The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When people delve into the deeper abstract allegorical/metaphorical/theological aspects of the Bible, it's little wonder that their interpretations differ, hence Paul's advice to keep it simple..:)-

Paul said- "I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3)

But God has given us much Scripture written in allegorical, metaphorical, visionary, parabolic and abstract detail.
 

Dropship

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2022
2,213
1,514
113
75
Plymouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
But God has given us much Scripture written in allegorical, metaphorical, visionary, parabolic and abstract detail.

Yes because he knows our human minds haven't the horsepower to understand everything in human terms..:)
Jesus said -"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?....
....I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.....you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 3:12,John 10:38,8:14,8:23)

That's why Paul told people to stay Jesus-focussed because he's easy enough to understand..:)
"And the common people heard Jesus gladly" (Mark 12:37)


 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,624
2,338
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When people delve into the deeper abstract allegorical/metaphorical/theological aspects of the Bible, it's little wonder that their interpretations differ, hence Paul's advice to keep it simple..:)-

Paul said- "I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3)

Occam's Razor, right? I do believe that allegorization, such as Philo, Clement, and Origin used in Alexandria, and as Augustine relied on, led to a corruption of biblical interpretation. It is interesting, and I do think there is some basis in the method, largely in following consistent lines of thought apart from the literal meaning. But it is dangerous inasmuch as it can form its own literal meaning at odds with what the text actually says.

In short, yes--I agree with you! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dropship

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,624
2,338
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Brother, I have no desire to offend you, frustrate you or stir you up. That is your choice. It was my aim to engage with posters that were interested in this subject and who would objectively critique my work. I have been studying and writing on this matter since 2008. The finding i have discovered are certainly shocking, and need acknowledged and addressed. But instead of being offended and applying false motives to me, and always taking offence, give me the benefit of the doubt and try and engage in a Christian manner.

I apologize for anything i have said to you out of frustration. This can be a passionate subject, so we all need to approach it in a clam and objective manner.

Now you give me confidence in who you are--thank you. Yes, I get "emotional" sometimes, and regularly have to censor myself. I actually appreciate your willingness to study a subject to death, and then provide the necessary and relevant quotes.

We have reached an impasse on the point concerning Irenaeus and the binding of Satan. And I honestly do not agree with your thesis that either ancient Chiliasm or Modern Premillennialism borrowed from or derived their beliefs from the ancient Premil heretics. There certainly are similarities in some respects, as you say.

I do understand your argument, and see your logic--I just disagree for stated reasons, and don't wish to endlessly dredge up the same points over and over. Obviously, claiming that Premillennialists who are doctrinally orthodox are the product of ancient heresy is bound to stir up controversy. But I suppose you have to be honest with your thoughts? I'm *always* open to be corrected with facts!

As you said, I don't claim to be well-read on the Church Fathers--certainly not as well-read as you. But I'm mildly familiar with them, and have read large sections and small sections, depending on what I'm looking for. I have great admiration for both Origen and Augustine, although they were Amillennialists. I do share your interest in this, although I have several other interests that rob the time I have to spend with them.

My own interests involve things like doctrinal orthodoxy itself, the Trinity, the general blueprint of the Bible, biblical prophecy, Kingdom theology, etc. The Amil vs Premil debate does fit in there, and so we clash.

But it's all good if we can just maintain our Christian civility and brotherhood. Thanks for trying!
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,505
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It doesn't say "hour" which can be interpreted figuratively. It says "one hour." Now answer the question please.

YOu love to strain at gnats don't you to swallow your camels.

It says one hour or in greek "heis hora" which can be interpreted correctly as "one season" Then in that I say yes. but if you mean one 60 minute period- we know that is wrong. so it is translated literally, just not the way it should have been read and understood literally.

Once again teh Greek for "heis hora" also was used in writing to denote "one season" or "one time span" and that is still correct and literal.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It says one hour or in greek "heis hora" which can be interpreted correctly as "one season" Then in that I say yes. but if you mean one 60 minute period- we know that is wrong. so it is translated literally, just not the way it should have been read and understood literally.

Once again teh Greek for "heis hora" also was used in writing to denote "one season" or "one time span" and that is still correct and literal.

I agree. One hour represents a short period of time and a thousand years represents a long period of time. They are figurative terms in a symbolic book that are easy to understand when one sees the spiritual import.
 
Last edited:

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now you give me confidence in who you are--thank you. Yes, I get "emotional" sometimes, and regularly have to censor myself. I actually appreciate your willingness to study a subject to death, and then provide the necessary and relevant quotes.

We have reached an impasse on the point concerning Irenaeus and the binding of Satan. And I honestly do not agree with your thesis that either ancient Chiliasm or Modern Premillennialism borrowed from or derived their beliefs from the ancient Premil heretics. There certainly are similarities in some respects, as you say.

I do understand your argument, and see your logic--I just disagree for stated reasons, and don't wish to endlessly dredge up the same points over and over. Obviously, claiming that Premillennialists who are doctrinally orthodox are the product of ancient heresy is bound to stir up controversy. But I suppose you have to be honest with your thoughts? I'm *always* open to be corrected with facts!

As you said, I don't claim to be well-read on the Church Fathers--certainly not as well-read as you. But I'm mildly familiar with them, and have read large sections and small sections, depending on what I'm looking for. I have great admiration for both Origen and Augustine, although they were Amillennialists. I do share your interest in this, although I have several other interests that rob the time I have to spend with them.

My own interests involve things like doctrinal orthodoxy itself, the Trinity, the general blueprint of the Bible, biblical prophecy, Kingdom theology, etc. The Amil vs Premil debate does fit in there, and so we clash.

But it's all good if we can just maintain our Christian civility and brotherhood. Thanks for trying!

Sounds good!
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,505
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree. One hour represents a short period of time and a thousand years represents a long period of time. They are figurative terms in a symbolic book that are easy to understand when one sees the spiritual import.


Wrong. One hour (heis hora) is also defined as a time span. 1,000 years (chilio etos) is never defined as an undefined time span.

You with your high sounding nonsense are confusing translating with reinterpreting-again.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wrong. One hour (heis hora) is also defined as a time span. 1,000 years (chilio etos) is never defined as an undefined time span.

You with your high sounding nonsense are confusing translating with reinterpreting-again.

That is not true. The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical future earthly millennium. Such people confidently advance it in such a way, as if it states, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’. However, a careful reading of this inspired narrative reveals that it rather in stark contrast declares, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” This passage therefore does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium.

The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3, 6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wrong. One hour (heis hora) is also defined as a time span. 1,000 years (chilio etos) is never defined as an undefined time span.

You with your high sounding nonsense are confusing translating with reinterpreting-again.

Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vv 5-9).

This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.

Some theologians mistakenly attempt to use this passage to argue that one of God’s eternal days represents a literal thousand earthly years and that the commencement occurs at the time of Second Advent. However, they do err in their assumption, in that, this text simply indicates the briefness of time with God. 2 Peter 3 does not in anyway indicate a future earthly millennium kingdom anywhere in this reading. Peter is simply reminding such people that time is absolutely nothing to the King of glory. He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state.

Christ speaks of the unprepared state of many professing believers, who are exposed for their unpreparedness in Luke 12:45-46, saying, if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”

It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters. Peter says in response, “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Peter thus outlines two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.

Significantly, this reading in no place suggests the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years. The Premillennialist forces that into the reading. In the above passage it simply indicates “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Those who take the aforementioned verses to support a future 1,000-year millennium of peace are faced with an insurmountable inconsistency when they examine the detail of the remainder of the chapter, and try and get it to fit their paradigm. 2 Peter 3:10-13 continues, the day of the Lord will come (or arrive) as thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall ‘go or pass away, or perish’ with a great noise, and the elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be ‘burned up utterly or consumed wholly’. Seeing then that all these things shall be ‘dissolved, loosened or broke up’ … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be ‘dissolved, melted or loosed’, and the elements shall ‘melt by being set on fire’?” Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

This passage is so clear, final and all-consummating that one wonders how anyone could remotely imagine that creation could survive such an all-consummating fiery event. One also wonders how the Holy Spirit could have possibly advanced more explicit language to indicate the idea of total devastation. Whatever way you look at this chapter there is absolutely no allowance made or possibility for a future post-Second Coming millennial kingdom on this earth. Peter knows of no other coming of Christ other than that which eradicate the heavens, elements and the earth in one stupendous conflagration.

Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.

The Greek word katakakeesetai used here carries a very strong and unambiguous meaning of ‘burned up utterly’ or ‘consumed wholly’. The King James Version uses it 12 times (Matt 3:12, 13:30, 40, Luke 3:17, Acts 19:19, 1 Cor 3:15, Heb 13:11, 2 Pet 3:10, Rev 8:7 (x2), 17:16, 18:8, each of which interpret the word the same.

Notwithstanding, this passage agrees totally with the all-consummating character of every other explicit Second Coming passage in Scripture, the day of the Lord sees the immediate destruction of the wicked and also this current world. In short, the day of the Lord will come as thief in the night; in the which:

1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise.
2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’,
3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.
4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

Seeing then that all these things (that is 1-4) shall be ‘luomenoon’ or ‘dissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The old here is completely consumed by fire in an all-consummating conflagration, in order to make way for the new eternal state. One cannot imagine how the Holy Spirit couple have made the concluding nature of Christ’s Coming simpler or plainer to the human mind in this explicit passage.

Those who spiritualise this day by stretching this fiery time-period out over the duration of a literal 1,000 years forget that the detail embodied within the description of the said day destroys any credence that they have for promoting their mistaken interpretation of Revelation 20. They completely demolish their own argument by advancing such a fanciful idea. They are quick to argue “day” doesn’t mean a literal day in Scripture, and “hour” doesn’t mean a literal hour in Scripture, yet they always arrive at a literal future thousand-year millennium every time they examine the symbolic detail of Revelation 20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Op Note

There is so much haze, ignorance, confusion and misinformation that surrounds the beliefs of the Patristic writers that it is necessary to take a diligent, objective and detailed look into their teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

The early orthodox Chiliasts believed that the Church was the legitimate heir to the promises made by God in times past to the Jewish nation. They held that the new covenant Church was the only people of God. They advocated that the new covenant arrangement abolished the national theocracy scenario pertaining to natural Israel. In their view, being a natural Jew carried no special privilege more than being a Gentile under the new covenant. There was/is no racial preference anymore. God was/is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). God has taken the kingdom from national Israel and widened salvation out to all nations equally. They believe God was/is no respecter of persons (including races). They viewed God’s people as those who come to faith in Christ. God’s people are the Church of Jesus Christ. They saw true Israel as being a believing people through history.

One will search in vain through the writings of the early Church fathers to find any support for the any observance of Jewish ritual, feast and sacrifice in a future millennium. None of them anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of animal blood sacrifice, the validation again of circumcision, and the celebration of the Jewish Sabbath. These beliefs were considered by all orthodox believers as anathema to the Christian faith and were dismissed as belonging to the heretics and Judaizers.

They believed that Christ fulfilled the whole old covenant arrangement and perfectly satisfied every demand of the old covenant law, thus removing its usefulness and temporal status. The shadow, the type, the deficient and the temporal have now been replaced by the substance, the fulfilment, the perfect and the eternal. Early Chiliasm was totally devoid of all the Judaist features that mark the modern Premillennial hope for the age to come. It is notable that not one of the orthodox Chiliasts promoted the elevation of national Israel in a future millennium, any parallel path between the Church and Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the full restoration of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, the universal observance of Jewish customs, the return of blood sin offerings in a future temple (whether real or memorial) or the restarting of the old covenant priesthood in the future.

The early Chiliasts to a man held that the Old Testament sacrifices and ordinances had expired at the cross. They believed that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin. He rendered the rest needless and obsolete. It was anathema to them that there would be a rival system of sin offerings, raising up of the old covenant sinful priests and the rebuilding a destroyed temple. Their position was 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). To think otherwise was considered to be an early Judaizing heresy.

So where did it come from? It clearly came from outside the orthodox camp. It is important then to piece together any surviving historic evidence that might exist that describes the restoration of the old covenant arrangement and a favored place for national Israel in a future millennial kingdom. From it, we can grasp the general expectation of a future millennial kingdom.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now you give me confidence in who you are--thank you. Yes, I get "emotional" sometimes, and regularly have to censor myself. I actually appreciate your willingness to study a subject to death, and then provide the necessary and relevant quotes.

We have reached an impasse on the point concerning Irenaeus and the binding of Satan. And I honestly do not agree with your thesis that either ancient Chiliasm or Modern Premillennialism borrowed from or derived their beliefs from the ancient Premil heretics. There certainly are similarities in some respects, as you say.

I have never said that ancient Chiliasm borrowed its teaching from the ancient Premil heretics. It was mainly influenced by early apostate Judaism. It is modern Premillennialism that finds its beliefs rooted in the ancient Premil heretics.

Orthodox Premil only arose around AD 240.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,624
2,338
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have never said that ancient Chiliasm borrowed its teaching from the ancient Premil heretics. It was mainly influenced by early apostate Judaism. It is modern Premillennialism that finds its beliefs rooted in the ancient Premil heretics.

Orthodox Premil only arose around AD 240.

You may not have said it, but I believe the early Amils made this claim. Again, my argument is that Modern Premils do *not* believe in a restoration of Jewish practice of the Law of Moses, except in a traditional, memorial way. In other words, they do not believe there is redemptive value in doing these things, but are done only out of obedience to God's word.

I'm with you that they're wrong to believe this. But it is *not* a belief in salvation through the practice of the Law of Moses. I think you should acknowledge that?
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,624
2,338
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Op Note
There is so much haze, ignorance, confusion and misinformation that surrounds the beliefs of the Patristic writers that it is necessary to take a diligent, objective and detailed look into their teaching.

Most likely this is true, but do we really need, here, to be a scholar in the works of the Church Fathers to venture a comment or two? When you provide quotations, which I think are wonderful, it becomes fairly simply to comment on just what is before us, without having to understand the whole body of their work.

Contrary to popular modern-day thinking, early Chiliasm was more akin to modern-day Amillennialism. For the first 220-230 years after the cross, ancient Chiliasm believed the millennial earth would be devoid of sin and corruption.

I still need to see where this is anything more than a focus on what glorified Christians will experience, along with a taming of the world's hostility towards Christianity? I remain open on this, but have not seen anything that cannot be applied as our current hope for a glorified experience, which even for Premils begins at the 2nd Coming or the beginning of the Millennium.

There was one quote you provided, however, that seems to infer belief in a completely glorified existence in the Millennium. But this seems inconsistent for a Chiliast, and wonder if this belief, if true, is an "outlier?"

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

Even if he is the 1st to be graphic about this particular point, it certainly doesn't mean he had no preceding teaching to base his own thoughts on? I should think he would avoid depending on heretical Premil teachings, as you already suggested wasn't done. If he derived his teachings from the Jews, it is debatable whether their material was legitimate or not. Jesus certainly didn't dismiss all that the Jews believed about their future hope.

What is more, and as a result of their early thinking, and notably, early Chiliasts, never recognized (or mentioned) a final outbreak of evil at the end of their future millennium. This was not some glaring oversight from ill-informed theologians. It was not ignorance. It was deliberate.

Since Chiliasm fell on hard times and Amil ascended, perhaps some material was edited out or destroyed? I don't know, but I certainly don't know they "deliberately" avoided talking about the verse in Rev 20 dealing with the "final outbreak." Perhaps their main interest was focusing on the hope of current Christians, rather than on speculating about the final battle of the Millennium?

The early orthodox Chiliasts believed that the Church was the legitimate heir to the promises made by God in times past to the Jewish nation. They held that the new covenant Church was the only people of God.

I agree with you here that the Chiliasts tended towards Replacement Theology, although I do recall reading in one of the early Church Fathers the admission that the Jews had maintained their hope, possibly legitimately. But I can't find the quote! ;)

Nevertheless, I agree that the Church Fathers, almost from the start, gave up on belief in the "Jewish Hope." I continue to believe, personally, that both Jesus and Paul taught the "Jewish Hope" in the Age to Come, ie at the 2nd Coming.

One will search in vain through the writings of the early Church fathers to find any support for the any observance of Jewish ritual, feast and sacrifice in a future millennium. None of them anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of animal blood sacrifice, the validation again of circumcision, and the celebration of the Jewish Sabbath. These beliefs were considered by all orthodox believers as anathema to the Christian faith and were dismissed as belonging to the heretics and Judaizers.

I agree that the Church Fathers would not have countenanced restoration of Jewish ritual, even though Paul used it to reach out to his fellow Jews. The NT condemns teaching that we should continue to pursue justification through the Law!

Dispensationalists teach the Jews will return to their Law as a matter of ethnic tradition, specifically mandated by God, completely separate from the matter of Salvation. So there is no alignment with ancient heretics who may have viewed 2 gods, one of Law and one of Grace.

This is not an effort to restart our corrosive conversation, but just to contribute my thoughts for your consideration. I was raised Amil in theology, and very much agree with the less-than-Jewish focus on Salvation. At the same time, I think Jews should be made to feel welcome to come to the cross.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,505
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is not true. The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”


And what you fail to see in these four passages are that all of them have a little word that tells a great deal! That little word is "as" which tells us (if you learned grammar in any language) that when a word like that is uses it means the passage is not a literal but a euphemistic passage. Not once in REv. is the thousand years tagged with a comparative like ; "like" "as" "such as". So there is no warrant in grammar to view them euphemistically. Especially when they make perfect sense in the literal.

but if we are to take the REv. usages as euphemisms then they are a euphemism for a day in the Lords sight! IOW 1,000 human years are just like a day to God! Either way- it equals 1,000 human years.

Peter thus outlines two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.

Once again another one of your vapid empty false accusations against pre-mils without citing any proof other than you say so.

Those who take the aforementioned verses to support a future 1,000-year millennium of peace are faced with an insurmountable inconsistency when they examine the detail of the remainder of the chapter, and try and get it to fit their paradigm. 2 Peter 3:10-13 continues, the day of the Lord will come (or arrive) as thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall ‘go or pass away, or perish’ with a great noise, and the elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be ‘burned up utterly or consumed wholly’. Seeing then that all these things shall be ‘dissolved, loosened or broke up’ … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be ‘dissolved, melted or loosed’, and the elements shall ‘melt by being set on fire’?” Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

It is inconsistent only in your mind! but for careful students of Gods INSPIRED WORD WE KNOW THAT TEH TERM "DAY OF THE LORD" HAS MORE THAN ONE MEANING AND CONTEXT DETERMINES WHICH DAY (OR TIME FRAME) IT IS REFERRING TO. The above passage is speaking of REv. 21:1 When John saw the old heaven and earth passed away. This event happens at teh end of the thousand years as is clearly shown in REvelation. all one has to do is read.

Anothe clue is that this is also described as the coming of the day of God. That is significant. For the tribulation or 70th week of Daniel is never referred as the Day of God but always the day of the Lord which as I showed you is defined as a time period.


Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.





Well as I declared, AFAIK, there is no one who contends that in the dozens of textbooks and writings on premil eschatology I have read. This is just another subtle attempt by you to cast mud at people by implication.

Notwithstanding, this passage agrees totally with the all-consummating character of every other explicit Second Coming passage in Scripture, the day of the Lord sees the immediate destruction of the wicked and also this current world. In short, the day of the Lord will come as thief in the night; in the which:

1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise.
2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’,
3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.
4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

And to repeat what I wrote above, the bible is clear- this event occurs after teh 1,000 year millenial reign of Jesus on earth. It is written that way in the bible. Amils I know have to take a corkscrew to Scripture to twist this passage to fit somewhere it doesn't belong, but The universe passes away after teh thousand years, when Satan is loosed, leads a rebellion against Jerusalem and God sends fire down. Then comes the great white throne judgment where all the dead not resurrected in the first resurrection are raised, death and the grave are desatroyed and the lost are thrown in to the lake of fire.

Seeing then that all these things (that is 1-4) shall be ‘luomenoon’ or ‘dissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The old here is completely consumed by fire in an all-consummating conflagration, in order to make way for the new eternal state. One cannot imagine how the Holy Spirit couple have made the concluding nature of Christ’s Coming simpler or plainer to the human mind in this explicit passage.

Well as teh destruction of the Universe is not tied to Jesus second coming, your slander against teh Holy Spirit is duly noted and ignored. Jesus returns in REv. 19, described in detail in Matt. 25 and the destruction of the old to make way for the new occurs after the 1,000 years as is written in SCripture.


I certainly hope yo do not read everything else like you read Scripture- that would be a mess.

BTW: when are you going to give your show proofs to teh questions I asked you?

Or are they impossible to answer from an amil perspective?
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,505
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).


Interestingly< god made it perfectly clear when He inspired the passage to tell human beings that the 1,000 years was figurative. He did create grammar rules in case you didn't know.

Christ speaks of the unprepared state of many professing believers, who are exposed for their unpreparedness in Luke 12:45-46, saying, if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”

so you believe you can lose your salvation as well! what a demonic burden you carry.

When are you going to answer the questions I posed you and not merely repeat your false assertions that you try to persuade people with your high sounding nonsense or as it says in the KJV- in Col. 2:8

Colossians 2:8
King James Version

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

But I will repeat my questions to you as you say the 1,000 years isw symbolic and happening now.

When did this time begin?
When did the first resurrection take place that was limited to only those who refused the mark and beheaded?
What was/is the mark of the beast?
When was it instituted?
who/what was the false prophet ordering everyone to take the mark?
When did the angel fly globally warning those who take the mark would be lost forever?
Who was the beast?

I ask because these are intrinsically tied to the 1,000 years in Rev. which you say is figurative.

Revelation 19:20
King James Version

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:10
King James Version

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


So when were the beast (antichrist by some) and the false prophet cast alive into the lake of fire! Satan is abyssed before the 1,000 years and after the 1,000 years He is loosed to deceive one more time and then cast into the lake of fire

So the beast and false prophet HAD TO, I repreat HAD TO live before this symbolic 1,000 years of yours took place. Unless of course God wrote in secret code here that you and a privileged few have teh decoder book.

If you will not answer these questrions, there is no point in going on.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You may not have said it, but I believe the early Amils made this claim. Again, my argument is that Modern Premils do *not* believe in a restoration of Jewish practice of the Law of Moses, except in a traditional, memorial way. In other words, they do not believe there is redemptive value in doing these things, but are done only out of obedience to God's word.

I'm with you that they're wrong to believe this. But it is *not* a belief in salvation through the practice of the Law of Moses. I think you should acknowledge that?

You know this is not true. Most Premils i have engaged with believe in 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 (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21). They advocate the restarting of the “meat offering” (Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “trespass offering” (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “burnt offerings” (Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “peace offerings” (Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12, Zechariah 14:16-21) and the “drink offerings” (Ezekiel 45:17, Zechariah 14:16-21).

In the Premillennialist scheme, the Judaic priesthood will be fully restored in the form of the Levitical sons of Zadok. They will function in the temple, re-igniting the old covenant sacrifices and ordinances (Ezekiel 40:45-46, 42:13-14, 19, 43:19, 24, 27, 44:15, 31, 45:4, 46:2, 19-20 and 48:10-11, 13).

There is no getting away from it, this is a redemptive system. This is the full restoration of the old covenant Mosaic system. There is no difference between the old and the new in description, nature, structure, actors involved and meaning.

The reality is there is absolutely no mention in the Old or New Testament of "memorial sacrifices," nothing! That is a modern Premil invention to justify this religious circus. They have zero Scripture. yet, there is numerous clear New Testament prohibitions to such a renewal. In promoting this, Premillennialism does great injury to the work of Christ on the Cross, undoes the once all-sufficient sacrifice that Christ made for sin, undermines the eternal nature of the atonement, and disregards numerous New Testament passages that conclusively prove that Christ’s blood sacrifice was final and eternal.

The New Testament Scripture makes abundantly 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). The reality is, one can search the New Testament pages, but can search Revelation 20 from start to finish, and there is not the slightest allowance for such a religious sham in the presence of Jesus in the age to come. They will never happen, neither for atonement or memorial. This is a Premil invention! Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,505
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You know this is not true. Most Premils i have engaged with believe in 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 (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21). They advocate the restarting of the “meat offering” (Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “trespass offering” (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “burnt offerings” (Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “peace offerings” (Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12, Zechariah 14:16-21) and the “drink offerings” (Ezekiel 45:17, Zechariah 14:16-21).

In the Premillennialist scheme, the Judaic priesthood will be fully restored in the form of the Levitical sons of Zadok. They will function in the temple, re-igniting the old covenant sacrifices and ordinances (Ezekiel 40:45-46, 42:13-14, 19, 43:19, 24, 27, 44:15, 31, 45:4, 46:2, 19-20 and 48:10-11, 13).


Well it is not a premil scheme but a biblical mandate! Because you reject a literal kingdom on earth where God fulfills all His covenant promises made to Israel, you have to reinterpret so much of the Old and New testament to keep Jesus from reigning on earth as He said He would!

YOu need to remember that Jesus ends His reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords when He defeats death and teh grave asGod declared in 1 Cor. 15:

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

As Jesus is in heaven now doing two things: preparing a place forf the church in His Fathers house, and ever living to make intercession for us as our great High Priest, He has not yet begun His reign, for only the Father reigns in heaven.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I still need to see where this is anything more than a focus on what glorified Christians will experience, along with a taming of the world's hostility towards Christianity? I remain open on this, but have not seen anything that cannot be applied as our current hope for a glorified experience, which even for Premils begins at the 2nd Coming or the beginning of the Millennium.

There was one quote you provided, however, that seems to infer belief in a completely glorified existence in the Millennium. But this seems inconsistent for a Chiliast, and wonder if this belief, if true, is an "outlier?"

That is simply not true, and you know it. The early Chiliasts like Amils past and present saw Christ ushering a new perfect glorified state devoid of all corruption. That is what these patristic testimonies described. No where did they describe sin and sinners, deceit and deception, dying in crying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions, war and terror in the age to come. Only the glorified saints were qualified to inherit the new earth. This is all classic Amillennialism, and anti-Premil. I have showed you multiple quotes to support this.

The burden of proof is with you to show all the classic ingredients that mark the Premil age to come like the continuation of sin, sinners, mortals, sexual intercourse, procreation, marriage, decay, the curse, corruption, the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system, carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come, the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming, Christ reigning in Jerusalem over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne, the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming, the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium, being advocated by the early Chiliasts. It is simply not there! If I am wrong, bring your evidence to the table. So far, you have brought nothing.

The primitive Chiliasts believed that the millennial earth ushered in at the appearing of Christ would be fully regenerated and therefore be perfect and pristine. Irenaeus is crystal clear in his idea of the age to come. To him it is totally purged of all the ugliness of the bondage of corruption. There would therefore be no more death or decay. The wicked and all wickedness were expected to be excluded from it. He testified:

Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere Deum) (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32)​

Irenaeus saw “the resurrection of the just” ushering in “the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption.” Irenaeus anticipates the curse being completely lifted in a future millennium. The earth, in his opinion, will be returned to its pre-fall state. This coincides with the glorification of the just. He explains:

John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first “resurrection of the just,” and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]. For the Lord also taught these things, when He promised that He would have the mixed cup new with His disciples in the kingdom. The apostle, too, has confessed that the creation shall be free from the bondage of corruption, [so as to pass] into the liberty of the sons of God. And in all these things, and by them all, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned man, and gave promise of the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who brought it (the creature) forth [from bondage] at the resurrection of the just, and fulfils the promises for the kingdom of His Son (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 36:3).​

According to this into a writer, creation is going to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. This of course is a classic and fundamental Amil doctrine. The millennial earth is depicted here by this ancient Chiliast to be heaven on earth. It is devoid of any form of corruption or rebellion. The wicked are prohibited from it. It is the abode of the righteous alone who are depicted as enjoying the same bliss and rest of paradise as before the Fall. Irenaeus enlarges:

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: “The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand dusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me. In like manner [the Lord declared] that ... all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 33:3).​

Here, Irenaeus quotes Papias. But we can see that this earth imagined wasn’t one that contained wickedness and the wicked, but perfection and fruitfulness. Irenaeus believes “creation” will be “renovated and set free” at the resurrection of the just, whereupon the glorified righteous will then reign over the perfected earth that “shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth.” He backs his belief up with a quote from Papias. Elsewhere he states:

For then there shall in truth be a common joy consummated to all those who believe unto life, and in each individual shall be confirmed the mystery of the Resurrection, and the hope of incorruption, and the commencement of the eternal kingdom, when God shall have destroyed death and the devil. For that human nature and flesh which has risen again from the dead shall die no more; but after it had been changed to incorruption, and made like to spirit, when the heaven was opened, [our Lord] full of glory offered it (the flesh) to the Father (Fragment L).​

Irenaeus saw the removal of corruption and the introduction of incorruption as occurring at the coming of Christ. He views a future millennial kingdom as the start of incorruption. He backs this up by demonstrating that death and the devil are destroyed at this climactic event. This cuts across modern-day Premillennialism.

Chapter 34:2 also describes the lifting of the curse in a future millennium (including death):

That the whole creation shall, according to God’s will, obtain a vast increase, that it may bring forth and sustain fruits such [as we have mentioned], Isaiah declares: “And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every prominent hill, water running everywhere in that day, when many shall perish, when walls shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, seven times that of the day, when He shall heal the anguish of His people, and do away with the pain of His stroke.” Now “the pain of the stroke” means that inflicted at the beginning upon disobedient man in Adam, that is, death; which [stroke] the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers, as Isaiah again says: “And thou shall be confident in the Lord, and He will cause thee to pass over the whole earth, and feed thee with the inheritance of Jacob thy father.” This is what the Lord declared: “Happy are those servants whom the Lord when He cometh shall find watching. Verily I say unto you, that He shall gird Himself, and make them to sit down [to meat], and will come forth and serve them. And if He shall come in the evening watch, and find them so, blessed are they, because He shall make them sit down, and minister to them; or if this be in the second, or it be in the third, blessed are they.” Again John also says the very same in the Apocalypse: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.”​

Irenaeus definitely anticipates the arrival of a perfect new earth after Jesus returns. The curse is gone. The reference to “the pain of the stroke” or “the stroke of their wound” in Isaiah 30:26 relates to the awful fruit of the Fall – depravity, decay, disease, deception and death. According to Irenaeus, death is terminated at the second coming. He shows this to be the time of when the righteous are resurrected. Irenaeus contends, speaking of the curse: “which [stroke] the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers.” This shows how different ancient Chiliasm and modern Premillennialism is.
 
Last edited:

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well it is not a premil scheme but a biblical mandate! Because you reject a literal kingdom on earth where God fulfills all His covenant promises made to Israel, you have to reinterpret so much of the Old and New testament to keep Jesus from reigning on earth as He said He would!

YOu need to remember that Jesus ends His reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords when He defeats death and teh grave asGod declared in 1 Cor. 15:

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

As Jesus is in heaven now doing two things: preparing a place forf the church in His Fathers house, and ever living to make intercession for us as our great High Priest, He has not yet begun His reign, for only the Father reigns in heaven.

Where does Revelation 20 or any other New Testament passage teach the reintroduction of the old covenant blood sacrifices for sin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.