The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

Once again, here is the core of your responses: you counter with arguing from silence in regards to the ECFs to support your theory re Rev 20. This is not historically admissible evidence. It is prejudiced commentary. That is all you have!

Having engaged with you for years on this, there is no way i would accept you talking on their behalf.

You don't have to accept me "talking on their behalf." I am *quoting them!*

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why do you not tell us where Lactanius received his theology? I am shocked that you are promoting Lactanius and his Divine Institues to support Premil as he relied upon the pagan Sibyllines for his views rather than Scripture.

This seems to be your MO, to embrace truth whoever gives it, no matter what errors may have existed in their lives, and to reject teachers who teach something you don't like, and bring against them their errors in order to dismiss them.

Ignore Sybil! Lacantius had a good reputation--listen to the good parts. Rejecting Sybil is not going to discredit the good things he had to say.

This shows that modern-Premil originated from apostate Judaism and pagan superstitions. What you claim as Premil in the ECFs actually refutes modern-day Premil.

 

[WPM]

This seems to be your MO, to embrace truth whoever gives it, no matter what errors may have existed in their lives, and to reject teachers who teach something you don't like, and bring against them their errors in order to dismiss them.

Ignore Sybil! Lacantius had a good reputation--listen to the good parts. Rejecting Sybil is not going to discredit the good things he had to say.

You can paper over the pagan source of Lactantius' teaching all you want but it exposes the dubious origin of ancient Premil. Apart from the heretic Cerinthus, Lactantius (c.240-340) seems to be the only early writer that held to any of the beliefs (outside of the existence of a 1,000 years) that modern Premils do today, albeit he based his theology on the manuscripts of the Sibyl prophetesses’. I find it strange that you are comfortable with promoting such a dubious source.

Let us look at the full un-doctored quote from Lactantius (apart from a small portion removed at the end because of longevity).

as the Sibyl testifies and says:--

"For then there shall be confusion of mortals throughout the whole earth, when the Almighty Himself shall come on His judgment-seat to judge the souls of the quick and dead, and all the world."

But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.

Which the Sibyl proclaims in another place, as she utters her inspired predictions:--

"Hear me, ye mortals; an everlasting King reigns."

Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.[1] But the nations shall not be entirely extinguished, but some shall be left as a victory for God, that they may be the occasion of triumph to the righteous, and may be subjected to perpetual slavery. About the same time also the prince of the devils, who is the contriver of all evils, shall be bound with chains, and shall be imprisoned during the thousand years of the heavenly rule in which righteousness shall reign in the world, so that he may contrive no evil against the people of God. After His coming the righteous shall be collected from all the earth, and the judgment being completed, the sacred city shall be planted in the middle of the earth, in which God Himself the builder may dwell together with the righteous, bearing rule in it.

And the Sibyl marks out this city when she says:--

"And the city which God made this He made more brilliant than the stars, and sun, and moon."

Then that darkness will be taken away from the world with which the heaven will be overspread and darkened, and the moon will receive the brightness of the sun, nor will it be further diminished: but the sun will become seven times brighter than it now is; and the earth will open its fruitfulness, and bring forth most abundant fruits of its own accord; the rocky mountains shall drop with honey; streams of wine shall run down, and rivers flow with milk: in short, the world itself shall rejoice, and all nature exult, being rescued and set free from the dominion of evil and impiety, and guilt and error. Throughout this time beasts shall not be nourished by blood, nor birds by prey; but all things shall be peaceful and tranquil. Lions and calves shall stand together at the manger, the wolf shall not carry off the sheep, the hound shall not hunt for prey; hawks and eagles shall not injure; the infant shall play with serpents.

In short, those things shall then come to pass which the poets spoke of as being done in the reign of Saturnus.

Whose error arose from this source,--that the prophets bring forward and speak of many future events as already accomplished. For visions were brought before their eyes by the divine Spirit, and they saw these things, as it were, done and completed in their own sight. And when fame had gradually spread abroad their predictions, since those who were uninstructed in the mysteries[2] of religion did not know why they were spoken, they thought that all those things were already fulfilled in the ancient ages, which evidently could not be accomplished and fulfilled under the reign of a man.[3] But when, after the destruction of impious religions and the suppression of guilt, the earth shall be subject to God,--

"The sailor[4] himself also shall renounce the sea, nor shall the naval pine Barter merchandise; all lands shall produce all things. The ground shall not endure the harrow, nor the vineyard the pruning hook; The sturdy ploughman also shall loose the bulls from the yoke. The plain shall by degrees grow yellow with soft ears of corn, The blushing grape shall hang on the uncultivated brambles, And hard oaks shall distil the dewy honey. Nor shall the wool learn to counterfeit various colours; But the ram himself in the meadows shall change his fleece, Now for a sweetly blushing purple, now for saffron dye; Scarlet of its own accord shall cover the lambs as they feed. The goats of themselves shall bring back home their udders distended with milk; Nor shall the herds dread huge lions."[5]

Which things the poet foretold according to the verses of the Cumaean Sibyl. But the Erythraean thus speaks:--

"But wolves shall not contend with lambs on the mountains, and lynxes shall eat grass with kids; boars shall feed with calves, and with all flocks; and the carnivorous lion shall eat chaff at the manger, and serpents shall sleep with infants deprived of their mothers."

And in another place, speaking of the fruitfulness of all things:--

"And then shall God give great joy to men; for the earth, and the trees, and the numberless flocks of the earth shall give to men the true fruit of the vine, and sweet honey, and white milk, and corn, which is the best of all things to mortals."

And another in the same manner:--

"The sacred land of the pious only will produce all these things, the stream of honey from the rock and from the fountain, and the milk of ambrosia will flow for all the just."

Therefore men will live a most tranquil life, abounding with resources, and will reign together with God; and the kings of the nations shall come from the ends of the earth with gifts and offerings, to adore and honour the great King, whose name shall be renowned and venerated by all the nations which shall be trader heaven, and by the kings who shall rule on earth.

"These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: but I have not considered it necessary to bring forward their testimonies and words, since it would be an endless task; nor would the limits of my book receive so great a multitude of subjects, since so many with one breath speak similar things; and at the same time, lest weariness should be occasioned to the readers if I should heap together things collected and transferred froth all; moreover, that I might confirm those very things which I said, not by my own writings, but in an especial manner by the writings of others, and might show that not only among us, but even with those very persons who revile us, the truth is preserved,[1] which they refuse to acknowledge.[2] But he who wishes to know these things more accurately may draw from the fountain itself, and he will know more things worthy of admiration than we have comprised in these books …

which the Sibyls say shall come to pass

 

[WPM]

I have not been "blatantly" misrepresenting Tertullian! I *mistakenly* quoted him for quite a while, which makes me wonder why you never corrected me sooner? Since I've already conceded to you that you know the Church Fathers much better than me, I have to believe you saw the mistake right away?

Though you know the Church Fathers better than me, it appears that *you* are the one "blatantly" disregarding my quote of Irenaeus? It clearly shows he believed the binding of Satan will take place at the 2nd Coming, the end of the age, the defeat of Antichrist, and the beginning of a literal Millennium. Nothing about this is in any way, shape, or form Amil!

You must think I am a walking encyclopedia. LOL. I have read thousands of ancient manuscripts on many diverse subjects. I have not memorized the writings of the ECFs, or do I intend to. My research was sitting at home. I told you that. I have not been home or had wifi where I was staying for 2 weeks. The responsibility was upon you to verify the evidence you presented. Stop trying to deflect that unto me. This is the problem with following questionable mentors who are pseudo historians. I have warned you about the dangers of relying on faulty sources. This is the fruit of it!

 

[WPM]

Actually, brother, you appear to be the intractable one. I clearly showed you that Irenaeus was *quoting Rev 20.* The words "Rev 20" doesn't have to be in the quotation from Irenaeus to see that he was quoting from that passage!

And if he was quoting from that passage--and he was---then any objective observer could see that he was placing the "binding of Satan" just where Rev 20 put it, at the defeat of Antichrist, the 2nd Coming, and the start of the Millennium. This is clearly when Irenaeus saw the "binding of Satan" taking place.

Your argument is merely that the "strong man" passage, where he is said to have been "bound," applies, according to the Church Fathers, to the Cross. That is in itself an argument from silence about the "binding of Satan" with respect to the defeat of Antichrist, whereas my argument is *not* from silence, and is based on Irenaeus' actual words!



When Irenaeus mentions the binding of Satan, he is talking about Rev 20, which follows the account of the defeat of Antichrist. That is at the 2nd Coming.

Rev 20.2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies: that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent and subject him ...



You are arguing what you haven't proven. I'm not fighting anything. I quoted Irenaeus, and you just refuse to see it. Irenaeus is, in fact, referring to Rev 20 and its future application of the Millennium. As such, he is placing the "binding of Satan" there, and not at the 1st Advent of Christ.



Again you mischaracterize Premil teaching. We do not teach the kind of hostile conditions you dredge up, because we teach that Satan is *bound* for a thousand years.



I already addressed that. Christ is the common element in the defeat of Satan at the cross and the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. But they are different events, the Cross and the 2nd Coming. Satan loses the power of death over us, legally, at the 1st Coming. And he loses the ability to stir up war against Christians at the 2nd Coming.



You're preaching to the choir here--I already agreed with that. But that does not remove Irenaeus' reference to Antichrist's defeat at which time "Satan is bound," in reference to Rev 20.

He is talking about 1 binding of Satan and relates it to the First Advent. Premils constantly see double to justify their beliefs. The evidence above demolishes your thesis.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You must think I am a walking encyclopedia. LOL. I have read thousands of ancient manuscripts on many diverse subjects. I have not memorized the writings of the ECFs, or do I intend to. My research was sitting at home. I told you that. I have not been home or had wifi where I was staying for 2 weeks. The responsibility was upon you to verify the evidence you presented. Stop trying to deflect that unto me. This is the problem with following questionable mentors who are pseudo historians. I have warned you about the dangers of relying on faulty sources. This is the fruit of it!

Don't be silly. I've never claimed to be a historian. So don't call me a "pseudo-historian," if that's what you're trying to do. I know what I know, and I give you what I have. I gave you the wrong name, and you're grieved because you can't follow me?

Follow the argument, brother--that's all I ask. But if you want to divert the argument over to personal attack, I won't follow you there--at least, I'll try not to.

Happy that your trip went well. Glad you're armed and dangerous with access to your notes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

He is talking about 1 binding of Satan and relates it to the First Advent. Premils constantly see double to justify their beliefs. The evidence above demolishes your thesis.

I honestly see the application of Satan's defeat in 2 separate occasions, at the 1st Advent and at the 2nd Advent. As I said, the 1st occasion of Satan's defeat is the occasion in which sin for Christians is legally dealt with, freeing us ultimately from the judgment of death. The 2nd occasion of Satan's defeat is his being bound in a hole at the 2nd Coming, to prevent Christianity from being oppressed by him for a thousand years.

This is my *honest assessment,* unless you think everybody who reads things differently than you is dishonest? I accept that you read it differently, and honestly see is that way. I disagree with your assessment, but that's what happens when good people see things differently.

But I don't just randomly choose to disagree with you. I have a reason for seeing things differently. Though we know Satan was defeated completely on the cross, we would disagree about whether he has been completely judged yet. We would disagree with how "bound" he is in the present age.

Again, my argument is that Irenaeus depicts the defeat of Satan as on 2 distinct occasions, in the defeat of Satan, legally, over death, and in the defeat of Antichrist in the latter days. The fact that he cites the defeat of Antichrist in the latter days indicates for me that he is referencing a separate and distinct defeat of Satan at the 2nd Coming.

To make it clear that that's what he's talking about he cites Rev 20, the Millennial passage, which we know Irenaeus sees as the time in which Satan is bound. He even references Satan as "the Serpent," as it is told in Rev 20. For me that is strong evidence of an application of the defeat of Satan far past the Cross, taking place at the end of the age, when Antichrist is defeated.

 

[WPM]

Don't be silly. I've never claimed to be a historian. So don't call me a "pseudo-historian," if that's what you're trying to do. I know what I know, and I give you what I have. I gave you the wrong name, and you're grieved because you can't follow me?

Follow the argument, brother--that's all I ask. But if you want to divert the argument over to personal attack, I won't follow you there--at least, I'll try not to.

Happy that your trip went well. Glad you're armed and dangerous with access to your notes.

I never called you a "pseudo-historian." I am not sure how you deduced that. As usual, you put your false claim in quotes, as if i said that. I was talking about where you source historic material.

 

[WPM]

I honestly see the application of Satan's defeat in 2 separate occasions, at the 1st Advent and at the 2nd Advent. As I said, the 1st occasion of Satan's defeat is the occasion in which sin for Christians is legally dealt with, freeing us ultimately from the judgment of death. The 2nd occasion of Satan's defeat is his being bound in a hole at the 2nd Coming, to prevent Christianity from being oppressed by him for a thousand years.

This is my *honest assessment,* unless you think everybody who reads things differently than you is dishonest? I accept that you read it differently, and honestly see is that way. I disagree with your assessment, but that's what happens when good people see things differently.

But I don't just randomly choose to disagree with you. I have a reason for seeing things differently. Though we know Satan was defeated completely on the cross, we would disagree about whether he has been completely judged yet. We would disagree with how "bound" he is in the present age.

Again, my argument is that Irenaeus depicts the defeat of Satan as on 2 distinct occasions, in the defeat of Satan, legally, over death, and in the defeat of Antichrist in the latter days. The fact that he cites the defeat of Antichrist in the latter days indicates for me that he is referencing a separate and distinct defeat of Satan at the 2nd Coming.

To make it clear that that's what he's talking about he cites Rev 20, the Millennial passage, which we know Irenaeus sees as the time in which Satan is bound. He even references Satan as "the Serpent," as it is told in Rev 20. For me that is strong evidence of an application of the defeat of Satan far past the Cross, taking place at the end of the age, when Antichrist is defeated.

It is not just that the ECFs believed Satan was bound at the First Advent, not one early writer that I can find (up until AD240) taught a further binding of Satan at the second coming. You are trying to foist that upon them without the slightest evidence (or justification) to do so. What is more, they believed the devil and his angels were destroyed at the second coming. So, there was no evil one to populate the age to come and no wicked to deceive. This too is akin to modern day Amil. Think about this: for 210 years after the death of Christ all the Fathers anticipated a perfect age to come free of the bondage of corruption and free of all rebellion in the visible and invisible realm.

It is certainly significant that there was a widespread acceptance among the early Chiliast writers that Satan was bound through the earthly ministry of Christ. But what runs hand-in-hand with that is the fate of Satan when Jesus comes. The most startling thing about the beliefs of the earliest Millennialists who spoke of this is that they believed Satan, his minions and all evil would finally be eliminated at the second coming. This is extremely surprising because it runs totally contrary to what is loudly taught today by all modern Premillennials, of all sections. An obvious and vital by-product of that is that it eliminates the whole idea of Satan’s little season 1,000 years after the coming of the Lord. This is undoubtedly a curious position, allowing for the actual detail of Revelation 20. This suggests that early apostate Judaism had a greater influence on the formulation of this early Chiliasts theory than Revelation 20. In fact, early Millennialists seem to have acquired many of their core early beliefs from Christ-rejecting Judaism.

Justin Martyr

One of the leading early Chiliast proponents of this was Justin Martyr. He believed that Satan would be destroyed at our Lord’s return:

[T]he serpent that sinned from the beginning, and the angels like him, may be destroyed, and that death may be contemned, and for ever quit, at the second coming of the Christ Himself (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 45).​

This couldn’t be clearer! This ancient writer depicts the termination of all evil at the glorious return of Christ. Justin explains how Satan, his angels and death itself are destroyed at the second coming of Christ. This allows no room for the Premillennialism scheme where Satan is bound 1,000 years after the second coming and then released to gather Gog and Magog to fight Christ and the glorified saints. Not only is Satan and his minions and death destroyed at Christ’s coming, but, all the bondage of corruption is destroyed. He teaches that there shall be “freedom from suffering, from corruption, and from grief.” This, paradoxically, is one of the main dividing points between Amillennial/Postmillennial teaching and that of Premillennialism reference the appearing of our Lord.

He further states in another work:

For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils (1st Apology, Chapter LII).​

The second coming sees the elimination of every enemy of righteousness. The coming of Christ is climactic. In the eyes of most of the earliest Chiliast writers there was no allowance for sin and Satan, crying and dying, Satan and his minions on a future millennial earth. It is a new perfect porchway into the eternal realm.

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born (1st Apology of Justin, Chapter 28).​

According to Justin, the seeming delay in the return of Christ is for the special purpose of the salvation of souls. But when this occurs, he indicates the punishment of Satan, his devils, and the wicked occurs. The fate of all of these are carefully tied together. They are all punished at the same time. He states in the same book:

[Y]ou hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, perhaps for this reason, lest you be persecuted by the rulers, who, under the influence of the wicked and deceitful spirit, the serpent, will not cease putting to death and persecuting those who confess the name of Christ until He come again, and destroy them all, and render to each his deserts (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 39).​

Once again, the second coming is presented as the time when the devil and all evil come to an end. This is clear and repeated in the teaching of these early Chiliasts.

 

[WPM]

I honestly see the application of Satan's defeat in 2 separate occasions, at the 1st Advent and at the 2nd Advent. As I said, the 1st occasion of Satan's defeat is the occasion in which sin for Christians is legally dealt with, freeing us ultimately from the judgment of death. The 2nd occasion of Satan's defeat is his being bound in a hole at the 2nd Coming, to prevent Christianity from being oppressed by him for a thousand years.

This is my *honest assessment,* unless you think everybody who reads things differently than you is dishonest? I accept that you read it differently, and honestly see is that way. I disagree with your assessment, but that's what happens when good people see things differently.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus agrees with Justin. He lists the resurrection at the coming of Christ as the time when the curse is finally removed, incorruption is introduced and death and the devil are eliminated. This climactic portrayal fits consistently with the Chiliast vision of future state. There is no space for sin and sinner, death and disease, war and terror, Satan and his demons. We are looking at a perfect pristine arrangement.

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

The glorification of God’s people described in this ancient text occurs at the second coming. It is here that this corruptible will take on incorruption. This Chiliast father teaches that every vestige of the Fall is removed when Christ returns never to arise again. The approaching earth will be totally different from the current corrupt one and will be totally renewed and eternally free of corruption.

Irenaeus reckons that man’s sinful makeup must be changed in order to allow him to grace a future millennial earth. Every trace of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

According to this early writer, the saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new order. This arrangement is shown to never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible ongoing arrangement.

The ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter X, 1 – Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world).​

Again, the coming of Christ is here represented as glorious and climatic. It involves God’s righteous final judgment upon all wickedness. There is no indication that sin and sinners survive the Lord’s future return. Wicked man and wicked angels are both collectively shown to experience “everlasting fire.”

Hippolytus

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170 – 236) states:

“Until the Ancient of days come." That is, when at length the Judge of judges and the King of kings comes from heaven, who shall subvert the whole dominion and power of the adversary, and shall consume all with the eternal fire of punishment. But to His servants, and prophets, and martyrs, and to all who fear Him, He will give an everlasting kingdom; that is, they shall possess the endless enjoyment of good (Fragments on Daniel: Chap. VII.22).​

Hippolytus sees the judgment, punishment and destruction of Satan, his minions, the wicked and all evil when Jesus returns. He further explains:

[A]s they wait for the righteous Judge … Then the righteous shall shine forth like the sun, while the wicked shall be shown to be mute and gloomy. For both the righteous and the wicked shall be raised incorruptible: the righteous, to be honoured eternally, and to taste immortal joys; and the wicked, to be punished in judgment eternally … Then shall the son of perdition be brought forward, to wit, the accuser, with his demons and with his servants, by angels stern and inexorable. And they shall be given over to the fire that is never quenched, and to the worm that never sleeps, and to the outer darkness.​

Modern Bible students might be tempted to impose a common contemporary understanding of “the son of perdition” when reading the writings of Hippolytus, identifying him with a separate entity to the devil, namely the beast or antichrist. But this early Chiliast believed that “the son of perdition” was the devil himself. To reinforce this view, Hippolytus describes “the son of perdition” as “the accuser” – another name Scripture attributes to the evil one (Revelation 12:10).

Proof that “the son of perdition” was viewed by Hippolytus as “the devil” can be seen in On the End of the World, chapter 9:

And multitudes of men will run from the east even to the west, and from the north even to the sea, saying, Where is Christ here? Where is Christ there? But being possessed of a vain conceit, and failing to read the Scriptures carefully, and not being of an upright mind, they will seek for a name which they shall be unable to find. For these things must first be; and thus the son of perdition — that is to say, the devil— must be seen.​

At the general resurrection/judgment, this arch-enemy of righteousness and the Church is shown to receive his final and eternal judgment. This fits in with the climactic view the early Chiliasts had of the second coming. He continues:

For the people of the Hebrews shall see Him in human form, as He appeared to them when He came by the holy Virgin in the flesh, and as they crucified Him. And He will show them the prints of the nails in His hands and feet, and His side pierced with the spear, and His head crowned with thorns, and His honourable cross. And once for all shall the people of the Hebrews see all these things, and they shall mourn and weep, as the prophet exclaims, They shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and there shall be none to help them or to pity them, because they repented not, neither turned aside from the wicked way. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment with the demons and the accuser (On the End of the World, 38-40).​

Here once again, the fate of Satan (“the accuser”), “the demons” and the unrepentant is shown to be closely connected. They are all said to face their final doom at the one time.

This early Chiliast makes it abundantly clear above that he believed that “the son of perdition” was “the devil” himself. Hippolytus continues in the same book on the same overall narrative:

For at that time the trumpet shall sound, and awake those that sleep from the lowest parts of the earth, righteous and sinners alike. And every kindred, and tongue, and nation, and tribe shall be raised in the twinkling of an eye; and they shall stand upon the face of the earth, waiting for the coming of the righteous and terrible Judge, in fear and trembling unutterable … For both the righteous and the wicked shall be raised incorruptible: the righteous, to be honoured eternally, and to taste immortal joys; and the wicked, to be punished in judgment eternally … the just Judge and the benignant God shall speak to those on the left hand in unmeasured anger and wrath, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels … Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. I know you not, I recognise you not: you made yourselves the workmen of another lord — namely, the devil. With him inherit the darkness, and the fire that is not quenched, and the worm that sleeps not, and the gnashing of teeth (On the End of the World, 45).​

Hippolytus locates the judgment at the return of Christ. He carefully links the punishment of the wicked with the punishment of Satan on Judgment Day. This is a climactic event in Hippolytus’s eyes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I never called you a "pseudo-historian." I am not sure how you deduced that. As usual, you put your false claim in quotes, as if i said that. I was talking about where you source historic material.

Things are put in quotes for a number of reasons. In this case, it was because I was questioning whether this was something you were implying or not? I'm happy that you weren't doing that. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[WPM]

Things are put in quotes for a number of reasons. In this case, it was because I was questioning whether this was something you were implying or not? I'm happy that you weren't doing that. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Ok, can you address the historic data above?

 

[WPM]

It is also my understanding the Premill was dominant early on in Church history, and that Amlll was "Johnny Come Lately." The allegorical system that took root in the Church, whether through Gnosticism, Judaism, or other, began to lead Christians into an allegorization of the Millennial Period. Failure to see the restoration of Israel led them to believe that Israel allegorized the Church, which is Replacement Theology. And it took hold for centuries, which is why I don't insult the Amill position--it is thoroughly entrenched in Christian history.

But to argue that Premill didn't provide detail on the Millennial Age is likely the product of having a lack of information on the subject. It is highly speculative.

And there is little need to sound off on Satan, sin, and evil in the Millennial Age when the biblical idea is Christ's Kingdom, and not the short rebellion that takes place at the end of this period. In my view, you're asking all the wrong questions. Why, for example, is there not a lot of material in the first 150 years of the Church debunking Premill? Why in the first 150 years don't we have a lot of Amill opposition to the idea of a literal Millennium?

Obviously, if the heretic Cerinthus painted a false view of the Millennium, then Christians wouldn't want any part of such false speculation. Cerinthus in his belief in a return of the Jewish legal system was apparently a legalist. But in his materialism he seems like a Hedonist, for whom the material world has less spiritual significance and can be indulged in freely in the Millennial period.

Most modern Premillennialists advocate the same (or similar) beliefs promoted by the early Premillennialist heretics, which anticipated a future earthly messianic kingdom where ethnic Israel is restored to her ancient privileged status, she retakes her Old Testament borders, her theocracy is re-established, the old covenant is fully reinstated, Jewish lavish materialistic prosperity abounds, and Israel is once again governed by the Mosaic Law.

This expectation sees circumcision returning as a valid symbol of ethnic Israel’s covenant favor with God, Jews and Gentiles observing the Sabbath and old covenant feasts, and the full restoration of the old covenant ceremonial system, including blood sacrifices being revived and performed in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem overseen by the Zadokic priesthood.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Most modern Premillennialists advocate the same (or similar) beliefs promoted by the early Premillennialist heretics, which anticipated a future earthly messianic kingdom where ethnic Israel is restored to her ancient privileged status, she retakes her Old Testament borders, her theocracy is re-established, the old covenant is fully reinstated, Jewish lavish materialistic prosperity abounds, and Israel is once again governed by the Mosaic Law.

This expectation sees circumcision returning as a valid symbol of ethnic Israel’s covenant favor with God, Jews and Gentiles observing the Sabbath and old covenant feasts, and the full restoration of the old covenant ceremonial system, including blood sacrifices being revived and performed in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem overseen by the Zadokic priesthood.

We do not agree that the Millennium should be allegorized and applied to the current Church Age. But we do agree that many Premillennialists today have turned the Millennium into a kind of "circus."

Perhaps there is some element of "heresy" in their belief that Israel remains an elite nation and the OT legal system continues to function in some way? As I said before, I agree some of your Reform Theology quite strongly. We will not, however, agree on your allegorized view of the Millennium because I fear that in doing so I will be "adding to or subtracting from" the words of the book of Revelation.

In other words, I must hold conscientiously to my view, lest God be disappointed with me. I'm sure you can do the same thing with respect to your own view?

My own Premil view is not Dispensational. And some good friends of mine are thoroughly Amil. I was raised in that position.

You're not going to drive your view into me because I'm immune to forceful methodology. Reason is your only hope, but only if the material is sufficiently grounded.

You've done your homework, but I still don't believe the arguments are solid. They are purely historical, and utilize historical arguments against Premil. I believe they are based on an historical lack of faith in Israel's ultimate conversion at the Coming of Christ, because that's where it seems the allegorical method of interpretation began to be applied in this respect.

 

[WPM]

We do not agree that the Millennium should be allegorized and applied to the current Church Age. But we do agree that many Premillennialists today have turned the Millennium into a kind of "circus."

Perhaps there is some element of "heresy" in their belief that Israel remains an elite nation and the OT legal system continues to function in some way? As I said before, I agree some of your Reform Theology quite strongly. We will not, however, agree on your allegorized view of the Millennium because I fear that in doing so I will be "adding to or subtracting from" the words of the book of Revelation.

In other words, I must hold conscientiously to my view, lest God be disappointed with me. I'm sure you can do the same thing with respect to your own view?

My own Premil view is not Dispensational. And some good friends of mine are thoroughly Amil. I was raised in that position.

You're not going to drive your view into me because I'm immune to forceful methodology. Reason is your only hope, but only if the material is sufficiently grounded.

You've done your homework, but I still don't believe the arguments are solid. They are purely historical, and utilize historical arguments against Premil. I believe they are based on an historical lack of faith in Israel's ultimate conversion at the Coming of Christ, because that's where it seems the allegorical method of interpretation began to be applied in this respect.

Neither the Scriptures teach, or the early Chiliasts taught, "Israel's ultimate conversion at the Coming of Christ." That is a man-made invention that you cling to. The historic detail I presented is water-tight. Your avoidance of the bulk of the evidence is testimony to its veracity.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Neither the Scriptures teach, or the early Chiliasts taught, "Israel's ultimate conversion at the Coming of Christ." That is a man-made invention that you cling to. The historic detail I presented is water-tight. Your avoidance of the bulk of the evidence is testimony to its veracity.

Your arguments are *not* watertight *for me,* because they are based upon an allegorical system of interpretation. When people do that, "anything goes." You can't be tied down to any statement, since you can simply "allegorize it."

Yes, rejection of Israel began almost at the beginning, because both Jesus and Paul taught the failure of Israel at that time. But both Jesus and Paul taught the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years.

Anyway, that's what I believe. That's what the Jews believed. And that's what I think both Jesus and Paul believed.

Therefore, the Church early on grew frustrated with Jewish intransigence, setting the stage for later Replacement Theology. That was what gave Amillennialism its impetus, in my opinion.

This explains, in my opinion, why the Early Church began with Chiliasm, though flavored with a kind of anti-Semitism. And it explains why the anti-Semitic element ultimately prevailed over the belief in Chiliasm.

Today, we can look back and see that Amils had given up hope that had been taught by both Paul and Jesus, and also by the Jews. And we can understand why God tolerated it, because quite frankly it was true that the Jews in the current age are intransigent and resistant to a full national repentance.

But as we see the end of the present age of Jewish trouble nearing its end, with the restoration of the Jewish State, we may want to reconsider Premillennialism. It explains that regardless of Jewish intransigence in the present age, there is always a basis for believing in God's promises, even against all odds.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ok, can you address the historic data above?

Yes, unfortunately I've run out of time right now. Will be gone all day. I do appreciate your quotations of ancient Church Fathers and the Scriptures. I share your interest in that. I just wish I had more time. Even in my retirement I'm still working...a lot! I'll get back to it when I can.

 

[WPM]

Your arguments are *not* watertight *for me,* because they are based upon an allegorical system of interpretation. When people do that, "anything goes." You can't be tied down to any statement, since you can simply "allegorize it."

Yes, rejection of Israel began almost at the beginning, because both Jesus and Paul taught the failure of Israel at that time. But both Jesus and Paul taught the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years.

Anyway, that's what I believe. That's what the Jews believed. And that's what I think both Jesus and Paul believed.

Therefore, the Church early on grew frustrated with Jewish intransigence, setting the stage for later Replacement Theology. That was what gave Amillennialism its impetus, in my opinion.

This explains, in my opinion, why the Early Church began with Chiliasm, though flavored with a kind of anti-Semitism. And it explains why the anti-Semitic element ultimately prevailed over the belief in Chiliasm.

Today, we can look back and see that Amils had given up hope that had been taught by both Paul and Jesus, and also by the Jews. And we can understand why God tolerated it, because quite frankly it was true that the Jews in the current age are intransigent and resistant to a full national repentance.

But as we see the end of the present age of Jewish trouble nearing its end, with the restoration of the Jewish State, we may want to reconsider Premillennialism. It explains that regardless of Jewish intransigence in the present age, there is always a basis for believing in God's promises, even against all odds.

Here you go again! You make so many sweeping statements without being able to back it up with hard evidence. That applies to both Scripture and history.

1. When did Jesus teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?
2. When did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

 

[WPM]

Your arguments are *not* watertight *for me,* because they are based upon an allegorical system of interpretation. When people do that, "anything goes." You can't be tied down to any statement, since you can simply "allegorize it."

Yes, rejection of Israel began almost at the beginning, because both Jesus and Paul taught the failure of Israel at that time. But both Jesus and Paul taught the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years.

Anyway, that's what I believe. That's what the Jews believed. And that's what I think both Jesus and Paul believed.

Therefore, the Church early on grew frustrated with Jewish intransigence, setting the stage for later Replacement Theology. That was what gave Amillennialism its impetus, in my opinion.

This explains, in my opinion, why the Early Church began with Chiliasm, though flavored with a kind of anti-Semitism. And it explains why the anti-Semitic element ultimately prevailed over the belief in Chiliasm.

Today, we can look back and see that Amils had given up hope that had been taught by both Paul and Jesus, and also by the Jews. And we can understand why God tolerated it, because quite frankly it was true that the Jews in the current age are intransigent and resistant to a full national repentance.

But as we see the end of the present age of Jewish trouble nearing its end, with the restoration of the Jewish State, we may want to reconsider Premillennialism. It explains that regardless of Jewish intransigence in the present age, there is always a basis for believing in God's promises, even against all odds.

The Premil founding fathers Cerinthus and Marcion had a similar distain for the "allegorical system of interpretation."

In fact, Marcion: "prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."

So, you are in good company.

 

[WPM]

Yes, unfortunately I've run out of time right now. Will be gone all day. I do appreciate your quotations of ancient Church Fathers and the Scriptures. I share your interest in that. I just wish I had more time. Even in my retirement I'm still working...a lot! I'll get back to it when I can.

Ok! Sounds good!