The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

Irenaeus left no time for a millennium.

“For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year." (Against Heresies, 5:28:3)

And this provides what? That a future Millennium doesn't exist? On the contrary the "sixth day" is the time for the present era. The "seventh day" is for the future Millennium. This is the well-known Millennial Day theory.

Here is a reference from the Net: Apple Eye Ministries HERE

 

[Randy Kluth]

What a shabby thread! An Amill statement is made, and all discussion that disagrees with it, and all references provided, are dismissed as irrelevant or "discredited." I guess someone is just looking for those who agree with him or who will follow him? That is no way to find confirmation of your point that Premill is to be associated with heretics.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Good to see you.

Which chapter bro?

I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth declares the Lord. I will sweep away both man and beast; I will sweep away the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea - and the idols that cause the wicked to stumble. When I destroy all mankind on the face of the earth, declares the Lord ... The great day of the Lord is near - near and coming quickly. The cry on the day of the Lord is bitter; the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry ... Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath. In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth. (Zephaniah 1:2-18)

Therefore wait for me, declares the Lord, for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them - all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger. (Zephaniah3:8)​

Just a quick point regarding the relevance of Zephaniah to this thread: Premils love applying Old Testament prophecy to end time prophecy. However, they rarely (if ever) quote Zephaniah. The reason is that Zephaniah supports an Amil scenario - "The whole world will be consumed." Planet earth won't simply get singed on top.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth declares the Lord. I will sweep away both man and beast; I will sweep away the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea - and the idols that cause the wicked to stumble. When I destroy all mankind on the face of the earth, declares the Lord ... The great day of the Lord is near - near and coming quickly. The cry on the day of the Lord is bitter; the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry ... Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath. In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth. (Zephaniah 1:2-18)

Therefore wait for me, declares the Lord, for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them - all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger. (Zephaniah3:8)​

Just a quick point regarding the relevance of Zephaniah to this thread: Premils love applying Old Testament prophecy to end time prophecy. However, they rarely (if ever) quote Zephaniah. The reason is that Zephaniah supports an Amil scenario - "The whole world will be consumed." Planet earth won't simply get singed on top.

Premill would say that striking universal language can apply in a local environment. For example, in the context of the destruction of someone's front yard: "the entire earth was engulfed in gravel and debris, as the house exploded." The phrase, "the entire earth" in context refers to a limited environment. So it is not the universal language, but rather, the *context* that determines the circle we must draw around that destruction.

If the destruction is overwhelming, you must ask, overwhelming for who? If it is only overwhelming for the wicked, then the whole earth could be on fire, destroying only the wicked. In other words, it is taking place everywhere, but largely to destroy wicked armies and wicked countries. You must take into consideration the context, because this kind of language is used biblically for OT judgments that did not see the entire planet consumed in fire!

Jer 51.25 “I am against you, you destroying mountain, you who destroy the whole earth,” declares the Lord. “I will stretch out my hand against you, roll you off the cliffs, and make you a burned-out mountain."

The "whole earth" here represents only a portion of the earth, actually, since the phrase in context refers to the entire territory around Babylon. Context is king.

 

[Taken]

None of your supposed supporting text mentions a future millennium.

Seems your confusion is not knowing millennium means 1,000 years.

All we await is eternity.

Nah.

The Converted await eternity in assuredness of Salvation.
Gentile Believers await eternity in hopefulness of Salvation.
Jewish Tribesmen await in hopefulness of their Savior.
Unbelievers await assuredness of Death is their end.

 

[Taken]

And it was.

GOSPEL TO BE PREACHED TO THE NATIONS

Yes. And the preaching by efforts of man Continues.
Yes. And the preaching by Two Witness during the Trib.
Yes. And the preaching by 144,000 during the Trib.
Yes. And an Angel preaches to all on Earth during the Trib.
Yes. And during the 1,000 year reign preaching Continues among mortals.

Gods Will be done.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Premill would say that striking universal language can apply in a local environment ... The "whole earth" here represents only a portion of the earth, actually, since the phrase in context refers to the entire territory around Babylon. Context is king.

Yeah, I realise that Zephaniah preached not long before Babylon invaded Judah. So, Premils do not give it an end times application in much the same way as Preterists limit certain prophecies to AD 70 refusing to admit the possibility of a greater fulfillment preceding Christ’s second coming.

This is where end-timers of all stripes need to acknowledge the phenomenon of ‘near/far’ fulfilment of prophecy. Near/far prophecy happens when a prediction takes place sometime after the announcement then a fulfilment happens again, usually expanding on the former fulfilment. In other words, the early event occurs but is precursor to a greater fulfilment to come. In both cases the fulfilments are clearly recognisable to the era concerned, except that in the near case the tone is literal and the far appears exaggerated. In actual fact, both portions of the prophecy are literal. There are many examples of near/far prophecy in the Bible.

One of the greatest apologists for historic premil, George E. Ladd, recognizes this. To quote: "The prophets had two foci in their prophetic perspective: the events of the immediate future and the ultimate eschatological event.” (Commentary on the Revelation of John, Intro – p 12-14.) Actually, Ladd gives Zephaniah as an example.

Hey Randy, have you compared Zephaniah’s prediction concerning the fish of the sea with Revelations prophecy of no more fish in the sea? Sounds Amillish to me.

 

[WPM]

I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth declares the Lord. I will sweep away both man and beast; I will sweep away the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea - and the idols that cause the wicked to stumble. When I destroy all mankind on the face of the earth, declares the Lord ... The great day of the Lord is near - near and coming quickly. The cry on the day of the Lord is bitter; the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry ... Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath. In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth. (Zephaniah 1:2-18)

Therefore wait for me, declares the Lord, for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them - all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger. (Zephaniah3:8)​

Just a quick point regarding the relevance of Zephaniah to this thread: Premils love applying Old Testament prophecy to end time prophecy. However, they rarely (if ever) quote Zephaniah. The reason is that Zephaniah supports an Amil scenario - "The whole world will be consumed." Planet earth won't simply get singed on top.

Absolutely. Good point!

 

[WPM]

Premill would say that striking universal language can apply in a local environment. For example, in the context of the destruction of someone's front yard: "the entire earth was engulfed in gravel and debris, as the house exploded." The phrase, "the entire earth" in context refers to a limited environment. So it is not the universal language, but rather, the *context* that determines the circle we must draw around that destruction.

If the destruction is overwhelming, you must ask, overwhelming for who? If it is only overwhelming for the wicked, then the whole earth could be on fire, destroying only the wicked. In other words, it is taking place everywhere, but largely to destroy wicked armies and wicked countries. You must take into consideration the context, because this kind of language is used biblically for OT judgments that did not see the entire planet consumed in fire!

Jer 51.25 “I am against you, you destroying mountain, you who destroy the whole earth,” declares the Lord. “I will stretch out my hand against you, roll you off the cliffs, and make you a burned-out mountain."

The "whole earth" here represents only a portion of the earth, actually, since the phrase in context refers to the entire territory around Babylon. Context is king.

Context? Please do not go there.

No! What facilitates Premil governs your hermeneutics. A literal straightforward objective reading seems to mean little for you. This is horrible hermeneutics. It is blatantly flawed and untrustworthy. As others have said: it is actually Amils who are the typical literalists in end-time passages, and Premils spiritualize (or explain away) the explicit inspired detail away. This is just another example of countless where you and others do so. Amils spiritualize much of Revelation because context, genre and flow tell us that it is mainly figurative terms in the most symbolic setting in Scripture. What do Premils do there (surprise, surprise)? Literalize the apocalyptic detail. Talk about error and duplicity!!!

 

[WPM]

Seems your confusion is not knowing millennium means 1,000 years.



Nah.

The Converted await eternity in assuredness of Salvation.
Gentile Believers await eternity in hopefulness of Salvation.
Jewish Tribesmen await in hopefulness of their Savior.
Unbelievers await assuredness of Death is their end.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

 

[WPM]

What a shabby thread! An Amill statement is made, and all discussion that disagrees with it, and all references provided, are dismissed as irrelevant or "discredited." I guess someone is just looking for those who agree with him or who will follow him? That is no way to find confirmation of your point that Premill is to be associated with heretics.

That is all you have to bring to the table - insults and taunts. You have nothing of historic value. This is obviously your filibuster tactic. Oh, and also, your trustworthy authoritative historian - Thomas Ice. This just about sums up the Premil rebuttal on this thread in a nutshell.

 

[WPM]

And this provides what? That a future Millennium doesn't exist? On the contrary the "sixth day" is the time for the present era. The "seventh day" is for the future Millennium. This is the well-known Millennial Day theory.

Here is a reference from the Net: Apple Eye Ministries HERE

Everything you have claimed so far on this thread has been refuted. All you are left with now is your bias and inaccurate Premil websites. That is your default system every time we discuss this subject. That is all you have.

Your repeated admission over the years that you have not examined this in-depth is once-again shown here. Until you can actually take the time to study this then your rants count for nothing. Your avoidance speaks for itself.

As you know, I never engage with outside websites. So, it is pointless presenting them.

 

[WPM]

Ice is not the point. The representations of what the mentioned Church Fathers believed is the point. I'm not a Pretrib, but I'm using him on behalf of Premill, which I do agree with. He cites Church Fathers who were Premill. You said I provide nothing. You aren't correct. You just wish to ignore it.

Exactly! This is the basis of your scholarly response. This is totally unacceptable. Ice has been long-disproved for his writings. They are bias, untrustworthy and unobjective. But the cat is out of the box now. This is who appeals to you and who satisfies your ECF curiosity. This is what you depend upon, this is where you go, for your ancient information. Extremely telling!

 

[WPM]

No, face value only means what it does in context. I'm surprised that you would relegate "context" to 2nd place or worse.

The beginning of what? The end of what? In context, the Bible refers to Israel's punishments as time periods, or ages. In the Gospels, Jesus identified the period of NT judgment as an age. The context indicates that age will end when the "times of the Gentiles" come to an end.

Solomon declared in Ecclesiastes 3:11: “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”

Would an objective Christian question the meaning of “the beginning” and “the end” here? Of course not! It is as plain as day in its import and context.

The Old Testament prophets and the New Testament writers frequently referred to the beginning of creation, this world, time, and life as simply “the beginning” and the termination of time, the removal of the bondage of corruption and the introduction of the new eternal state as “the end.”

Premillennialists, and a growing number of Preterists, try to downplay the normal and accepted meaning of the phrase of “the end” to negate its obvious meaning in order to support their inflexible doctrines. While they have no difficulty whatsoever comprehending the meaning of the phrase “the beginning” because it does not interfere with their theology, they become lax in their hermeneutics and free-thinking in their approach when it comes to the meaning of the phrase “the end.” That is because it cuts across their theology. According to their reasoning: the end cannot be the end but rather a parenthesis in history along the road on the way to “the end” in order to let their theology fit. In doing this, Premils totally negate the very meaning of this familiar phrase and climactic event.

Hebrews 1:10-12 tells us, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning [Gr. archē] hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old [Gr. palaioo] as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed [Gr. allasso]: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.”

Here we see the duration of this current earth and the whole span of time outlined from the beginning till the end. This corresponds with the current creation around us. It describes the forming of the earth (which was originally perfect), followed by the gradual decay after the Fall (because of the bondage of corruption), and its final replacement at the end to a new glorified eternal incorrupt status.

The two words that are used in the New Testament to describe the start and finish of this current temporal state of time are archē meaning “beginning” and telos meaning “end.” They are the antithesis of each other. The word archē basically means the origin or the commencement. The word telos means the termination, completion or that by which a thing is finished. Notably, the Bible continually relates this phrase “the end” [Gr. telos] to the second coming. The Lord’s return is shown to usher in the completion of this age and of time.

Scripture constantly shows the creation of this earth and the beginning of this world to be the beginning of this age. Likewise, the end of this world and the regeneration of this earth is repeatedly shown to correspond with the end of this age. Time and history find themselves sandwiched in between these two great events. Simply put: “this age” refers to “time” and “the age to come” or the “hereafter” refers to “eternity.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

As others have said: it is actually Amils who are the typical literalists in end-time passages, and Premils spiritualize (or explain away) the explicit inspired detail away.

lol! Who have said this--Amills?

Any objective person viewing Amil vs Premil would conclude that Amils *spiritualize away* the literal rendering of "1000 years." Brother, you are blinded by your bias. Even if I was Amill I would admit I'm "spiritualizing" the Millennium!

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is all you have to bring to the table - insults and taunts. You have nothing of historic value. This is obviously your filibuster tactic. Oh, and also, your trustworthy authoritative historian - Thomas Ice. This just about sums up the Premil rebuttal on this thread in a nutshell.

I was quoting Ice because of his quotations, and you attack him personally in order to avoid responding to the quotations. If I insult you, brother, it's only because your entire thread is predicated on your declared association of my view, Premill, with the heretic Cerinthus.

Furthermore, you insult me by saying I "bring nothing" when my very first response was to say that early Premills and modern Premills both reject Cerinthus as a heretic. You simply declare such a response of no value, and insist I bring "nothing."

You claim I bring nothing of "historical" value, with the underlying assumption that your continual, repetitive references to old arguments makes you a reliable contributor of "historical material." Again, I responded by pointing out that these arguments, between Amill and Premill, are already well-known and were already brought to the table many times.

But you seem to think by bringing them again and again that that makes you someone bringing "historical value" to a discussion. On the other hand, you seem to think that renders what I bring void of historical value, even after I point out that I already know what those arguments were, eg the argument by Amills vs Premills suggesting that they are, like Cerinthus, interested in a luxurious, material Kingdom, dripping with sinful lusts.

You insult me by saying this is way over my head, whereas you don't even seem to understand by my comments that I already know all of these arguments. You should begin with a more reasonable subject for a thread. It begins with an insult. You'd have to be pretty thick if you didn't expect that to bring a negative reaction from Premills. Perhaps that is precisely what you wished to provoke?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Everything you have claimed so far on this thread has been refuted. All you are left with now is your bias and inaccurate Premil websites. That is your default system every time we discuss this subject. That is all you have.

Your repeated admission over the years that you have not examined this in-depth is once-again shown here. Until you can actually take the time to study this then your rants count for nothing. Your avoidance speaks for itself.

As you know, I never engage with outside websites. So, it is pointless presenting them.

You can't be bothered with evidence, nor is anything of value needing to be refuted?--that by authority of your own word. Sounds like you really enjoy arguing all by yourself? Next time you suggest I'm not bringing anything, consider the fact you won't consider anything. It's really a sham.

It goes like this. WPM, you bring nothing, you're ignorant, and whatever you bring has been thoroughly refuted. I say this on authority of my own word. Sound familiar?

And by the way, anything you bring is ruled out as evidence because by my rules it isn't worth my time considering. It's completely biased against my position.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Exactly! This is the basis of your scholarly response. This is totally unacceptable. Ice has been long-disproved for his writings. They are bias, untrustworthy and unobjective. But the cat is out of the box now. This is who appeals to you and who satisfies your ECF curiosity. This is what you depend upon, this is where you go, for your ancient information. Extremely telling!

You seem to rule out anything that involves someone you regard as unworthy, because they represent a position that has a bias. On that basis, all Premills would rule you out as unworthy and biased. This seems to be the way you "check out" from having to deal with opposition.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Solomon declared in Ecclesiastes 3:11: “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”

Would an objective Christian question the meaning of “the beginning” and “the end” here? Of course not! It is as plain as day in its import and context.

That's the point. Context is king. Any scholar knows this. What Solomon said about the beginning and end has one context, and what Jesus said about the age of Jewish Punishment has a different context. It is an Interpretive Fallacy to declare a single "beginning and end" for the entire Bible. Each reference has its own context and must be considered individually.

Premillennialists, and a growing number of Preterists, try to downplay the normal and accepted meaning of the phrase of “the end” to negate its obvious meaning in order to support their inflexible doctrines.

You have nothing to bring, are ignorant, and I don't respond to biased statements. I say this on the authority of my own word. --I'm mirroring, in jest, your own approach.

What I'm really saying is, don't bring me any more arguments when you don't respond to any of my arguments

I'm trying very hard not to be insulting like you. My answers here are only to defend the truth against provocative Christians like you.

I'd really like to have honest discussions with you. But you can't begin by posting threads insulting the "founders of Premill as heretics!" That indicates you do not begin on equal ground. You begin with a committed bias, not hoping for any real discussion with your opponents.

I mean, you could have started by asking the question. But no, you declared this without inviting any serious response.

 

[covenantee]

And this provides what? That a future Millennium doesn't exist? On the contrary the "sixth day" is the time for the present era. The "seventh day" is for the future Millennium. This is the well-known Millennial Day theory.

Here is a reference from the Net: Apple Eye Ministries HERE

For some reason, the author in your link, under the Abrahamic Covenant, concluded his first quote from Irenaeus immediately before Irenaeus declared the following:

For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise." And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, "The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." And again, confirming his former words, he says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, fore-seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

Why would that be?