, of sorts, in the present age, but certainly not *eschatological* theocracies! ;)

 

[WPM]

Actually no, your arguments are equally based on silence--at least the ones whereby you argue that the early Chiliasts don't speak of the crude sinfulness of the Millennial population. Failing to speak of that is not proof that they disbelieved it--an argument from silence. In my defense, those who believed a literal Millennium from John's account likely believed the *entire* account! They likely believed that there will be a rebellion of humanity towards the end of the Millennial Age, just as John indicated.

I will concede, however, that some of the Church Fathers may have precluded there being mortals in the Millennial Age, simply by making the focus on the regeneration of the saints an *exclusive* reality. For example...

Irenaeus

• 
  Chapter XXXV.-He Contends that These Testimonies Already Alleged Cannot Be Understood Allegorically of Celestial Blessings, But that They Shall Have Their Fulfilment After the Coming of Antichrist, and the Resurrection, in the Terrestrial Jerusalem. To the Former Prophecies He Subjoins Others Drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse of John.

1. If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: "When the cities" of the Gentiles "shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate." "For, behold," says Isaiah, "the day of the Lord cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it." And again he says, "Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God." And when these things are done, he says, "God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth." "And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves." For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it, saying, "Look around Jerusalem towards the east, and behold the joy which comes to thee from God Himself. Behold, thy sons shall come whom thou hast sent forth: they shall come in a band from the east even unto the west, by the word of that Holy One, rejoicing in that splendour which is from thy God.

Furthermore, you misrepresent me. One, I don't give detailed references until they are actually needed. If someone else has already summed up the argument on a website, such as with Dr. Rice, I will make use of him for purposes of brevity. You find this to be not to your liking. So be it.

When you refuse to deal with the generalities of my position, then we cannot get into the specifics of my position, along with needed proofs from the Early Church Fathers. I will say it again, however--I do not hold to the Dispensationalist version of Premil, even though you constantly refer to Dispensationalist type insinuations when attacking modern Premil views.

Again, I am *not* a Dispensationalist, nor are all Premils Dispensationalists. So proving that the Early Church Fathers focused on Christian regeneration in the Millennial Age, rather than on a possible mortal population in the Millennial Age proves nothing at all, except in individual cases such as above.

And the focus on the international Church in place of focusing on Israel is very natural for all Christians whatever their position, Amil or Premil. Dispensationalists do a good service, in my opinion, of emphasizing the fact that Israel will be regrouped as a nation at the Coming of Christ, and so fulfill what God promised to Abraham. This does not indicate, in any way, that Israel obtains salvation apart from Christ. It only indicates the nation can return to a state of national blessing and preservation by conforming to Christian truth.

Ancient Chiliasm was mild compared to what we have with modern-day Premillennialism. In fact, the ancient Millennialist view holds more fundamentals in common with modern-day Amillenniliasm than Premillennialism. Whilst Chiliasts believed there would be a literal thousand years of time following the second coming they anticipated a perfect renewed earth devoid of corruption and sin. They saw the destruction of all the wicked and the regeneration of our current earth at (and through) the glorious coming of Christ, like Amils.

Whilst Chiliasts believed there would be a literal thousand years of time following the second coming they anticipated a perfect renewed earth devoid of corruption and sin. They saw the destruction of all the wicked and the regeneration of our current earth at (and through) the glorious Coming of Christ, like Amils. In modern day Premil, life, time, sin and sinners, the curse and all corruption, hatred, and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions, carry on unabated. This is a stark difference between the two.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ancient Chiliasm was mild compared to what we have with modern-day Premillennialism. In fact, the ancient Millennialist view holds more fundamentals in common with modern-day Amillenniliasm than Premillennialism. Whilst Chiliasts believed there would be a literal thousand years of time following the second coming they anticipated a perfect renewed earth devoid of corruption and sin. They saw the destruction of all the wicked and the regeneration of our current earth at (and through) the glorious coming of Christ, like Amils.

Whilst Chiliasts believed there would be a literal thousand years of time following the second coming they anticipated a perfect renewed earth devoid of corruption and sin. They saw the destruction of all the wicked and the regeneration of our current earth at (and through) the glorious Coming of Christ, like Amils. In modern day Premil, life, time, sin and sinners, the curse and all corruption, hatred, and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions, carry on unabated. This is a stark difference between the two.

The reason I have a problem with that is as you can see from my quote, the Chiliasts derived their position from John (Rev 20). As such, they would assumedly agree with the *entire account* and not just with the fact there will be 1000 years of regenerated Christians on the renewed earth. If John said there would be a rebellion at the end of the 1000 years, then we *must* assume that the Chiliasts agreed with that also, whether or not they understood it, whether or not they spoke in detail about it--not even if they seemed to contradict it.

It does concern me when Irenaeus focuses exclusively on the regenerated saints in the Millennium. Where then does the rebellion at the end of the Millennium spring from? No matter, that's the issue I have without conceding that the Chiliasts rejected parts of John's entire account.

As to whether the Chiliasts have more in common with Amil or with Dispensationalists, I can't agree. There is agreement with both, and differences with both. The Chiliasts embraced a future Millennium whereas Amils do not. The Chiliasts focused on the regenerate Church in the Millennium, whereas the Dispensationalists focus on Israel, while not dispensing with the regenerate Church in the Millennium, as well.

So in my opinion, there is truth to be had in ancient Chiliasm in regard to both Amils and Dispensationalists. But I agree with you--the Dispensationalists spend too much time focusing on Israel and on OT imagery. The thing I appreciate from them is their revival of the original idea, coming from Jesus and the Prophets, that Israel will literally be restored. And that does require a future Millennium with a continuation of mortal humanity. The Chiliasts, as you say, apparently did not wish to focus on that, or outright rejected it.

At the same time I do believe our hope now is to be placed in our own regeneration at that time. There is to be a conjoining of two realities, mortal humanity fulfilling the promises God made to Abraham, and a rule by a regenerated Church. Fulfilling God's promises to Abraham requires two realities, the final deliverance of Israel from her enemies, including the Christianization of the nation, and a completed Christianization of many nations. Christianization only began in the present age--it requires fulfillment in the next age, in my opinion.

My view is somewhat complicated because I see truth in every position. I've arranged them in accordance with the truths I see in Christ and in the Prophets. All of these positions focus on one or more of these important biblical realities.

I would emphasize one last thing. Irenaeus owed his information on the Millennium from the Apostle John in the Apocalypse, and not from Cerinthus. All of the Church Fathers rejected Cerinthus. All of them who taught the Millennium derived it from John.

That renders the title of your post null and void, in my opinion, regardless of the fact early Amil opponents of Premil used Cerinthus' materialism as an argument against it. Otherwise, I'm fine with a number of the points you're making.

Chapter XXXV.-He Contends that These Testimonies Already Alleged Cannot Be Understood Allegorically of Celestial Blessings, But that They Shall Have Their Fulfilment After the Coming of Antichrist, and the Resurrection, in the Terrestrial Jerusalem. To the Former Prophecies He Subjoins Others Drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse of John.

 

[WPM]

Actually no, your arguments are equally based on silence--at least the ones whereby you argue that the early Chiliasts don't speak of the crude sinfulness of the Millennial population. Failing to speak of that is not proof that they disbelieved it--an argument from silence. In my defense, those who believed a literal Millennium from John's account likely believed the *entire* account! They likely believed that there will be a rebellion of humanity towards the end of the Millennial Age, just as John indicated.

Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that "believed that there will be a rebellion of humanity towards the end of the Millennial Age, just as John indicated"?

 

[WPM]

The reason I have a problem with that is as you can see from my quote, the Chiliasts derived their position from John (Rev 20). As such, they would assumedly agree with the *entire account* and not just with the fact there will be 1000 years of regenerated Christians on the renewed earth. If John said there would be a rebellion at the end of the 1000 years, then we *must* assume that the Chiliasts agreed with that also, whether or not they understood it, whether or not they spoke in detail about it--not even if they seemed to contradict it.

It does concern me when Irenaeus focuses exclusively on the regenerated saints in the Millennium. Where then does the rebellion at the end of the Millennium spring from? No matter, that's the issue I have without conceding that the Chiliasts rejected parts of John's entire account.

As to whether the Chiliasts have more in common with Amil or with Dispensationalists, I can't agree. There is agreement with both, and differences with both. The Chiliasts embraced a future Millennium whereas Amils do not. The Chiliasts focused on the regenerate Church in the Millennium, whereas the Dispensationalists focus on Israel, while not dispensing with the regenerate Church in the Millennium, as well.

So in my opinion, there is truth to be had in ancient Chiliasm in regard to both Amils and Dispensationalists. But I agree with you--the Dispensationalists spend too much time focusing on Israel and on OT imagery. The thing I appreciate from them is their revival of the original idea, coming from Jesus and the Prophets, that Israel will literally be restored. And that does require a future Millennium with a continuation of mortal humanity. The Chiliasts, as you say, apparently did not wish to focus on that, or outright rejected it.

At the same time I do believe our hope now is to be placed in our own regeneration at that time. There is to be a conjoining of two realities, mortal humanity fulfilling the promises God made to Abraham, and a rule by a regenerated Church. Fulfilling God's promises to Abraham requires two realities, the final deliverance of Israel from her enemies, including the Christianization of the nation, and a completed Christianization of many nations. Christianization only began in the present age--it requires fulfillment in the next age, in my opinion.

My view is somewhat complicated because I see truth in every position. I've arranged them in accordance with the truths I see in Christ and in the Prophets. All of these positions focus on one or more of these important biblical realities.

I would emphasize one last thing. Irenaeus owed his information on the Millennium from the Apostle John in the Apocalypse, and not from Cerinthus. All of the Church Fathers rejected Cerinthus. All of them who taught the Millennium derived it from John.

That renders the title of your post null and void, in my opinion, regardless of the fact early Amil opponents of Premil used Cerinthus' materialism as an argument against it. Otherwise, I'm fine with a number of the points you're making.

Chapter XXXV.-He Contends that These Testimonies Already Alleged Cannot Be Understood Allegorically of Celestial Blessings, But that They Shall Have Their Fulfilment After the Coming of Antichrist, and the Resurrection, in the Terrestrial Jerusalem. To the Former Prophecies He Subjoins Others Drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse of John.

The Bible depicts the character of the kingdom that will be ushered in at Christ’s return to be eternally liberated from the curse (including sin, sickness, death, decay, corruption and all wickedness). It will be a perfect environment wherein dwells no vestige of the fall. The coming of the Lord will usher in the eternal state and witness the full manifestation of the glorified kingdom on a renewed earth in all its eternal perfection. This earth will be restored to its pristine condition – being eternally freed from all the bondage of corruption. Every enemy of God’s perfect righteous order will be finally eliminated with the fiery regeneration of this earth and the final and complete destruction of the wicked at His appearing. This is a fundamental belief within Amil and is shared with ancient Chiliasts. Premils oppose this important reality.

Also, the quote you attribute to Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter XXXV) was actually added by the historians, not him.

 

[WPM]

Did you read the last part, "the times now running on to their consummation?" That means "until He makes His enemies His footstool," there is a process that only began at Christ's ascension, and continues until the "consummation." That means there is an all-consuming moment at which Christ's rule becomes eschatological, and not progressive. In my view, that means the Kingdom of Christ does not yet come until it becomes eschatological. And I don't see it any different in the Church Fathers.

That is totally wrong. You are forcing your opinions upon the ECFs once again. The opposite is actually the truth. This is why the reader should test everything you claim. It is opinion, and faulty opinion at that. The consummation was viewed by the early Chiliasts as the coming of the Lord, when the mankind is resurrected.

Justin viewed the second coming at "the consummation."

God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation – hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: “The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee.” That which he says, “He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem,” is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it (1st Apology, Chapter 45. Christ's session in heaven foretold).​

Justin also believed Christ won the right to rule over His enemies at the right hand of majesty through His sinless life, His atoning death and His victorious resurrection. He saw a victorious Christ now exercising all power and authority over His people – true Israel. He held that He reigns victoriously upon David’s throne from true Jerusalem above, not Christ-rejecting Jerusalem below. He is ruling now in Sion – true Sion. Of course, this would seem to align with Ephesians 1:20-23, 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 and Hebrews 1:2, 3, 2:6-11 which indicate that Christ is currently reigning over His enemies now. Justin explains:

Tertullian does the exact same in Against Marcion Book 4, Chapter 34):

There is some determinate place called Abraham’s bosom, and … it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is the father of many nations, which must be classed among his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham’s bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the full recompense of their reward. This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises.​

Lactantius Africa (cir. 250 - 317 AD) tells us:

[L]et the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place (Divine Institutes, Book 7, Chapter 14).​

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter V.1:

Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.​

Hippolytus states:

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Wherefore let us by no means admit the falling away, lest iniquity abound, and the abomination of desolation— that is, the adversary— overtake us. And He said to him, unto evening— that is, unto the consummation and morning. What is morning? The day of resurrection. For that is the beginning of another age, as the morning is the beginning of the day (Commentary of Daniel, Chapter 44).​

Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 64:

These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? Who shall bring the conflagration and just judgment upon all who have refused to believe in Him.​

Hippolytus here depicts an all-consummating Coming of Christ which sees the end of time and the beginning of eternity. To this early church writer “the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven” witnesses “the conflagration” and “the consummation.” This is classic Amillennialism. He portrays the rescue of the saints and the destruction of the wicked at the sudden appearing of the Saviour. He shows a general judgment of all mankind – and the final separation of the righteous and the wicked. The wicked are seen to be discharged into “everlasting fire and the godly to eternal bliss where “the righteous shine forth as the sun shines in his glory” (as per Matthew 13:39-43).

This climactic event sees Christ execute “just judgment upon all who have refused to believe in Him” (something Premils thrusts 1,000 years+ after the coming of Christ). These shall receive their just damnation for refusing Christ. The writer employs Psalm 19:5-6 to support his thesis: “Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.” This, in his estimation, proves that the wicked are destroyed from the presence of God. He comments: “By the heat he means the conflagration.”

On the End of the World:

1 [T]he second coming, that is destined to declare all things. For as being designated seers, they of necessity signified and spoke of these things beforetime.

2 Hence, too, they indicated the day of the consummation to us, and signified beforehand the day of the apostate that is to appear and deceive men at the last times, and the beginning and end of his kingdom, and the advent of the Judge, and the life of the righteous, and the punishment of the sinners, in order that we all, bearing these things in mind day by day and hour by hour, as children of the Church, might know that not one jot nor one tittle of these things shall fail, as the Saviour's own word announced

36 when the one week is divided into parts, and the abomination of desolation has arisen then, and the forerunners of the Lord have finished their proper course, and the whole world, in fine, comes to the consummation, what remains but the manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from heaven, for whom we have hoped; who shall bring forth fire and all just judgment against those who have refused to believe in Him? For the Lord says, For as the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be; for wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.​

Commentary on Daniel, Book IV:

58.1. After these things were spoken in this way, the prophet, wishing to more precisely investigate what would be the kind of things which would happen after the resurrection, he answered him and said, “‘Lord what will be the end of these?’ And he said, ‘Come Daniel. because these words are closed and sealed until the end of time, until many are chosen and are made white and are tried with fire and the lawless shall be lawless and the wise shall understand and you, come and rest. For there are still many days to the fulfillment of the consummation and to the resurrection, to your inheritance at the consummation of days.’”
​

 

[Timtofly]

The Bible depicts the character of the kingdom that will be ushered in at Christ’s return to be eternally liberated from the curse (including sin, sickness, death, decay, corruption and all wickedness). It will be a perfect environment wherein dwells no vestige of the fall. The coming of the Lord will usher in the eternal state and witness the full manifestation of the glorified kingdom on a renewed earth in all its eternal perfection. This earth will be restored to its pristine condition – being eternally freed from all the bondage of corruption. Every enemy of God’s perfect righteous order will be finally eliminated with the fiery regeneration of this earth and the final and complete destruction of the wicked at His appearing. This is a fundamental belief within Amil and is shared with ancient Chiliasts. Premils oppose this important reality.

Also, the quote you attribute to Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter XXXV) was actually added by the historians, not him.

Pre-mill don't oppose this fundamental belief. They have been mislead. On one hand you accuse them of following a counter Reformation teaching, which is the very point you claim they are wrong on. Instead of accepting that pre-mill does not need to have sinners in the Millennium, all you do is mock, and make up your own imaginative mockery, dismissing your own fundamental belief.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that "believed that there will be a rebellion of humanity towards the end of the Millennial Age, just as John indicated"?

I already have. Irenaeus identified John and the Apocalypse as the source of his Millennial belief. And the rebellion of humanity is in the same Apocalyptic account. The fact Irenaeus does not directly address the rebellion does not mean he doesn't believe in it. On the contrary, you would have to prove he *doesn't* believe in it.

So, can you prove that *any* of the Church Fathers didn't believe in John's account of the rebellion at the end of the Millennium? I'm referring to the Premillennial Church Fathers.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is totally wrong. You are forcing your opinions upon the ECFs once again. The opposite is actually the truth.

There is no merit to that kind of response. Who is forcing opinion upon the ECF's--you or me? We already know that we're talking about Church Fathers who were Premil. Justin was Premill. Consequently, it is more likely that his view of the consummation was both progressive and climatic--not strictly legal, as you claim.

This is why the reader should test everything you claim. It is opinion, and faulty opinion at that. The consummation was viewed by the early Chiliasts as the coming of the Lord, when the mankind is resurrected.

Well yes, we all believe the consummation is on the last day of the age, at the resurrection of the just.

Justin viewed the second coming at "the consummation."

God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation – hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: “The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee.” That which he says, “He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem,” is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it (1st Apology, Chapter 45. Christ's session in heaven foretold).
​

Yes, as I said, the consummation has a climax at the end of the age.​

Justin also believed Christ won the right to rule over His enemies at the right hand of majesty through His sinless life, His atoning death and His victorious resurrection. He saw a victorious Christ now exercising all power and authority over His people – true Israel. He held that He reigns victoriously upon David’s throne from true Jerusalem above, not Christ-rejecting Jerusalem below. He is ruling now in Sion – true Sion. Of course, this would seem to align with Ephesians 1:20-23, 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 and Hebrews 1:2, 3, 2:6-11 which indicate that Christ is currently reigning over His enemies now.

I have no idea what you think all of these quotes prove, in reference to your claim that the Church Fathers who were Chiliast denied a continuation of the world after the consummation. Obviously, we all agree there will be a consuming judgment at the 2nd Coming. It's called "Armageddon." The question is: when this is described as apocalyptic and universal, does this necessarily mean it is the same as earth's atomization or complete destruction? I don't think so, since Chiliasts believed that the world continues for another thousand years.

We also would agree that Christ won a *legal victory* at the cross, in which Satan completely lost authority to condemn the human race when they put their trust in Christ's atoning sacrifice. Death has no more claim on us, even though our mortal bodies will still have to die.