The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

RT has a definition, and is not meant to be an insult. The rejection of ethnic Israel's restoration in the Millennium is RT.

Yes, it is meant to be an insult! Why can you not tell the truth?

That is you own invention. Stop talking around the question.

So, who do you think the Amils think that they have replaced? Is it ethnic Israel or is it spiritual Israel?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Oh, so I am now "spiritually blind"? It's clear: when you cannot attack the message, you attack the messenger.

You're blind because you say I'm "bitter," and I'm not. It is in fact my MO to defend myself against false claims about me, yes.

For years, Premils have boasted that they are the true literalists. They have, in turn, criticized Amils, and condemned them for spiritualizing. Ironically, this criticism has arisen due to the figurative approach Amils have to the most symbolic book in the Bible - Revelation.

Not only do Premils take literal Rev 20, but we are warned not to tamper with the words in that book! If the book refers to things that are obviously symbolic, it is okay to refer to them as symbolic. But if a term like "one thousand years" is mentioned without obvious reference to symbolism, then we must be careful to accept the literal meaning. It is playing with fire to do otherwise.

Sometimes it's difficult to know if a term like "one thousand years" is literal or symbolic. So you rightly look elsewhere to see if there is a basis in the Prophets for belief in a Messianic, Kingdom Age. Premils believe there is.

 

[WPM]

Yes, as I said, we define "universal" differently. It is either the annihilation of the planet, which the Bible says will not happen, or it is devastating judgments that take place across the earth without destroying the whole planet.

You are totally winging it again. As is your pattern, you totally avoid the Scriptures that forbid your beliefs. You have to.

So, what is the Greek word for earth that describes the whole globe?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Op Note

Some of the challenges the early writers faced were:

(1) They were not blessed with the completed canon of Scripture as we are today. They did not have the written New Testament.
(2) While were quickly growing, the New Testament Church was still an infant, immature and developing organism. Doctrine was still evolving.
(3) Christians were facing many internal and external pressures as they attempted to establish themselves in a hostile world that counted them a menace. The Church was being opposed on all sides. They were being civilly resisted by the Roman authorities who counted them a threat to their power and influence. They were being defied by the scattered Jews who were hostile to Christ and the Christian message. They were being attacked by “the Christian heretics” who were deliberately distorting the truth and bringing confusion to the Christian camp.

One of the most explosive historic facts that many overlook is that there is only one known Chiliast advocate to be found in the 3 key centers of Christianity in the first 400 years after the cross – Israel, Syria and Egypt. That was Nepos (who ministered in the Egyptian church around AD 230-250). Think about this: there is no known spokesman of Millennialism in Israel, Syria and Egypt for 200 years after Calvary until Nepos. However, his influence was quickly and strongly suppressed when it became known. This is significant! There is no record of that doctrine ever arising again amongst the early fathers in Egypt. It seemed to fizzle out after that.

We should remind ourselves, the heart of Christianity started off in Israel, but through persecution it soon moved to both Syria and Egypt. With this, the epicenter of power and influence within Christendom shifted from Jerusalem (in Israel), to both Antioch (in Syria) and Alexandria (in Egypt). It was from there that the faith spread throughout the world. Greece was another country that quickly became a notable focus of the New Testament as the Gospel quickly spread throughout that area. This can be seen by where most of the New Testament Epistles were addressed to. Notably, there is no sign of Chiliasm in what is now modern-day Greece, but rather in occupied Asia Minor, which covers modern-day Turkey.

When we search for Chiliast teaching between AD 30-430 (which is the gamut of this research), we cannot find one single shred of teaching on a future millennial kingdom from any of the early Church fathers based in Israel, Syria, Egypt and modern Greece. Think about this: there was only one teacher of Chiliasm in the very heartland of early Christianity during it transformative days. That is significant, and matters, in the light of many of the outlandish claims we hear from many modern-day partisan-historians.

The seat of power and influence within the Faith gradually moved over the early centuries from Antioch (in Syria) and Alexandria (in Egypt) to Rome (in Italy). Notably: the Italian church centered in Rome only possessed 2 known Chiliast proponents in the first 400 years after the cross – Hippolytus (Rome, Italy, AD 170–236) and Gaudentius (Brescia, Italy, AD 387-410).

So, we are looking here at a combined total of 3 known Chiliasts among the Patristic writers in the whole of Israel (including the church in Jerusalem), Greece, Syria (including the church in Antioch), Egypt (including the church in Alexandrian) and Italy (including the Roman church) during the first 400 years after Calvary, none of which, notably, held the Premillennial scheme that we have today. This totally destroys the widespread false Premillennial propaganda that the early Church was overwhelmingly Premillennial. The opposite was actually the case.

The Israeli writers/writings came in the form of The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (AD 65-80), The Grandsons of Jude (1st century), The Ascension of Isaiah (late 1st century to early 2nd century), The Apocalypse of Peter (written between the years AD 132-135), 5 Ezra (2nd century), The Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate (AD 150-255), Hegesippus (flourished between AD 150 and 180), Eusebius (263-339), Epiphanius of Salamis (AD 310-403) and Cyril (AD 386).

In Syria we had Thaddeus (early 1st Century), Ignatius (AD 98-117), The Odes of Solomon (Middle of the 2nd century), Tatian (AD 170) Theophilus (His death probably occurred between AD 183-185), The Acts of Thomas (AD 200-225), Didascalia Apostolorum (AD 200-250), Lucian (AD 240-312), Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (Before AD 325) Synod of Antioch (AD 325), Aphrahat (AD 270–345), 1st Synod of Antioch (Summer AD 341), Ephraem (AD 306-373), 2nd Synod of Antioch (Summer AD 342), The Council of Antioch (AD 344) and Eusebius of Emesa (AD 300–360).

In Egypt there was Barnabas (Written in AD 130-131), The Teachings of Silvanus (AD 150), Clement (AD 150 - 215), Origen (AD 185-254), Dionysius (AD 248 - November 17, AD 265), Coracion (AD 230-280), Alexander (Bishop from AD 313, died AD 326 or AD 328), Pachomius (AD 292-348), Antony (AD 251–356), Serapion (AD 330 to 360), The Council of Sirmium (11th June AD 351), Athanasius (AD 296 - 373) and Didymus the Blind (AD 313–398). Abba Moses (AD 330-405). Finally, we have Nepos (AD 230-250) the only Egyptian father that taught Chiliasm in Egypt.

In Greece there was Mathetes (AD 90), Aristides (AD 120-130), Polycrates (AD 130-196), Athenagoras (wrote AD 177), Marcellus Ancyra in Galatia, (AD 285-374), The Council of Seleucia (AD 359) and Epiphanes (AD 315-403).

In Italy we saw The Shepherd of Hermas (written in AD 88-99), Clement (Died around AD 99), 2 Clement (Early 2nd century), Old Roman Symbol (or Old Roman Creed) (AD 200), Novatian (AD 200–258), Minucius Felix (Flourished AD 200-240; died AD 250), Caius (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), The Apostles’ Creed (AD 390), Jerome (AD 331-420), Ambrose (AD 339 – 4 April AD 397), Firmicus Maternus (AD 346), The Council of Ariminum (July AD 359), Tyrannius Rufinus (AD 340/345-410), Philastrius (also Philaster or Filaster) (Died before AD 397), Maximus (DOB unknown – death between AD 408 and 423), Paulinus (AD 354 – June 22 AD 431). Finally, we Hippolytus (AD 170–236) and Gaudentius (Bishop from about AD 387 until his death AD 410) that taught Chilaism in Egypt.

The Chiliast view on the other hand originated and prospered in Asia Minor and Africa. It later moved to Europe.

Here are the areas of origin or influence the Chiliast and Premillennialist writers operated in:

Those who operated in, or came from, Asia Minor were Papias (AD 130-140), Justin Martyr (Asia Minor - AD 100-166), Irenaeus, (raised in Asia Minor, ministered in Gaul France - AD 150), Aviricius Marcellus (Hieropolis, Lesser Phrygia, Asia Minor - flourished AD 163), Methodius (Olympus, Asia Minor - died AD 311).

Those who taught advocated Chiliasm and Premillennialism in, or originated from, wider Africa (outside of Egypt) over the 1st 400 years after the crucifixion were Tertullian (Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia - AD 145-260), Commodianus (Africa - wrote between AD 251 and 258), Lactantius (Africa - AD 250-317), Quintus Julius Hilarianus (Africa - written AD 397).

Those who advocated Chiliasm and Premillennialism in the rest of Europe (outside of Italy) for 400 years after Calvary were Victorinus (Pettau, Hungary – AD 270), and Sulpicius Severus (Gaul now France - AD 360-425).

This gives us a broad sense of the eschatological landscape. It also gives us a true perspective of the nature, scale and development of theology of the early Church.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, most all of the eschatology in the 1st few centuries of Christianity was dominated by Chiliasm, according to a number of Christian scholars. You identify some Chiliasts as non-Chiliasts. And you call Chiliasts themselves "Amils." This is highly questionable and perhaps even laughable.

Whatever centers of Christianity you look for to identify what teaching was prevalent, you are arguing from silence. Speculative matters in the subject of Eschatology is viewed as of peripheral importance next to the doctrine of Salvation itself.

Christians likely avoided excessive speculation about the future, which is what Jesus seemed to suggest in Acts 1.7. The evidence we do have favors the dominance of Chiliasm in the 1st few centuries.

 

[WPM]

Not only do Premils take literal Rev 20, but we are warned not to tamper with the words in that book! If the book refers to things that are obviously symbolic, it is okay to refer to them as symbolic. But if a term like "one thousand years" is mentioned without obvious reference to symbolism, then we must be careful to accept the literal meaning. It is playing with fire to do otherwise.

If you are adamant in interpreting a thousand years hyper-literally, how long is the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes?

Sometimes it's difficult to know if a term like "one thousand years" is literal or symbolic. So you rightly look elsewhere to see if there is a basis in the Prophets for belief in a Messianic, Kingdom Age. Premils believe there is.

Hello! We are in the Messianic kingdom age. Premils want to literalize that which is spiritual and spiritualize that which is literal. The kingdom of God that Christ introduced was of a spiritual nature. This absolutely confounded the Pharisees and their misguided earthly carnal concept of the Messianic kingdom.

The Jewish expectation was a literal visible territorial kingdom of which the Messiah – the King – would rule over. They believed He would immediately destroy every enemy that withstood the house of Israel. Their mistaken thinking was guided by a hyper-literalist attitude to Old Testament Messianic prophecies. These Christ confronted and exposed in His teaching. This expectation of a literal visible territorial kingdom was wrong, and revealed the ignorance which controlled the Jews at that time. They had a defective perception of the nature of God’s kingdom and the manner in which it would appear.

The Messianic kingdom is here now. Can I remind you that the Messiah came as king with His kingdom a long time ago? Just because you reject that does not in any way negate it. Your theology causes you to dismiss it. Like the Pharisees, you fail to see the eschatological nature of His First Advent and the kingdom of God. That is the very reason why the Pharisees nailed Him to a tree. When Christ appeared at His first advent, the Jews imagined He would reinstate the now defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation, restoring their ancient borders. The Jewish expectation was a literal visible territorial kingdom of which the Messiah the King would rule over. They believed He would immediately destroy every enemy that withstood the house of Israel and usher in a period of physical and spiritual bliss for Israel.

When someone gets saved they enter into the kingdom of God, which is a spiritual kingdom and incorporates the whole domain over-which the Lord Jesus Christ exercises spiritual control. This kingship refers to the whole realm in which the rule of man becomes the rule of God; it is the area where the law of God and of righteousness are pre-eminent.

 

[WPM]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, most all of the eschatology in the 1st few centuries of Christianity was dominated by Chiliasm, according to a number of Christian scholars. You identify some Chiliasts as non-Chiliasts. And you call Chiliasts themselves "Amils." This is highly questionable and perhaps even laughable.

Whatever centers of Christianity you look for to identify what teaching was prevalent, you are arguing from silence. Speculative matters in the subject of Eschatology is viewed as of peripheral importance next to the doctrine of Salvation itself.

Christians likely avoided excessive speculation about the future, which is what Jesus seemed to suggest in Acts 1.7. The evidence we do have favors the dominance of Chiliasm in the 1st few centuries.

More ignorant partisan boastings by you. And all this coming from one who by his own admission cannot be bothered to research this subject for himself. You depend upon discredited and prejudice historians like Thomas Ice, who have obviously not taken the required time to determine the thrust of the ECFs obscure teaching. Your ignorance of the subject is no better revealed than in your insistence on applying the writings of Irenaeus to Tertullian, despite being corrected otherwise. This is getting tedious. You hide behind random online links that you have found obviously found after a Google search.

You can search all you want for support for modern day Premil amongst the orthodox Chiliasts for 2 full centuries after the cross and you will find nothing. You will only gain support from the heretical camp. All the orthodox writers espoused modern Amil fundamentals re the age to come, of it being the beginning of perfection.

You have spent a lot of time quoting Francis X. Gumerlock and his work: "Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople?", and whilst i do not agree with his findings, he admits: "Now if one places the number of chiliast early church fathers side by side with the number who were amillennial, the result is more or less a draw."

This exposes your nonsense about "the dominance of Chiliasm in the 1st few centuries." Only an ignorant man of the facts would say such.

With the onset of the internet we have been swamped by a multitude of partisan quasi-theologians and quasi-historians throughout the world of all doctrinal persuasions passionately vying to present their message to the masses. Sadly, when you look at much of what is being published it lacks a real sense of objectivity, informed analyze or even honest evaluation. Many writers are simply (and lazily) regurgitating what they have been taught or what they can find to reinforce their personal bias. This is both troubling and wrong.

To talk with authority on any subject requires deep and impartial research. There are no shortcuts. One of the things about many modern-day “experts” is: they conveniently don’t lift the hood [bonnet in the UK] of the car they are selling and examine what is under it. What I mean is: they attribute details to the identity of the vehicle without establishing what type of engine it actually has. This is often done deliberate because to expose the engine would contradict the narrative they are presenting.

The reality is: the early Church fathers had many rare, obscure and non-traditional views on Scripture. There were many unusual and bizarre nuances to their opinions. Many of these ideas were so farfetched that they disappeared with the passage of time. You would seldom know this when you read the ill-researched and defective theses that many of these ill-informed historians are presenting. They come out with sweeping statements

Contrary to popular modern-day thinking, early Chiliasm was more akin to modern-day Amillennialism. For the first 220-230 years after the cross, ancient Chiliasm believed the millennial earth would be devoid of sin and corruption. They saw it as a perfect pristine environment that the righteous would enjoy for 1000 years before the new heavens and new earth. It was not until Victorinus, 240 years after the cross, that any early Chiliast foresaw corruption on the coming earth. No others taught the populating of the millennium with the wicked and the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming. This is in stark contrast to modern-day Premillennialism. Victorinus is the first Chiliast to suggest that a significant amount of mortals would survive the return of Christ and then enter in to populate a future millennium.

What is more, and as a result of their early thinking, and notably, early Chiliasts, never recognized (or mentioned) a final outbreak of evil at the end of their future millennium. This was not some glaring oversight from ill-informed theologians. It was not ignorance. It was deliberate. To do so would have cut across their perfect glorified portrayal of a millennial Sabbath rest of the saints. A future millennium was considered to be ‘paradise restored’. To them, the millennial era was the porchway into the new heaven and new earth. It belonged exclusively to Christ and the redeemed. The wicked were not welcome in it. Satan and his minions were said to be destroyed with all evil before it at the second coming. The devil's influence is finally and eternally removed from the earth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are totally winging it again. As is your pattern, you totally avoid the Scriptures that forbid your beliefs. You have to.

So, what is the Greek word for earth that describes the whole globe?

You apparently wish to make use of interpretive fallacies. But the reality is, words mean what they mean *in context.* I can't repeat that enough times.

The word "globe" itself was not in Moses' vocabulary. The word "planet" was not in his vocabulary. The "earth" can be looked at as "dirt" in one place or as "dirt" in all places under the sky.

 

[WPM]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, most all of the eschatology in the 1st few centuries of Christianity was dominated by Chiliasm, according to a number of Christian scholars. You identify some Chiliasts as non-Chiliasts. And you call Chiliasts themselves "Amils." This is highly questionable and perhaps even laughable.

Whatever centers of Christianity you look for to identify what teaching was prevalent, you are arguing from silence. Speculative matters in the subject of Eschatology is viewed as of peripheral importance next to the doctrine of Salvation itself.

Christians likely avoided excessive speculation about the future, which is what Jesus seemed to suggest in Acts 1.7. The evidence we do have favors the dominance of Chiliasm in the 1st few centuries.

It is obvious that you realize you have zero support from the ECFs right up until AD 240. Your failure to present one single quote to support all the main tenets of Premil apart from one (a future thousand years, albeit Chiliasts believed it will be a perfect age, unlike your rerun of our corrupt age) is damning for your beliefs. I will continue to present the avoided questions which expose your faulty claims:

1. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?
2. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described corruption existing on a future millennial earth?
3. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the wicked existing on a future millennial earth?
4. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described mortals existing on a future millennial earth?
5. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described decay existing on a future millennial earth?
6. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the curse existing on a future millennial earth?
7. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described Satan existing on a future earth?
8. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium which involved the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups as Premil does?
9. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system as Premil does?
10.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come as Premil does?
11.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
12.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
13.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as Premil does?
14.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that taught that Jesus would be reigning over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne?

 

[WPM]

You apparently wish to make use of interpretive fallacies. But the reality is, words mean what they mean *in context.* I can't repeat that enough times.

The word "globe" itself was not in Moses' vocabulary. The word "planet" was not in his vocabulary. The "earth" can be looked at as "dirt" in one place or as "dirt" in all places under the sky.

You are totally winging it again. As is your pattern, you totally avoid the Scriptures that forbid your beliefs. You have to.

So, what is the Greek word for earth that describes the whole earth?

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you are adamant in interpreting a thousand years hyper-literally, how long is the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes?

It depends on how you view the passage. I personally believe the 10 kings will reign together with Antichrist for 3.5 years. But in this context, the commitment is to a specific war, namely the Battle of Armageddon. And that will indeed be literally over in an hour.

There are a few passages where we may legitimately question whether the words are intended to be used metaphorically or not. In the case of Rev 20, we would have to compare with the Prophets to see if there is a basis for the continuation of humanity after the 2nd Coming of Messiah. And it is there--it's called the Messianic Kingdom.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is obvious that you realize you have zero support from the ECFs right up until AD 240.

Repeating posts over and over have no value.

 

[WPM]

It depends on how you view the passage. I personally believe the 10 kings will reign together with Antichrist for 3.5 years. But in this context, the commitment is to a specific war, namely the Battle of Armageddon. And that will indeed be literally over in an hour.

There are a few passages where we may legitimately question whether the words are intended to be used metaphorically or not. In the case of Rev 20, we would have to compare with the Prophets to see if there is a basis for the continuation of humanity after the 2nd Coming of Messiah. And it is there--it's called the Messianic Kingdom.

LOL. What mumbo jumbo. Your response graphically and powerfully exposes the folly of your position. This is exactly what Premil produces. All your bias unobjective theological double-speak is exposed by the wording of text. You totally contradict yourself in just a few words. You hang on your own noose. Rev 17:12: "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

The 10 kings receive power for "one hour"! Hello!

Your bondage to your doctrine and your invented theories blow up at every turn. It is time to reject this error.

 

[WPM]

Repeating posts over and over have no value.

You had no answers then, and you have no answers now. Your thesis has fell apart a long time ago. The white flag has been raised by you when you admitted early Chiliasm had one tenet in common with modern Premil. It is time to give your claims a decent burial.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You depend upon discredited and prejudice historians like Thomas Ice.

I used Ice a single time to make use of his references and quotes--not to in any way laud Ice himself. I'm not a Dispensationalist.

You have spent a lot of time quoting Francis X. Gumerlock and his work: "Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople?", and whilst i do not agree with his findings, he admits: "Now if one places the number of chiliast early church fathers side by side with the number who were amillennial, the result is more or less a draw."

I didn't spend a lot of time. Like Ice, I quoted him once. I do not quote these guys as if I "follow them." I utilized their material in a single application.

None of this has any value, but I feel the need to correct you.

Contrary to popular modern-day thinking, early Chiliasm was more akin to modern-day Amillennialism.

Still a laughable claim.

No, I'm not an expert, but I can read like anybody else. I don't have to be an expert to check your supposed "facts." I find them to be "tainted facts." You are highly prejudicial, as can easily be seen by your obsession with this subject and by your "demand" that others accept your point of view, as well as your style of proving things. It isn't very Christian, in particular the way you argue by insult. I recommend you settle down.

 

[WPM]

I used Ice a single time to make use of his references and quotes--not to in any way laud Ice himself. I'm not a Dispensationalist.



I didn't spend a lot of time. Like Ice, I quoted him once. I do not quote these guys as if I "follow them." I utilized their material in a single application.

None of this has any value, but I feel the need to correct you.



Still a laughable claim.

No, I'm not an expert, but I can read like anybody else. I don't have to be an expert to check your supposed "facts." I find them to be "tainted facts." You are highly prejudicial, as can easily be seen by your obsession with this subject and by your "demand" that others accept your point of view, as well as your style of proving things. It isn't very Christian, in particular the way you argue by insult. I recommend you settle down.

1. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?
2. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described corruption existing on a future millennial earth?
3. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the wicked existing on a future millennial earth?
4. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described mortals existing on a future millennial earth?
5. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described decay existing on a future millennial earth?
6. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the curse existing on a future millennial earth?
7. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described Satan existing on a future earth?
8. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium which involved the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups as Premil does?
9. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system as Premil does?
10.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come as Premil does?
11.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
12.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
13.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as Premil does?
14.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that taught that Jesus would be reigning over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne?

 

[Randy Kluth]

You had no answers then, and you have no answers now. Your thesis has fell apart a long time ago. The white flag has been raised by you when you admitted early Chiliasm had one tenet in common with modern Premil. It is time to give your claims a decent burial.

Raise a white flag? What do you think this is--a war? No, your tainted claims are filled with problems. I've pointed them out for others--I know you are unable to adapt.

Chiliasm and Premil obviously have a major element in common that defines them. That is a truism--not an admission. Saying other peripheral ideas like belief in the restoration of Israel is not an essential element in your effort to separate Chiliasm and Modern Premil based on their supposedly "heretical origins." It has always been difficult to accept the restoration of Israel when God called Israel's covenant with Himself a "divorce!"

Other peripheral elements are arguments from silence, and not an admission that Premil of any kind is based on early Premil heretics. You are dead wrong on that, and I mean that!

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL. What mumbo jumbo. Your response graphically and powerfully exposes the folly of your position. This is exactly what Premil produces. All your bias unobjective theological double-speak is exposed by the wording of text. You totally contradict yourself in just a few words. You hang on your own noose. Rev 17:12: "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

The 10 kings receive power for "one hour"! Hello!

Your bondage to your doctrine and your invented theories blow up at every turn. It is time to reject this error.

As I said, I'm speculating. It appears *to me* that this is talking about the Battle of Armageddon, and not their tenure with the Beast. At the time John wrote this, they had not yet received imperial status together with the Beast. That comes in the "latter times."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, it is meant to be an insult! Why can you not tell the truth?

That is you own invention. Stop talking around the question.

So, who do you think the Amils think that they have replaced? Is it ethnic Israel or is it spiritual Israel?

Replacement Theology rejects the restoration of national Israel in the Millennium. What about this don't you understand?

Amils believe that the International Church, which presently includes a remnant of Israelis, is the fulfillment of promises made specifically and exclusively to ethnic Israel. Some promises made to Israel may also apply to the international Church, such as the promise of an eternal inheritance, given to Abraham. But some promises applied only to Israel, and applying these promises to the international Church "replaces" Israel's hope with a hope applied to a completely different set of people, the international Church.

 

[WPM]

Raise a white flag? What do you think this is--a war? No, your tainted claims are filled with problems. I've pointed them out for others--I know you are unable to adapt.

Chiliasm and Premil obviously have a major element in common that defines them. That is a truism--not an admission. Saying other peripheral ideas like belief in the restoration of Israel is not an essential element in your effort to separate Chiliasm and Modern Premil based on their supposedly "heretical origins." It has always been difficult to accept the restoration of Israel when God called Israel's covenant with Himself a "divorce!"

Other peripheral elements are arguments from silence, and not an admission that Premil of any kind is based on early Premil heretics. You are dead wrong on that, and I mean that!

I know you are extremely uncomfortable with it, but the evidence of history shows the founders of modern Premil were all heretics. You have no rebuttal to that.

Cerinthus

Cerinthus of Asia Minor had an unrefined sensual view of a future millennium arriving after the second coming. He anticipated a kingdom where men could continue to indulge in all the lusts of the flesh. He also promoted the restoration of the old covenant arrangement, believing that the earthly Jewish temple would be rebuilt, the old covenant Aaronic priesthood revived and sin offerings restarted. Dionysius describes the millennium Cerinthus anticipated in the future. It is a classic but crude summation of many of the core tenets of modern-day Premillenialism.

Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace (Church History, Book III, Chapter 28).​

This summary covers some of the core tenets of what we know today as Premillennialism. But the key element that is present here, but absent in the Chiliast hope, is where Dionysius describes Cerinthus’ expectation of a return to the Jewish “festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims.” Cerinthus saw the reintroduction of the old covenant arrangement. With the return of “festivals and sacrifices,” came (of necessity) the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the restoration of the old covenant priesthood. This was anathema to orthodox early Christianity. It ran contrary to New Testament teaching and principles.

The early Christians writers of all shades believed that Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. They held that the old covenant was a temporary imperfect unsatisfactory covenant pointing forward to the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice. They taught that the new divine arrangement had superseded the shadow, type and figure.

There is no allowance made by the Patristic writers for a restoration of the Old Testament sacrifice system with its festivals and feast, its meat offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings and drink offerings. They made no mention, as today, of “memorial sacrifices.” That is a modern man-made extra-biblical term that is rabbited by the masses in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The old imperfect sacrifices made by the representative priests in the old covenant were superseded at the cross by the one final satisfactory sacrifice by the one true eternal priest – the Lord Jesus Christ. Man has now only one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. The new covenant with a new priesthood had eternally removed the old covenant with the old priesthood.

Eusebius the historian records Caius of Rome, (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), in his criticism of Cerinthus. He does not go into all the detail of Dionysius, but makes general sweeping statements in regard to his Premillennialism:

By means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals (Church History, Book III, Chapter 28).​

Cerinthus was a follower and advocate of the Jewish law, something Epiphanius (who was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, 310-403AD) alludes to in his writings:

Cerinthus … adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 1:3).​

He goes on to allege:

Cerinthus stirred the circumcised multitudes up over Peter on his return to Jerusalem by saying, “He went in to men uncircumcised.” Cerinthus did this before preaching his doctrine in Asia and falling into the deeper pit of his destruction. For, because he was circumcised himself he sought an excuse, through circumcision if you please, for his opposition to the uncircumcised believers (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 2:5-6).​

Theodoret (Antioch Syria, died October 22, 362) also strongly repudiates Cerinthus and his false teaching, saying:

For, unlike that of Cerinthus and of those whose views are similar to his, the kingdom of our God and Saviour is not to be of this earth, nor circumscribed by a specific time. Those men create for themselves in imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and other pleasures, and along with them, sacrifices and Jewish solemnities. As for ourselves, we await the life that knows no growing old (Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 5.21).​

This is the simplistic early overview of modern day Premilennialism. It is what they teach and preach. Little do many know, but, the ancient source of their teaching is the ancient Judaizing heretics. The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for this founder of early Premillennialist. He wrongly and strongly promoted the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. The “sacrifices and Jewish solemnities” endorsed to arise in a future millennium refers to the full gamut of the Old Testament Mosaic sacrifice system. Cerinthus is the first promoter of a thousand years of blood-letting surrounding the abolished old covenant feasts and festivals.

 

[WPM]

Raise a white flag? What do you think this is--a war? No, your tainted claims are filled with problems. I've pointed them out for others--I know you are unable to adapt.

Chiliasm and Premil obviously have a major element in common that defines them. That is a truism--not an admission. Saying other peripheral ideas like belief in the restoration of Israel is not an essential element in your effort to separate Chiliasm and Modern Premil based on their supposedly "heretical origins." It has always been difficult to accept the restoration of Israel when God called Israel's covenant with Himself a "divorce!"

Other peripheral elements are arguments from silence, and not an admission that Premil of any kind is based on early Premil heretics. You are dead wrong on that, and I mean that!

Marcion

Through his distorted view of the Hebrew Scriptures, Marcion also advanced the idea of the full recovery of the Jewish tradition in the future. He saw the nation retaking its favored Old Testament position above all nations again in the future. He absurdly believed that Israel, according to Old Testament prophecies, has its own unique Messiah, who is distinct to the Jesus of the New Testament.

Listen to Tertullian, a well-known Chiliast, of Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia), (160 – 220 AD) in Against Marcion Book III, Chapter XXI:

So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race. Because, after all, the earliest Christians are found on the side of the Creator, not of Marcion, all nations being called to His kingdom, from the fact that God set up that kingdom from the tree (of the cross).​

Here you have the seeds of modern-day Premillennialism. To Marcion, the whole idea of the “restoration” of the “Jewish … people” to their land involved the full return of the old covenant scheme, something rejected by early Chiliasts but anticipated on the millennial earth by most Premils today. Marcion also believed that there were two peoples of God, a doctrine unknown to ancient Chiliasm, but prevalent with Dispensationalism today. He made a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, although this arch heretic imagined two different God’s and two different Messiahs overseeing each company.

Tertullian explains in Chapter VI:

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.​

It seems from the early censures of Marcion by both early Chiliasts and early Amillennialists that the restoration of the Jewish state was at the center and forefront of his eschatological hope. This was not found in any of the orthodox early writers. The Church was God’s only spiritual elect and the true people of God.

Tertullian continues in Chapter XXIV (Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints),

God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom.​

Tertullian takes Marcion to task over his view that the Jewish Messiah (who was said to be different from Jesus Christ) would give “the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country.” Here he was advocating the legitimacy of, and the Jewish return to, the old covenant ceremonial system. It is important to say at this juncture, not one of the orthodox early Chiliasts promoted this theology. This was a belief that was outside of the pale of orthodoxy – both Amillennial and Chiliast. It was a Jewish heresy advocated by the neo-Gnostics like Cerinthus and Marcion.

In Marcion’s theology, we see how there was a strong prevailing view among the early heretics that God would bring Israel back to their previous theocratic place of favor. This was strongly rejected by ancients Amils and Premils.

Tertullian (an early Chiliast) refutes Marcion’s error, stating:

As for the restoration of Judæa, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof (Against Marcion Book III, Chapter 24).​

Orthodox early Chiliast, Tertullian represents the prevailing thought among his peers on national Israel here, demonstrating that the people of God can only be found in the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no second group. There is no alternative place of favor. There is no other plan of salvation.

Marcion's invented Christ would meet all the faulty hyper-literal expectations that the apostate Christ-rejecting Jews desired - including restoring them back to their former land and elevating them to their former glory as God's chosen people and an elite race lording over all the Gentile nations. Whilst orthodox Premils reject the "2 Messiahs heresy" they run with Marcion's future millennial expectancy of a temporary carnal earthly kingdom focused mainly upon the Jews, Jerusalem and the old covenant practice. This is classic Premil!

Hill argued: “Marcion conceded to the Jews the reality of a full chiliastic hope, complete with a messianic deliverer, restoration to the land of promise, and refreshment in the infernal realms for the faithful dead! (The lack of any mention of resurrection is, however, to be noted.) He agreed with the Jews, and against catholic Christians, that the Christ promised in the Old Testament had not yet come. Marcion taught that the Creator’s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong about the interpretation of the prophets. The Jewish, nationalistic Messiah predicted in the Old Testament bore no likeness to the Christ of the higher God who came to earth during the reign of Tiberius to effect the salvation of mankind.”

The heretical dualists were Premil literalists who opposed the more-figurative Amillennialist position. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3, explained how Marcion "prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."

As a Premil, Marcion was a literalist and took the thousand years as a literal period of time after the second coming that involved the continuation of this physical age and all its pleasures and afflictions.

Origen actually summed up the ethos of those that held to a future millennium saturated in mortals (including the wicked) and who promoted the return of the old covenant arrangement as “understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense” (De Principiis, Book 2, Chapter XI).

This is the classic MO of modern-day Premils. They hurl the same charges at Amillennialists as these ancient heretics through at ancient orthodox Church generally. It comes up continually in discussions with Premils.