The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

Randy Kluth said:

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!

Click to expand...

Porphyry/Porphyrius

Porphyrius is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm. He was another Judaizer who tried to foist old covenant practices upon New Testament Christianity. He also promoted the full return of the old covenant ceremonial law and festivals.

Jerome strongly refuted him, and exposed his error:


Jerome was not painting all Chiliasts with the same brush. Quite the opposite! He was specifically exposing this early heretical Premillennialist who advocated the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in a future thousand years, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period. This was not an opinion that orthodox Chiliasts held, taught or accepted anywhere throughout the early Church.

All of these Premil heretics were notably professing Gentile "Christians" who were besotted with Old Testament Israel and its ancient practices. Consequently, they tried to create a theological system that would accommodate their distorted view of Christianity and Judaism. They achieved this by creating parallel train-tracks that could accommodate the coexistence and co-acceptance of two diverse religious systems in a dual covenant theology. This is exactly what Dispensationalism has done today. It is fixated with natural Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the return of animal sacrifices in some supposed future millennium and the restarting of the abolished old covenant priesthood. They have invented two peoples of God to suit its theology.

The heretics believed that their hopes would be finally realized after the second coming, in an earthly messianic kingdom, one in which Israel would be brought back to its ancient favored position reigning over the Gentile nations from old Jerusalem. This new arrangement would see Gentiles submitting to the long-abolished primitive old covenant customs, rules and ceremonies. Ancient Jerusalem would become the center-point once again of global worship to Israel’s God. This age would last a thousand years and would see the full return of all Old Testament religious structure, including priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.

Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel. Jerome strongly refuted his teaching point by point. Speaking about Daniel 2.40 (“He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth”), he responded:

According to Jerome: Porphyrius expected the restoration of natural Israel to its old covenant place of favor over all other nations in the last of the last days. Israel would then subjugate the Gentile nations and rule over them. He anticipates a superior position for ethnic Israel above all nations, with them exercising “the strongest power” over them.

Porphyry cuts across the widespread belief amongst the ECFs (Chiliast and early Amils) that the New Testament persistently teaches that under the new covenant, and in Christ Jesus, all nationalities equally partake of the spiritual blessings God promised to that nation through faith. Basically: Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. The whole notion of ethnicity deserving some type of special favor with God in our day is repeatedly and strongly blown out of the water in the early Christian writers.

Randy Kluth said:

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!

Click to expand...

Apollinarius of Laodicea

Apollinarius took up the ancient Premillennial baton from these early heretics. Notably, he too was a prominent heretic who was strongly opposed and renounced by the universal Church of his day. Very little of what he wrote has been passed down to us. Most of it was destroyed as heretical. Most of what we have comes from his theological opponents who were strong in their renunciations.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa said of Apollinarius of Laodicea, that his theology taught that “the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored” (Dogmatic Treatises, Etc.; Letter XVII – To Eustathia).

Basil the Great describes what Apollinarius believed


Here is an outline of classic Premillennial teaching. Again, noticeably, this was held by an early heretic who was strongly resisted by the orthodox Christian Church. This was foreign teaching to them in the light of what Christ ushered in through the new covenant. Apollinarius taught that Israel would be restored to her previous old covenant place for preference over all other nations.

But, most troubling to the early writers, was the early Premillennial promotion of 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. This was despite the well-established beliefs of the Patristic writers that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5).

Apollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria in 362 A.D. at Roman councils in 377 A.D. and 378 A.D. In the second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD the Church leaders renounced Apollinarius as a heretic. He is actually repudiated by name in Canon 1 and Canon 7. Along with his other fellow heretics he was to be “anathematized.”

Gregory the Theologian also criticized Apollinarius in his letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius (Epistle CI. (101), highlighting his Premillennial beliefs.


Jerome targets the theology of the early Premillennial heretics, mentioning Apollinaris in particular in his renunciation:


For Jerome, the Premillennial scheme was “a tale.” Others would similarly call it “a fable.” The idea of a future age in-between “this age” and “the age to come” was quite fanciful to many of the early Amil writers. When the detail of the heretical Premillennialist heretics were threw into the mix, with their expectation of more ongoing sin, more decay, more sickness, more death, more sin offerings, etc, etc, it was hardly surprising that many found this far-fetched. When you add all the religious actors that populate the millennium and give their feigned allegiance to Christ and then turn on Him when Satan appears 1000 years after the second coming, then you are looking at a doctrine that seems beyond the pale of reality and truth. When they then argued that a future earth will see the mortal wicked interact with the glorified saints for a thousand years then you are looking at a clear non-corroborative doctrine.

In an article Jerome’s Judaizers, Hillel I. Newman argues: “So far as we know, none of these authors maintained hopefully that in the millennial kingdom all would offer sacrifices and keep the sabbath and that all men would be circumcised.”

Premil Lyford Paterson Edwards even concedes: “we see the unfortunate fate of Chiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had nothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris as arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged Chiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter and though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more interest for our purpose” (The Transformation of Early Christianity from an Eschatological to a Socialized Movement).

The later Jacobite bishop of Dara, in Mesopotamia (d. 845), John of Dara exposes Apollonarius for his millennialist teaching:


John of Dara likens Apollonarius’ Premillennialism to Phariseeism. He rubbishes the idea of Judaic temple ceremonial in Jerusalem for a thousand years in front of the Messiah.

These ancient heretical Premillennialists fell into the same trap as the Pharisees with their faulty hyper-literal mind-set, who because of such, ended up crucifying Christ. The problem was, they were stuck in the Old Testament, fixated with the earthly, physical, temporal and the natural. These ancient writers focused in on Israel and a temporal future earthly kingdom full of warfare, carnal pleasures and ethnic separation. They promise a continuation of pain, sin, death, suffering, tears, hatred, war, funerals. This whole carnal expectation seems to blue the reason why the second coming is so splendid. It is the final return of Christ in all power and glory to abolish all unrighteousness and to set up a perfect, just and eternal kingdom where wickedness and corruption are forbidden.

Randy Kluth said:

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."

Click to expand...

Your doctrine forces you to come out with some ridiculous claims. You are explaining away the wording of Scriptures to support your absurd claims. This is your pattern. I am sure Premils often cringe at your ridiculous claims.

Randy Kluth said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is a strawman argument because it intentionally misrepresents the argument of their 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.

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Remnant Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Expansion Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

You have previously admitted this, saying:


It is actually you who is the true Replacement Theology holder. In your theology “the Christian nations” (whoever they are) have replaced natural Israel as theocracies. This is erroneous and incongruous. I reject your Replacement Theology.

The physical promises of Israel relating to Israel have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. He has abolished the old natural arrangement.

We have been made one with true Israel - the Israel of Israel (Rom 9:6). We are now the circumcision. We are the spiritual Jews. We are the citizens of Israel. We have been grafted into the Olive Tree. We are the children of Israel.

Randy Kluth said:

Uncomfortable with it? It's a lie, a slander! You are using arguments by later Amil Church Fathers, who wished to quash the Chliasts by using these kinds of tactics. But they are illegitimate, particularly as we look back from our own time frame. The Chiliasts could hardly defend themselves at a time when Amil took prominence. But I can say with certainty that they rejected the early Premiil heretics. End of argument.

Click to expand...

LOL. Facts are stubborn things! They show the source of your beliefs. You duck around the evidence like a chicken on a hot griddle. It is funny to watch!

Randy Kluth said:

I've already answered this. Sin is part of the definition of who Man is, and Man is not expunged from a planet that has not been annihilated. The Kingdom of Messiah enforces a sinful planet to obey his rule. And the glorified saints are said to join him in this rule, after the 2nd Coming. The implication, if there is a world to be subdued, is that it is "sinful." It is, in fact, a synonym, for sin!

Characterizing the Millennial Age is not to be our major concern, as Jesus indicated, which is why there is a dearth of information on this in the Early Church. We simply aren't given many details from the Lord Himself! So your focus is off the beaten path, and majoring on a minor.

No early Chiliast cared to characterize the Millennial Age as "evil" for the simple reason that they rightly focused on the present hope of the Church, which is to be glorified at that time in a sin-free perfect environment. The earth, which is ruled over during that time, will obviously not be perfect yet--not until the New Earth arrives at the end of the Millennium.

Since the early Chiliasts believed the literal version of the Millennium, this had to have been their position, whether they spelled it out for you or not! They believed the Kingdom or Messianic Age would last a literal thousand years, after which the world will be finally purged of all sin and evil.

Satan would be bound throughout the thousand years, and then deposited forever into the Lake of Fire. His final judgment actually begins at the Return of Christ, but it is consummated in his complete disposal after the thousand years.

But you've now heard this a number of times, and you just wish to continue to pose the same questions as if they haven't been answered. At some point I will ignore you.

Click to expand...

By saying all this, you are admitting (what the rest of us can see): that my thesis in the Op is actually right. You have nothing of historic value to bring to the discussion. That is why it is pointless engaging with you. Why waste your time presenting your own theology? We know what you believe. That proves nothing. That is the sole source of your argument. We are supposed to be talking about what the ECFs held and taught. You are incapable of presenting hard historic evidence from them to support your beliefs. This is because they did not believe what you believe in regard to a future world. They anticipated what Amils expect today - a perfect, wicked-free, Satan-free, curse-free, sin-free, death-free, decay-free arrangement.

Randy Kluth said:

I've already answered your claims about Marcion and Cerinthus. Instead of reposting why don't you go back and read my answers? Marcion and Cerinthus were heretics, and not "Christian" in any true orthodox sense. By contrast, the Chiliastic Church Fathers were largely orthodox in doctrine. You might as well claim you get your teachings from Joseph Smith because he taught out of the Christian Bible before you did!

The Apostle John and the book of Revelation were the true source of Chiliastic teaching. And the Chiliasts in Asia Minor were connected to John both geographically and by personal relations.

Click to expand...

Not so. Joseph Smith invented his own book.

Now, please address the evidence! The early Premil heretics are describing your beliefs. You have no orthodox writers until AD 240. Why not admit that? When you finally got a Premil from over 200 years after the cross - Lacantius, you (ill-advisedly) lauded his Premil credentials without doing your due diligence. Sadly, you failed to tell the reader that this early writer based his position on the pagan Sibyl prophetesses’. I find it strange that you are comfortable with promoting such a dubious source. But that is the historic hand you have been dealt.

Lacantius in Divine Institutes, seems to portray a Millennial world in which the nations continue to exist as always until Christians take on the form of angels at the end of this era. I'll comment more later, but Lancantius treats this as if this is the normal Christian view.

Click to expand...

Let us look at the full un-doctored quote from Lactantius (apart from a small portion removed at the end because of longevity).

as the Sibyl testifies and says:--

"For then there shall be confusion of mortals throughout the whole earth, when the Almighty Himself shall come on His judgment-seat to judge the souls of the quick and dead, and all the world."

But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.

Which the Sibyl proclaims in another place, as she utters her inspired predictions:--

"Hear me, ye mortals; an everlasting King reigns."

Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.[1] But the nations shall not be entirely extinguished, but some shall be left as a victory for God, that they may be the occasion of triumph to the righteous, and may be subjected to perpetual slavery. About the same time also the prince of the devils, who is the contriver of all evils, shall be bound with chains, and shall be imprisoned during the thousand years of the heavenly rule in which righteousness shall reign in the world, so that he may contrive no evil against the people of God. After His coming the righteous shall be collected from all the earth, and the judgment being completed, the sacred city shall be planted in the middle of the earth, in which God Himself the builder may dwell together with the righteous, bearing rule in it.

And the Sibyl marks out this city when she says:--

"And the city which God made this He made more brilliant than the stars, and sun, and moon."

Then that darkness will be taken away from the world with which the heaven will be overspread and darkened, and the moon will receive the brightness of the sun, nor will it be further diminished: but the sun will become seven times brighter than it now is; and the earth will open its fruitfulness, and bring forth most abundant fruits of its own accord; the rocky mountains shall drop with honey; streams of wine shall run down, and rivers flow with milk: in short, the world itself shall rejoice, and all nature exult, being rescued and set free from the dominion of evil and impiety, and guilt and error. Throughout this time beasts shall not be nourished by blood, nor birds by prey; but all things shall be peaceful and tranquil. Lions and calves shall stand together at the manger, the wolf shall not carry off the sheep, the hound shall not hunt for prey; hawks and eagles shall not injure; the infant shall play with serpents.

In short, those things shall then come to pass which the poets spoke of as being done in the reign of Saturnus.

Whose error arose from this source,--that the prophets bring forward and speak of many future events as already accomplished. For visions were brought before their eyes by the divine Spirit, and they saw these things, as it were, done and completed in their own sight. And when fame had gradually spread abroad their predictions, since those who were uninstructed in the mysteries[2] of religion did not know why they were spoken, they thought that all those things were already fulfilled in the ancient ages, which evidently could not be accomplished and fulfilled under the reign of a man.[3] But when, after the destruction of impious religions and the suppression of guilt, the earth shall be subject to God,--

"The sailor[4] himself also shall renounce the sea, nor shall the naval pine Barter merchandise; all lands shall produce all things. The ground shall not endure the harrow, nor the vineyard the pruning hook; The sturdy ploughman also shall loose the bulls from the yoke. The plain shall by degrees grow yellow with soft ears of corn, The blushing grape shall hang on the uncultivated brambles, And hard oaks shall distil the dewy honey. Nor shall the wool learn to counterfeit various colours; But the ram himself in the meadows shall change his fleece, Now for a sweetly blushing purple, now for saffron dye; Scarlet of its own accord shall cover the lambs as they feed. The goats of themselves shall bring back home their udders distended with milk; Nor shall the herds dread huge lions."[5]

Which things the poet foretold according to the verses of the Cumaean Sibyl. But the Erythraean thus speaks:--

"But wolves shall not contend with lambs on the mountains, and lynxes shall eat grass with kids; boars shall feed with calves, and with all flocks; and the carnivorous lion shall eat chaff at the manger, and serpents shall sleep with infants deprived of their mothers."

And in another place, speaking of the fruitfulness of all things:--

"And then shall God give great joy to men; for the earth, and the trees, and the numberless flocks of the earth shall give to men the true fruit of the vine, and sweet honey, and white milk, and corn, which is the best of all things to mortals."

And another in the same manner:--

"The sacred land of the pious only will produce all these things, the stream of honey from the rock and from the fountain, and the milk of ambrosia will flow for all the just."

Therefore men will live a most tranquil life, abounding with resources, and will reign together with God; and the kings of the nations shall come from the ends of the earth with gifts and offerings, to adore and honour the great King, whose name shall be renowned and venerated by all the nations which shall be trader heaven, and by the kings who shall rule on earth.

"These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: but I have not considered it necessary to bring forward their testimonies and words, since it would be an endless task; nor would the limits of my book receive so great a multitude of subjects, since so many with one breath speak similar things; and at the same time, lest weariness should be occasioned to the readers if I should heap together things collected and transferred froth all; moreover, that I might confirm those very things which I said, not by my own writings, but in an especial manner by the writings of others, and might show that not only among us, but even with those very persons who revile us, the truth is preserved,[1] which they refuse to acknowledge.[2] But he who wishes to know these things more accurately may draw from the fountain itself, and he will know more things worthy of admiration than we have comprised in these books …

which the Sibyls say shall come to pass

Randy Kluth said:

I've already answered your claims about Marcion and Cerinthus. Instead of reposting why don't you go back and read my answers? Marcion and Cerinthus were heretics, and not "Christian" in any true orthodox sense. By contrast, the Chiliastic Church Fathers were largely orthodox in doctrine. You might as well claim you get your teachings from Joseph Smith because he taught out of the Christian Bible before you did!

The Apostle John and the book of Revelation were the true source of Chiliastic teaching. And the Chiliasts in Asia Minor were connected to John both geographically and by personal relations.

Click to expand...

Early Christian millennialism was heavily influenced by the prevailing Jewish apocryphal literature existing around 200 BC to AD 100. These included the Jewish apocalyptic works of the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin (Folio 97a), 4th Esdras, the Sibylline Books and The Book of Jubilees. The early Christians in Asia Minor were heavily influenced by these apocalyptic writings and the Messianic fever that still existed amongst the Jews after the earthly ministry of Christ. Remember many of them we’re living in a day prior to the widely-accepted establishment of the Canon of Scripture.

These were popular Jewish influences on the Chiliasts at the time of the early Church. That is why there is not one single quote from any early writer (including Papias) of all the core Premil fundamentals: like the casting down of Satan and his consequence binding at the second coming, two future resurrection and judgement days separated by 1000 years and the suspension of Christ's kingly reign till a future millennium. This is why Premils are beating their heads against a brick wall trying to find a connection with these early writers - including the Chiliasts.

Early Christian millennialism was also heavily influenced by the speculations regarding the Cosmic Week and its supposed completion with a Sabbath rest. What many today do not realize, both Premillennialists and Amillennialists bought into this theory. The only difference was, the seventh day for Premillennialists was a future millennial, whereas the Amillennialists believed that the seventh day was an eternal day without end.

The apostate Jews promoted the future restoration in full of the old covenant ceremonial arrangement in a Messianic era on the earth centered in Jerusalem because they were unwilling to accept Christ of the Messiah and the cross-work as the fulfilment of the Old Testament temple system and the final sacrifice for sin.

Christian Gedge said:

This is astonishing. I haven’t followed all of your and Randy’s discussion but noticed this post #721. It certainly sounded like some of the extreme branches of Premil today.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is the hidden history of Christendom.

Taken said:

Premillennialism, is the belief that Jesus will return to Earth before the millennium, thousand year reign.

Rev 6
[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

Seems to me the Tribulation of God has begun...

So, @Paul Malcomson .... Can you identify the Scripture of when Jesus returns to earth?

Click to expand...

The Church has been in tribulation since the stoning of Stephen.