Ok. I took the time to research and present to you a detailed presentation of hard evidence relating to your inquiries and you absolutely ignored what I wrote. Now you're asking me to identify quotes? Did you even read them? Please look at #344 and #345 that prove that these early Chiliasts anticipated an incorrupt and perfect earth free of sin and sinners, dying and crying, Satan and his minions. Please look at #347 and #348 approve that they believe that the wicked would be completely and totally destroyed at the second coming. There's no space in their theology for your sin-cursed death blighted goat-infested millennium.
When I challenge your avoidance you want to take offence. But I will keep calling it out, because it has been an ongoing trait of yours.
I don't at all take offence on you challenging me. I only take offence at your attempt to demean me when I disagree with you. For example, you *constantly* claim I avoid your points. I've taken great pains myself at responding to your false claim that Premil belief began with heretics like Cerinthus. And as you continue to assert things, I simply ask for proof. All you seem to provide is what I already provided myself!
I know enough about the Church Fathers to know the early ones were believed to be dominated by Premil, or what you prefer to call Chiliasm. And from that point you launch into this, that Chiliasm is more like Amil than Premil! ;) Though there's some truth in that, it's actually laughable. You state that Chiliasm, a Premil belief, is more like Amil than modern Premil? As I said, there is more than one kind of modern Premil, but none of them oppose standard Christian doctrine which you claim only Amil owns a monopoly on.
So let me respond to some of your quotes. I've responded before, but you tend to reiterate the same things again and again.
In 344 you quote Irenaeus--not an abundance of Church Fathers, indicating a consensus. Unless you've forgotten, I had already mentioned Irenaeus in this regard in 330! How can I be avoiding the point when *I had already made it for you?* ;)
Again, I began by mentioning some questions I did have about Irenaeus. How is this "avoiding" it, when I stated this before you did?
I believe my point was that Irenaeus focused on the glorified saints, and on their reign over the earth. I asked if you had any reference to his denying there would be a rebellion among mortals on earth at the end of the Millennium? I don't believe you answered this?
I also asked for a consensus view, in case Irenaeus was a sole exception. What I got was more of Irenaeus, which I had already provided, linked together with Tertullian, Justin, etc. who only spoke about the resurrection of the righteous--not the conditions on a Millennial earth overall.
Nor did I get any reference from you about any of them mentioning the rebellion at the end of the Millennium. You just write this off, apparently, as an argument from silence. But remember, these Millennialists took literally what John said, and some of them protested the use of allegory to get around it. Surely, they believed in a literal *rebellion* at the end of the Millennial period? If there were no lawless mortals on earth, then where did they come from for these early Church Fathers?
In 345 it was just more of Irenaeus' ambiguity about whether he was speaking about the glories on the new earth of resurrected saints, or about the overall condition of the earth? To this you added Tertullian, and finally, one quote from Hippolytus. None of it declares, with certainty, whether the new earth was being characterized only in terms of the New Jerusalem, which encompasses the whole earth by its rule, or about the entire earth, whether mortal humanity still lived upon it?
In 347 Irenaeus is again referenced, with the addition of Justin and Tertullian who simply focus on the reality of the new creation and the release of carnal bondage *for the saints.* Irenaeus' focus is, as I said, completely negligent of the subject of the future rebellion and the condition outside of New Jerusalem. Nothing Justin or Tertullian said is remotely definitive in this respect. Again, this is just more of Irenaeus for the most part, who *I already quoted in this regard!* Who is avoiding it?
In 348 Hippolytus and Methodius simply reiterate the hope of resurrection life for the saints, which you had hoped to connect to Irenaeus' sense of the multiplied saints in the Millennial age. But it doesn't work for me. Irenaeus' "multiplied saints" may only reference the ruling class of glorified saints, ignoring those who are ruled over? At any rate, the quotes from other Church Fathers aren't even teaching about anything more than the resurrection of the saints, something we all believe in.
I answered your questions, and then you act as if I didn't. The reality is, I didn't answer to *your satisfaction,* but I did in fact answer your questions. The evidence is in the thread. My argument is that much of your "proofs" are so ambiguous as to suggest the Millennialists simply focused on the Millennial Earth as the "New Earth" ruled by the "New Jerusalem." Perhaps the mortal, sin-laden population was relegated to "outer darkness" until the final rebellion? This is a question I personally have, if you could provide more detailed, and more relevant quotes?
You just don't think through the ideas I'm presenting to you. If the end of the world is meant to be an end of the old order, then for the Church Fathers it does not mean "annihilationism." Indeed, it *cannot* mean annihilationism, since these Church Fathers believed there would follow a Millennial Age. And there can't be a Millennial Age if the earth is destroyed.
The dissolving of the elements can take place locally, in a single nuclear blast--it doesn't have to overtake the planet! If the nucleus of world rule is destroyed, it may be described as the annihilation of the wicked. But in reality, it is only the center of its rule that has been completely obliterated.
So the Church Fathers, at least some of them, may have thought (and did) that the New Jerusalem comes down immediately at the beginning of the Millennium. Some of them apparently acknowledge that the final order will follow the times of the Millennial age.
If some, like Irenaeus, view New Jerusalem as actually beginning at the start of the Millennium, then that would explain why he would describe the earth in a pristine condition, in which the earth is basically held captive by a perfect rule. And his focus would be on New Jerusalem and its rule, along with the resurrected saints who will rule, rather than on the outer darkness beyond, still on planet earth.
The account in Revelation itself indicates that "outside of the city" remain the ungodly.
Rev 21.26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
22.14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
The "New Earth," then, can be characterized as pristine simply because the outer reaches of Jerusalem are viewed as "outer darkness," and not relevant to the description of the glories now present on the new earth. We should recognize that Millennialists would likely embrace the entire literal account of Rev 20, and not just the first resurrection and the Millennial period. They would also embrace the idea of a final rebellion.
Again, what did the Church Fathers say about this, or did they simply assume it will take place? In that case, they simply chose to focus on the hope of the saints presently, which is more important.
The fate of the wicked are not something that would encourage saints today We are more encouraged by the promise of reward in the New Jerusalem than frightened into action by details about the fate of the wicked.
It's not that the unbelieving, mortal world didn't exist in the Millennium, as I read the account of the Church Fathers, describing the New Jerusalem. It's just that there is little need to focus on the plight of mortal mankind, who will be outside of New Jerusalem, the center of the "New Earth."
All wickedness within the reach of New Jerusalem will be at least temporarily purified by the rule of the glorified saints. And the rule of the earth beyond will be extended over all to keep the lawless in check.
This indicated for Irenaeus and others that the "New Earth" will be pristine, at least up until the rebellion. These are real questions I have, and nothing you've provided have made sense of it for me yet.
