The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

Randy, you're not paying attention. You're better than that. Did you not see the quote of Justin Martyr that I showed you? He was an early church Premil and he said there were many true Christians who believed otherwise from his Premil belief. Shouldn't we believe an actual early church father over Thomas Ice when it comes to what people in the early church believed? I think so.

Yes, I didn't realize how seriously you took your quote from Justin Martyr. I've heard it many times! How I've always taken it is that there were indeed several positions in eschatology in the Early Church, which is normal. But that never indicated to me that there was no dominant Premill consensus. Everything I've read, and I've read quite a bit on this, suggested that Premill was dominant. Every Amill argument seemed to try to read Amill into obvious Premill teaching, and I still feel this way.

I don't quote Ice to defer to him. I quote him simply because I agree with him. He states it nicely so that I don't have to bring up all the quotes myself once again--I've brought them all up before myself. But it's tedious doing this, unless you have them all stored on your computer. I refuse to be like WPM, who regularly copies and pastes long discussions that don't even apply to the person he's talking to. And I don't want you to be like that either.

He misrepresents me all the time by saying I'm ignorant of all this. I can't change his tactics--they're ugly. In reality, I've been reading bits and pieces, and sometimes entire sections of the Church Fathers for a long time. I have a couple of books of readings from them on various subjects. I'm *not* ignorant of them, as he indicates.

So I appreciate and respect the fact you quote something from Justin Martyr. I'm already familiar with it, and I enjoy reading it again. It just doesn't suggest that there were *equal* views of Premill and Amill in his time--it only suggests there were a variety of positions, not saying which view was dominant. I assume the Premill position is dominant not because of Ice, nor because of any one historian, but rather, because the consensus of virtually all scholars and historians on the subject is that Premill was dominant early on. I like to quote Philp Schaff on that, as you probably have already seen.

But thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you have proof that I haven't seen that Amill was dominant early on, or that it was at least an *equal* view at that time? God bless.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No. I do not come to debate with any old questionable website that cannot respond to me. I have never fallen for that. I come to interact with posters on the subject at hand. You hide behind outside links because you do not have the interest or discipline to do the donkey work, yet, you always presnt yourself on these boards as the main Premil objector to the facts. Ridiculous!

All you like to do is make up what you think about people, which borders on slander. If I were you, I'd change your tactics, and learn a little humility.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I didn't realize how seriously you took your quote from Justin Martyr. I've heard it many times! How I've always taken it is that there were indeed several positions in eschatology in the Early Church, which is normal. But that never indicated to me that there was no dominant Premill consensus. Everything I've read, and I've read quite a bit on this, suggested that Premill was dominant. Every Amill argument seemed to try to read Amill into obvious Premill teaching, and I still feel this way.

I don't quote Ice to defer to him. I quote him simply because I agree with him. He states it nicely so that I don't have to bring up all the quotes myself once again--I've brought them all up before myself. But it's tedious doing this, unless you have them all stored on your computer. I refuse to be like WPM, who regularly copies and pastes long discussions that don't even apply to the person he's talking to. And I don't want you to be like that either.

He misrepresents me all the time by saying I'm ignorant of all this. I can't change his tactics--they're ugly. In reality, I've been reading bits and pieces, and sometimes entire sections of the Church Fathers for a long time. I have a couple of books of readings from them on various subjects. I'm *not* ignorant of them, as he indicates.

So I appreciate and respect the fact you quote something from Justin Martyr. I'm already familiar with it, and I enjoy reading it again. It just doesn't suggest that there were *equal* views of Premill and Amill in his time--it only suggests there were a variety of positions, not saying which view was dominant. I assume the Premill position is dominant not because of Ice, nor because of any one historian, but rather, because the consensus of virtually all scholars and historians on the subject is that Premill was dominant early on. I like to quote Philp Schaff on that, as you probably have already seen.

But thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you have proof that I haven't seen that Amill was dominant early on, or that it was at least an *equal* view at that time? God bless.

Direct Thomas Ice here and we will see which position is solid.

 

[WPM]

All you like to do is make up what you think about people, which borders on slander. If I were you, I'd change your tactics, and learn a little humility.

Not so. Your rants and ad-hominem have been there from the start. You are doing your best to derail. You have no historic quotes to bring to the table, only quotes from Thomas Ice. This is the classic Premil response to the historic data.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not so. Your rants and ad-hominem have been there from the start. You are doing your best to derail. You have no historic quotes to bring to the table, only quotes from Thomas Ice. This is the classic Premil response to the historic data.

Grow up.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Direct Thomas Ice here and we will see which position is solid.

Are you serious. Ice is not a part of this forum. I was using a Liberty U. quote, which had compiled the necessary information in quotations so that you could see where I stand. Instead, I get all this personal insult about my not studying, etc.--not you, so much, but brother WPM. Where is his Christian conscience?

This whole thread was predicated upon an insult, insinuating that Premill is based on heresy. And any counter I have is met with an insult. I'm told I bring no historical quotes--just web links. Quite frankly, those web sites contain historical quotes. This is disingenuous, and I'm not interested in increasing the heat.

 

[WPM]

Are you serious. Ice is not a part of this forum. I was using a Liberty U. quote, which had compiled the necessary information in quotations so that you could see where I stand. Instead, I get all this personal insult about my not studying, etc.--not you, so much, but brother WPM. Where is his Christian conscience?

This whole thread was predicated upon an insult, insinuating that Premill is based on heresy. And any counter I have is met with an insult. I'm told I bring no historical quotes--just web links. Quite frankly, those web sites contain historical quotes. This is disingenuous, and I'm not interested in increasing the heat.

Wrong again! Where is your factual detailed rebuttal? Where are your historic quotes? Where is your is your research? Nowhere! That is the issue. There is nothing but your private opinions and dependence upon Thomas Ice (the main advocate of Pretrib error in this nation).

 

[Randy Kluth]

Wrong again! Where is your factual detailed rebuttal? Where are your historic quotes? Where is your is your research? Nowhere! That is the issue. There is nothing but your private opinions and dependence upon Thomas Ice (the main advocate of Pretrib error in this nation).

You're too hyper. When you come down off of your high horse, I'll be here. ;)

 

[jeffweeder]

Grow up.

He has blossomed like a rose Brother. You will do well to listen Imho

 

[WPM]

You're too hyper. When you come down off of your high horse, I'll be here. ;)

This is getting old. No high horse, just sharing historic facts that are (granted) uncomfortable for you to digest. I am still waiting for you to show me where my thesis is inaccurate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

He has blossomed like a rose Brother. You will do well to listen Imho

He is no rose. Sorry, I do have a gift of discernment. The brother is on a pedestal of his own making, judging others on information he has concocted himself. You really need to take a look inside if you think his style is a "rose!" Nor do I think he is particularly bright. Head knowledge does not equal love. And he just doesn't have it.

Everything he does is designed to get followers. Do you really think he wants to debate Premillers if he begins a post by condemning their founders as heretics? No, he is setting himself up as leader of Amill on this forum, as he did on another forum I was on.

I challenged him on every point he made, and unless he has a short memory, he knows I didn't fail to challenge him with references, if necessary. So everything he does is a ruse to cover himself from any challenges by claiming this or that isn't acceptable "historical material."

In reality, he doesn't want to see it at all if it is in the hands of a Prremill. Attacking men like Ice for quoting historical material is evidence he isn't serious. And I won't take him seriously until he 1) begins to show genuine Christian love for those who disagree with him, and 2) accept opposition material as something worth considering, and finally 3) stops attacking those he disagrees with as "frustrated, unstudied, and having nothing."

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is getting old. No high horse, just sharing historic facts that are (granted) uncomfortable for you to digest. I am still waiting for you to show me where my thesis is inaccurate.

Boy are you thick! I've told you an unlimited number of times what the problem is. You decide what material is worth considering. If it is a website that quotes historical material, and represents an opponent's considered opinion, you simply dismiss it as biased or not worth your time. That is the problem. You are up there on your high horse, and certainly not a servant.

 

[WPM]

He is no rose. Sorry, I do have a gift of discernment. The brother is on a pedestal of his own making, judging others on information he has concocted himself. You really need to take a look inside if you think his style is a "rose!" Nor do I think he is particularly bright. Head knowledge does not equal love. And he just doesn't have it.

Everything he does is designed to get followers. Do you really think he wants to debate Premillers if he begins a post by condemning their founders as heretics? No, he is setting himself up as leader of Amill on this forum, as he did on another forum I was on.

I challenged him on every point he made, and unless he has a short memory, he knows I didn't fail to challenge him with references, if necessary. So everything he does is a ruse to cover himself from any challenges by claiming this or that isn't acceptable "historical material."

In reality, he doesn't want to see it at all if it is in the hands of a Prremill. Attacking men like Ice for quoting historical material is evidence he isn't serious. And I won't take him seriously until he 1) begins to show genuine Christian love for those who disagree with him, and 2) accept opposition material as something worth considering, and finally 3) stops attacking those he disagrees with as "frustrated, unstudied, and having nothing."

You come across as a very bitter and frustrated individual. Please stop your ad-hominem and address the historic issues.

 

[WPM]

Boy are you thick! I've told you an unlimited number of times what the problem is. You decide what material is worth considering. If it is a website that quotes historical material, and represents an opponent's considered opinion, you simply dismiss it as biased or not worth your time. That is the problem. You are up there on your high horse, and certainly not a servant.

Your crude and insulting rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired!

We could all present websites that support our position, but that shows a severe weakness of the position being advocated. It also shows the person doing so is bereft of solid arguments and is not confident in his own position or evidence. That seems to be what we are dealing with here. That is not what these forums are set for. They are designed to engender discussion of the facts. Number 1: biblical truth, number 2, other historic facts that relate to the subject under discussion.

Another notable trait of yours is to obsessively and repeatedly attack the messenger, instead of the message. You seem to be full of so much bitterness and antagonism. Maybe if you would focus on the subject instead of the messenger you might calm down.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

If all Scripture is viewed via Amil interpretation bias then it will sound amillish. Circular reinforcement.

The amil version is that Christ hands back a burnt offering. Presumably only ashes.

Primill agree with Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus hands back the creation as it was on the 6th Day. With only death left as the last enemy, not all of creation burned to ashes, with literally nothing there. The last thing consumed by fire is humans who have rebelled. Nothing in Paul, Peter, nor John that says all of creation is left as ashes, and then handed to God.

Burnt offerings ended in the first century with the Cross. Yet all Amil have as their bias in totality, is a burnt offering.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your crude and insulting rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired!

We could all present websites that support our position, but that shows a severe weakness of the position being advocated. It also shows the person doing so is bereft of solid arguments and is not confident in his own position or evidence. That seems to be what we are dealing with here. That is not what these forums are set for. They are designed to engender discussion of the facts. Number 1: biblical truth, number 2, other historic facts that relate to the subject under discussion.

Another notable trait of yours is to obsessively and repeatedly attack the messenger, instead of the message. You seem to be full of so much bitterness and antagonism. Maybe if you would focus on the subject instead of the messenger you might calm down.

I'm calm, brother. You're going nowhere with your doubling down on what I told you was wrong with you. You just aren't getting it, and I'm tired of repeating it. I'd love to get along with you, but you're not humble. And you're not a servant. If you can't deal with a simple website that presents lots of historical quotes on the very subject under investigation, then you're not serious.

Get back with me when you're ready to address Mr. Ice's commentary.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You come across as a very bitter and frustrated individual. Please stop your ad-hominem and address the historic issues.

My intention is not to destroy you, but to set a basis upon which we can treat each other as equals. When I say I think you're setting yourself up "high in the saddle," that's exactly what I'm perceiving, and the thing that's preventing us from addressing one another. You began this thread by attacking and insulting PreMill belief. What did you expect coming back at you?

I don't wish to trade insult for insult, however. My wish is that you correct your attitude, and deal with fellow Christians as equals, rather than begin every post with, "You are so frustrated, brother. I care so much for you!" ;)

But the reality is, you have to listen to the Holy Spirit. If you're comfortable acting the way you do, and speaking to others the way you do, have at it. Personally, I find it offensive, and it only frustrates me that we can't speak to one another in a respectable, spiritual way.

 

[WPM]

I'm calm, brother. You're going nowhere with your doubling down on what I told you was wrong with you. You just aren't getting it, and I'm tired of repeating it. I'd love to get along with you, but you're not humble. And you're not a servant. If you can't deal with a simple website that presents lots of historical quotes on the very subject under investigation, then you're not serious.

Get back with me when you're ready to address Mr. Ice's commentary.

No you are not. You are constantly attacking me.

As I have said, I am not going to debate with Thomas Ice, unless you bring him here. He cannot respond to my rebuttals. His writings are theologically and historically questionable. You hide behind him, because you have no hard ancient historic evidence to rebut my Op. If you had it, you would.

 

[WPM]

My intention is not to destroy you, but to set a basis upon which we can treat each other as equals. When I say I think you're setting yourself up "high in the saddle," that's exactly what I'm perceiving, and the thing that's preventing us from addressing one another. You began this thread by attacking and insulting PreMill belief. What did you expect coming back at you?

I don't wish to trade insult for insult, however. My wish is that you correct your attitude, and deal with fellow Christians as equals, rather than begin every post with, "You are so frustrated, brother. I care so much for you!" ;)

But the reality is, you have to listen to the Holy Spirit. If you're comfortable acting the way you do, and speaking to others the way you do, have at it. Personally, I find it offensive, and it only frustrates me that we can't speak to one another in a respectable, spiritual way.

You cannot destroy me. Who do you think you are?

I look upon all posters here as equals. That is not the issue, or ever has been. The objective onlooker will know that. My issue is your habitual lack of addressing the historic evidence with hard quotes. Like many, I do not care for Ice. I have not read anything you have presented from him because I am here to interact with other posters and I do not accept him as a reputable or objective historian. He is also not here to defend himself.

I do not engage with web-links. I suspect you know that. You will never force me to change that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No you are not. You are constantly attacking me.

No, I'm addressing what your tactics are, and they aren't noble. If that offends you, then change your ways.

As I have said, I am not going to debate with Thomas Ice, unless you bring him here. He cannot respond to my rebuttals. His writings are theologically and historically questionable. You hide behind him, because you have no hard ancient historic evidence to rebut my Op. If you had it, you would.

I'm not hiding behind anybody--I'm here right now! ;) But you see, you aren't debating anything. You just pour out rhetoric to defend your style of avoiding websites, rebuttals, and quotations when the wrong people provide them. I don't think you can answer Thomas Ice. If you can't debate him now, then you can't debate him if he was here.

I've heard everything you have on this years ago. There is absolutely nothing new, nothing that needs debating. Your insulting approach towards Premill is on full display, and it is hardly evangelical in spirit. On the contrary, it is insulting and divisive.