Where is you evidence? Why did you not address the questions I submitted. Every time you touch this subject you fail to furnish us with ancient facts and quotes, only your bias opinions. You have admitted in the past you have never researched this subject, yet you are the first to make wild unsubstantiated statements. How can you present yourself as some great authority when you refuse to take time to study this? At least take time to research this and then we could engage on the facts.
The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
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
Where is you evidence? Why did you not address the questions I submitted. Every time you touch this subject you fail to furnish us with ancient facts and quotes, only your bias opinions. You have admitted in the past you have never researched this subject, yet you are the first to make wild unsubstantiated statements. How can you present yourself as some great authority when you refuse to take time to study this? At least take time to research this and then we could engage on the facts.
Cerinthus
The first promoter of what we know today as modern-day Premillennialism was Cerinthus who lived in the first century, who was strongly opposed by the early Christian Church. Cerinthus was from Western Asia Minor (now Turkey) and lived around A.D. 100. He was a shady individual who promoted a perverted blend of Judaism and Christianity. Two issues that seem to stand out more than anything else in his writings are his heretical Gnostic beliefs and his eschatological Premillennialism. That is not to say that Premillennialism is in any way heretical, it is not! Notwithstanding, these two matters are the preeminent focus of early church criticism of him.
Marcion
The second was Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor who was born in 85 AD and died in 160 AD. He was a pupil of the arch-heretic Cerdo – a Syrian, who taught in Rome about A.D. 140, and whose doctrines resembled those of Cerinthus. Marcion succeeded Cerdo at Rome, about A.D. 160, after he had been excommunicated at Sinope (A.D. 140) by his father, the Bishop of that city, in punishment of a heinous crime
Cerinthus and Marcion seem to have been the first to formulate and propagate many of the main accepted fundamentals of the school of thought that is popularly known today as Premillennialism. Many of these core beliefs were rejected by early Chiliasts. They cut across their perfect expectation of a future millennial earth.
Porphyry/Porphyrius
The 3rd character who arose and taught modern-day-type Premillennialism was also dubious. That was the blasphemer Porphyry from Tyre (ca. 232-ca. 305 C.E.). His parents named him Malchus but his teacher in Athens, Cassius Longinus, gave him the name Porphyrius. He was a Neoplatonic philosopher who became a great enemy of the early Church and truth. He joined a heretical group of Plotinus in Rome where he studied philosophy.
Apollinarius
Later, in the fourth century Apollinarius, who was also viewed as a heretic, took up the baton from the early heretical pioneers. He too departed from orthodoxy in his belief that divinity and humanity could not be united and reconciled in one person. He thought that Jesus did not have a human consciousness, but only a divine one. Apollinarius also came from Asia Minor, from the city of Laodicea in. He is said to have lived between 310 AD - 390 AD. He too was an early advocate of what we know today as Premillenialism.
Asia Minor was the origin of the modern-day Premillenialist theory. The earliest exponents of it were indeed notable heretics. While modern-day evangelical Premils do not necessity look to Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry/Porphyrius and Apollinarius for their inspiration, it is they who first promoted many of their core beliefs on eschatology. Apart from Porphyry/Porphyrius, they all came from Asia Minor.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Scripture certainly doesn't forbid a teaching it teaches! The Earliest Christians taught Premill.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
As I said, that is a flat-out stupid argument. Satan believes what you believe, that God is the Creator. Therefore your belief that God is the Creator is Satanic? John Darby arose about the same time as Charles Darwin and Joseph Smith. What does that say about John Darby?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, Islam took root in places like Egypt and Turkey. Therefore, Christianity, which also existed in those places, are equally corrupt religions? The American Christian cults all believe in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. Therefore, all Americans who believe in Jesus Christ are cultists?
In reality, the Apostle John, via the inspiration of Jesus Christ, founded Pre-Millennialism. John apparently despised Cerinthus. But you defile this idea by associating them as if they believed the same things. Disgusting!
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
False. I answered your questions. And I don't recall saying I haven't researched any of this. I'm not a scholar, but I can certainly smell a bad argument.
One thing I can tell you--you *don't* have the facts. You have obsession with the Amill doctrine.
Just a quick look around, and you will see that good scholarship recognizes the likelihood that Premill was the early dominant view in the Church. That makes it likely that Amill was an afterthought in the fear that the Jewish Hope was an illusion that should be discarded for Replacement Theology.
Associating Premill with Cerinthus is just plain stupid. What we know about Cerinthus is that he was in fact a heretic, and Christians, who were largely Premill, rejected him.
Your tactic of trying to associate legitimate Christian truth with heresy is slanderous and illegitimate.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
So says the pseudo-scholar, who has the chutzpah to relegate scholars to 2nd rank behind himself! Rather, it's your haughty biased material that should be ignored, at least until it is more open to the facts or kinder to the opposition.
False. I answered your questions. And I don't recall saying I haven't researched any of this. I'm not a scholar, but I can certainly smell a bad argument.
One thing I can tell you--you *don't* have the facts. You have obsession with the Amill doctrine.
Just a quick look around, and you will see that good scholarship recognizes the likelihood that Premill was the early dominant view in the Church. That makes it likely that Amill was an afterthought in the fear that the Jewish Hope was an illusion that should be discarded for Replacement Theology.
Associating Premill with Cerinthus is just plain stupid. What we know about Cerinthus is that he was in fact a heretic, and Christians, who were largely Premill, rejected him.
Your tactic of trying to associate legitimate Christian truth with heresy is slanderous and illegitimate.
Again, as is your pattern, you provide no historic evidence for your opinion, just ongoing personal opinion. This is totally inadmissible. I have presented hard facts over the years to show the source of modern-day Premil. You have presented nothing of historic merit to refute it. You normally depend on your online mentors. Let us look at the facts:
Cerinthus
Cerinthus of Asia Minor had an unrefined sensual view of a future millennium arriving after the second coming. He anticipated a kingdom where men could continue to indulge in all the lusts of the flesh. He also promoted the restoration of the old covenant arrangement, believing that the earthly Jewish temple would be rebuilt, the old covenant Aaronic priesthood revived and sin offerings restarted. Dionysius describes the millennium Cerinthus anticipated in the future. It is a classic but crude summation of many of the core tenets of modern-day Premillenialism.
Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace (Church History, Book III, Chapter 28).
This summary covers some of the core tenets of what we know today as Premillennialism. But the key element that is present here, but absent in the Chiliast hope, is where Dionysius describes Cerinthus’ expectation of a return to the Jewish “festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims.” Cerinthus saw the reintroduction of the old covenant arrangement. With the return of “festivals and sacrifices,” came (of necessity) the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the restoration of the old covenant priesthood. This was anathema to orthodox early Christianity. It ran contrary to New Testament teaching and principles.
The early Christians writers of all shades believed that Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. They held that the old covenant was a temporary imperfect unsatisfactory covenant pointing forward to the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice. They taught that the new divine arrangement had superseded the shadow, type and figure.
There is no allowance made by the Patristic writers for a restoration of the Old Testament sacrifice system with its festivals and feast, its meat offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings and drink offerings. They made no mention, as today, of “memorial sacrifices.” That is a modern man-made extra-biblical term that is rabbited by the masses in order to justify the unjustifiable.
The old imperfect sacrifices made by the representative priests in the old covenant were superseded at the cross by the one final satisfactory sacrifice by the one true eternal priest – the Lord Jesus Christ. Man has now only one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. The new covenant with a new priesthood had eternally removed the old covenant with the old priesthood.
Eusebius the historian records Caius of Rome, (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), in his criticism of Cerinthus. He does not go into all the detail of Dionysius, but makes general sweeping statements in regard to his Premillennialism:
By means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals (Church History, Book III, Chapter 28).
Cerinthus was a follower and advocate of the Jewish law, something Epiphanius (who was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, 310-403AD) alludes to in his writings:
Cerinthus … adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 1:3).
He goes on to allege:
Cerinthus stirred the circumcised multitudes up over Peter on his return to Jerusalem by saying, “He went in to men uncircumcised.” Cerinthus did this before preaching his doctrine in Asia and falling into the deeper pit of his destruction. For, because he was circumcised himself he sought an excuse, through circumcision if you please, for his opposition to the uncircumcised believers (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 2:5-6).
Theodoret (Antioch Syria, died October 22, 362) also strongly repudiates Cerinthus and his false teaching, saying:
For, unlike that of Cerinthus and of those whose views are similar to his, the kingdom of our God and Saviour is not to be of this earth, nor circumscribed by a specific time. Those men create for themselves in imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and other pleasures, and along with them, sacrifices and Jewish solemnities. As for ourselves, we await the life that knows no growing old (Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 5.21).
This is the simplistic early overview of modern day Premilennialism. It is what they teach and preach. Little do many know, but, the ancient source of their teaching is the ancient Judaizing heretics. The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for this founder of early Premillennialist. He wrongly and strongly promoted 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. The “sacrifices and Jewish solemnities” endorsed to arise in a future millennium refers to the full gamut of the Old Testament Mosaic sacrifice system. Cerinthus is the first promoter of a thousand years of blood-letting surrounding the abolished old covenant feasts and festivals.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
What a bunch of baloney! Another just gave you a link, and you dismissed it as "biased" and "unscholarly," despite the fact much of the link include material from a seminary professor. What is inadmissible to you is anything that counters your "unassailable" arguments!
What I've seen from you over the years is a complete capitulation from Scripturally-grounded spiritual teaching to your obsession with Amill argumentation. Where is any of this edifying to anybody?
My experience with you over the years is purely filibustering by presenting long lists that prove nothing. You say things like, "Where do ancient Premills talk about Satan, evil, and sin in the Millennium?," as if that is even of the slightest evidence of anything. Premills talk about the Kingdom of Christ and it's blessings--not the evils of Satan, who is bound during the Millennium!
You can even post the same argument 4 different ways, and then claim you have "many" arguments against Premill! So much for your historical research! You know as well as I know that the Apostle John was in Asia Minor and that Premill had an early bastion there.
The Early Witness to Premillennialism
"In fact, the pervasiveness of premillennialism in the early church in general was so great that Philip Schaff once declared:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius. (History of the Christian Church, 2:614.)"
Another of your favorite moves--copy and paste. You know full well I've addressed the fact that Christians have universally rejected Cerinthus as a heretic, and that many Christians who are futurists and Premills do *not* accept a restoration of animal sacrifices under the Law. I, for one, do not accept the Dispensationalist notion that practice of the Law will return for the Jews in the Millennium.
And yet, here you are, copying the same old arguments that I've already dismissed as not applicable to my position or to the position of many futurist Premills like myself. You're not interested in reading the arguments--you just want to copy and paste the same old tired arguments that are not even applicable.
And so, until you can argue in real time, and not through the lens of somebody else's past arguments, I'm done.
What a bunch of baloney! Another just gave you a link, and you dismissed it as "biased" and "unscholarly," despite the fact much of the link include material from a seminary professor. What is inadmissible to you is anything that counters your "unassailable" arguments!
You have a lovely way of communicating.
I have never seen you addressing the historic detail - ever. All i see is you getting frustrated with the compelling ancient facts. You have repeatedly admitted on other boards that you have never taken the time to research this subject, yet, you are always the first to react and purport to speak with authority on this matter.
Objective evangelical researchers, scholars and historians like A. P. Boyd and Charles Hill have been instrumental in uncovering the origins and meaning of some of the strange concepts that prevailed among some of the leading writers in the early days of the Church in their ground-breaking studies. They have brought much-needed light to the sometimes-murky waters of early Church eschatology that was hitherto been ignored or misunderstood. They have changed the playing field for researchers. They have let the early Church fathers speak for themselves. They have let the facts be the facts. They have tried to comprehend the prevailing thought of the day, not twist it to suit their own personal prejudices. Their findings have helped modern evangelical scholars get greater clarity on the ancient writers and their writings and assist them better comprehend the unique ancient idiosyncrasies.
Let’s be honest: students of antiquity need all the help they can in piecing together the teaching of the patristic writers so as to gain a proper perspective that helps them accurately gauge the eschatological thinking of each early writer. For that, the evangelical world is indebted to these aforementioned historians. It certainly helps us navigate the erratic and precarious waters of the ancient writers in a calmer and more-informed manner. It also stops us going down unnecessary rabbit trails.
Marcion
Through his distorted view of the Hebrew Scriptures, Marcion also advanced the idea of the full recovery of the Jewish tradition in the future. He saw the nation retaking its favored Old Testament position above all nations again in the future. He absurdly believed that Israel, according to Old Testament prophecies, has its own unique Messiah, who is distinct to the Jesus of the New Testament.
Listen to Tertullian, a well-known Chiliast, of Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia), (160 – 220 AD) in Against Marcion Book III, Chapter XXI:
So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race. Because, after all, the earliest Christians are found on the side of the Creator, not of Marcion, all nations being called to His kingdom, from the fact that God set up that kingdom from the tree (of the cross).
Here you have the seeds of modern-day Premillennialism. To Marcion, the whole idea of the “restoration” of the “Jewish … people” to their land involved the full return of the old covenant scheme, something rejected by early Chiliasts but anticipated on the millennial earth by most Premils today. Marcion also believed that there were two peoples of God, a doctrine unknown to ancient Chiliasm, but prevalent with Dispensationalism today. He made a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, although this arch heretic imagined two different God’s and two different Messiahs overseeing each company.
Tertullian explains in Chapter VI:
Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.
It seems from the early censures of Marcion by both early Chiliasts and early Amillennialists that the restoration of the Jewish state was at the center and forefront of his eschatological hope. This was not found in any of the orthodox early writers. The Church was God’s only spiritual elect and the true people of God.
Tertullian continues in Chapter XXIV (Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints),
God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom.
Tertullian takes Marcion to task over his view that the Jewish Messiah (who was said to be different from Jesus Christ) would give “the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country.” Here he was advocating the legitimacy of, and the Jewish return to, the old covenant ceremonial system. It is important to say at this juncture, not one of the orthodox early Chiliasts promoted this theology. This was a belief that was outside of the pale of orthodoxy – both Amillennial and Chiliast. It was a Jewish heresy advocated by the neo-Gnostics like Cerinthus and Marcion.
In Marcion’s theology, we see how there was a strong prevailing view among the early heretics that God would bring Israel back to their previous theocratic place of favor. This was strongly rejected by ancients Amils and Premils.
Tertullian (an early Chiliast) refutes Marcion’s error, stating:
As for the restoration of Judæa, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof (Against Marcion Book III, Chapter 24).
Orthodox early Chiliast, Tertullian represents the prevailing thought among his peers on national Israel here, demonstrating that the people of God can only be found in the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no second group. There is no alternative place of favor. There is no other plan of salvation.
Marcion's invented Christ would meet all the faulty hyper-literal expectations that the apostate Christ-rejecting Jews desired - including restoring them back to their former land and elevating them to their former glory as God's chosen people and an elite race lording over all the Gentile nations. Whilst orthodox Premils reject the "2 Messiahs heresy" they run with Marcion's future millennial expectancy of a temporary carnal earthly kingdom focused mainly upon the Jews, Jerusalem and the old covenant practice. This is classic Premil!
Hill argued: “Marcion conceded to the Jews the reality of a full chiliastic hope, complete with a messianic deliverer, restoration to the land of promise, and refreshment in the infernal realms for the faithful dead! (The lack of any mention of resurrection is, however, to be noted.) He agreed with the Jews, and against catholic Christians, that the Christ promised in the Old Testament had not yet come. Marcion taught that the Creator’s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong about the interpretation of the prophets. The Jewish, nationalistic Messiah predicted in the Old Testament bore no likeness to the Christ of the higher God who came to earth during the reign of Tiberius to effect the salvation of mankind.”
The heretical dualists were Premil literalists who opposed the more-figurative Amillennialist position. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3, explained how Marcion "prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."
As a Premil, Marcion was a literalist and took the thousand years as a literal period of time after the second coming that involved the continuation of this physical age and all its pleasures and afflictions.
Origen actually summed up the ethos of those that held to a future millennium saturated in mortals (including the wicked) and who promoted the return of the old covenant arrangement as “understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense” (De Principiis, Book 2, Chapter XI).
This is the classic MO of modern-day Premils. They hurl the same charges at Amillennialists as these ancient heretics through at ancient orthodox Church generally. It comes up continually in discussions with Premils.
Last edited:
What a bunch of baloney! Another just gave you a link, and you dismissed it as "biased" and "unscholarly," despite the fact much of the link include material from a seminary professor. What is inadmissible to you is anything that counters your "unassailable" arguments!
What I've seen from you over the years is a complete capitulation from Scripturally-grounded spiritual teaching to your obsession with Amill argumentation. Where is any of this edifying to anybody?
My experience with you over the years is purely filibustering by presenting long lists that prove nothing. You say things like, "Where do ancient Premills talk about Satan, evil, and sin in the Millennium?," as if that is even of the slightest evidence of anything. Premills talk about the Kingdom of Christ and it's blessings--not the evils of Satan, who is bound during the Millennium!
You can even post the same argument 4 different ways, and then claim you have "many" arguments against Premill! So much for your historical research! You know as well as I know that the Apostle John was in Asia Minor and that Premill had an early bastion there.
The Early Witness to Premillennialism
"In fact, the pervasiveness of premillennialism in the early church in general was so great that Philip Schaff once declared:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius. (History of the Christian Church, 2:614.)"
Another of your favorite moves--copy and paste. You know full well I've addressed the fact that Christians have universally rejected Cerinthus as a heretic, and that many Christians who are futurists and Premills do *not* accept a restoration of animal sacrifices under the Law. I, for one, do not accept the Dispensationalist notion that practice of the Law will return for the Jews in the Millennium.
And yet, here you are, copying the same old arguments that I've already dismissed as not applicable to my position or to the position of many futurist Premills like myself. You're not interested in reading the arguments--you just want to copy and paste the same old tired arguments that are not even applicable.
And so, until you can argue in real time, and not through the lens of somebody else's past arguments, I'm done.
The historian Gennadius (died c. 496) identified all the main Millenialists among the ECFs, explaining what they expected on the millennial earth, there among them is both Cerinthus and Marcion:
Not in the divine order of the promises of earthly and transitory life, as the Melitians hoped. Not in the marriage procreation, such as held by the insane Cerinthus and Marcion. Not in drinking, eating and working, even as Papias authored, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius are satisfied. All this in the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future, so the joy of the saints are to reign with him in the hope that, as Nepos, who believed in a prime resurrection of the righteous, and a second of the wicked.
Gennadius records his own opposition to millenialism and a transitory kingdom in between the here-and-now and the NHNE. He exposes the error Cerinthus and Marcion taught of sexual pleasures continuing on a future millennial earth. This this a classic Premil belief. This runs against the teaching of Jesus. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come.
William Rounseville Alger comments: “According to the heretics Cerinthus and Maricon, the millennium was to consist in an abundance of all sorts of sensual riches and delights. Many of the orthodox Fathers held the same view, but less grossly; while others made its splendors and its pleasures mental and moral” (The Destiny of the Soul).
This couldn’t be any clearer! This unscriptural belief was invented by the heretics Cerinthus and Marcion and is continued today by modern Premils. No early Chiliast advocated this error. The fact is: there will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.
Even Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) rebukes Marcion in Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 38, speaking on Luke 20:34-36, and denouncing the very idea of marriage, procreation and death in the age to come:
He therefore gave His answer, that the children of this world marry. You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
None of this is surprising since they basically adopted the views of Jews who were expecting an earthly kingdom for the Messiah to rule over after disposing of the Romans instead of the spiritual kingdom that is "not of this world" (John 18:36) and that "does not come with observation" that Jesus rules over.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You're not even able to provide the evidence yourself. Can you think for yourself? Why should anyone believe you?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That's a flat out lie. You lose all credibility with comments like this.
That is exactly what happened. These were the Judaizers that were strongly resisted by the early Church.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You boast that your own system alone is scholarly and reasonable. Fancy that?
Alan P. Boyd? Pretrib apologist? Sounds like a real analyzer of Early Church teaching on a subject that is virtually non-existent!
Do you have a particular link from Charles Hill on this subject? Of course, he begins with his own Reform brand, I should think?
Here you double down on the false equation between heretic Marcion and modern Dispensationalism, obviously ignoring the fact I said I was *not* a Dispensationalist. But you seem to advocate for some of the early Premillennialists who oppose the "Dispensationalist-like" view of Israel's restoration? So what is it--do you like Premill who opposed Israel's recovery, or do you hate them because they were not Amill?
The problem is, Marcion was rejected by Premills and Amills alike. And Jesus himself taught, along with the Prophets, the restoration of Israel. The fact Premills got it wrong on this point does not detract from their acceptance of John's Premillennialism.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
There likely were other positions. But the fact the dominant position in the earliest Church were Premillennialists is a statement we hear time and again from men like Philip Schaff. HERE
Philip Schaff, a high respected church historian, said this about the premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, “. . . the most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism [Jesus’ thousand year rule on earth], that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment.”] Philip Schaff, who rejected the premillennial viewpoint himself, nevertheless verified that it was the predominant belief of the early church.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Do you believe in a literal "New Earth," or are you a Gnostic Dualist who views the material world as evil, and only non-material spiritual things as good? While you're quite right that the Jews expected a Kingdom at a time they *did not deserve it, ignoring their sins,* the promise of a Jewish Restoration is nevertheless an important part of the OT Prophets.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You double down on the false association of heretics with true Christianity.
Still doubling down on the false association of heretics with Premill Christianity?
Gennadius of Massilia? Could you post a link to his writing on this? However, living in the time that he did, he would certainly be part of the attack on Premillennialism, associating it falsely with Cerinthus'-type materialistic luxury.
Heretics certainly would depict the prevalent Premill in a carnal way. None of this indicates that they invented Premillennial views.
This is worse than no proof at all. It is a slanderous form of "guilt by association." Because Premills believed there will be some luxury in the Millennium, and heretics also taught this, therefore Premills follow heretics who you say invented their beliefs. Not!
Millennial luxury was invented by God, who inspired the Prophets to say, "the wolf will lie with the lamb." Isa 11.6.
You boast that your own system alone is scholarly and reasonable. Fancy that?
Not so. I have mentioned some of the recent scholarly objective works that have rocked the academic world with their finding. Their writings wetted my appetite to study the historic facts. My issue was with debating with random websites. I do not do that with theology or history, as a general habit.
My main issue is that you always present yourself as the main opponent on these forums to challenge these facts yet you refuse to take the time to do any research. You have admitted that. That is why I rejects your objections.
Alan P. Boyd? Pretrib apologist? Sounds like a real analyzer of Early Church teaching on a subject that is virtually non-existent!
Do you have a particular link from Charles Hill on this subject? Of course, he begins with his own Reform brand, I should think?
Here you double down on the false equation between heretic Marcion and modern Dispensationalism, obviously ignoring the fact I said I was *not* a Dispensationalist. But you seem to advocate for some of the early Premillennialists who oppose the "Dispensationalist-like" view of Israel's restoration? So what is it--do you like Premill who opposed Israel's recovery, or do you hate them because they were not Amill?
The problem is, Marcion was rejected by Premills and Amills alike. And Jesus himself taught, along with the Prophets, the restoration of Israel. The fact Premills got it wrong on this point does not detract from their acceptance of John's Premillennialism.
When did Jesus ever teach the restoration of Israel in the NT?
Porphyry/Porphyrius
Porphyrius is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm. He was another Judaizer who tried to foist old covenant practices upon New Testament Christianity. He also promoted the full return of the old covenant ceremonial law and festivals.
Jerome strongly refuted him, and exposed his error:
[T]he blasphemer Porphyrius – and who assert that the ceremonies of the old Law should be observed in the Church of Christ by the stock of faithful Israel, those should also look forward to a golden Jerusalem for 1000 years, that they may offer sacrifices and be circumcised, that they may sit on the Sabbath, sleep, become sated, drunk, and to rise to frolic, their amusement being offensive to God (Commentary to Isaiah, Chapter XXIV).
Jerome was not painting all Chiliasts with the same brush. Quite the opposite! He was specifically exposing this early heretical Premillennialist who advocated the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in a future thousand years, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period. This was not an opinion that orthodox Chiliasts held, taught or accepted anywhere throughout the early Church.
All of these Premil heretics were notably professing Gentile "Christians" who were besotted with Old Testament Israel and its ancient practices. Consequently, they tried to create a theological system that would accommodate their distorted view of Christianity and Judaism. They achieved this by creating parallel train-tracks that could accommodate the coexistence and co-acceptance of two diverse religious systems in a dual covenant theology. This is exactly what Dispensationalism has done today. It is fixated with natural Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the return of animal sacrifices in some supposed future millennium and the restarting of the abolished old covenant priesthood. They have invented two peoples of God to suit its theology.
The heretics believed that their hopes would be finally realized after the second coming, in an earthly messianic kingdom, one in which Israel would be brought back to its ancient favored position reigning over the Gentile nations from old Jerusalem. This new arrangement would see Gentiles submitting to the long-abolished primitive old covenant customs, rules and ceremonies. Ancient Jerusalem would become the center-point once again of global worship to Israel’s God. This age would last a thousand years and would see the full return of all Old Testament religious structure, including priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.
Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel. Jerome strongly refuted his teaching point by point. Speaking about Daniel 2.40 (“He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth”), he responded:
This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever (Commentary on Daniel, Prologue, on Daniel 2.40).
According to Jerome: Porphyrius expected the restoration of natural Israel to its old covenant place of favor over all other nations in the last of the last days. Israel would then subjugate the Gentile nations and rule over them. He anticipates a superior position for ethnic Israel above all nations, with them exercising “the strongest power” over them.
Porphyry cuts across the widespread belief amongst the ECFs (Chiliast and early Amils) that the New Testament persistently teaches that under the new covenant, and in Christ Jesus, all nationalities equally partake of the spiritual blessings God promised to that nation through faith. Basically: Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. The whole notion of ethnicity deserving some type of special favor with God in our day is repeatedly and strongly blown out of the water in the early Christian writers.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
