The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.
OP ^

Blue Ribbon Award for one of the most Comical Thread Titles.

Congrats OP, @Paul Malcomson

Yes, and the sad thing is, those who attack others maliciously end up blaming others for defending their belief aggressively. However, it is true that in the Early Church Amils attacked Premils in the same way, as if they held to Cerinthus-style beliefs.

I just think they did so ignorantly, falsely attributing to Premil beliefs things that, if true, should be condemned. But accusations against them were untrue and slanderous. In the same way, the charge that Premils today support carnality and material and sexual excess in the Millennium are slandering that belief system and the believers who support it.

And Premil, not supporting Jewish lavish materialism and excess, were not able to portray a Millennial Age without reference to Israel's Hope. And so, Amil won out for the most part, simply because Premils did not believe that Israel could be restored to godliness.

Amil, in offering Israel's blessings to the international Church did help expand truths of the Gospel beyond just the nation Israel. And in applying Millennial truths to the Church in the present age, Christians were able to exercise faith for power in their lives in terms of holiness and judgment.

Israel, after all, would not even see a glimmer of hope for its national restoration for hundreds of years. But that doesn't mean that Premil isn't true, nor that Israel cannot be restored as a nation of God. Nor does it mean that even with all of the truths Amil represents that there is no future Millennial with spiritual blessings for many nations, including Israel.

I'll say it again. As important as it is to emphasize the current blessings of the Gospel, in terms of regeneration and spiritual gifts, we must understand that more lies ahead if our hope is to be concluded in the fulfillment of God's promises. And God has clearly promised nations for Abraham, including Israel. Unless they are established in a Kingdom Age, then God's promises have failed to be fulfilled.

Our blessings presently are originating from heaven in Christ. But one day soon, these blessings will be fully revealed *on earth!*

Eph 1.3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.... 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

 

[WPM]

Why can't you understand that he is not interested in debating against people who don't even post here? I share his view on that. It's frustrating when people like you defer to others like Thomas Ice instead of just giving your own thoughts on things. I have no interest in looking at some website with articles written by other people while I'm here on this forum. I can do that on my own if I want, but we're here trying to talk to you, not to Thomas Ice or anyone else who doesn't post here.

This is spot on! Well put! You put the ball in the net!

This is a notable sign of weakness when posters have to continually hide behind links and bias (and discredited) outside writers to interpret the facts about history and Scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is spot on! Well put! You put the ball in the net!

This is a notable sign of weakness when posters have to continually hide behind links and bias (and discredited) outside writers to interpret the facts about history and Scripture.

Do you hide behind Paul when you quote him from the Bible? I didn't think so.

 

[WPM]

Do you hide behind Paul when you quote him from the Bible? I didn't think so.

For the record, Paul's words were/are Scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

For the record, Paul's words were/are Scripture.

Not the point I was making, obviously. He's not here, posting with you. Those were your reasons for not addressing a brief argument stating Premil was the early dominant eschatology in the Church, and not Amil.

I could easily have stated the same arguments that Dr. Ice made. But if I state these arguments, you would address them?

I was *using his arguments* because they stated clearly and succinctly what my arguments are, as well. And still, you won't address them.

 

[WPM]

Not the point I was making, obviously. He's not here, posting with you. Those were your reasons for not addressing a brief argument stating Premil was the early dominant eschatology in the Church, and not Amil.

I could easily have stated the same arguments that Dr. Ice made. But if I state these arguments, you would address them?

I was *using his arguments* because they stated clearly and succinctly what my arguments are, as well. And still, you won't address them.

It is sad that you place the false teaching of Thomas Ice on a par with the inspired writings of Paul the Apostle. That explains a lot!

Please address my detailed responses above that refute your claims.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Amil is unable to respond to the following points made by Dr. Ice--https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=pretrib_arch

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EARLY PREMILLENNIALISM
Tom's Perspectives
by Thomas Ice
I believe that premillennialism is so clearly taught in Revelation 19 and 20 that I still
cannot understand how anyone can think otherwise without realizing deep down that
they are going against the biblical text. A kingdom reign of the Messiah was just as
clearly taught in the Old Testament. Jesus and His Scripture writing disciples also
support the notion of an earthly kingdom headed by the Messiah. Such clearness in the
Bible provides the likely reason why the early church fathers who spoke on this matter
were all premillennialists.
THE FIRST PREMILLENNIALISTS
The first premillennialists were those who received God’s revelation and wrote it
down in the Bible. Eusebius tells us that one of the earliest church fathers that had
heard the Apostle John and others who had known the Lord and His Apostles was
Papias (A.D. 60–130) the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. Papias taught
“that there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of
Christ will be set up in material form on this earth.”1 Irenaeus (A.D. 130–202) tells us
that Papias “related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard
to these times” (the millennium) in book 4 of Papias’ writings, which are no longer
extant, except a few fragments. Papias is recorded as saying: “there will be a
millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will
be established on this earth.”2 Polycarp (A.D. 70–155), bishop of Smyrna, is also said to
have been a premillennialist.
3 The Epistle of Barnabas (written between A.D. 120–150)
presents the common belief that “in six thousand years, all things will be finished. . . .
then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” The writer speaks of the second coming of
Christ with the clear implication that He will set up the thousand year kingdom on
earth, followed by the eight day or the eternal state.
4
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165) in his Dialogue With Trypho (@ A.D. 140), a Jewish man,
made the following premillennial statement:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured
that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in
Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets
Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
5
Justin considered premillennialism an aspect of orthodoxy in his day.
And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of
the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him,
that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in
Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal
resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.
6
IRENAEUS AND TERTULLIAN
Two of the greatest ante-Nicene fathers were Irenaeus and Tertullian (A.D. 160–230).
Irenaeus grew up in Asia Minor and was discipled by Polycarp, who knew the Apostle
John. Irenaeus had a very extensive view of Bible prophecy in his last five chapters of Against Heresies, which were suppressed throughout the Middle Ages by antipremillennialists and rediscovered in 1571.7 The restoration of a more literal
interpretation and reading of the early church fathers by many post-Reformationists led
to a revival of premillennialism in the early 1600s.
8 Irenaeus’ writings played a key role
because of their clear premillennial statements. “John, therefore, did distinctly foresee
the first ‘resurrection of the just,’ and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth,” he
says, “and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his
vision].”9 Again, Irenaeus declares:
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will
reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and
then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father,
sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing
in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.
10
Tertullian, who gave us the Latin word “Trinity,” was also a strong premillennialist.
He makes his premillennialism clear when he says the following:
But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although
before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after
the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem,
“let down from heaven,” which the apostle also calls “our mother from
above;” and, while declaring that our citizenship is in heaven, he predicts of it
that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the
Apostle John beheld.
11

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is sad that you place the false teaching of Thomas Ice on a par with the inspired writings of Paul the Apostle. That explains a lot!

Please address my detailed responses above that refute your claims.

I did *not* place Thomas Ice on a par with Scripture. That is false. What I did was show that your attempt to avoid responding to the arguments of Dr. Ice is without merit. There is no need to respond to a website, since I can simply repost Dr. Ice's arguments here.

But you argue *he is not here.* Neither is the Apostle Paul, and yet you address his writings on a web site.

Cerinthus is not here either, and yet you would consider what he taught by referencing websites, in which the authors *are not here.* Cerinthus most certainly isn't Scripture, but neither would we be putting Cerinthus on a par with either Paul or Dr. Ice, would we? (In fact, we don't even have Cerinthus' own words. Still, we would address his teachings.)

 

[Randy Kluth]

Tertullian then employs 1 Corinthians 15 to support his thesis:

It is the transformation these shall undergo which he explains to the Corinthians, when he writes: “We shall all indeed rise again (though we shall not all undergo the transformation) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump” - for none shall experience this change but those only who shall be found in the flesh. “And the dead,” he says, “shall be raised, and we shall be changed.” Now, after a careful consideration of this appointed order, you will be able to adjust what follows to the preceding sense. For when he adds, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” this will assuredly be that house from heaven, with which we so earnestly desire to be clothed upon, whilst groaning in this our present body,-meaning, of course, over this flesh in which we shall be surprised at last; because he says that we are burdened whilst in this tabernacle, which we do not wish indeed to be stripped of, but rather to be in it clothed over, in such a way that mortality may be swallowed up of life, that is, by putting on over us whilst we are transformed that vestiture which is from heaven (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 42).​

Tertullian envisions the dead and alive in Christ being instantly glorified at Christ’s coming. In his writing On the Resurrection of the Flesh (Chapter XLI), he argues believers would be perfected by being “clothed with the celestial glory of immortality.” The millennial bodies, the writer foresees, clearly seem to be immortal. They are described as perfect glorified bodies. They are later described as “a better house through the resurrection.”

Hippolytus:

And the unrighteous, and those who believed not God, who have honoured as God the vain works of the hands of men, idols fashioned (by themselves), shall be sentenced to this endless punishment. But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and unfading kingdom (Fragments of Hippolytus 1).​

Methodius argued:

For in the new and indissoluble creation, whoever shall not be found decorated with the boughs of chastity, shall neither obtain rest, because he has not fulfilled the command of God according to the law, nor shall he enter into the land of promise, because he has not previously celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles. For they only who have celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles come to the Holy Land, setting out from those dwellings which are called tabernacles, until they come to enter into the temple and city of God, advancing to a greater and more glorious joy, as the Jewish types indicate. For like as the Israelites, having left the borders of Egypt, first came to the Tabernacles, and from hence, having again set forth, came into the land of promise, so also do we. For I also, taking my journey, and going forth from the Egypt of this life, came first to the resurrection, which is the true Feast of the Tabernacles, and there having set up my tabernacle, adorned with the fruits of virtue, on the first day of the resurrection, which is the day of judgment, celebrate with Christ the millennium of rest, which is called the seventh day, even the true Sabbath. Then again from thence I, a follower of Jesus, "who hath entered into the heavens," as they also, after the rest of the Feast of Tabernacles, came into the land of promise, come into the heavens, not continuing to remain in tabernacles--that is, my body not remaining as it was before (Discourse IX – Tusiane, 5).​

I don't see how any of this is pertinent. Premillennialists do believe in the 1st resurrection, ie the transformation of faithful Christians at the coming of Christ, together with the departed saints of the past. They will indeed enjoy a new state of being in the Millennial age as rulers over a world still afflicted with the sin nature. Nobody would dispute that. That is also part of Premil teaching.

The idea that the hordes of Antichrist's followers will also face eternal judgment is also a part of Premil teaching. When Christ comes, many followers of Antichrist will die, and will enter thereby into a period in which they will be finally separated from God's People.

None of this has a thing to do with proving Chiliasm is more in line with Amil than with modern Premil. These are Christians truths we would *all* agree on.

 

[Taken]

Yes, and the sad thing is, those who attack others maliciously end up blaming others for defending their belief aggressively. However, it is true that in the Early Church Amils attacked Premils in the same way, as if they held to Cerinthus-style beliefs.

I just think they did so ignorantly, falsely attributing to Premil beliefs things that, if true, should be condemned. But accusations against them were untrue and slanderous. In the same way, the charge that Premils today support carnality and material and sexual excess in the Millennium are slandering that belief system and the believers who support it.

Beliefs are going to differ, simply because from the beginning to the ending, billions of people are born, live, die...and DIFFERENT things, APPLY to the multitudes of different earthly men.

* Promises were given BY God to some, and not others.
Plainly observed from the Beginning of Gods established...
Divide, Divide, Divide; (Gen 1) (Ex 8:23) heaven/earth...good/evil...day/night...up/down...with/without...people
* Jesus revealed New Promises AND continued Gods established...
Divide, Divide, Divide; (Luke 12:51) (Luke 11:23)

** BOTTOM LINE...The WHOLE of every Individual Person;
WILL BE “WITH” or “WITHOUT” the Lord God Almighty... FOREVER...PERIOD.
** WHEN...every Individual Person WILL BE “WITH or “WITHOUT” the Lord God Almighty FOREVER...
DIFFERS, “according to Gods ORDER and WAY”!

The ARGUMENT - between men WHO DIFFER - is pointless!
The QUOTING - of other men outside of Scripture - is pointless!

* It is more than OBVIOUS men QUOTE men outside of Scripture, Because “NAME DROPPING” (a man NOT named in Scripture),
is intended to “CARRY WEIGHT” for a mans Belief! AS IF that matters.

* Catholics Heavily Weigh their Church Doctrines and Teachings ON men outside of Scripture, (anciently and modernly). Some Protestants do as well ... And frankly, that is of no Interest to me.

* Scripture itself reveals;
Gods Teaching, Promises, Blessings, Gifts, Rewards;
Given forward To: who, when, how and why.
As well Gods Promises, Blessing, Gifts, Rewards;
Withheld From: who, when, how and why.

Again the DIVIDE is revealed: Given or Withheld! With or Without!

While ALL Scripture IS TRUE.
ALL Scripture DOES NOT APPLY the SAME to every individual!

He who KNOWS what DOES Scripturally APPLY to him...
IS TWO-FOLD....The individual person AND The Lord God Almighty.

1 Cor 2:
[11a] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

All knowing God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[WPM]

I don't see how any of this is pertinent. Premillennialists do believe in the 1st resurrection, ie the transformation of faithful Christians at the coming of Christ, together with the departed saints of the past. They will indeed enjoy a new state of being in the Millennial age as rulers over a world still afflicted with the sin nature. Nobody would dispute that. That is also part of Premil teaching.

The idea that the hordes of Antichrist's followers will also face eternal judgment is also a part of Premil teaching. When Christ comes, many followers of Antichrist will die, and will enter thereby into a period in which they will be finally separated from God's People.

None of this has a thing to do with proving Chiliasm is more in line with Amil than with modern Premil. These are Christians truths we would *all* agree on.

I will wait-off till you actually address the many ECF quotes and sizeable response i made above that strongly rebuts your previous claims. To cherry-pick a couple of quotes in isolation and not even address what I pointing out in regard to it does not cut it. Contrary to what you claimed, i have conclusively proved:

· The early Chiliasts were fully aware of "the character of the Millennium." They foreseen a perfect incorrupt age to come that was free of sin and sinners, hatred and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions. You need to do more detailed research.
· The early Chiliasts were fully aware of "the fate of the wicked" when Jesus comes. They taught they were destroyed when Jesus comes. You need to study this in their writings.

To default to your mentor Ice for your information is not wise. Maybe the next stage is for you to embrace his discredited eschatology.

 

[WPM]

I don't see how any of this is pertinent. Premillennialists do believe in the 1st resurrection, ie the transformation of faithful Christians at the coming of Christ, together with the departed saints of the past. They will indeed enjoy a new state of being in the Millennial age as rulers over a world still afflicted with the sin nature. Nobody would dispute that. That is also part of Premil teaching.

The idea that the hordes of Antichrist's followers will also face eternal judgment is also a part of Premil teaching. When Christ comes, many followers of Antichrist will die, and will enter thereby into a period in which they will be finally separated from God's People.

None of this has a thing to do with proving Chiliasm is more in line with Amil than with modern Premil. These are Christians truths we would *all* agree on.

Tertullian: Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 13:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend— it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in diverse manners by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Tertullian: Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 13:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend— it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in diverse manners by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.​

Totally in agreement! :) We just probably apply it differently with the "Millennial Language" that we choose to use. ;)

 

[WPM]

Totally in agreement! :) We just probably apply it differently with the "Millennial Language" that we choose to use. ;)

That is not true!

• You do not believe (as the early Chiliasts did) that He "will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh."
• Also, you do not believe (as the early Chiliasts did) that the millennial earth will be perfect incorrupt age to come that was free of sin and sinners, hatred and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions.

 

[Timtofly]

Tertullian: Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 13:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith— that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend— it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in diverse manners by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.​

Do you accept the wicked will be experiencing the LOF with a complete physical body, soul, and spirit. If that is the case, then there is no separation of the physical and spiritual, and you can stop making excuses that the spiritual is something totally different than the physical. Otherwise you are a heretic according to Tertullian.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I will wait-off till you actually address the many ECF quotes and sizeable response i made above that strongly rebut your previous claims. To cherry-pick a couple of quotes in isolation and not even address what I pointing out in regard to it does not cut it. Contrary to what you claimed, i have conclusively proved:

· The early Chiliasts were fully aware of "the character of the Millennium." They foreseen a perfect incorrupt age to come that was free of sin and sinners, hatred and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions. You need to do more detailed research.
· The early Chiliasts were fully aware of "the fate of the wicked" when Jesus comes. They taught they were destroyed when Jesus comes. You need to study this in their writings.

To default to your mentor Ice for your information is not wise. Maybe the next stage is for you to embrace his discredited eschatology.

lol! You think Ice is my "mentor?" I randomly selected him on the Net because he utilized quotes from the Church Fathers along the lines of Premill teaching! I'm not in the least a follower of Liberty U., Dallas Theoloical Seminary, or Dispensationalism! ;) I'm very much opposed to Pretribulationism. That's how little you know me! I've been battling Dispensationalism since the mid-70s! ;)

No, I'm not going to "study the Church Fathers in great detail" just to respond to your Amil beliefs! The Church Fathers had much to say about *many things.* For example, I've also had an interest in defending my own brand of Trinitarianism, which has required quite a bit of analysis of the teaching of the Church Fathers.

But no, reading all of the early and later Church Fathers is not going to be on my agenda! That being said, I am impressed that you love the Church Fathers so much. And I am impressed with your interest in focusing on some fundamentals of Reform teaching--we would agree on all that.

However, if you wish me to respond to *specific portions* of the Church Fathers on this subject, I'll be happy to do that. Simply give me the references you wish me to refer to. I would like to generalize better about *what the Church Fathers believed.* But I know that despite the fact they came to some agreement on creeds, there were minor and more important disagreements from one Church Father to another.

For example, the teaching on the subordination of the Son to the Father gets kind of convoluted depending on the time and context of the arguments. One can generalize, however, that the Church Fathers held in common belief in the Deity of all 3 Persons of the Trinity. I don't have to study all of the readings of the Church Fathers to come to this conclusion.

I did answer every quote that I read from you. Which one in particular do you think I didn't adequately respond to? Once again, in describing the character of the "times of the Kingdom," the Church Fathers focused on the hope of the glorified Church, rather than spend time on speculating about the condition of the world during those times! I already answered this.

During the Millennium, the saints of the present and past ages enjoy a position of "rule" over a still-mortal world. The focus of the Church Fathers is on behalf of the saints of this age, and does not speculate much about the condition of the world we will rule over.

Depicting the age to come as grossly sinful in order to argue against it accomplishes nothing. There's sin in the world today, and yet you may find places of relative obedience to God among groups of people, with accompanying peace. In history, there are have been good times and bad times. But you don't characterize every decade of the past as "extremely sinful" simply because all people have a Sin Nature.

Characterizing the Millennial age as "extremely sinful" simply because people still have a Sin Nature doesn't do the conversation justice. Premils like myself believe that the mortal world has at that time a rule over them from heaven, and from the glorified Church itself, limiting how "wicked" they can behave at that time.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is not true!

• You do not believe (as the early Chiliasts did) that He "will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh."
• Also, you do not believe (as the early Chiliasts did) that the millennial earth will be perfect incorrupt age to come that was free of sin and sinners, hatred and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions.

False, I do indeed believe that Christ will come with glory to impart to them immortality in order that we may rule from heaven over a Millennial earth, still infected with the Sin Nature. That way, the earth will enjoy a measure of heavenly rule, and will be constrained from international warfare and persecution of the righteous. Extreme wickedness only takes place for a short time at the end, when there will be, once again, a satanic rebellion against God and His People.

The Chiliasts focused on the glorification of the saints during the Millennial Period. They did not focus on the character of the world over which the Church will rule--not that I know of. I'd be pleased to know all that you use to defend their notion that the world, though ruled over by a glorified Church, will *not* be infected by sin, or will no longer be mortal?

Your argument, thus far, seems to be that statements are made indicating a universal judgment at Christ's Coming. But as I said, universal language of judgment does not indicate annihilation of the world, nor of its people. It only refers to comprehensive defeat of Antichristian forces throughout the world.

 

[WPM]

lol! You think Ice is my "mentor?" I randomly selected him on the Net because he utilized quotes from the Church Fathers along the lines of Premill teaching! I'm not in the least a follower of Liberty U., Dallas Theoloical Seminary, or Dispensationalism! ;) I'm very much opposed to Pretribulationism. That's how little you know me! I've been battling Dispensationalism since the mid-70s! ;)

No, I'm not going to "study the Church Fathers in great detail" just to respond to your Amil beliefs! The Church Fathers had much to say about *many things.* For example, I've also had an interest in defending my own brand of Trinitarianism, which has required quite a bit of analysis of the teaching of the Church Fathers.

But no, reading all of the early and later Church Fathers is not going to be on my agenda! That being said, I am impressed that you love the Church Fathers so much. And I am impressed with your interest in focusing on some fundamentals of Reform teaching--we would agree on all that.

However, if you wish me to respond to *specific portions* of the Church Fathers on this subject, I'll be happy to do that. Simply give me the references you wish me to refer to. I would like to generalize better about *what the Church Fathers believed.* But I know that despite the fact they came to some agreement on creeds, there were minor and more important disagreements from one Church Father to another.

For example, the teaching on the subordination of the Son to the Father gets kind of convoluted depending on the time and context of the arguments. One can generalize, however, that the Church Fathers held in common belief in the Deity of all 3 Persons of the Trinity. I don't have to study all of the readings of the Church Fathers to come to this conclusion.

I did answer every quote that I read from you. Which one in particular do you think I didn't adequately respond to? Once again, in describing the character of the "times of the Kingdom," the Church Fathers focused on the hope of the glorified Church, rather than spend time on speculating about the condition of the world during those times! I already answered this.

During the Millennium, the saints of the present and past ages enjoy a position of "rule" over a still-mortal world. The focus of the Church Fathers is on behalf of the saints of this age, and does not speculate much about the condition of the world we will rule over.

Depicting the age to come as grossly sinful in order to argue against it accomplishes nothing. There's sin in the world today, and yet you may find places of relative obedience to God among groups of people, with accompanying peace. In history, there are have been good times and bad times. But you don't characterize every decade of the past as "extremely sinful" simply because all people have a Sin Nature.

Characterizing the Millennial age as "extremely sinful" simply because people still have a Sin Nature doesn't do the conversation justice. Premils like myself believe that the mortal world has at that time a rule over them from heaven, and from the glorified Church itself, limiting how "wicked" they can behave at that time.

Every time I roundly expose your false claims re the early Chiliasts you try to ignore and divert the thread, as if you addressed the facts. You did not, you do not, and you cannot. The historic facts expose your thesis. You have no answer to that! Your MO is avoidance.

Address the posts above or acknowledge your claims were false.

I show with hard quotes that your thesis is mistaken.

· The early Chiliasts were fully aware of "the character of the Millennium." They foreseen a perfect incorrupt age to come that was free of sin and sinners, hatred and rebellion, crying and dying, hospitals and funerals, war and terror, Satan and his minions. You need to do more detailed research.
· The early Chiliasts were fully aware of "the fate of the wicked" when Jesus comes. They taught they were destroyed when Jesus comes. You need to study this in their writings.

 

[WPM]

False, I do indeed believe that Christ will come with glory to impart to them immortality in order that we may rule from heaven over a Millennial earth, still infected with the Sin Nature. That way, the earth will enjoy a measure of heavenly rule, and will be constrained from international warfare and persecution of the righteous. Extreme wickedness only takes place for a short time at the end, when there will be, once again, a satanic rebellion against God and His People.

The Chiliasts focused on the glorification of the saints during the Millennial Period. They did not focus on the character of the world over which the Church will rule--not that I know of. I'd be pleased to know all that you use to defend their notion that the world, though ruled over by a glorified Church, will *not* be infected by sin, or will no longer be mortal?

Your argument, thus far, seems to be that statements are made indicating a universal judgment at Christ's Coming. But as I said, universal language of judgment does not indicate annihilation of the world, nor of its people. It only refers to comprehensive defeat of Antichristian forces throughout the world.

Your avoidance is getting old. You manifestly know you have no ancient support. Address the historic evidence from the early Chiliasts above that forbids your false claims.

• Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described "a Millennial earth, still infected with the Sin Nature"?
• Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described "the earth will enjoy a measure of heavenly rule, and will be constrained from international warfare and persecution of the righteous"?
• Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described "Extreme wickedness only takes place for a short time at the end, when there will be, once again, a satanic rebellion against God and His People"?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your avoidance is getting old. You manifestly know you have no ancient support. Address the historic evidence from the early Chiliasts above that forbids your false claims.

• Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described "a Millennial earth, still infected with the Sin Nature"?
• Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described "the earth will enjoy a measure of heavenly rule, and will be constrained from international warfare and persecution of the righteous"?
• Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described "Extreme wickedness only takes place for a short time at the end, when there will be, once again, a satanic rebellion against God and His People"?

What is getting old for me is your nasty attitude. You wish to constantly characterize others in a negative way. I don't find that to be edifying at all!

I'm asking you to pinpoint sections of the Church Fathers where they depict the conditions of the Millennial earth--not just the condition of the resurrected, glorified saints, nor the relative peace that comes by the rule of the Church over the earth. Rather, I want to see where they *deny* that the earth is mortal or has a Sin Nature?

I gave you one place where I think Irenaeus stated something like this. But I've not seen a consensus among the Church Fathers indicating the Millennial earth is free of sin. I believe they accepted, along with John's Premillennial account, that there will be a rebellion at the end of the Millennial age.

For me, that requires that there be a continuation of mortal, sinful mankind. Otherwise, where does the rebellion come from? They simply don't seem to focus on that, as far as I can see?

Since you've apparently studied the Church Fathers more than me, why don't you point these sections out? Then we can discuss how we individually look at them from our respective positions?

Again, since you seem to miss it, or possibly ignore it, here are my two arguments for a mortal, sin-infected earth during a future Millennium. John describes a rebellion at the end of the Millennium. That must come from sinful mankind!

Secondly, we are told that the Messianic Kingdom will bring Christian rule *over* the sinful world. Again, this suggests that the glorified Church will somehow place limitations on how far sin can go on the Millennial earth.