The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

We cannot base anything on speculation and silence.

There is more than silence and speculation. For example, Lactantius Divine Institutions ch. 72:

Then the heaven shall be opened in a tempest, and Christ shall descend with great power, and there shall go before Him a fiery brightness and a countless host of angels, and all that multitude of the wicked shall be destroyed, and torrents of blood shall flow, and the leader himself shall escape, and having often renewed his army, shall for the fourth time engage in battle, in which, being taken, with all the other tyrants, he shall be delivered up to be burnt. But the prince also of the demons himself, the author and contriver of evils, being bound with fiery chains, shall be imprisoned, that the world may receive peace, and the earth, harassed through so many years, may rest. Therefore peace being made, and every evil suppressed, that righteous King and Conqueror will institute a great judgment on the earth respecting the living and the dead, and will deliver all the nations into subjection to the righteous who are alive, and will raise the righteous dead to eternal life, and will Himself reign with them on the earth, and will build the holy city, and this kingdom of the righteous shall be for a thousand years. Throughout that time the stars shall be more brilliant, and the brightness of the sun shall be increased, and the moon shall not be subject to decrease. Then the rain of blessing shall descend from God at morning and evening, and the earth shall bring forth all her fruit without the labour of men. Honey shall drop from rocks, fountains of milk and wine shall abound. The beasts shall lay aside their ferocity and become mild, the wolf shall roam among the flocks without doing harm, the calf shall feed with the lion, the dove shall be united with the hawk, the serpent shall have no poison; no animal shall live by bloodshed. For God shall supply to all abundant and harmless food. But when the thousand years shall be fulfilled, and the prince of the demons loosed, the nations will rebel against the righteous, and an innumerable multitude will come to storm the city of the saints. Then the last judgment of God will come to pass against the nations. For He will shake the earth from its foundations, and the cities shall be overthrown, and He shall rain upon the wicked fire with brimstone and hail, and they shall be on fire, and slay each other. But the righteous shall for a little space be concealed under the earth, until the destruction of the nations is accomplished, and after the third day they shall come forth, and see the plains covered with carcasses. Then there shall be an earthquake, and the mountains shall be rent, and valleys shall sink down to a profound depth, and into this the bodies of the dead shall be heaped together, and its name shall be called Polyandrion. After these things God will renew the world, and transform the righteous into the forms of angels, that, being presented with the garment of immortality, they may serve God for ever; and this will be the kingdom of God, which shall have no end. Then also the wicked shall rise again, not to life but to punishment; for God shall raise these also, when the second resurrection takes place, that, being condemned to eternal torments and delivered to eternal fires, they may suffer the punishments which they deserve for their crimes.

It is not speculation to admit that Lactantius got this understanding from somewhere, and to trace his beliefs through previous teachings, both among the Church Fathers and in the Scriptures. We must ask ourselves:

Where did he get the "thousand year Millennium" if not from Rev 20?
Where did he get the idea that the continuation of sin and mortality on earth is not irreconcilable with a thousand years of general blessedness on earth, particularly on behalf of the righteous?
Where did he get the idea that evil is suppressed during the Millennium if not from Rev 20 and perhaps from the Church Fathers before him?
Where did he get the idea that the great destruction of wickedness at the Coming of Christ is not irreconcilable with a continuation of mortal humanity on earth? Clearly, belief in widespread and final judgment against the forces of Antichrist does not necessarily mean the end of humanity? He had to have gotten this from Revelation and perhaps from previous Chiliasts.
Where did he get the idea that Christ will reign with his glorified saints on earth during the Millennium if not from Rev 20 and from earlier Chiliasts.
Where did he get the idea that the judgment of the whole world under Antichrist at the 2nd Coming is not incompatible with another full cleansing of the earth at the end of the Millennium if not from Rev 20 and perhaps from earlier Chiliasts.

To stand alone with all of these thoughts, with not a peep from Amils claiming this is a twist on other previous Chiliast versions is telling. And it is not unduly speculative to think that Lactantius had access to earlier Chiliast works. Some think he learned from Irenaeus' works.

They do believe these very old covenant sin sacrifices will literally return. They are either efficacious or they are a circus.

I'll go with "circus."

Not ‘Replacement Theology’ but ‘Expansion Theology’. As we have already established: it is you that promotes Replacement Theology by your replacement of ethnic Israel with the ethnic Gentile nations. Amils see the NT Church as the expansion of true faithful believing Israel.

We're playing "pin the tag on the donkey." RT has a set definition, and cannot be "turned around" and applied differently. If you think the Church has superseded Israel, then you're a super-secessionist, or RT advocate.

The sad fact is: most Premillennialists today promote the return of the old covenant arrangement.

I don't believe you've proved that in doing so they are cancelling out the atoning death of Christ for their sins, and replacing it with OT sacrifices.

 

[WPM]

No, Paul--I don't "know it!" I wouldn't be discussing these things if I already "knew it."



Let me stop you right there. All Christians believe this, Amils and Premils. So there is nothing particularly "Amil" about the belief that Christ's Coming will usher in a great new world, replete with glorified, perfect Christians and a sinful world tamed by Christian rule and domination.



Again, this is an argument from silence. Not mentioning sin, deceit, and dying is not an argument that they no longer exist. It is evidence that it wasn't important to be discussed.

It is relevant that the emphasis was on the opposite, the reality of incorruption and blessedfness. But as above, Premils believe in this too, albeit in a different way. I believe, as a Premil, that Christ's Coming will usher in incorruption for the saints who are glorified, and blessedness on earth when Christ tames the sinful world. Why then would I emphasize sin, deceit, and dying, if these things are being kept in check, even if still present to some degree?



I'll bring you what I've brought for years. The Jewish Hope is presented in the OT Prophets, and acknowledged as such by both Jews and Premil Christians. As I said, Jesus and Paul both believed in the Jewish Hope.

Jesus spoke of the great regathering of Jews in his Olivet Discourse--he was at that time still speaking under the OT to Jews. And later, in Acts 1.7 he spoke to his apostles of the need to let God determine the time of the restoration of Israel.

Paul spoke of the salvation of "all Israel" in Rom 11. It may be disputable for some, but once again, this is what I'm "bringing to the table" as evidence for Christian belief in the "Jewish Hope."

Again, Chiliasts should not be expected to speak of sin, deceit, and death in a world they believe will be tamed by Christ at his Coming. So why do you want evidence that they believe in such? They are not trying to prove that humans are still mortal or have the Sin Nature, since this is assumed as long as the world continues, up until the final judgment.

What they are rather trying to prove is that Christ's reign will begin at his Coming, leading to the complete judgment of Satan at Antichrist's destruction. The Chiliasts, therefore, are not seeking to prove the continuation of sin, but rather, the defeat of Satan's rule over the earth. These are contrary concerns. You are seeking proof of something the Chiliasts had no concern to prove.



These quotes are fine, and may or may not apply to my line of argument. Again, I'm saying that I and Premils believe that Christ comes to rule with his glorified people, who have been resurrected from the dead and now enjoy a sinless, incorruptible life. The blessed condition you quote from Irenaeus indicates that *glorified Christians* will see this blessedness, and not necessarily the entire earth and mortal men.

There is no indication he believes, in these quotes, that all men are now made immortal and therefore blessed. As far as I know, these references indicate only that glorified saints will enjoy the blessings of incorruptibility.

The earth, too, will be different because the saints will *rule,* as Irenaeus stated above. That could mean that sinful humanity is now penned in, and kept from waging war against godly nations, causing a measure of peace to reign on earth, which is, again, another kind of state of blessedness. Could the Chiliasts be thinking of this?

So it boils down to, are there statements to the effect that the Chiliasts believed that mortality was completely removed at Christ's return, and that Christians rule over nobody?

Irenaeus: ...the predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead...

Rev 2.26 To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27 that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father.

Matt 19.28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

So, here is the pattern: strong evidence is presented that proves my case. That evidence is then totally ignored. What is presented in response is a lengthy dissertation of your opinion, which doesn't in any way negate the evidence. This is totally inadmissible. This pattern is wrong and proves or disproves nothing.

I therefore refer you back to the historic data that forbids your claims.

 

[WPM]

There is more than silence and speculation. For example, Lactantius Divine Institutions ch. 72:

Once again, you totally sidestepped all the strong evidence presented, refusing to even acknowledge what was being quoted, and then proceeded to take us off on a tangent. Notwithstanding, you totally reinforced my overriding thesis here. The first orthodox ECFs to (indeed) advocate key elements of modern-day beliefs came from Commodianus, Lactantius and Victorinus. But they did not bring their mellow form of Premil to the table until after AD 250. Think about that! That is over 220 years after the cross! All we had before that was Chiliasm, which was more akin to Amil, believing in a new perfect impending arrangement. Even then, Commodianus, Lactantius and Victorinus anticipated a milder and more palatable millennium than what Premils promote today. There is no elevation of ethnic Israel or reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus in their writing. That is not insignificant, because these are central tenets of modern-day Premil.

Commodianus was an African poet who wrote between AD 251 and 258. Lactantius was also an African writer who lived between AD 250 - 317. He based his Premillennial teaching upon the pagan Sibyl prophetesses. Any time he tries to justify Premillennialism he uses these pagan false prophetesses as his evidence, not Scripture. Notable, when he makes a fleeting and rare passing allusion to the scriptural prophets of old it is only to support these prophetesses, rather than the other way around. Contrary to what you imagine, Paul the Apostle never did that! Victorinus was the Bishop of Pettau, Upper Pannonia (modern Slovenia) and wrote mainly around AD 270.

Let us look at where Lactantius sourced his beliefs on the millennium:

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]

There is more than silence and speculation. For example, Lactantius Divine Institutions ch. 72:

Then the heaven shall be opened in a tempest, and Christ shall descend with great power, and there shall go before Him a fiery brightness and a countless host of angels, and all that multitude of the wicked shall be destroyed, and torrents of blood shall flow, and the leader himself shall escape, and having often renewed his army, shall for the fourth time engage in battle, in which, being taken, with all the other tyrants, he shall be delivered up to be burnt. But the prince also of the demons himself, the author and contriver of evils, being bound with fiery chains, shall be imprisoned, that the world may receive peace, and the earth, harassed through so many years, may rest. Therefore peace being made, and every evil suppressed, that righteous King and Conqueror will institute a great judgment on the earth respecting the living and the dead, and will deliver all the nations into subjection to the righteous who are alive, and will raise the righteous dead to eternal life, and will Himself reign with them on the earth, and will build the holy city, and this kingdom of the righteous shall be for a thousand years. Throughout that time the stars shall be more brilliant, and the brightness of the sun shall be increased, and the moon shall not be subject to decrease. Then the rain of blessing shall descend from God at morning and evening, and the earth shall bring forth all her fruit without the labour of men. Honey shall drop from rocks, fountains of milk and wine shall abound. The beasts shall lay aside their ferocity and become mild, the wolf shall roam among the flocks without doing harm, the calf shall feed with the lion, the dove shall be united with the hawk, the serpent shall have no poison; no animal shall live by bloodshed. For God shall supply to all abundant and harmless food. But when the thousand years shall be fulfilled, and the prince of the demons loosed, the nations will rebel against the righteous, and an innumerable multitude will come to storm the city of the saints. Then the last judgment of God will come to pass against the nations. For He will shake the earth from its foundations, and the cities shall be overthrown, and He shall rain upon the wicked fire with brimstone and hail, and they shall be on fire, and slay each other. But the righteous shall for a little space be concealed under the earth, until the destruction of the nations is accomplished, and after the third day they shall come forth, and see the plains covered with carcasses. Then there shall be an earthquake, and the mountains shall be rent, and valleys shall sink down to a profound depth, and into this the bodies of the dead shall be heaped together, and its name shall be called Polyandrion. After these things God will renew the world, and transform the righteous into the forms of angels, that, being presented with the garment of immortality, they may serve God for ever; and this will be the kingdom of God, which shall have no end. Then also the wicked shall rise again, not to life but to punishment; for God shall raise these also, when the second resurrection takes place, that, being condemned to eternal torments and delivered to eternal fires, they may suffer the punishments which they deserve for their crimes.

It is not speculation to admit that Lactantius got this understanding from somewhere, and to trace his beliefs through previous teachings, both among the Church Fathers and in the Scriptures. We must ask ourselves:

Where did he get the "thousand year Millennium" if not from Rev 20?
Where did he get the idea that the continuation of sin and mortality on earth is not irreconcilable with a thousand years of general blessedness on earth, particularly on behalf of the righteous?
Where did he get the idea that evil is suppressed during the Millennium if not from Rev 20 and perhaps from the Church Fathers before him?
Where did he get the idea that the great destruction of wickedness at the Coming of Christ is not irreconcilable with a continuation of mortal humanity on earth? Clearly, belief in widespread and final judgment against the forces of Antichrist does not necessarily mean the end of humanity? He had to have gotten this from Revelation and perhaps from previous Chiliasts.
Where did he get the idea that Christ will reign with his glorified saints on earth during the Millennium if not from Rev 20 and from earlier Chiliasts.
Where did he get the idea that the judgment of the whole world under Antichrist at the 2nd Coming is not incompatible with another full cleansing of the earth at the end of the Millennium if not from Rev 20 and perhaps from earlier Chiliasts.

To stand alone with all of these thoughts, with not a peep from Amils claiming this is a twist on other previous Chiliast versions is telling. And it is not unduly speculative to think that Lactantius had access to earlier Chiliast works. Some think he learned from Irenaeus' works.




I'll go with "circus."



We're playing "pin the tag on the donkey." RT has a set definition, and cannot be "turned around" and applied differently. If you think the Church has superseded Israel, then you're a super-secessionist, or RT advocate.



I don't believe you've proved that in doing so they are cancelling out the atoning death of Christ for their sins, and replacing it with OT sacrifices.

1. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?
2. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described corruption existing on a future millennial earth?
3. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the wicked existing on a future millennial earth?
4. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described mortals existing on a future millennial earth?
5. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described decay existing on a future millennial earth?
6. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the curse existing on a future millennial earth?
7. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described Satan existing on a future earth?
8. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium which involved the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups as Premil does?
9. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system as Premil does?
10.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come as Premil does?
11.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
12.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
13.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as Premil does?
14.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that taught that Christ would be reigning in earthly Jerusalem over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne as Premil does?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, here is the pattern: strong evidence is presented that proves my case. That evidence is then totally ignored. What is presented in response is a lengthy dissertation of your opinion, which doesn't in any way negate the evidence. This is totally inadmissible. This pattern is wrong and proves or disproves nothing.

I therefore refer you back to the historic data that forbids your claims.

No, I didn't at all ignore your "evidence." I'm giving you my take on that same evidence, with an alternative view of looking at the same evidence. Two people look at red color on a page. One sees blood, and the other sees a rose. It depends on how you read your "evidence."

Your own view of your evidence is also an "opinion." That is what we're here presenting--our own opinions.

Some see the "evidence" is "obviously and clearly" what you think it means. Another sees that same evidence as "questionable." I'm simply giving you a different take on the same evidence because I do think your suppositions are questionable.

If you're honestly looking for feedback, I've been giving it to you--not to criticize you nor to insult you. This is my honest reflection on your "evidence" from my vantage point, wrong or right.

If you look at how Lactantius views the same points, you will see he sees things exactly as I've been saying them myself. So whatever data he had, including the Scriptures and the Church Fathers before him, he came to the same conclusions I do.

You either want to be critiqued, or you don't. If you dismiss all critiques as not worth your time, then I wonder if you really want to be critiqued at all?

 

[WPM]

No, I didn't at all ignore your "evidence." I'm giving you my take on that same evidence, with an alternative view of looking at the same evidence. Two people look at red color on a page. One sees blood, and the other sees a rose. It depends on how you read your "evidence."

Your own view of your evidence is also an "opinion." That is what we're here presenting--our own opinions.

Some see the "evidence" is "obviously and clearly" what you think it means. Another sees that same evidence as "questionable." I'm simply giving you a different take on the same evidence because I do think your suppositions are questionable.

If you're honestly looking for feedback, I've been giving it to you--not to criticize you nor to insult you. This is my honest reflection on your "evidence" from my vantage point, wrong or right.

If you look at how Lactantius views the same points, you will see he sees things exactly as I've been saying them myself. So whatever data he had, including the Scriptures and the Church Fathers before him, he came to the same conclusions I do.

You either want to be critiqued, or you don't. If you dismiss all critiques as not worth your time, then I wonder if you really want to be critiqued at all?

No. You did not critique the evidence. You avoided it, once again. It totally exposes your thesis. There is no way out of it. There is no other conclusion.

And look how long it was until Premil arrived and where Lactantius actually sourced his position. Very telling! Very damning for Premil.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have little interest in reading your posts. I have zero interest in searching for some obscure question in the midst of your speculations. Thanks for the conversation.

So you are just one who loves to accuse falsely and run away. You also want to ask all sorts of questions but refuse to answer any asked by others. Typical pagan like attitude.

Have the last post, I am done with you. I shake the dust off my feet.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, I didn't at all ignore your "evidence." I'm giving you my take on that same evidence, with an alternative view of looking at the same evidence. Two people look at red color on a page. One sees blood, and the other sees a rose. It depends on how you read your "evidence."

Your own view of your evidence is also an "opinion." That is what we're here presenting--our own opinions.

Some see the "evidence" is "obviously and clearly" what you think it means. Another sees that same evidence as "questionable." I'm simply giving you a different take on the same evidence because I do think your suppositions are questionable.

If you're honestly looking for feedback, I've been giving it to you--not to criticize you nor to insult you. This is my honest reflection on your "evidence" from my vantage point, wrong or right.

If you look at how Lactantius views the same points, you will see he sees things exactly as I've been saying them myself. So whatever data he had, including the Scriptures and the Church Fathers before him, he came to the same conclusions I do.

You either want to be critiqued, or you don't. If you dismiss all critiques as not worth your time, then I wonder if you really want to be critiqued at all?

Randy you only see what you want to see, and you disregard that which challenges your dreams and belief, your claims of "Localized" destruction is just one example seen below

Unanswered Post, One Example Below:

Randy your claims of "Localized" destruction leaving surviving mortals behind is a sci-fi fairy tale found no place in scripture, the two mentions of scripture below silences your false claims

Randy it's amazing how far your denial of biblical truth will go, simple, clear, and before your eyes!

"The Fire Shall Try Every Man's Work"!

1 Corinthians 3:13KJV
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

"The World And "ALL" That Dwell Therein!

Nahum 1:5-6KJV
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No. You did not critique the evidence. You avoided it, once again. It totally exposes your thesis. There is no way out of it. There is no other conclusion.

Are you saying that I must agree with your views in order to properly critique them? I'm not avoiding anything. My thesis is confirmed by the way Lactantius viewed things.

And look how long it was until Premil arrived and where Lactantius actually sourced his position. Very telling! Very damning for Premil.

I wouldn't say it's "damning," though it's certainly something to consider. As I said, there are possible reasons for this.

We know guys like Jerome censored material that was Chiliastic. So there may have been much more to read--we can't draw firm conclusions.

Also, I suggested that the interest of the Chiliasts was in the opposite direction of proving things that you require from Premil, such as clear statements about the existence of mortal, sin-laden people on earth during the Millennium, as well as clear statements about Satan being bound at the 2nd Coming. But I do think Irenaeus provided the latter.

 

[WPM]

These quotes are fine, and may or may not apply to my line of argument. Again, I'm saying that I and Premils believe that Christ comes to rule with his glorified people, who have been resurrected from the dead and now enjoy a sinless, incorruptible life. The blessed condition you quote from Irenaeus indicates that *glorified Christians* will see this blessedness, and not necessarily the entire earth and mortal men.

It is not just the redeemed that he believes are going to be glorified when Jesus comes, in keeping with Scripture, and in concert with Amils, he tells us repeatedly and in crystal clear terms that creation is finally delivered from corruption when Jesus appears. How could he say it any clearer? Honestly! You are so besotted by Premil that you cannot objectively look at this subject. This is a strong and central theme of his teaching. He further teaches:

It is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards. For it is just that in that very creation in which they toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering; and that in the creation in which they were slain because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again; and that in the creation in which they endured servitude, in that they should reign. For God is rich in all things, and all things are His. It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made this plain in the Epistle to the Romans, when he thus speaks: “For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; since the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God” (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32:1).​

This reference to that “primeval condition” is taking us back to the beginning where Adam enjoy perfect union and communion with God on an incorrupt earth. This is what Irenaeus sees returning at the second coming. Speaking of the resurrection of the just, he submits: “they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated.” The earth, the writer anticipates, is only for the righteous. He affirms: “It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous.” There is no allowance, as modern-day Premillennialism argues, for the curse, the wicked wickedness, or Satan to blight the new earth. This thousand-year era is depicted as the Sabbath reign of Christ and the righteous.

Irenaeus also advocated that it is fitting that the resurrected saints would reign in the same world where they had labored and suffered bodily. Where they once endured pain and bondage, they would enjoy freedom and authority. Man and creation are portrayed as being in perfect sync. The one notable aspect of early Chiliasm, which distinguishes it from modern Premillennialism, is its view of a future millennial earth. The early Chiliasts expected a perfect regenerated earth free of sin, sinners, Satan and the curse. Modern-day Premillennialism locates all of this on its future millennial earth.

Manifestly, this writer sees the wound of the curse being finally healed when Jesus returns. Death is terminated forever. Like Amillennialists, he believed the curse will be eliminated at Christ’s coming. Note, he teaches that “the righteous” who enter the regenerated earth are the glorified saints “rising from the dead.”

Irenaeus states:

The Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man [Antichrist ] and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 30:4).​

Irenaeus depicts the age to under the idea of a sabbath rest for the redeemed alone. He viewed a future millennium as the seventh day porchway into the eternal realm. The picture being portrayed here is that of a perfect environment consisting perfected beings who are at total rest. This is a picture of millennial bliss. There is no allowance for the wicked or wickedness in this unspoiled environment. In fact: they are banished to "the lake of fire" whilst the redeemed are said to enjoy perfect bliss.

Irenaeus further teaches:

He says, “Whosoever shall have left lands, or houses, or parents, or brethren, or children because of Me, he shall receive in this world an hundred-fold, and in that to come he shall inherit eternal life.” For what are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this world, the entertainments given to the poor, and the suppers for which a return is made? These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 33:2).​

Again, the millennium is shown here to be prepared alone for “the righteous.” It is said to be their reward. Irenaeus’ millennium is completely different to that envisioned by modern-day Premillennialists. Whilst he believed in a millennial period after the coming of Christ he saw a perfect incorruptible transitionary period that would simply be porch-way for the redeemed (alone) into the eternal state. This would be a time totally free of the wicked, wickedness and corruption: “the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free.”

Irenaeus elaborates on the early Chiliast expectation in a future millennium:

For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically … and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 35:2).​

The millennium was a final step before the new heaven and new earth.

He enlarges:

That the whole creation shall, according to God’s will, obtain a vast increase, that it may bring forth and sustain fruits such [as we have mentioned], Isaiah declares: “And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every prominent hill, water running everywhere in that day, when many shall perish, when walls shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, seven times that of the day, when He shall heal the anguish of His people, and do away with the pain of His stroke.” Now “the pain of the stroke” means that inflicted at the beginning upon disobedient man in Adam, that is, death; which [stroke] the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 34:2).​

Irenaeus does not see any more death after the second coming. With the glorification of believers and their population of the millennial earth, death is terminated.

He elsewhere taught:

Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, who were under the power of sin, presenting us as pure sons to His Father, if we yield ourselves obediently to the chastisement of the Spirit. And in the end of time He shall come to do away with all evil, and to reconcile all things, in order that there may be an end of all impurities (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, XXXIX).​

Irenaeus considers the second coming as the end of time, when Jesus shall do away with all evil and reconcile all things unto Himself. There can be no dispute about the position of Irenaeus in regards to the age to come. This agrees with the constant theme of the Patriarch’s teaching. For him: “the pain of the stroke … the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers.” He contends: “the [earthly] kingdom … is the commencement of incorruption.”

Irenaeus sums up Paul’s teaching about the next age in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter VII, 1:

The unbelievers of this world … shall not inherit the future age of incorruption.​

Irenaeus looks upon Christ’s appearing as the end of this corrupt arrangement and all rebellion. The new world belongs to the righteous and is incorrupt.

 

[Truth7t7]

He tells us repeatedly and in crystal clear terminology that creations is finally delivered from corruption. How could he say it any clearer? Honestly. You bare so besotted by Premil that you cannot objectively look at this subject. He further teaches:

It is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards. For it is just that in that very creation in which they toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering; and that in the creation in which they were slain because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again; and that in the creation in which they endured servitude, in that they should reign. For God is rich in all things, and all things are His. It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made this plain in the Epistle to the Romans, when he thus speaks: “For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; since the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God” (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32:1).​

This reference to that “primeval condition” is taking us back to the beginning where Adam enjoy perfect union and communion with God on an incorrupt earth. This is what Irenaeus sees returning at the second coming. Speaking of the resurrection of the just, he submits: “they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated.” The earth, the writer anticipates, is only for the righteous. He affirms: “It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous.” There is no allowance, as modern-day Premillennialism argues, for the curse, the wicked wickedness, or Satan to blight the new earth. This thousand-year era is depicted as the Sabbath reign of Christ and the righteous.

Irenaeus also advocated that it is fitting that the resurrected saints would reign in the same world where they had labored and suffered bodily. Where they once endured pain and bondage, they would enjoy freedom and authority. Man and creation are portrayed as being in perfect sync. The one notable aspect of early Chiliasm, which distinguishes it from modern Premillennialism, is its view of a future millennial earth. The early Chiliasts expected a perfect regenerated earth free of sin, sinners, Satan and the curse. Modern-day Premillennialism locates all of this on its future millennial earth.

Manifestly, this writer sees the wound of the curse being finally healed when Jesus returns. Death is terminated forever. Like Amillennialists, he believed the curse will be eliminated at Christ’s coming. Note, he teaches that “the righteous” who enter the regenerated earth are the glorified saints “rising from the dead.”

Irenaeus states:

The Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man [Antichrist ] and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 30:4).​

Irenaeus depicts the age to under the idea of a sabbath rest for the redeemed alone. He viewed a future millennium as the seventh day porchway into the eternal realm. The picture being portrayed here is that of a perfect environment consisting perfected beings who are at total rest. This is a picture of millennial bliss. There is no allowance for the wicked or wickedness in this unspoiled environment. In fact: they are banished to "the lake of fire" whilst the redeemed are said to enjoy perfect bliss.

Irenaeus further teaches:

He says, “Whosoever shall have left lands, or houses, or parents, or brethren, or children because of Me, he shall receive in this world an hundred-fold, and in that to come he shall inherit eternal life.” For what are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this world, the entertainments given to the poor, and the suppers for which a return is made? These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 33:2).​

Again, the millennium is shown here to be prepared alone for “the righteous.” It is said to be their reward. Irenaeus’ millennium is completely different to that envisioned by modern-day Premillennialists. Whilst he believed in a millennial period after the coming of Christ he saw a perfect incorruptible transitionary period that would simply be porch-way for the redeemed (alone) into the eternal state. This would be a time totally free of the wicked, wickedness and corruption: “the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free.”

Irenaeus elaborates on the early Chiliast expectation in a future millennium:

For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically … and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 35:2).​

The millennium was a final step before the new heaven and new earth.

He enlarges:

That the whole creation shall, according to God’s will, obtain a vast increase, that it may bring forth and sustain fruits such [as we have mentioned], Isaiah declares: “And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every prominent hill, water running everywhere in that day, when many shall perish, when walls shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, seven times that of the day, when He shall heal the anguish of His people, and do away with the pain of His stroke.” Now “the pain of the stroke” means that inflicted at the beginning upon disobedient man in Adam, that is, death; which [stroke] the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 34:2).​

Irenaeus does not see any more death after the second coming. With the glorification of believers and their population of the millennial earth, death is terminated.

He elsewhere taught:

Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, who were under the power of sin, presenting us as pure sons to His Father, if we yield ourselves obediently to the chastisement of the Spirit. And in the end of time He shall come to do away with all evil, and to reconcile all things, in order that there may be an end of all impurities (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, XXXIX).​

Irenaeus considers the second coming as the end of time, when Jesus shall do away with all evil and reconcile all things unto Himself. There can be no dispute about the position of Irenaeus in regards to the age to come. This agrees with the constant theme of the Patriarch’s teaching. For him: “the pain of the stroke … the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers.” He contends: “the [earthly] kingdom … is the commencement of incorruption.”

Irenaeus sums up Paul’s teaching about the next age in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter VII, 1:

The unbelievers of this world … shall not inherit the future age of incorruption.​

Irenaeus looks upon Christ’s appearing as the end of this corrupt arrangement and all rebellion. The new world belongs to the righteous and is incorrupt.

I fully agree with your well presented argument, water tight!

You aren't going to persuade a person that has a "Zionist pre-determined focused bias" in a 1,000 year fairy tale Kingdom on this earth

You stated it's been 2 years posting with Randy, it will be many more in denial, self willed and predetermined in denial of basic truth presented, and I don't see it changing

 

[WPM]

Are you saying that I must agree with your views in order to properly critique them? I'm not avoiding anything. My thesis is confirmed by the way Lactantius viewed things.



I wouldn't say it's "damning," though it's certainly something to consider. As I said, there are possible reasons for this.

We know guys like Jerome censored material that was Chiliastic. So there may have been much more to read--we can't draw firm conclusions.

Also, I suggested that the interest of the Chiliasts was in the opposite direction of proving things that you require from Premil, such as clear statements about the existence of mortal, sin-laden people on earth during the Millennium, as well as clear statements about Satan being bound at the 2nd Coming. But I do think Irenaeus provided the latter.

I have never expected anyone to agree with me, just because i say so. I want people to consider the historic evidence, which (I believe) is plain and overwhelming. Go where the evidence goes. We cannot rewrite history. The ancient ECFs can speak for themselves. If there are holes in my conclusions, of course, I want them exposed. But it seems like my thesis is pretty watertight at the moment. You haven't even landed a punch on it. To present wild unsubstantiated conspiracy theories on the Amils as rebuttals is absurd and shows that you have nothing of a viable rebuttal. This is not evidence, but a sign you have no evidence.

Most objective historians accept: Jerome censored one Chiliastic document written by Victorinus. There is no other credible evidence of anything similar. If there is: present it.

 

[WPM]

I fully agree with your well presented argument, water tight!

You aren't going to persuade a person that has a "Zionist pre-determined focused bias" in a 1,000 year fairy tale Kingdom on this earth

You stated it's been 2 years posting with Randy, it will be many more in denial, self willed and predetermined in denial of basic truth presented, and I don't see it changing

Bro, it could honestly be 8 years on other boards. So i tend to agree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're being as silly as the guy you're defending.

I'm not being silly at all and everyone else besides you here knows it.

I'll say it the "thousandth" time! Words mean what they mean *in context!*

No kidding! Do you think I believe otherwise?

That means a "thousand" can mean "one thousand."

It can. But not necessarily. That's my point.

If the word "thousand" is used as a "manner of speaking," it can mean something else.

No kidding! That's what I'm saying. All I was doing was showing that the word can be used figuratively. Some think the word has to be literal, but the fact that it's used figuratively several times in scripture shows otherwise. Obviously, the word can be used both literally and figuratively. It's unfortunate that I have to show some ignorant people that it is sometimes used figuratively in scripture, but it is what it is.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you know how long it would take to get to 1,000 generations? Can you give us how many generations there have been since Adam? Are we even going to make it to 900 generations? Kind of hard to worry about that 1001 generation, since you wipe out all humans and remove their ability to procreate, way before that point.

LOL! Excellent job of missing the point. Well done. So, is it your belief that it's talking about a literal one thousand generations then? Is that what you're trying to say? Or do you even know what you're trying to say?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The argument Amils sometimes make is that the preponderance of its use as a "saying," or in a metaphorical sense, makes it highly likely that in highly-symbolic Revelation its use is also symbolic.

But, I'm not making that argument and you're talking to me. Don't lump me in with them.

That is a simple diversion, since this argument only holds up if the word is being used in several places *in the same way.* In Rev 20, the word "thousand" is not being used in the many ways it is being used in the quotations used to prove it can be used symbolically.

That is your opinion, but there is no grammar rule or anything like that which demands that it is being used literally in Revelation 20, if that's what you're implying.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The only literal thing they concede is the cleansing fire, but only if it literal kills everyone. Certainly not a symbolic fire that literally destroys all of mankind's works. We are talking about a fire that strategically removes all technology, but does not harm any humans. Not just left in rubble but is climactically and dramatically no longer in existence. Certainly the only literal way to read:

"and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

How can that only be symbolic?

What is your point here? Who said that is symbolic? It seems that you're saying only mankind's works will be destroyed? That was some rather selective quoting there. Why didn't you quote this part:

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

This is saying that the heavens and the elements will be burned up as well as "the earth also". Why did you not quote "the earth also"? What Peter was saying is that along with the heavens and the elements, the earth will also be burned up which will include "the works that are therein".

What all posters fail to grasp is that at any moment the spiritual blindness will be removed along with every human technology. There will be beings that will do God's will without needing any of what we use to make life easier. They will not be bound by current physical limitations. And it will definitely not be the church age, nor the age of Christianity any more. It will be the Day of the Lord. There were no Christians on that 7th day, in Genesis 2, only the sons of God. But the final harvest and the removal of 8 billion souls, has to happen before the Millennium can start. That is being literal, not symbolic. The final harvest is not a suggestion in Matthew 13.

How can anyone grasp this when what you're saying is completely incoherent? It's not possible that what you said here makes any sense to anyone but yourself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nobody is denying that once "thousand" can be used symbolically, metaphorically, or allegorically that it can be used the same way again. It is context that matters.

Of course context matters. We all believe that.

What is not transparently clear in the context must be taken at face value, or you risk incurring God's wrath.

Show me the scripture which teaches this. I don't need to go by your man-made rules.

God said don't mess with the words of the prophecy.

He didn't say to interpret it all literally! Which is basically what you're saying here. That's nonsense! You are trying to tell me that God said to interpret an undeniably highly symbolic book literally. You can't be serious.

It's safe to say that it likely means what it says, when the context does not itself *demand* that it be taken symbolically.

Who are you to decide what the context demands? You don't decide that for me. What I believe is demanded is to interpret the text in such a way that doesn't contradict other scripture. The context is not just determined by the Revelation 20 text alone.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Who are "they?" I'm a Premil and I don't think you're a devil-worshiper!

I was talking about Premils, but did you somehow miss that I said "some of them"? That means not all of them. So, I wasn't talking about you.

But I do think you fail to take seriously the warning in Revelation not to tamper with the words and their meaning.

That is not at all what I'm doing.

You can speculate about them, but trying to politically drive, with force, a symbolic meaning onto an otherwise literal statement is what the warning seems to be all about.

That is not at all what the warning is about. The warning is about people PURPOSELY twisting the text to say something different than what it says. That is NOT AT ALL what I'm doing. I interpret the text in such a way that is CONSISTENT with how I interpret the rest of scripture. Don't you think it's a good thing to try to be consistent with how I interpret scripture as a whole, regardless of whether you agree with my conclusions or not?

Why not keep it speculative if you want to turn it into an allegory?

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not according to my logic, but rules of grammar. This is most likely a euphemistic use of 1,000 years based on construct and other passages of Scriptrure dealing with the same subject. but for all we know fro Adam untill eternity arrives for us could be 1,000 generations.

buit even if trhis is a euphemism (which it may well be) it still doesn't warrant taking the 6 occurrences of 1,000 years as symbolic.

My point was to show that "a thousand" is used figuratively elsewhere in scripture, so that means it's possible for Revelation 20 as well. I'm not saying the word "thousand" must be figurative in Revelation 20 since it's sometimes used figuratively elsewhere. I'm just saying that means it's possible. It seems like some people deny even the possibility because of being ignorant about how the word is sometimes used elsewhere in scripture.

As far as you referring to "the 6 occurrences of 1,000 years" in Revelation 20, you're not trying to say it has to be literal just because it's used 6 times, are you? I've seen that argument before and it's the most ridiculous argument imaginable. The number of times the word is used is irrelevant in terms of determining if it's literal or not.