The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

Here are some modern Premil fundamentals promoted by the ancient heretical founders of modern day Premil - Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry [or Porphyrius] and Apollinarius. None of these views can be found amongst the early Chiliasts.

If you equate Mormons with classic Christianity you will find lots of commonalities. But you should not, then, claim that classic Christianity and Mormonism are the same, or that some of the beliefs they have in common are necessarily heretical.

This is called "guilt by association," and was a tactic used by Amillennialists to justify their abandonment of the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. We were told, by the Apostle John, not to alter the rendering of the Revelation. So turning the thousand years of Rev 20 into an allegory would be doing that, I should think? Bad move. Very bad move.

Calling Millennial life corrupt for Premillennialists just because Cerinthus viewed it that way is not justified. Cerinthus may have been corrupt, and the Premillennialists not.

Some Ascetics who view the material world as evil would depict the current earth as corrupt. But those of us who are Christians view the same earth and do not find it to be essentially corrupt. On the contrary, we thank God for it.

So seeing a future Millennial world that is literal and physical is seen as corrupt by those who have jaded eyes. If the eye is bad, everything looks bad.

But those of us who see the Millennial world as good, with evil put under the submission of the Christian Kingdom, have good eyes, and see things from a pure point of view. The material world is to be thanked for.

 

[WPM]

For the record:

The likenesses between Mormonism and biblical Christianity are minimal and peripheral. Modern-day Premi is the identical child of, and mirror image of, ancient heretical Premil. Their fundamental traits are near identical.

 

[Randy Kluth]

For the record:

The likenesses between Mormonism and biblical Christianity are minimal and peripheral. Modern-day Premi is the identical child of, and mirror image of, ancient heretical Premil. Their fundamental traits are near identical.

For one, ancient Premil, or Chiliasm, is *not* "heretical." The heretical nature of Premillennialists who were not orthodox had nothing to do with their being Premillennialist. What made them heretics was their unorthodox Christology.

Two, the fundamental tenets of Modern Premil and Ancient Premil are identical because both are based on a *literal* interpretation of Rev 20, in which John sees a real thousand year period develop after the 2nd Coming of Christ.

If you choose to agree with the literal words of John in Rev 20, you will have the "identical" beliefs as Premils in all ages. And you will be fully orthodox in your doctrine and theology.

 

[WPM]

Modern Premils have one tenet in common with early Chiliasts. That is it! Amils have many common beliefs. What is more, all the early Chiliasts and Amils for 210 years after the cross believed in a climactic return of Christ that saw the end of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions. Premils have no rebuttal to that because it is a fact.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Modern Premils have one tenet in common with early Chiliasts. That is it! Amils have many common beliefs. What is more, all the early Chiliasts and Amils for 210 years after the cross believed in a climactic return of Christ that saw the end of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions. Premils have no rebuttal to that because it is a fact.

On the contrary, Modern Premils have *lots* in common with the early Chiliasts. For starters, they share the same Christology, and all but the rejected heretics were generally orthodox in doctrine.

Why should anyone, Amil or Premil, think that Christ's Return will fail to bring about the rule of Christ's Kingdom? We would all agree on that.

 

[WPM]

On the contrary, Modern Premils have *lots* in common with the early Chiliasts. For starters, they share the same Christology, and all but a rejected heretics were generally orthodox in doctrine.

Why should anyone, Amil or Premil, think that Christ's Return will fail to bring about the rule of Christ's Kingdom? We would all agree on that.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about eschatology. You know that! Christ's glorious reign according to early Chiliasts and modern Amils is not on this current corrupt earth, as you and the ancient heretics believe[d], where you have more of the same-old same-old. It is a newly perfected earth free of all the bondage of corruption (as the Bible teaches).

 

[Randy Kluth]

We are not talking about that. We are talking about eschatology. You know that!

Yes I do know that. But I wished to point out that eschatology cannot alone be considered the criteria by which orthodoxy can be determined. You wish to make a single, reasonable element in eschatology a heresy by surrounding it with peripheral ideas that you wish to compare to heretics. You wish to make belief in a literal Millennium corrupt because some of those who did so had some corrupt ideas that went along with it.

Their heretical beliefs not only made them heretics, but they also tainted their eschatology, which non-heretical Chiliasts did not adhere to. Not even modern Dispensationalists hold to those corrupted eschatological beliefs. In other words, the heretics and the Chiliasts may have had Premillennial beliefs in common, but that does not mean their Premillennial beliefs were the same.

The point I'm making is that not only is it reasonable to believe in a literal Millennium, but no matter how much the peripheral ideas around that belief may seem similar to heretics, the important thing was whether they were really orthodox in doctrine, eg in their Christology or in their beliefs about God. When that is understood, we may more easily see that the comparison of these peripheral ideas are "political" in nature, intended to distort and defame beliefs that were not really like the things heretics believed at all.

First, Premillennialism is not and never was viewed as heretical, except at times of extreme political bias. The ecumenical councils apparently did not condemn it, contrary to what we hear.

Cerinthus, Marcion, and Apollinaris may have had Chiliast notions, but their beliefs in other areas were what made them heretical--not their eschatology! Associating other, more orthodox Chiliasts with them is then just a political maneuver by Amils, who wished to distance themselves from both Chiliasm and the heretical views they thought accompanied it.

Second, Cerinthus' belief that Christ was strictly human bears no relation to his belief in Chiliasm. We don't have direct info from Cerinthus, but we have noted that his beliefs about the Millennium did appear to be worldly. And Chiliasm, in itself, does not necessarily equate to that. The idea of a continuing material world past the 2nd Coming does not necessarily reflect widespread ungodliness and unrestrained moral filth.

Marcion separated the old and new testaments as being the product of 2 separate gods! Marcion had a kind of Gnostic spiritualism transcending the material world. This is not how typical Chiliasts would view the Millennial world. It is not a materialism of excess and luxury, but rather a materialism of discipline and order.

His view concerning the Kingdom of God, or Chiliasm, does not reflect on his belief about God. It was his belief that the NT God is very different from the OT God that renders his belief in the Millennium very different from typical Chiliasts. The Jews would have their Kingdom, and Christians would have an entirely different spiritual Kingdom. In other words, Chiliasm does not, of necessity, produce belief in the kind of Millennium Marcion believed in.

Most Chiliasts do not, like Marcion, believe in the superiority of the Jewish inheritance of God's Kingdom--perhaps its prominence, but not its superiority. Modern Premillennialists do not separate Jews and Christians in the Kingdom of God, except in the way all nations are divided today. They are not separated as Marcion believes as if they have 2 separate gods! Dispensationalists merely claim that God's promise to each nation, including the Jewish nation, must have their own fulfillment in a single Kingdom of God.

Apollinaris may have been more of an actual Christian than unbeliever Cerinthus or Gnostic Marcion. But his belief that Christ was not fully human was clearly in error. It does not in any way reflect on his Chiliastic eschatology.

Christ's glorious reign according to early Chiliasts and modern Amils is not on this current corrupt earth, as you and the ancient heretics believe[d], where you have more of the same-old same-old. It is a newly perfected earth free of all the bondage of corruption (as the Bible teaches).

No. In the Kingdom of God, the glorious Church, together with Christ, will rule over a still-infected world so that peace reigns throughout the thousand years, and Christian nations rise and stand fast. This is not the world you describe that Premils believe in, with sickness, misery, and vile behaviors. The glorious Church does not rule over a perfect world, but only over a world that requires judgment.

The "perfection" existing at that time will be in Christ himself, and in his glorious Church who will by then have received immortality. The earth, even though still infected with sin, will be tame compared to this present age of unbridled sin.

Even in the present age, however, there are times of relative tranquility and success with God's Kingdom. The new age will be much better.

The Gospel is preached to all creation because the earth will ultimately be liberated from all of its problems. But it must begin with the Millennial Age, with the restoration of godly nations, in preparation for the new creation.

Associating this belief falsely as materialistic excess and sinful luxury is not conducive to good communications on this subject since it is "political" in nature, and certainly not true. At best, it is jaded.

What is even worse is your false association of either Chiliasm or Modern Premillennialism with ancient heretics, whose beliefs were influenced by non-Christian, heretical ideas that did not exist in either the Chiliasts or in Modern Dispensationalists/ Premillennialists.

I hasten to say that not all of Modern Premillennialism is Dispensational. I am not Dispensational.

 

[WPM]

Yes I do know that. But I wished to point out that eschatology cannot alone be considered the criteria by which orthodoxy can be determined. You wish to make a single, reasonable element in eschatology a heresy by surrounding it with peripheral ideas that you wish to compare to heretics. You wish to make belief in a literal Millennium corrupt because some of those who did so had some corrupt ideas that went along with it.

Their heretical beliefs not only made them heretics, but they also tainted their eschatology, which non-heretical Chiliasts did not adhere to. Not even modern Dispensationalists hold to those corrupted eschatological beliefs. In other words, the heretics and the Chiliasts may have had Premillennial beliefs in common, but that does not mean their Premillennial beliefs were the same.

The point I'm making is that not only is it reasonable to believe in a literal Millennium, but no matter how much the peripheral ideas around that belief may seem similar to heretics, the important thing was whether they were really orthodox in doctrine, eg in their Christology or in their beliefs about God. When that is understood, we may more easily see that the comparison of these peripheral ideas are "political" in nature, intended to distort and defame beliefs that were not really like the things heretics believed at all.

First, Premillennialism is not and never was viewed as heretical, except at times of extreme political bias. The ecumenical councils apparently did not condemn it, contrary to what we hear.

Cerinthus, Marcion, and Apollinaris may have had Chiliast notions, but their beliefs in other areas were what made them heretical--not their eschatology! Associating other, more orthodox Chiliasts with them is then just a political maneuver by Amils, who wished to distance themselves from both Chiliasm and the heretical views they thought accompanied it.

Second, Cerinthus' belief that Christ was strictly human bears no relation to his belief in Chiliasm. We don't have direct info from Cerinthus, but we have noted that his beliefs about the Millennium did appear to be worldly. And Chiliasm, in itself, does not necessarily equate to that. The idea of a continuing material world past the 2nd Coming does not necessarily reflect widespread ungodliness and unrestrained moral filth.

Marcion separated the old and new testaments as being the product of 2 separate gods! Marcion had a kind of Gnostic spiritualism transcending the material world. This is not how typical Chiliasts would view the Millennial world. It is not a materialism of excess and luxury, but rather a materialism of discipline and order.

His view concerning the Kingdom of God, or Chiliasm, does not reflect on his belief about God. It was his belief that the NT God is very different from the OT God that renders his belief in the Millennium very different from typical Chiliasts. The Jews would have their Kingdom, and Christians would have an entirely different spiritual Kingdom. In other words, Chiliasm does not, of necessity, produce belief in the kind of Millennium Marcion believed in.

Most Chiliasts do not, like Marcion, believe in the superiority of the Jewish inheritance of God's Kingdom--perhaps its prominence, but not its superiority. Modern Premillennialists do not separate Jews and Christians in the Kingdom of God, except in the way all nations are divided today. They are not separated as Marcion believes as if they have 2 separate gods! Dispensationalists merely claim that God's promise to each nation, including the Jewish nation, must have their own fulfillment in a single Kingdom of God.

Apollinaris may have been more of an actual Christian than unbeliever Cerinthus or Gnostic Marcion. But his belief that Christ was not fully human was clearly in error. It does not in any way reflect on his Chiliastic eschatology.



No. In the Kingdom of God, the glorious Church, together with Christ, will rule over a still-infected world so that peace reigns throughout the thousand years, and Christian nations rise and stand fast. This is not the world you describe that Premils believe in, with sickness, misery, and vile behaviors. The glorious Church does not rule over a perfect world, but only over a world that requires judgment.

The "perfection" existing at that time will be in Christ himself, and in his glorious Church who will by then have received immortality. The earth, even though still infected with sin, will be tame compared to this present age of unbridled sin.

Even in the present age, however, there are times of relative tranquility and success with God's Kingdom. The new age will be much better.

The Gospel is preached to all creation because the earth will ultimately be liberated from all of its problems. But it must begin with the Millennial Age, with the restoration of godly nations, in preparation for the new creation.

Associating this belief falsely as materialistic excess and sinful luxury is not conducive to good communications on this subject since it is "political" in nature, and certainly not true. At best, it is jaded.

What is even worse is your false association of either Chiliasm or Modern Premillennialism with ancient heretics, whose beliefs were influenced by non-Christian, heretical ideas that did not exist in either the Chiliasts or in Modern Dispensationalists/ Premillennialists.

I hasten to say that not all of Modern Premillennialism is Dispensational. I am not Dispensational.

I have never claimed that Premillennialism is heretical. I've only shown how the roots of modern-day Premillennialism emanate from the ancient heretical Premillennialists. Modern-day orthodox Premillennialism cannot be found in the inspired text or in history up until AD240. This is all very damning for your beliefs. Think about this: the founders and advocates of all the core beliefs of Premil belong amongst the heretics.

The Church creeds were statements of orthodox belief and affirmations of biblical truth that the early Church made and which early Christians were expected to give their ascent to. While there was a surprising likeness to these early creeds over the years, they gradually evolved to give clarity to the Christian Church generally, and to respond to certain perceived nefarious attacks upon Christian orthodoxy.

The purpose of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in 381 AD was primarily to secure the triumph of the Nicene faith over Arianism and its offshoots. This error included the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The creed also cut across the spread of the heretic Apollinaris’ Chiliasm.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.​

There is a deliberate and notable addition attached here to the previous Ecumenical Nicene Creed agreed in 325 AD. Where it formerly said: “he shall come to judge the quick and the dead,” this creed declared “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.” This is no insignificant add-on. This is no irrelevant supplement. It seems to be deliberately and intentionally included in order to tighten up the Church’s view of the age to come. By this stage in Church history, Chiliasm was markedly on the back foot. The Church was overwhelmingly Amillennial. They also had the heretic Apollinarius in their sights at this conference (the most notable Chiliast of his day), because of his spurious views on several biblical matters.

Why add this phrase to the Creed? There is no other reason to make such an amendment other than to cut across Chiliasm. This change brought water-tight clarification to the prevailing thought in the Church of that day on the subject of eschatology. While there is no direct attack on ancient Chiliasm, this seems like a subtle strategic tweak by these Church leaders to thwart the influence and teaching of Apollinarius, who advocated many of the classic Premil views we know today, and who died a year after this communique.

Notice Christ’s kingdom is viewed here as eternal, not as a temporal reign of 1000 years. The Creed challenges Chiliasm/Pemillennialiasm. It succinctly states: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end,” not to reign on earth for a thousand years and then judge.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have never claimed that Premillennialism is heretical.

On the contrary, that's exactly what you do, or at the very least, imply.

I've only shown how the roots of modern-day Premillennialism emanate from the ancient heretical Premillennialists.

Modern-day orthodox Premillennialism cannot be found in the inspired text or in history up until AD240.

That's insensible. If it is "modern-day" Premillennialism, then it will only be found in *modern* history!

This is all very damning for your beliefs. Think about this: the founders and advocates of all the core beliefs of Premil belong amongst the heretics.

There you go again!

There is a deliberate and notable addition attached here to the previous Ecumenical Nicene Creed agreed in 325 AD. Where it formerly said: “he shall come to judge the quick and the dead,” this creed declared “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.” This is no insignificant add-on. This is no irrelevant supplement. It seems to be deliberately and intentionally included in order to tighten up the Church’s view of the age to come. By this stage in Church history, Chiliasm was markedly on the back foot. The Church was overwhelmingly Amillennial. They also had the heretic Apollinarius in their sights at this conference (the most notable Chiliast of his day), because of his spurious views on several biblical matters.

Why add this phrase to the Creed? There is no other reason to make such an amendment other than to cut across Chiliasm. This change brought water-tight clarification to the prevailing thought in the Church of that day on the subject of eschatology. While there is no direct attack on ancient Chiliasm, this seems like a subtle strategic tweak by these Church leaders to thwart the influence and teaching of Apollinarius, who advocated many of the classic Premil views we know today, and who died a year after this communique.

Notice Christ’s kingdom is viewed here as eternal, not as a temporal reign of 1000 years. The Creed challenges Chiliasm/Pemillennialiasm. It succinctly states: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end,” not to reign on earth for a thousand years and then judge.

I answered that above, in post #594.

I said, "Some people have tried to associate Premillennialism with a heresy promulgated by Apollinaris, and asserted that the Creed was changed to condemn Chiliasm. Apparently, that was not true. Opposition to Millennial thought has occurred time and again, but the early councils did not, apparently, condemn it. A great article on this is HERE."

 

[WPM]

On the contrary, that's exactly what you do, or at the very least, imply.



That's insensible. If it is "modern-day" Premillennialism, then it will only be found in *modern* history!



There you go again!



I answered that above, in post #594.

I said, "Some people have tried to associate Premillennialism with a heresy promulgated by Apollinaris, and asserted that the Creed was changed to condemn Chiliasm. Apparently, that was not true. Opposition to Millennial thought has occurred time and again, but the early councils did not, apparently, condemn it. A great article on this is HERE."

Again, you depend on the research of others. You cannot study the subject for yourself and therefore talk with any confidence. This explains why your arguments are so contradictory. The arguments on that link re AD 381 are unconvincing.

Gumerlock refers to this argument highlighting the 1st Synod of Antioch, Syria, in the Summer of 341AD and especially to the use of some passing references to the reality and character of Christ at the second coming, especially the statements “and remaineth King and God unto all ages” (2nd Confession) and “and remaineth for ever” (3rd Confession) to try and nullify the force of the climactic description of the state to come at the second coming in Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed 2nd Council of Constantinople, in AD 381.

But these earlier additions were more than adequate refutations of any false teaching from Marcellus and Apollinarius about distinctions in the Godhead not being eternal, but only temporal. The AD 381. phraseology, on the other hand, wades into the eschatological arena and allude to the nature of the age to come. Evidence of this is seen in the actual wording: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end,”

This seems to be more of a response to Apollinarius’ Chiliasm, which added a temporal age full of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, after the coming of the Lord, and before the eternal state. This was widely opposed by Christendom by this time.

Gumerlock’s later comments testify to the result of the Church’s suppression of Chiliasm. He concedes: “by the late fourth-century Chiliasm was generally looked upon with disfavor in the East. However, the fact that many Eastern church fathers considered belief in a literal millennium erroneous, is one thing. Saying that the ecumenical Council of Constantinople condemned chiliasm is another … As the patristic era came to a close, chiliasm fell more and more into disrepute. Most believed that its origins were suspect—that belief in a literal millennium had its derivation in Jewish apocryphal writings, the writings of the Gnostic Cerinthus, or the unlearned Church father, Papias”(Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople? Pp. 12).

This Council simply reinforced the common thought existing within the Church of that day that the eternal state will arrive at the appearing of Christ. The all-consummating language inserted obviously cut across ancient Chiliasm and refuted the position of modern-day Premillennialism. It states: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, you depend on the research of others. You cannot study the subject for yourself and therefore talk with any confidence. This explains why your arguments are so contradictory. The arguments on that link re AD 381 are unconvincing.

Gumerlock refers to this argument highlighting the 1st Synod of Antioch, Syria, in the Summer of 341AD and especially to the use of some passing references to the reality and character of Christ at the second coming, especially the statements “and remaineth King and God unto all ages” (2nd Confession) and “and remaineth for ever” (3rd Confession) to try and nullify the force of the climactic description of the state to come at the second coming in Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed 2nd Council of Constantinople, in AD 381.

But these earlier additions were more than adequate refutations of any false teaching from Marcellus and Apollinarius about distinctions in the Godhead not being eternal, but only temporal. The AD 381. phraseology, on the other hand, wades into the eschatological arena and allude to the nature of the age to come. Evidence of this is seen in the actual wording: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end,”

This seems to be more of a response to Apollinarius’ Chiliasm, which added a temporal age full of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, after the coming of the Lord, and before the eternal state. This was widely opposed by Christendom by this time.

Gumerlock’s later comments testify to the result of the Church’s suppression of Chiliasm. He concedes: “by the late fourth-century Chiliasm was generally looked upon with disfavor in the East. However, the fact that many Eastern church fathers considered belief in a literal millennium erroneous, is one thing. Saying that the ecumenical Council of Constantinople condemned chiliasm is another … As the patristic era came to a close, chiliasm fell more and more into disrepute. Most believed that its origins were suspect—that belief in a literal millennium had its derivation in Jewish apocryphal writings, the writings of the Gnostic Cerinthus, or the unlearned Church father, Papias”(Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople? Pp. 12).

This Council simply reinforced the common thought existing within the Church of that day that the eternal state will arrive at the appearing of Christ. The all-consummating language inserted obviously cut across ancient Chiliasm and refuted the position of modern-day Premillennialism. It states: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.”

It would've been easy to just condemn Chiliasm, if that's what the Council wished to do. It didn't. The purpose was to condemn Apollinaris and to re-define orthodoxy against the persistence of Arian language and belief.

Arianism denied the full Deity of Christ. Apollinaris denied the full Humanity of Christ. Addition of the words "whose kingdom shall have no end" may infer that some at the Council, possibly Apollinarian, may have wished to limit Christ's humanity and have it absorbed back into eternal Deity, rendering Christ's Kingdom less than eternal.

It may, in other words, be a statement of the eternity of Christ's humanity. I don't believe that Chiliasm was at issue, unless there is real evidence to that effect?

Premil and Amil both believe that Christ's 2nd Coming begins the eternal state of God's Kingdom. Both believe that Christ's humanity inherits an eternal Kingdom. For Premils, the difference is that the earth continues to be temporal for another 1000 years before it is rendered eternal.

But the eternal Kingdom itself begins at the beginning of the Millennium with the reign of the immortal Church. That's where the eternal Kingdom actually begins, even though the temporal earth continues to be subject to decay for another thousand years.

What renders the Millennial earth "eternal" for Premillennialists is the fact that the immortal Church begins its reign at that time, regardless of the temporal conditions that persist on the earth. The fact Satan is subject during that period of time indicates that even though the earth remains temporal for a time, the reign of the immortal Church has already begun on the earth with the imprisonment of Satan, his brief release notwithstanding.

 

[Keraz]

It would save a lot of angst if people here read what Jesus said about the early Church exponents on eschatology and all the so called experts on Bible Prophecy up until now.
Jesus said: .... I thank you Father: Lord of heaven and earth, for hiding these things from the wise and learned and revealing them to the uneducated. Matthew 11:25
these things....the context refers to the future Day of Judgment, yet to happen.

That this is the case, is seen by how little consensus there is between those with status and qualifications who try to understand the prophesies.
As evidenced here. But we are told that in the last days, some people will understand, Daniel 12:10

How to be able to understand is told to us in Isaiah 29:9-12 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4, where those who choose to believe false theories and doctrines, will be locked into them and made incapable of understanding, so the way to the truth is first to renounce all theories and mans interpretations of scripture.
I never call myself any of the various lines of thought and belief, I am simply a Bible believer who has intensively studied the Prophetic Word and I conclude that the world is facing imminent punishment and all the end times events will literally take place just as Written. [the few metaphors and allegories are simply explained, usually by common sense]

We should know that the Lord will, once again: reset our civilization, this time by fire. Do you?

 

[WPM]

Premil and Amil both believe that Christ's 2nd Coming begins the eternal state of God's Kingdom. Both believe that Christ's humanity inherits an eternal Kingdom. For Premils, the difference is that the earth continues to be temporal for another 1000 years before it is rendered eternal.

But the eternal Kingdom itself begins at the beginning of the Millennium with the reign of the immortal Church. That's where the eternal Kingdom actually begins, even though the temporal earth continues to be subject to decay for another thousand years.

What renders the Millennial earth "eternal" for Premillennialists is the fact that the immortal Church begins its reign at that time, regardless of the temporal conditions that persist on the earth. The fact Satan is subject during that period of time indicates that even though the earth remains temporal for a time, the reign of the immortal Church has already begun on the earth with the imprisonment of Satan, his brief release notwithstanding.

This is simply not true, and you know it. Why do you say such things when you know they are not true? You might as well say the eternal state has arrived now. That is how logical and plausible your reasoning is. After all, the Church is reigning now. In reality, Premils promote a temporal state and a temporal kingdom, which is unknown to Scripture, in-between time and eternity.

When your argument has been refuted on this matter in the past, you have employed this tactic before. It got to the stage where you amended every Premil norm in a desperate attempt to claim the early Chiliasts and somehow give your discredited position credence. What you fail to see is: in doing so, you actually are coming closer and closer to Amil, which is a notable and major positive.

Whatever way you package it up, the eternal state arrives at the end of the millennium. Objective commentators on all sides would roundly agree with that. So, you're fighting with your own experts here, not just me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Gumerlock refers to this argument highlighting the 1st Synod of Antioch, Syria, in the Summer of 341AD and especially to the use of some passing references to the reality and character of Christ at the second coming, especially the statements “and remaineth King and God unto all ages” (2nd Confession) and “and remaineth for ever” (3rd Confession) to try and nullify the force of the climactic description of the state to come at the second coming in Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed 2nd Council of Constantinople, in AD 381.

But these earlier additions were more than adequate refutations of any false teaching from Marcellus and Apollinarius about distinctions in the Godhead not being eternal, but only temporal. The AD 381. phraseology, on the other hand, wades into the eschatological arena and allude to the nature of the age to come. Evidence of this is seen in the actual wording: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end,”

This seems to be more of a response to Apollinarius’ Chiliasm, which added a temporal age full of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, after the coming of the Lord, and before the eternal state.

No, it doesn't "seem" to be that at all, as the link indicated and as I indicated. The reference seems to be a negation of the idea that Christ being a man cannot still have an eternal Kingdom. That is, he is not limited to a temporal Kingdom simply because he became a man. As God and as man he will have an eternal Kingdom.

If this had a thing to do with Chiliasm, the text would have said so. It didn't.

The article points out that Apollinaris' eschatology is not the focus of the Council's declarations, but with respect to this phrase, "whose kingdom shall have no end," it appears to be Marcellus' language that the phrase is directed at.

On the subject of the Trinity, Marcellus taught that the distinctions in the Godhead--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--were not eternal, but only temporal. In a recent study of Marcellus, Joseph Lienhard described the standard understanding of Marcellus’s Trinitarianism: Most standard summaries of Marcellus’s theology follow the same pattern. God is a Monad. For the purpose of creation He expands into a Dyad, and is Father and Logos. At a particular moment in history the Logos became incarnate in Mary the Virgin and thereby also became “Son.” On Easter night Christ sent the Spirit, and God was now a Triad. At the end of time Christ will hand over the Kingdom to the Father, and God will be all in all, once again a Monad. In other words, the Monad that expands by stages into a Triad and then contracts again into a Monad is taken to be the defining element of Marcellus’s theology.

Please read in particular pages 9-11 on the phrase in question. LINK

 

[WPM]

No, it doesn't "seem" to be that at all, as the link indicated and as I indicated. The reference seems to be a negation of the idea that Christ being a man still will have an eternal Kingdom. That is, he is not limited to a temporal Kingdom simply because he became a man. As God and as man he will have an eternal Kingdom.

If this had a thing to do with Chiliasm, the text would have said so. It didn't.

The article points out that Apollinaris' eschatology is not the focus of the Council's declarations, but with respect to this phrase, "whose kingdom shall have no end," it appears to be Marcellus' language that the phrase is directed at.

On the subject of the Trinity, Marcellus taught that the distinctions in the Godhead--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--were not eternal, but only temporal. In a recent study of Marcellus, Joseph Lienhard described the standard understanding of Marcellus’s Trinitarianism: Most standard summaries of Marcellus’s theology follow the same pattern. God is a Monad. For the purpose of creation He expands into a Dyad, and is Father and Logos. At a particular moment in history the Logos became incarnate in Mary the Virgin and thereby also became “Son.” On Easter night Christ sent the Spirit, and God was now a Triad. At the end of time Christ will hand over the Kingdom to the Father, and God will be all in all, once again a Monad. In other words, the Monad that expands by stages into a Triad and then contracts again into a Monad is taken to be the defining element of Marcellus’s theology.

Please read in particular pages 9-11 on the phrase in question. LINK

Once again, your rebuttal is not based on ancient quotes, but Gumerlock's opinion. You just repeat what others tell you. That is all you have. That is ridiculous. This is the source of your argument. This is how you navigate this subject. If you would take the time to research the ECFs for yourself instead of always taking other people’s speculations as facts, we might take your reasoning more serious. But no. That would take too much time and discipline.

This Council simply reinforced the common thought existing within the Church of that day that the eternal state will arrive at the appearing of Christ. The all-consummating language inserted obviously cut across ancient Chiliasm and refuted the position of modern-day Premillennialism. It states: “he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.”

While there is no explanation given for the two insertion of these clauses in the communique by the 2nd Council of Constantinople, we do know that Apollinarius and his error was one of the main targets of this Council. This Council was solidly Amil. The implications and effects upon ancient Chiliasm after this change were devastating. The result of it spelt the death knell for the doctrine. It was downhill from here on. This is strong circumstantial evidence.

After this, Chiliasm died a slow death!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't waste my time with outside Premil links...

Why am I not surprised?

You advocate a zero corroborative theory. Your mistaken opinion of Revelation 20 enjoys no biblical support elsewhere.

The Millennium is *not* a "theory." You are way off track! We are told, in effect, *not* to ignore that words of the book of Revelation, including ch. 20.

Your response is a big copout. You apparently read only what you want to see.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Once again, your rebuttal is not based on ancient quotes, but Gumerlock's opinion.

What a pathetic, weak rebuttal! You don't address the pages I referenced, and in order to avoid that information you waste time claiming it's irrelevant or something to be dismissed. How convenient! You did the same thing with IRENAEUS' reference to the "binding of Satan" in the "latter days" at the defeat of "Antichrist!"

 

[WPM]

What a pathetic, weak rebuttal! You don't address the pages I referenced, and in order to avoid that information you waste time claiming it's irrelevant or something to be dismissed. How convenient! You did the same think with IRENAEUS' reference to the "binding of Satan" in the "latter days" in the defeat of "Antichrist!"

As is usual with you, the opposite is the truth! I actually called out how you were twisting Irenaeus' position to fit your doctrine. You do this with history and with Scripture. Nothing is safe with your inconsistent prejudiced ad-hoc hermeneutics. Anything goes! You have no settled and safe rules of interpretation. Whatever tactic is required in any given text is used to make it fit Premil. This is grievous to observe.

You arbitrarily deem who antichrist is and when the lasts days are in Irenaeus' mind without ever doing any historic research in order to make it agree with your faulty position. This is common amongst Premil quasi -historians. They present fake news to support their bias.

The truth is, Irenaeus agreed with Amils (ancient and modern): the last days ran from the First the Second Advents and antichrist was an ongoing reality during this period.

The last days were ongoing since the First Advent

Evidence of this can be found throughout his writings. For example: Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 22 confirms:

1. Now in the last days, when the fullness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands.

Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 33:

4. He did in these last days exhibit the similitude; [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production [of His hands] into His own nature, as I have shown in the immediately preceding book.

Antichrist was ongoing since the First Advent

Irenaeus applies antichrist broadly (like Amils) to that spirit operating amongst all evil. In particular, he applies it to Marcion in his writings. Antichrist was an ongoing reality to Irenaeus. He applies his influence to Marcion back in his day.

5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, "O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? " And again does He say to them: "These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations." Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again." The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name," - foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist."

6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another; for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do, ] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gath ered together all things in Himself. But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As is usual with you, the opposite is the truth! I actually called out how you were twisting Irenaeus' position to fit your doctrine.

No, you completely failed to respond to the fact that "latter days" is applied to THE "Antichrist" at which time "Satan is bound" in reference to the "dragon, that old serpent." This is a reference, clearly, to Rev 19-20! Okay, you respond to it by claiming what is there is being "twisted," when in reality you are the one twisting it!

The truth is, Irenaeus agreed with Amils (ancient and modern): the lasts ran from the First the Second Advents and antichrist was an ongoing reality during this period.

This is *not* agreement with Amils! lol!
Rather, this is agreement with Scripture, which both Premil and Amil agree with! We all believe we have been in the "last days" with respect to the fact Christ has already paid for our atonement, and while the Gospel is still being preached, it is heralding the arrival of progressive judgment on earth until its climax at the 2nd Coming.

But IRENAEUS is talking about the "latter days" with respect to the defeat of Antichrist, the "lion." The use of phrases like "last days" and "latter days" must be taken in context to make proper sense. And IRENAEUS is here speaking of the "latter days" in the context of Antichrist's defeat, along with the simultaneous binding of Satan.

None of this in any way mitigates your problem, which is that IRENAEUS is talking not about the defeat of many preliminary Antichrists, but specifically about the defeat of THE Antichrist. He uses the language of the "latter days" in context of the defeat of Antichrist, the "lion," and also in the context of the binding of the "dragon, the old serpent." IRENAEUS obviously views this as taking place at the start of the Millennium, since this is the very portion of Scripture from which he derives his Chiliastic views!

Antichrist was ongoing since the First Advent

What a colossal diversion! Everybody knows that prior to the coming of THE Antichrist there are many preliminary Antichrists! This doesn't in the least prove that IRENAEUS was talking about *preliminary Antichrists,* nor about the "last days" in the context of 1 John. He was plainly speaking of the "latter days," or years, when THE Antichrist will be defeated and the "dragon, or old serpent" is bound! Okay, you addressed IRENAEUS, but I find it an extremely weak, and perhaps even invalid, argument for the reasons I gave.

 

[jeffweeder]

As is usual with you, the opposite is the truth! I actually called out how you were twisting Irenaeus' position to fit your doctrine. You do this with history and with Scripture. Nothing is safe with your inconsistent prejudiced ad-hoc hermeneutics. Anything goes! You have no settled and safe rules of interpretation. Whatever tactic is required in any given text is used to make it fit Premil. This is grievous to observe.

You arbitrarily deem who antichrist is and when the lasts days are in Irenaeus' mind without ever doing any historic research in order to make it agree with your faulty position. This is common amongst Premil quasi -historians. They present fake news to support their bias.

The truth is, Irenaeus agreed with Amils (ancient and modern): the lasts ran from the First the Second Advents and antichrist was an ongoing reality during this period.

The last days were ongoing since the First Advent

Evidence of this can be found throughout his writings. For example: Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 22 confirms:

1. Now in the last days, when the fullness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands.

Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 33:

4. He did in these last days exhibit the similitude; [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production [of His hands] into His own nature, as I have shown in the immediately preceding book.

Antichrist was ongoing since the First Advent

Irenaeus applies antichrist broadly (like Amils) to that spirit operating amongst all evil. In particular, he applies it to Marcion in his writings. Antichrist was an ongoing reality to Irenaeus. He applies his influence to Marcion back in his day.

5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, "O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? " And again does He say to them: "These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations." Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again." The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name," - foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist."

6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another; for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do, ] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gath ered together all things in Himself. But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.

Bravo.

Clearly Amill.