22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

LOLOL! You ask for a quote from Irenaeus on this subject, and you say you don't want to hear it because, you say, "it means something else" (so to speak).

​

You're unwittingly acknowledging that Irenaeus here speaks of the binding of the dragon, "that old serpent," which is located in Rev 20, speaking of the binding of Satan *during the Millennial period!* Certainly, Christ conquered Satan *legally* at his atonement for our sins. Satan had no more power over us to condemn us to an eternity without Christ. But delivering him over to the bottomless pit actually takes place, according to Irenaeus, at the 2nd Coming when Antichrist, the "lion," is conquered.

End of story.

You obviously have nothing. You have been using that single quote this whole thread and it has been ably exposed as not saying remotely what you are foisting upon it. You have obviously nothing to support your thesis apart from taunts and insults. You couldn't even answer my simple question in my previous post. That's because this is not talking about some supposed future millennium.

 

[WPM]

your interpretation of Irenaeus on the binding of Satan is ridiculous.

This is simply not true. Like ancient and modern Amillennialists, Irenaeus believed in the current binding of Satan. He believed this happened through the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. He also believed in the destruction of Satan at the second coming. This meant he did not see him arising 1000 years after the second coming and raising up a mammoth insurrection in the next age. This too is in keeping with classic Ami position. Irenaeus was very direct, consistent and bold in his declarations on the binding of Satan. He was also clear in identifying the timing of this occurrence.

For He [Jesus] fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 18, 6).​

Irenaeus here links the binding of Satan to Christ “destroying sin.” This of course is a direct reference to the cross-work. The ancient writer saw Christ’s first coming as an overall mission to defeat the wicked one and save men. Both of these go hand-in-hand in the Chiliast approach to Christ’s earthly ministry. This explains how Calvary is at the core of the early Millennialists’ attitude to the subjugation of the devil. There, Jesus fully overcome sin and death.

He continues:

By means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan’s) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under colour of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods [talking about the lie of Satan in the Garden], which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 1).​

Irenaeus saw the First Advent as securing the overall defeat of every enemy of God and righteousness. He saw it as a full package. Christ came (on assignment) to undo all the result of the Fall. His life, cross-work and triumphant resurrection was pivotal in defeating our arch-enemy. The binding was not limited to Christ casting out demons, although this was an integral part of His overall assignment. The cross and the resurrection was the triumphant apex of His earthly assignment. This is where sin was fully paid for, death was defeated and Satan was stripped of his then immense power and widespread control.

Ironically, this is the verbiage of Amillennialism. As a result of the First Advent, Satan is shown to be a prisoner – he is a captive. The spiritual prison man was incarcerated in prior to the cross and the chains the evil one had him incapacitated with were in turn placed upon Satan. The boot was on the other foot. The chains that bound them have now been placed upon Satan. The devil is thus seen as a vanquished foe. Christ’s earthy ministry is seen to undo what the enemy had afflicted all mankind with. It is dealing with sin, and it is dealing with death.

He understood the binding of the strong man 2,000 years ago related to the victory Christ won over Satan and Him spiritually establishing God’s Kingdom on the earth and invading the kingdom of darkness with the light of the Gospel and seeing the ignorance banished amongst the Gentiles. Satan can persecute, he can deceive, he can even destroy the body. But he cannot stop the light of God’s truth, (the good news of the kingdom) from going into the nations. He cannot prevent anyone from repenting and confessing Christ. This is completely up to the individual.

For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head,—which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: “You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

In keeping with the rest of his writings Irenaeus shows Christ taking back off Satan at the 1st Advent what Adam forfeited at the beginning. This permeates through different writings of Irenaeus. The references to “dragon” and “serpent” here are clear and overt references to Revelation 20:2.

This passage starts off by describing the separation that came “between the serpent and the woman and her seed” after the Fall. Irenaeus identifies man’s great enemy and what he wrought. He then reveals God’s great antidote – the Lord Jesus Christ. He shows how Christ came to rectify what was wrong. He testifies how Satan had been “biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, — which was born of Mary.” Irenaeus confirms: “Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life.” The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. Sin, death and every enemy of righteousness was defeated through the life, death and glorious resurrection of Christ.

Irenaeus doesn’t just limit the conquest of the First Advent to our arch-enemy Satan. He shows that assault also saw the defeat of antichrist. He supports this contention by quoting Psalm 91:13: "You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon." After quoting Psalm 91:13, Irenaeus explains the thinking of the Psalmist: arguing that he was looking forward to the fulfilment of this through the First Advent. Irenaeus was looking at it from the Psalmist's perspective.

The fate of Satan in Scripture normally mirrors that of antichrist (the mystery of iniquity/the beast). Irenaeus here connects the trampling down of Satan to the binding of "the dragon, that old serpent." He then in turn shows how redeemed man was given authority over Satan, after Christ spiritually bound him. He was talking about the after-effects of the cross on Satan, and to this current intra-Advent period (“in the latter days”).

This fits with his constant teaching on the current binding of Satan, which refutes modern Premil. Sin, death, the beast and Satan are all shown to have been defeated through their earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

The writer also shows that the last enemy to be eliminated is death when Jesus returns. But the defeat of death was on the cross, work Christ secured our salvation. That is why Irenaeus concludes – speaking about the final subjugation of death, “This could not be said with justice, if that man, over whom death did first obtain dominion, were not set free. For his salvation is death's destruction.”

 

[WPM]

your interpretation of Irenaeus on the binding of Satan is ridiculous.

The historic facts contradict your opinion:

The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house." Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, "The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he." If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 8).
​

The binding of Satan and the spoiling of his house were globalized here to relate to mankind.

How, too, could He have subdued him who was stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to, and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And for this reason 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 (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 33:4).
​

The writer links the subduing of Satan to Christ's death 2000 years ago. He is shown to be now vanquished. This is the opposite of Premil theology. What is more: he related the binding of Satan at the First Advent to "the last days."

God has banished from His presence him who did of his own accord stealthily sow the tares, that is, him who brought about the transgression … The Scripture tells us that God said to the serpent, And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. And the Lord summed up in Himself this enmity, when He was made man from a woman, and trod upon his [the serpent's] head (Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 40, 3)
​

Satan is shown here to be "banished from His (Christ's) presence" after Christ "trod upon his [the serpent's] head."

He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary (Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 24:1).
​

Satan is a defeated foe and his bound in his influence.

Then in the Gospel, casting down the apostasy by means of these expressions, He did both overcome the strong man by His Father's voice, and He acknowledges the commandment of the law to express His own sentiments, when He says, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. For He did not confound the adversary by the saying of any other, but by that belonging to His own Father, and thus overcame the strong man (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 22, 1)
​

Satan is already "overcome" according to Irenaeus.

Waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed … when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman. For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man’s opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned (ex quo ea quæ secundum mulierem est plasmatio facta est), in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death” (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 1)
​

The first Advent was a victory for Christ and saw Satan be crushed, vanquished and trampled upon.

The Lord did perform His command, being made of a woman, by both destroying our adversary, and perfecting man after the image and likeness of God. And for this reason He did not draw the means of confounding him from any other source than from the words of the law, and made use of the Father’s commandment as a help towards the destruction and confusion of the apostate angel” (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 2)
​

This is a victorious essay.

The law does indeed declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colours, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God … It was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan is bound, man is set free; since "none can enter a strong man's house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself." The Lord therefore exposes him as speaking contrary to the word of that God who made all things, and subdues him by means of the commandment. Now the law is the commandment of God. The Man proves him to be a fugitive from and a transgressor of the law, an apostate also from God. After [the Man had done this], the Word bound him securely as a fugitive from Himself, and made spoil of his goods – namely, those men whom he held in bondage, and whom he unjustly used for his own purposes. And justly indeed is he led captive, who had led men unjustly into bondage; while man, who had been led captive in times past, was rescued from the grasp of his possessor (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 3)
​

Again, Satan is the captive now. He is in a spiritual prion. He is limited with spiritual chains! The spiritual chains that Satan placed upon the wicked to restrain them in a spiritual prison on this earth were now destroyed by Christ and, in turn, placed upon Satan. Obviously, these are not physical chains. Obviously, this is not a literal physical prison that is separate from this earth.

The Word of God, however, the Maker of all things, conquering him by means of human nature, and showing him to be an apostate, has, on the contrary, put him under the power of man. For He says, Behold, I confer upon you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy, in order that, as he obtained dominion over man by apostasy, so again his apostasy might be deprived of power by means of man turning back again to God Against Heresies (Book 5, Chapter 24).​

Irenaeus saw the binding of Satan as pertaining to the liberty of mankind, not some individual human being released.

Every single reference to the binding of Satan here relates to the defeat of Satan at the cross and the taking back of what Adam forfeited in the fall. You fail to even acknowledge that or address that. To do so would obliterate your whole argument.

 

[Naomi25]

I was not suggesting Premil is heretical or Premils are heretical. I was saying the first Premils to advance this doctrine as we know it today were heretics.

Ah. That is a little clearer. Thank you.
That might very well be true. But...as I pointed out before, you'll most likely find such things if you look back in any eschatological branch.
So...I suppose I'm wondering: if we know a person does not, by necessity, have ALL their doctrines be heretical, just because one of them may be...what becomes the point of the OP? Because, while yes, we could say that some of the first Premil's held heretical doctrines, we could also say that about many Amil's throughout history. Or Postmil's. You get my drift. And in the end, is has little to no impact on the doctrine of end time itself, because while there are differences within those camps, heresy is not, as we agree, one of them.
Anyway. I'll leave it there, because I'll probably start to annoy you, which is not my intention, sorry. Thanks for your clarification.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Justin Martyr was an early Church Father and Chiliast. He had the opinion that the orthodox eschatology of the Church was Premillennial, even though he admitted other reasonably good Christians believed otherwise.

Dialogue with Trypho
CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.

And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

Here Justin describes his belief in the Millennium in which people live long lives, indicating they are mortal. Sinners are there because when they die before 100 they are considered cursed.

CHAPTER LXXXI -- HE ENDEAVOURS TO PROVE THIS OPINION FROM ISAIAH AND THE APOCALYPSE.

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent[shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, i saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree[of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the nay fie ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'

Put simply, Justin believed that even though other reasonably-good Christians believed otherwise, orthodox belief in his time belonged to those who believed in a literal Millennium. And this Millennial Age is populated by saints and sinners, ie by mortals, much as some Premillennialists like myself today believe.

Justin clearly downplayed the prominence of Israel in matters of salvation, and so downplayed their eschatological hope, as well, which I find unfortunate. However, Justin's burden here was to prove that Israel's race and nation were not the source of salvation for the world. The only Jew for whom the world should be concerned is Christ himself, through whom salvation comes both for the Jew and for the Gentile.

But here is indicated, clearly, that the Jews maintain a place in the salvation to be revealed at Christ's Return...

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

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

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

CHAPTER CXX. -- CHRISTIANS WERE PROMISED TO ISAAC, JACOB, AND JUDAH.

"Observe, too, how the same promises are made to Isaac and to Jacob. For thus He speaks to Isaac: 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' And to Jacob: 'And in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed.' He says that neither to Esau nor to Reuben, nor to any other; only to those of whom the Christ should arise, according to the dispensation, through the Virgin Mary. But if you would consider the blessing of Judah, you would perceive what I say. For the seed is divided from Jacob, and comes down through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David. And this was a symbol of the fact that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ.

CHAPTER CXXXVI -- THE JEWS, IN REJECTING CHRIST, REJECTED GOD WHO SENT HIM.

"For you see how He now addresses the people, saying a little before: 'As the grape shall be found in the cluster, and they will say, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it; so will I do for My servant's sake: for His sake I will not destroy them all.' And thereafter He adds: 'And I shall bring forth the seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah.' It is plain then that if He thus be angry with them, and threaten to leave very few of them, He promises to bring forth certain others, who shall dwell in His mountain.

Here is an indication that Justin agrees with Paul that there remains at present a Jewish remnant chosen by grace. And he grants that they do have a place of inheritance in the land of Israel, or more specifically, in Jerusalem. However, the Jewish Prophets made a much bigger deal out of Israel's restoration, inasmuch as they were writing to Israel, and rendering them a model of grace for the world. Justin missed this, I believe.

 

[Naomi25]

Paul has clearly researched the Church Fathers and their views on Chiliasm and Amillennialism. He just reaches conclusions that are, I believe, biased towards his own Amillennial position. I personally don't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about the writings of the Church Fathers. I've read some of them. And as much as I've read, WPM seems to be somewhat accurate in his presentation, though not with his conclusions.

For example, he properly views some of the early Chiliasts like Tertullian and Irenaeus as seeming to reject or ignore the idea of Israel's restoration. They pick up on on Jesus' tirade against the Jews' hardness of heart, and Paul's frustration with them in their rejection of Christ. But attacking Rabbinic Judaism and its hostility towards Christianity is not the same thing as denying Israel will be restored. I just think WPM is basically correct that despite the Chiliasts' belief in a literal future Millennium, they do not seem to view it as modern Dispensationalists do, with Israel front and center.

And he appears to be correct in his view that they focus predominantly on the perfection of the Kingdom for the glorified saints, neglecting to speak much, if at all, about the question of a mortal population still living in that time period. It does appear that men like Lacantius presented a detailed declaration of the constitution of the Millennium that is in line with standard Millennial thinking, with the exception that Israel continues to be ignored. WPM seems to think Lacantius is too late to represent earlier Chiliast thinking, but this does not seem likely to me since he was not arguing his positions against earlier Chiliast opposition, and likely drew upon earlier Chiliast writers.

WPM's theory that this really remakes early Chiliast thinking as Amil as much as Premil seems silly to me, because belief in human mortality during the Millennium and belief in the predominance of glorified Christians during the Millennium does not make them Amil. And there are a number of questionable points such as, do the Chiliasts truly believe Satan is bound only at the 1st Coming of Jesus, which WPM seems to assert? But I've pointed out that Irenaeus and later Lactantius are very clear about their Chiliast beliefs that Satan is bound during the Millennium.

So I'm left wondering what WPM is really proving and if some of the conclusions he reaches are questionable or flat out wrong? At any rate, Chiliasts remain known as believing in the literal Millennial account in Rev 20, just as modern Premillennialists do. And like Lacantius, modern Premils tend to fill in more details of Millennial life than we have from the earliest Chiliasts, with the exception of John's own record in Rev 20.

We shouldn't let controversy frustrate us and cause us to abandon ship. I personally believe it's perfectly safe to believe John's account in Rev 20 as is.

What I don't like about WPM's approach is his aggressive bullying to agree with him by claiming superior research and ownership of rights of interpretation of what the Church Fathers were saying. His trying to recast early Chiliasts as "Amil" and distinguish them from Modern Premillennial "heretics" is, I think, unfortunate, and an obvious tactic of manipulation. Whereas he says he's not calling Modern Premils "heretics," he indicates that their teaching differs from the early Chiliasts by their adding teaching from early Chiliast "heretics."

That was a very interesting run down, thank you! I'll be honest with you...I don't love labels! I know they're helpful for defining things, and so, in many ways, we do need them. But sometimes I feel like I don't fit into a box. More...sometimes I worry that people, in order to fit into the box categories, make their understanding of scripture mailable to do so. I can't say that is what is happening here, as I don't really know those involved.
As far as the Millennium...don't they like to say "the millennium...1000 years of peace that christians love to fight about"?
I say, why fight? Goodness. Let's say the Amil's are right. Then what happens when Christ return, is the ushering in of eternity. Swell. That's awesome! If the Premil's are right, then when Christ returns, he reigns of earth for 1000 years and we reign with him. Brilliant! It's a win/win situation. Why fight?! Why will we even care? Jesus will be back! I'm certainly not going to care if I was right or wrong. I doubt anyone down throughout history will care if they were right or wrong. It's all simply going to be about Jesus.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That was a very interesting run down, thank you! I'll be honest with you...I don't love labels! I know they're helpful for defining things, and so, in many ways, we do need them. But sometimes I feel like I don't fit into a box. More...sometimes I worry that people, in order to fit into the box categories, make their understanding of scripture mailable to do so. I can't say that is what is happening here, as I don't really know those involved.

I don't like labeling with malicious intent. But when I'm daily attacked for supposedly unthinkingly following heretical beliefs, I'm not afraid to label someone as a malcontent. I've tried numerous times to have WPM exchange ideas with me without the "color commentary," the negativity, etc. But he's addicted to it, and I feel I have no choice but to recognize him for what he is.

As far as the Millennium...don't they like to say "the millennium...1000 years of peace that christians love to fight about"?
I say, why fight? Goodness. Let's say the Amil's are right. Then what happens when Christ return, is the ushering in of eternity. Swell. That's awesome! If the Premil's are right, then when Christ returns, he reigns of earth for 1000 years and we reign with him. Brilliant! It's a win/win situation. Why fight?! Why will we even care? Jesus will be back! I'm certainly not going to care if I was right or wrong. I doubt anyone down throughout history will care if they were right or wrong. It's all simply going to be about Jesus.

That's an oversimplification. If the Millennium didn't need to be mentioned, Jesus wouldn't have mentioned it. But unlike WPM's claims, there is a lot more behind the Millennium than the length of time John gives it in Rev 20. It is all about the Kingdom Age, the Messianic Age, that is spelled out in the Prophets.

Israel is made to be a model for the salvation and hope of all nations. In providing this model, it is a model of covenant, a model of failure, and a model of grace. If Israel cannot be restored as a nation after thousands of years of failure, then the whole world is lost, who has also had thousands of years of paganism.

But yes, it sure isn't worth discussing if it leads to carnal bickering. Sadly, these forums provide the occasion for discussion of these difficult subjects. And I can only discuss those subjects when they are brought up and served by any kind of Christian. My object is not to get into a fight with the one I debate, but rather, to leave an alternative for those who may read.

As in all things, we are not the testimony, but Christ is. We are not the ones who convict, but the Holy Spirit is. We won't be perfect, but we try to be faithful to the truth as God speaks it to our hearts. Others may condemn, but God knows.

 

[covenantee]

They keep their ethnic backgrounds, and their racial origins. But they adopt a new religious ethnicity when they convert to Judaism. They are no longer "Gentiles," which is in Judaism the equivalent of "pagan."

Not in Judaism are they pagan.

Rather, in the emanations from pharisaic talmudism and its fellow traveler dispensational premillennialism, both of which are thoroughly permeated and defiled with systemic zionist racism.

God is not a racist, despite the incessant and desperate attempts of these apostasies to turn Him into one.

Nor will He ever be.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

 

[covenantee]

At the revelation of Christ, many Jews in Israel will repent. Those who repent in other nations will return from exile. Those who died in faith will be resurrected.

Why did you duck the question?
If an individual decides to adopt the Jewish tradition of a kosher diet, will that individual be gathered?

That's silly. Like WPM, you guys don't believe words mean anything. Words you don't like you just cancel.

I presented both mathematical and empirical evidence of why "antisemitic" is a misnomer.
If you have credible disproofs, please present them. But be careful.
They've been affirmed by the Jewish community, whom you dare not offend.

Sure, I'm against the Talmud as a choice for my own faith.

But you approve of it as a choice for the faith of "Jews"?

Some of them yes, and some of them no. I wouldn't reject everything they know and believe simply because they are Jews.

They knew not Christ or the voices of the prophets. Did whatever they did know save them or anyone else?

 

[Naomi25]

I don't like labeling with malicious intent. But when I'm daily attacked for supposedly unthinkingly following heretical beliefs, I'm not afraid to label someone as a malcontent. I've tried numerous times to have WPM exchange ideas with me without the "color commentary," the negativity, etc. But he's addicted to it, and I feel I have no choice but to recognize him for what he is.

Well...I suppose I can empathise here. I don't like being on the receiving end of the "replacement theology" label. I think it's a strawman label. Mostly. I think the issue is so much more complicated than just that label, and that by putting that label on it, they condemn everyone they can even slightly link to it. Which is dishonest, and slightly frustrating, and doesn't lead to honest dialogue.
So...yes....labelling with malicious intent can be bad.

That's an oversimplification. If the Millennium didn't need to be mentioned, Jesus wouldn't have mentioned it. But unlike WPM's claims, there is a lot more behind the Millennium than the length of time John gives it in Rev 20. It is all about the Kingdom Age, the Messianic Age, that is spelled out in the Prophets.

Israel is made to be a model for the salvation and hope of all nations. In providing this model, it is a model of covenant, a model of failure, and a model of grace. If Israel cannot be restored as a nation after thousands of years of failure, then the whole world is lost, who has also had thousands of years of paganism.

But yes, it sure isn't worth discussing if it leads to carnal bickering. Sadly, these forums provide the occasion for discussion of these difficult subjects. And I can only discuss those subjects when they are brought up and served by any kind of Christian. My object is not to get into a fight with the one I debate, but rather, to leave an alternative for those who may read.

As in all things, we are not the testimony, but Christ is. We are not the ones who convict, but the Holy Spirit is. We won't be perfect, but we try to be faithful to the truth as God speaks it to our hearts. Others may condemn, but God knows.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good conversation about the millennium! Just because I'm 'carefree' about it, doesn't mean I don't long for it and feel its weight and importance. And...I'm willing to go there if you'd like. But, like you, I've found what begins as earnest conversation on this board has a habit of devolving into something less than edifying. And, I'll fully confess that I allow myself to go further than I should on those conversations. I press further than I should. Which is not, perhaps, healthy. I'm...trying to grow.
But, sure. I'm happy to discuss some things with you in the spirit of openness and willingness to agree/disagree and back away if need be. But, your call.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well...I suppose I can empathise here. I don't like being on the receiving end of the "replacement theology" label. I think it's a strawman label. Mostly. I think the issue is so much more complicated than just that label, and that by putting that label on it, they condemn everyone they can even slightly link to it. Which is dishonest, and slightly frustrating, and doesn't lead to honest dialogue.
So...yes....labelling with malicious intent can be bad.

That's ridiculous! Assigning Replacement Theology to someone when that is *exactly what they're espousing* is entirely legitimate, and is not an expression of malice! It is just a form of abbreviating an argument so that one doesn't have to repeatedly explain what points are being rejected.

When I label someone an RT, one should recognize that most of the Church for most of NT history were RT! So it is hardly an insulting label. The Church Fathers, the Catholics, the Reformers--all of these basically saw the international Church as the New Israel, unless I'm oversimplifying? Correct me if I'm wrong?

WPM is quite right in viewing the perspective that the International Church are the true eternal People of God, whereas many in Israel are not! RT simply makes an abbreviated distinction between those who think Israel as a nation will return to its theocracy and those who don't believe that. Many of those who are against Israel's return to theocracy are against *any* sense of a Christian theocracy as well. But these are largely separatists, whereas the high churches flat out think they have replaced Israel as the true Kingdom of God.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good conversation about the millennium! Just because I'm 'carefree' about it, doesn't mean I don't long for it and feel its weight and importance. And...I'm willing to go there if you'd like. But, like you, I've found what begins as earnest conversation on this board has a habit of devolving into something less than edifying. And, I'll fully confess that I allow myself to go further than I should on those conversations. I press further than I should. Which is not, perhaps, healthy. I'm...trying to grow.
But, sure. I'm happy to discuss some things with you in the spirit of openness and willingness to agree/disagree and back away if need be. But, your call.

I'm here simply to state my views on things I know something about and to learn more about things I don't know enough about. For me, it's all done in a friendly way, until those few who are pit bulls won't let go of their insulting rhetoric. Then the kid gloves come off.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why did you duck the question?
If an individual decides to adopt the Jewish tradition of a kosher diet, will that individual be gathered?

I've long had doubts about this "regathering." So don't be surprised if I'm somewhat ambiguous or obscure about it. My *current* view is that Jesus was speaking of yet one more Jewish restoration, like so many in the past. In the Judges we read of Israel being defeated by enemies, and then being restored by deliverance through the judges. And after the captivities we read of Israel being regathered to Jerusalem.

Jesus spoke of yet another regathering here. But those in Israel he regathers, which is who he is is speaking of, are not necessarily Christians yet. I think the Christians among the Jews are gathered together with the rest of the Church, whereas the unbelieving Jews, who do eat a kosher diet, will be regathered to Israel and saved.

Eze 36 talks about Israel being saved despite their backslidden condition. Zechariah 12-14 indicates Israel has to have cleansing water poured out over them. So this regathering is not conditioned on their repentance and regeneration. On the contrary, it is preliminary to it.

I presented both mathematical and empirical evidence of why "antisemitic" is a misnomer.
If you have credible disproofs, please present them. But be careful.
They've been affirmed by the Jewish community, whom you dare not offend.

Who said I dare not offend the Jews? I offend them every time I support Messianic Judaism!

I need not disprove Anti-Semitism. It's in the English Dictionary.

But you approve of it as a choice for the faith of "Jews"?
They knew not Christ or the voices of the prophets. Of what significance is whatever else they knew?

I tend to provide context for my questions so my readers don't have to go back and forth to a previous post. That would be helpful.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not in Judaism are they pagan.

Rather, in the emanations from pharisaic talmudism and its fellow traveler dispensational premillennialism, both of which are thoroughly permeated and defiled with systemic zionist racism.

Whatever are you going on about? I just said Gentiles cease to be "pagan" Gentiles when they convert to Judaism. And you come off like you hope all Jews burn in Hell! Do you really wish to evangelize them? If so, this isn't the way!

 

[Randy Kluth]

The historic facts contradict your opinion:

The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house." Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, "The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he." If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 8).
​

​

That in no way contradicts my opinion. My opinion was that Irenaeus and other Chiliasts no doubt viewed the account of the strong man binding an enemy as a *principle* by which one may prevail in a matter over another. At the cross, it was Jesus' aim to release the saints from the condemnation of Satan. In providing atonement for their sin, Satan was defeated and lost the ability to condemn them any longer. Forgiveness was in the hands of God, and Satan could do nothing about it.

I'm not interested in your incessant quoting of the same passages in order to obtain a different result. The account of the binding of the strong man is not the same as the *event* of the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. Two different contexts, and no amount of quotations is going to change that.

What you're up against is Irenaeus' reference to the *event* in which Satan is bound at the defeat of Antichrist, the "lion." There is no question the context here is the 2nd Coming of Christ and the destruction of Antichrist. And it is here that Irenaeus places the binding of Satan as an "event," and not simply a principle of superiority by which Jesus was able to defeat Satan in a particular matter.

At the cross, Jesus defeated Satan in the matter of delivering us from condemnation and death, which was Satan's objective. But at the 2nd Coming, Jesus will actually judge Satan and consign him to a prison for a thousand years. And not long after that he will consign him to eternal destruction from the new earth.

The *event* of Satan's judgment happens at the 2nd Coming, and not at the cross. At the cross, Satan met his superior, the "strong man" Christ, and was defeated. And Jesus explained that he was "stronger" than Satan, and could win our atonement over Satan's protests.

But Irenaeus understood that this was just the act of atonement and the binding of Satan's ability to stop this atonement. It was not the actual imprisonment of Satan, which will happen at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Justin Martyr and all of the Chiliasts saw Satan as still loose in the present age, raging against the Church. He has been defeated but he is enraged and active because of it. He is not yet in his dungeon. You are up against an impossible wall, and all you have is repetitive quotations that do not apply.

 

[Truth7t7]

Whatever are you going on about? I just said Gentiles cease to be "pagan" Gentiles when they convert to Judaism. And you come off like you hope all Jews burn in Hell! Do you really wish to evangelize them? If so, this isn't the way!

Judaism in the majority follows the occultic (Kabbalah) and the filthy Rabbinical (Talmud), if that isn't "Pagan" what is



Quotes Talmud: Goyim Is Gentile

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a goyim, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a goyim he may keep.

Baba Mezia 114b The goyim are not humans. They are beasts.

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies to circumvent a goyim.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Goyim girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: “Thank you God for not making me a goyim, a woman or a slave.”

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a goyim the wages owed him for work.

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a goyim it does not have to be returned.

 

[WPM]

That's ridiculous! Assigning Replacement Theology to someone when that is *exactly what they're espousing* is entirely legitimate, and is not an expression of malice! It is just a form of abbreviating an argument so that one doesn't have to repeatedly explain what points are being rejected.

When I label someone an RT, one should recognize that most of the Church for most of NT history were RT! So it is hardly an insulting label. The Church Fathers, the Catholics, the Reformers--all of these basically saw the international Church as the New Israel, unless I'm oversimplifying? Correct me if I'm wrong?

WPM is quite right in viewing the perspective that the International Church are the true eternal People of God, whereas many in Israel are not! RT simply makes an abbreviated distinction between those who think Israel as a nation will return to its theocracy and those who don't believe that. Many of those who are against Israel's return to theocracy are against *any* sense of a Christian theocracy as well. But these are largely separatists, whereas the high churches flat out think they have replaced Israel as the true Kingdom of God.



I'm here simply to state my views on things I know something about and to learn more about things I don't know enough about. For me, it's all done in a friendly way, until those few who are pit bulls won't let go of their insulting rhetoric. Then the kid gloves come off.

You are quick to speak on behalf of your opponents and slow to listen to how your brethren actually understand the whole dynamic between Israel and the Church. You commonly disparagingly throw the “Replacement Theology” charge at those you disagree with, without any effort of trying to ascertain what they really believe. You also deem your opponents as believing in ‘Supersessionism Theology’ (from the Latin supersedere: ‘to be superior to’). You allege that your evangelical opponents believe (1) the Church has replaced ethnic Israel and that (2) God has no further future plans for the nation of Israel. You claim such without any factual or fair basis for doing so.

You create a straw man argument either through genuine ignorance, because you don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit your brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning. Regardless, your charge is a logical fallacy. Despite being robustly challenged and repeatedly corrected, you continue to hurl this depreciatory slur in an attempt to justify their own partial teaching. It is employed by you to be deliberately provocative and by others to intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position. When all is said and done, this only serves to expose the weakness of your position, rather than carry any real, valid or accurate theological credence.

This is a strawman argument because it intentionally misrepresents the argument of your opponents in order to make it easier to discredit it. It involves a picture being presented that doesn’t accurately reflect the beliefs of the one you are debating. By exaggerating, distorting, or fabricating someone’s position, it makes it much easier to present your own position as plausible and logical. But this type of underhand tactic only serves to prevent open, honest, profitable, rational and objective discussion.

 

[WPM]

Here Justin describes his belief in the Millennium in which people live long lives, indicating they are mortal. Sinners are there because when they die before 100 they are considered cursed.

CHAPTER LXXXI -- HE ENDEAVOURS TO PROVE THIS OPINION FROM ISAIAH AND THE APOCALYPSE.

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent[shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, i saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree[of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the nay fie ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'

Put simply, Justin believed that even though other reasonably-good Christians believed otherwise, orthodox belief in his time belonged to those who believed in a literal Millennium. And this Millennial Age is populated by saints and sinners, ie by mortals, much as some Premillennialists like myself today believe.

I hate the way you deliberately mislead the reader. It would help if you did due diligence before quoting the ECFs in support of your position. It would prevent yourself from misrepresenting them and showing your ignorance. You do this all the time and it only serves to expose your lack of knowledge of the overall subject or your efforts to twist what the ECFs taught. In this case: you are totally misrepresenting Justin Martyr. What you are presenting here as his words is simply a word-for-word quote from Isaiah 65:17-25, something we all believe and use. This is simply Scripture. Amils, Premils, Postmils and Chiliasts all accept and use the inspired text to support their respective positions. So, this proves nothing. It is how we interpret it that divides us. Justin Martyr understood it, like Amils did and do, as describing a new perfected world free of sin and sinners, dying and crying, decay and disease, Satan and his kingdom.

But here is indicated, clearly, that the Jews maintain a place in the salvation to be revealed at Christ's Return...

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

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

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

There is no salvation taught here at the second coming. Now is the day of salvation in Justin's mind. You are an expert at twisting Scripture and history to support your beliefs. There is no national salvation or Christian nations as you claim. You are pulling at straws again.

But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation.​

Have a look at this better. Justin shows Christ reigning over His enemies now during the intra-Advent period, not in some future millennium as you allege. This is the day of salvation. There are no mortals or wicked in his future millennium, unlike yours, that is overrun by billions of them.

Chapter XLV:

And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation – hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: “The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire.

This teaching reflects a definite realized eschatology, showing various Old Testament passages, that modern Premils would typically attribute to a future millennium, being fulfilled currently since Christ's first advent through the great commission. Instead of applying this prophecy to a millennial kingdom in the future, Justin applies Psalm 110:2 to the intra-Advent period. Justin expressly relates this to insists that the going forth of the law out of Zion is “predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere.” Modern Premils would be surprised (and even disappointed) at Justin’s linkage of the Hebrew eschatological prophecies to the Church’s victorious expanse of the nations with the Gospel. But it is what it is!

 

[WPM]

CHAPTER CXX. -- CHRISTIANS WERE PROMISED TO ISAAC, JACOB, AND JUDAH.

"Observe, too, how the same promises are made to Isaac and to Jacob. For thus He speaks to Isaac: 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' And to Jacob: 'And in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed.' He says that neither to Esau nor to Reuben, nor to any other; only to those of whom the Christ should arise, according to the dispensation, through the Virgin Mary. But if you would consider the blessing of Judah, you would perceive what I say. For the seed is divided from Jacob, and comes down through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David. And this was a symbol of the fact that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ.

Exactly. Please read it instead of always forcing your false beliefs into these ancient writings. Justin is teaching here that only "some" of national ethnic Israel would be "found" to be "children of Abraham." Only those that are "in the lot of Christ." In Justin's eyes Israel was/is the NT Church.

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 11:

For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.​

Chapter 122:

What, then, is Christ's inheritance? Is it not the nations? What is the covenant of God? Is it not Christ? As He says in another place: 'You are my Son; this day have I begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give You the nations for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession.'​

Chapter 134:

Jacob was called Israel; and Israel has been demonstrated to be the Christ, who is, and is called, Jesus.​

Chapter 135 — Christ is king of Israel, and Christians are the Israelitic race.

As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race … understand, therefore, that the seed of Jacob now referred to is something else, and not, as may be supposed, spoken of your people (the Jewish people).​

CHAPTER CXXXVI -- THE JEWS, IN REJECTING CHRIST, REJECTED GOD WHO SENT HIM.

"For you see how He now addresses the people, saying a little before: 'As the grape shall be found in the cluster, and they will say, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it; so will I do for My servant's sake: for His sake I will not destroy them all.' And thereafter He adds: 'And I shall bring forth the seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah.' It is plain then that if He thus be angry with them, and threaten to leave very few of them, He promises to bring forth certain others, who shall dwell in His mountain.

Here is an indication that Justin agrees with Paul that there remains at present a Jewish remnant chosen by grace. And he grants that they do have a place of inheritance in the land of Israel, or more specifically, in Jerusalem. However, the Jewish Prophets made a much bigger deal out of Israel's restoration, inasmuch as they were writing to Israel, and rendering them a model of grace for the world. Justin missed this, I believe.

Hello! We all believe that there "is a Jewish remnant chosen by grace." We all believe that we are going to dwell in His holy mountain. That mountain is heavenly Zion to most informed theologians. It is the same with the early Amillennialists and early Chiliasts. Once again, this proves nothing. Every position believes this. You're obviously clutching at straws again. Your our arguments are getting increasingly more obscure, desperate and ridiculous. There is absolutely no mention of the restoration of ethic Israel in the future. There is no suggestion of them taken back their ancient borders. That is your beliefs. Do not force that upon the early writers. You really do not grasp what Justin believed. You don't want to. It dismantles everything you teach. The First Apology of Justin, Chapter XI:

And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid​

 

[WPM]

Put simply, Justin believed that even though other reasonably-good Christians believed otherwise, orthodox belief in his time belonged to those who believed in a literal Millennium. And this Millennial Age is populated by saints and sinners, ie by mortals, much as some Premillennialists like myself today believe.

Study more and you will see what he really taught, rather than what you wished he taught. He believed in a general resurrection and a general judgment, culminating in all the wicked being destroyed at the second coming. His future millennium was a perfect pristine arrangement. This is the opposite of what you promote. Justin teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

This is in keeping with the standard early Chiliast belief that there is no sin and sinners, dying and crying, decay and disease, and Satan and his minions in the age to come.

 

[Truth7t7]

Study more and you will see what he really taught, rather than what you wished he taught. He believed in a general resurrection and a general judgment, culminating in all the wicked being destroyed. His future millennium was a perfect pristine arrangement. This is the opposite of what you promote. Justin teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

This is in keeping with the standard early Chiliast belief that there is no sin and sinners, dying and crying, decay and disease, and Satan and his minions in the age to come.

I fully agree, Justin saw the second coming, last day resurrection, final judgement, eternal state

2 years+ repeating the same thing to Mr. Kluth?