25 questions that prove that ancient Chiliasm was a different animal to modern Premil

  • 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!

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Please stay away from this thread if you have no interest in addressing these historic issues or you wish to engage in ad hominem.

I have given RandyPNW time to prove his unsubstantiated and repeated claim that the beliefs of the ancient Chiliasts were the same (or similar) as modern Premil. Of course, the opposite is the truth. They were more akin to Amil. As I said in the Op: both ancient Chiliasts and Amil believed that:

· Sin and sinners will be destroyed at the second coming.
· Mortals and mortality will be destroyed at the second coming.
· Satan and his demons will be destroyed at the second coming.

The future millennium the early Chiliasts anticipated was a perfect unspoiled arrangement devoid of the awful results of the Fall. This is altogether different to that which is advocated by modern-day Premillennialists, who see all the bondage of corruption continuing after Jesus comes in all His majestic glory. Sin and sinners, dying and crying, decay and disease, and Satan and his minions can all be found in the Premillennialist age to come. In fact, these increase gradually over the course of their millennium to the degree that Satan is able to mobilize a gargantuan army of followers to surround Christ and the saints before the great white throne.

RandyPNW has been unable to answer one single question i have presented. I am going to give other Premils the opportunity to bring evidence to the table to support such a claim.

1. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Satan being cast down from heaven at the second coming?
2. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the binding of Satan at the second coming?
3. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?
4. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Satan survives the second coming?
5. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the second coming?
6. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked populate a future millennial earth?
7. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that the curse continues unabated on a future millennial earth?
8. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that mortals will populate future millennial earth?
9. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that marriage and procreation continue on on a future millennial earth?
10.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that sin continues on in a future millennial earth?
11.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that death continues on in a future millennial earth?
12.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that corruption continues unabated on in a future millennial earth?
13.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus will rule over his enemies for a thousand years after the second coming?
14.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the saints rule over mortal humanity for a thousand years?
15.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the glorified Church will rule in the Millennial era, causing all on earth to submit to the rule of Christ at that time?
16.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the restoring of Israel back to her old covenant theocratic status in a future millennium?
17.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Israel retaking her ancient borders in a future millennium?
18.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan will be released from the bottomless pit 1000 years after the second coming?
19.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as the sand of the sea?
20.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
21.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
22.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second (or 3rd for Pretribbers) rapture when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
23.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second glorification when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
24.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 last days periods?
25.Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 new heavens and new earths one with sin, sinners and corruption in it and the other perfect?
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From the feedback I am getting on different boards, many posters are now seeing the perpetual Premil boast of the majority of the early ECFs being classic Premil to be fake news.
So, they are seeing through the lies. That's good. I'm continually amazed at how some posters are willing to blatantly lie to support their doctrine. This should never be the case for a Christian! I just can't believe the lies I see in some of these threads. And, I'm not talking about false interpretations (of scripture or of ECF writings) that people are making by mistake. Those aren't lies. They're just mistakes. I'm talking about people knowingly lying in an effort to keep their doctrine afloat. It's sad.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, they are seeing through the lies. That's good. I'm continually amazed at how some posters are willing to blatantly lie to support their doctrine. This should never be the case for a Christian! I just can't believe the lies I see in some of these threads. And, I'm not talking about false interpretations (of scripture or of ECF writings) that people are making by mistake. Those aren't lies. They're just mistakes. I'm talking about people knowingly lying in an effort to keep their doctrine afloat. It's sad.

I totally agree. But is shows when someone is winging it. They have no hard facts to bring just bias opinions. It is hard to read. It is unadulterated pride.
 

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
10,760
3,214
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm continually amazed at how some posters are willing to blatantly lie to support their doctrine. This should never be the case for a Christian! I just can't believe the lies I see in some of these threads. And, I'm not talking about false interpretations (of scripture or of ECF writings) that people are making by mistake. Those aren't lies. They're just mistakes. I'm talking about people knowingly lying in an effort to keep their doctrine afloat. It's sad.
I say the same of those promoting reformed preterist eschatology in 66-70AD fulfillment, in my opinion "A Lie"

Matthew 24:15 (Daniel's AOD) Matthew 24:21 (The Great Tribulation) these are future events unfulfilled
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pertinent questions Paul :cool: but can you tell us why you quote AD 240 and AD 270. That was in the middle of the Imperial persecutions. How are they related to your subject?

Good questions. These are neat informed generalities.

Tertullian who lived between AD 160 and AD 240 is the first Chiliast to cite the casting of Satan into the bottomless pit at the second coming, although he makes absolutely no reference to his release, resulting malevolence or influence on planet earth.

Commodianus, who wrote between AD 251 and 258, is the first orthodox Premillennialist to clearly and unambiguously state that there will be mortal beings in a future millennium that will join in marriage and enjoy sexual relations, producing offspring. But importantly, he limits this reality to the righteous alone (those “who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist”).

Victorinus was the first orthodox Premillennialist writer to teach that the wicked populate a future millennial kingdom. He is also the first to detail Satan’s release after a literal thousand years in the future, whereupon he will use his baleful influence successfully on the wicked who supposedly during Satan’s little season. Victorinus wrote mainly around AD 270. Victorinus concisely submits.

Lactantius would later add more meat on the bones. He was from Africa and is the first to go into any sizeable and real recognizable detail on the subject. His main work – the Epitome of the Divine Institutes – was believed to have been first published between AD 304 and AD 311.

It is amazing, allowing for the amount of Chiliast writings we still possess, for there to be such a dearth of detail up until Lactantius in the late 3rd century.

So, there was a method behind my madness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Christian Gedge

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I say the same of those promoting reformed preterist eschatology in 66-70AD fulfillment, in my opinion "A Lie"

Matthew 24:15 (Daniel's AOD) Matthew 24:21 (The Great Tribulation) these are future events unfulfilled

Your Dispensationalist theology has been ably rebutted by several posters here but you have constantly steered around these posts.
 

Christian Gedge

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2022
317
394
63
Waikato
5loaves2fishes.wixsite.com
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Tertullian who lived between AD 160 and AD 240 is the first Chiliast to cite the casting of Satan into the bottomless pit at the second coming, although he makes absolutely no reference to his release, resulting malevolence or influence on planet earth.
Tertullian had a bit to do with the Montanists I think. Were the they Chilliast or full blown Premil?
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Tertullian had a bit to do with the Montanists I think. Were the they Chilliast or full blown Premil?

He did. The Montanist writings have all but perished, except for a few brief quotes in the early writers. Honestly, they are claimed to be Chiliasts by many but exact direct evidence is scarce. The link with Tertullian is the strongest argument, although, that (of itself) does not mean they were. That is because there is so many opinions within opinions in the early writers. Many Premils actually blame the Montanists for the demise of Chiliasm. But i wish I could get hard eschatological quotes from the Montanists.
 

Christian Gedge

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2022
317
394
63
Waikato
5loaves2fishes.wixsite.com
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
I seem to recall the Montanists being akin to the Irvingites. If that's the case, they would have been early dispensationalists. But its a long time since I studied Church history. Keep going bro.
 

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
10,760
3,214
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your Dispensationalist theology has been ably rebutted by several posters here but you have constantly steered around these posts.
False claim, you have no answer to the fact that Daniel's AOD seen below is "Future", while you claim others are winging it, reformed preterist eschatology in 66-70AD fulfillment is a farce, just like a Pre-Trib rapture and Millennial Kingdom on this earth is a farce

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster

Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2:
the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations
he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
 
Last edited:

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I seem to recall the Montanists being akin to the Irvingites. If that's the case, they would have been early dispensationalists. But its a long time since I studied Church history. Keep going bro.

Yes, what I have read would seem to suggest that. It would just be nice to have their beliefs in writing. There is a suggestion that there was a notable abuse of the gifts of the Spirit with them. The fact their writings were destroyed en-masse indicates that they were counted a threat to orthodox Christianity by the Church of that day. But there is a severe lack of hard historic evidence which causes me to pause in being too definitive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Christian Gedge

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,402
1,847
113
72
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
False claim, you have no answer to the fact that Daniel's AOD seen below is "Future", while you claim others are winging it, reformed preterist eschatology in 66-70AD fulfillment is a farce, just like a Pre-Trib rapture and Millennial Kingdom on this earth is a farce

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster

Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2:
the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations
he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Debunked.
 

WPM

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

Whilst ancient and modern Amillennialists share much in common with the earliest Chiliast fathers in regard to the character of the age to come, those who inhabit it and the environment produced that follows the return of Christ, they go their separate ways with them on their view of the intermediate state and the location and nature of the thousand years.

Despite this large-scale concord between both in regard to the perfect and pristine nature of the world to come, there was a strong passionate underlying divergence on the location of the redeemed after death. This was hotly disputed between both sides. This was indeed a toxic battlefield. To gain favor and diminish the credibility of the other position, each likened the view of the other to heretics or apostates. Ironically, the intermediate state would be an issue of nearly wholesale agreement today between modern-day evangelical Amillennialists and Premillennialists.

Amillennialists believed (and believe) the dead in Christ remain in heaven in a disembodied state to rule with Christ until the second coming. The dead saints then return with Christ in majesty and glory, to put on their new glorified resurrected bodies. They taught that the second coming ushered in the end of time; this would see the removal of this current corrupt earth, sin, sinners and Satan and would usher in the introduction of the new heavens and new earth.

Even though the early Chiliasts recognized those who believed in a climactic coming of Christ as orthodox brethren, they often repudiated their beliefs by likening them to the heretical Gnostics who believed God’s people went direct into the presence of God upon death. It seems possible that they used the Gnostic card as a weapon to blacken the other position, discredit the idea of a heavenly intermediate state and a climactic return of Christ so as to dissuade people away from Amillennialism. From studying the early writers, we can see that the same passion and partiality that exists today within the different camps in regard to eschatology was similarly displayed back then.

These of course were convenient associations to place against either because there was a semblance of truth to the charges, in that each camp did hold similar views to the repudiated groups on the matter of the afterlife. Of course, the Jews rejected Christ’s sinless life, atoning death and glorious resurrection. They taught that the faithful went to Abraham’s bosom upon death and stayed there until resurrection day. The Gnostics advocated that the faithful ascended straight into the heavenlies upon death. So, these were smart connections to make to discredit their rivals.

Although this may seem strange to us living in our day, this was the chosen battle field that divided the ancient fathers on either side of the millennial debate. This is a prime example of how we must glean the prevailing points of contention back in the day before jumping to rash conclusions. The fact is: we have no right to decide the critical conflict of the ancients. They already chose it. We just have to understand it.

Leading Chiliasts, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian all acknowledged that there was a sizeable movement of genuine established orthodox advocates who rejected the Chiliast viewpoint. Their influence must have been significant because they are recognized as an establish grouping within the early Church. Irenaeus testifies:

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).​

These noted orthodox Amillennialists are rebuked here for rejecting the Chiliast blueprint concerning the three-fold gradation experience of believers. This involved three periods of progressive testing and refining. This was considered an all-inclusive package. One naturally led to the other, in Irenaeus’ mind. While Amillennialists saw this present life as the one-and-only test for mankind, they were strongly criticized for being against the idea of a purgatory-style cleansing intermediate state in Hades before the second coming followed by another refining age in between “this age” (time) and “the age to come” (eternity). This future millennial period was said to involve a stripping that supposedly equipped the saints to “gradually … partake of the divine nature.” These early Amillennialists were condemned for rejecting the idea of a future earthly period that involved the gradual improvement of the resurrected saints. They rather held that glorification will fully and completely perfect the people of God for all eternity when Jesus comes, whereupon they will populate the new regenerated earth.

Charles E. Hill highlights in his excellent ground-breaking work Regnum Caelorum: “the purpose of Irenaeus here is to clear the way for his exposition of millennialism by explaining why there are some from amongst those who … ‘are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption,’ that is, who are not Chiliasts. By giving no place to an earthly millennium these orthodox thus leave out a crucial step in the ordo promotionis justorum.”

Irenaeus saw “the resurrection of the just” ushering in “the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption.” This is notable because Irenaeus later places the judgment of believers after the completion of his future millennium. This phrase “the commencement of incorruption” implies that the saints would continue to undergo spiritual improvement in a future millennium to prepare them for the eternal state.

Irenaeus attacked the Amillennialists who believed that the dead in Christ ascended immediately into the presence of God after their departure from this life. He censured those who opposed his belief that the righteous dead went direct to Hades to be tested upon death and await the second coming. Irenaeus often likened their views to those of the heretics:

Since … some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, despising the handiwork of God, and not admitting the salvation of their flesh, while they also treat the promise of God contemptuously, and pass beyond God altogether in the sentiments they form, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned. Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man (universam reprobant resurrectionem), and as far as in them lies remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme], how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection? (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:1).​

These “orthodox” Amillennialists who believed the dead in Christ rise immediately in spirit into the presence of God in heaven upon death are strongly criticized by Irenaeus. He likened the view of the disembodied elect entering heaven upon death to the heresy of Gnosticism. However, this seems strange in the light of the biblical teaching that to be absent from the body” is “to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). This is a view that is commonly accepted by most sound Premillennialists and Amillennialists today. Saying all this, there is no doubt that there was probably a lot of theological posturing going on here in these comments, in order to discredit “the other side’s beliefs.” Nothing, at this time, would have got believers attention more or had more impact than likening a doctrine to Gnosticism.

There were two main issues

Irenaeus shows how this issue of the condition of the dead in the intermediate state was the main battle field that differentiated the early Amillennialists from the early Chiliasts. Their respective camp spelt their eschatological edifices upon the foundation of this issue.

Early Amillennialist teaching would obviously have cut across Irenaeus’ elaborate scheme of a “pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just” and would have doubtless have caused this top Chiliast proponent to strongly refute this major opposing doctrine.

Irenaeus was not suggesting that the orthodox Amillennial advocates in any way rejected the physical resurrection when Jesus comes, after all, to believe such would immediately nullify their orthodox credentials; it would also invalidate the distinction and comparison between the mainstream and the heretics. It would place them far outside the pale of orthodoxy. He simply disagreed with them dividing up the ascent of the inward man and the physical man in the whole resurrection process. He believed that the soul and spirit would not be perfected until it was clothed with a glorified body. Basically, it was all or nothing. In his estimation, this would only occur at the Second Advent. In his reasoning, he is out of step with most sound Premillennialists today, of whatever shade.

Irenaeus rebuked his opponents for their denial of a 3-tier method of refining the elect in life, and after death in Hades and in a future millennial kingdom, preparing them for eternity. Amillennialists believed that the way people die is the way they will be rewarded in the afterlife. They had no biblical reason to believe any form of evolving progress in the life to come.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Fellow Chiliast, Justin also acknowledged that there were many sincere brethren among the orthodox who rejected Chiliasm. Justin asked Trypho (his Jewish opponent):

Tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?" I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise (Dialogue with Trypho: Chapter 80).​

Justin admits that there were “many” sincere non-millennialist believers in his day. The only apparent difference between Justin and Irenaeus’ teaching seems to be that Justin advanced nothing in regard to the just being “disciplined beforehand for incorruption.” That in itself does not suggest that he didn’t believe such. He definitely held to the general format Irenaeus taught. We just do not have any surviving statements on that matter. Justin then speaks about other non-orthodox apostate professors who also rejected this Chiliast theory:

I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist, Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him (Dialogue with Trypho: Chapter 80).​

Justin makes a definite distinction between the “true Christians” who are Amillennial and those “who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics.” The only common agreement was their contention that the dead go to heaven upon death. While Justin’s disagreement with his Amillennial brethren (“who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians”) was focused on the destiny of God’s people after death, and the state and duration of the earth after Christ’s return, Justin, like Irenaeus, outlined his full opposition to the Gnostics, and their belief that “there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven.” Again, there is no suggestion that his opposition to his non-Chiliast brethren was based on their denial of a future physical resurrection, but, rather that they rejected the idea of the afterlife of the elect being in a subterranean vault, and also a future age in between this age and the eternal state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffweeder