THE UNSCRIPTURAL THEOLOGIES OF AMILLENNIALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

[chad kincham]

.

 

[chad kincham]

THE UNSCRIPTURAL THEOLOGIES OF AMILLENNIALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM






HERMENEUTICS

Dr. Walvoord was asked a few years ago “what do you predict will be the most significant theological issues over the next ten years?” His answer included the following: “the hermeneutical problem of not interpreting the Bible literally, especially the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally.”34 Such is the trend ten years later. Today too many evangelicals want to blend so-called “literal” and non-literal hermeneutics. According to Dr. Walvoord, it cannot be legitimately done, without producing a confused and contradictory mix of eschatology.

The real reason why amillennialist and postmillennialists believe what they do is because of a refusal to interpret the entire Bible, especially prophecy, literally. This is it! In some of their more candid moments, opponents of the literal interpretation of prophecy admit that if our approach is followed then it does rightly lead to premillennial theology. Floyd Hamilton said the following:

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promises.35

In the same vein, Oswald Allis admits, “the Old Testament prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be regarded as having been yet fulfilled or as being capable of fulfilment in this present age.”36

Further, the fact that people want to mix hermeneutics in the area of eschatology demonstrates to me that they do not rightly understand literal interpretation to begin with. If one follows proper hermeneutics, then recognizing symbols and figures or speech will become obvious through the literal approach. Instead, it is because people don’t like what the text says. Thus, they have to front-load the interpretive process with all kinds of ideas that they bring from outside of the text of Scripture.

ANTI, ANTI

In their presentations of their views, amillennialism and postmillennialism both spend a lot of time explaining why they are opposed to premillennialism, especially dispensational premillennialism. Just as in the early church, so modern amillennialists and postmillennialists always start by setting their views against premillennialism. Yet many premillennial presentations can be found that do not even mention amillennialism and postmillennialism. Why? A positive presentation for premillennialism can be made from the Bible, while amillennialism and postmillennialism cannot.

The best defense is a good offense. This is especially true in relation to combating the false theologies of amillennialism and postmillennialism. By simply presenting a detailed exposition of the Scriptures, it will naturally follow that premillennialism is the perspective taught in the Bible—both Old and New Testaments.

A number of years ago, one of our original members of the Pre-Trib Study Group, Dr. Gerald Stanton,37 gave me a syllabus that he had prepared for teaching the overall field of eschatology called Prophetic Highways. Dr. Stanton summarized support for premillennialism with the following points:


• Consistent literal interpretation

• Unconditional nature of the covenants (Abrahamic)

• The Abrahamic Covenant

• The Old Testament teaches a literal earthly kingdom

• The kingdom is carried unchanged into the New Testament

• Christ also supports and earth kingdom

• There are multiple resurrections in Scripture

• Revelation 20 teaches premillennialism

• The early church was premillennial

• The failure of amillennialism and postmillennialism

• Premillennialism harmonizes the entire Bible

• Only premillennialism provides a satisfactory conclusion to history

CONCLUSION

Obviously much more can be said about amillennialism and postmillennialism, but suffice it to say that neither is taught in the Bible. Show me a single text that teaches it. Premillennialism can be inductively gleaned from Revelation 20. In fact, there is why we have the terms premillennialism, amillennialism and postmillennialism; because Revelation 20 speaks of a thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 that will take place after His return in Revelation 19. Since sound theology should be developed from the Bible itself, and since the Bible teach only a single viewpoint on any issue, amillennialism and postmillennialism are nowhere to be found, but premillennialism is found on every page of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. The strength of premillennialism is the text of Scripture. Study it! Teach it! Proclaim it! Hope in it! Live it! Maranatha!

 

[Abaxvahl]

In all this text the positions were not proven to be unscriptural and some vague and undefined "literal interpretation" (which doesn't exist) was invoked. Interesting thread.

 

[sovereigngrace]

THE UNSCRIPTURAL THEOLOGIES OF AMILLENNIALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

Part one:


by Thomas Ice


The twentieth century has been a time dominated by the outworking of one’s eschatology. In addition to the various eddies and movements within Christianity, just think of the impact that Communism and Islam had on the last hundred years. Both are corrupted forms of a Christian, postmillennial determinism. One’s view of the future has tremendous impact upon what one believes an individual should do in the present.

Historically, only the Bible looks ahead to the future as a time when life will be better than in the past. All pagan religions look to the past and think, “If only we could return to the good old days, then that would be wonderful.” “If we could just return the days of the Pharaohs of Egypt.” “If we could bring back the wonderful days of Nebuchadnezzar.” “If we could just get back to the 50s.” Only the Bible says the best is yet to come.

By your own admission on another thread, you do not do your own research on the ECFs. You simply trust and depend upon Thomas Ice, who has been widely proven to be bias in his Pretrib judgment and lacking in his historic evidence. What you submit is simply his opinions, not hard facts. That is because it takes deep research to discover what the ECFs really believed. Here are my own findings on the history of Premil.

The founders of Premil

The first promoter of what we know today as modern-day Premillennialism was Cerinthus who lived in the first century, who was strongly opposed by the early Christian Church. Cerinthus was from Western Asia Minor (now Turkey) and lived around A.D. 100. He was a shady individual who promoted a perverted blend of Judaism and Christianity. Two issues that seem to stand out more than anything else in his writings are his heretical Gnostic beliefs and his eschatological Premillennialism. That is not to say that Premillennialism is in any way heretical, it is not! Notwithstanding, these two matters are the preeminent focus of early church criticism of him.

Cerinthus

Cerinthus of Asia Minor promoted the restoration of the old covenant arrangement, believing that the earthly Jewish temple would be rebuilt, the old covenant Aaronic priesthood revived and sin offerings restarted. Dionysius describes the millennium Cerinthus anticipated in the future. It is a classic but crude summation of many of the core tenets of modern-day Premillenialism.

Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.​

This summary covers some of the core tenets of what we know today as Premillennialism. But the key element that is present here, but absent in the Chiliast hope, is where Dionysius describes Cerinthus’ expectation of a return to the Jewish “festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims.” Cerinthus saw the reintroduction of the old covenant arrangement. With the return of “festivals and sacrifices,” came (of necessity) the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the restoration of the old covenant priesthood. This was anathema to orthodox early Christianity. It ran contrary to New Testament teaching and principles.

The early Christians writers of all shades believed that Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. They held that the old covenant was a temporary imperfect unsatisfactory covenant pointing forward to the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice. They taught that the new divine arrangement had superseded the shadow, type and figure.

There is no allowance made by the Patristic writers for a restoration of the Old Testament sacrifice system with its festivals and feast, its meat offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings and drink offerings. They made no mention, as today, of “memorial sacrifices.” That is a modern man-made extra-biblical term that is rabbited by the masses in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The old imperfect sacrifices made by the representative priests in the old covenant were superseded at the cross by the one final satisfactory sacrifice by the one true eternal priest – the Lord Jesus Christ. Man has now only one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. The new covenant with a new priesthood had eternally removed the old covenant with the old priesthood.

Eusebius the historian records Caius of Rome, (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), in his criticism of Cerinthus. He does not go into all the detail of Dionysius, but makes general sweeping statements in regard to his Premillennialism:

By means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.​

Cerinthus was a follower and advocate of the Jewish law, something Epiphanius (who was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, 310-403AD) alludes to in his writings:

Cerinthus … adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 1:3).​

He goes on to allege:

Cerinthus stirred the circumcised multitudes up over Peter on his return to Jerusalem by saying, “He went in to men uncircumcised.” Cerinthus did this before preaching his doctrine in Asia and falling into the deeper pit of his destruction. For, because he was circumcised himself he sought an excuse, through circumcision if you please, for his opposition to the uncircumcised believers (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 2:5-6).​

Theodoret (Antioch Syria, died October 22, 362) also strongly repudiates Cerinthus and his false teaching, saying:

For, unlike that of Cerinthus and of those whose views are similar to his, the kingdom of our God and Saviour is not to be of this earth, nor circumscribed by a specific time. Those men create for themselves in imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and other pleasures, and along with them, sacrifices and Jewish solemnities. As for ourselves, we await the life that knows no growing old.​

This is the simplistic early overview of modern day Premilennialism. It is what they teach and preach. Little do many know, but, the ancient source of their teaching is the ancient Judaizing heretics. The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for this founder of early Premillennialist. He wrongly and strongly promoted the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. The “sacrifices and Jewish solemnities” endorsed to arise in a future millennium refers to the full gamut of the Old Testament Mosaic sacrifice system. Cerinthus is the first promoter of a thousand years of blood-letting surrounding the abolished old covenant feasts and festivals.

Marcion

Through his distorted view of the Hebrew Scriptures, Marcion also advanced the idea of the full recovery of the Jewish tradition in the future. He saw the nation retaking its favored Old Testament position above all nations again in the future. He absurdly believed that Israel, according to Old Testament prophecies, has its own unique Messiah, who is distinct to the Jesus of the New Testament.

Listen to Tertullian, a well-known Chiliast, of Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia), (160 – 220 AD) in Against Marcion Book III, Chapter XXI:

So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race. Because, after all, the earliest Christians are found on the side of the Creator, not of Marcion, all nations being called to His kingdom, from the fact that God set up that kingdom from the tree (of the cross).​

Here you have the seeds of modern-day Premillennialism. To Marcion, the whole idea of the “restoration” of the “Jewish … people” to their land involved the full return of the old covenant scheme, something rejected by early Chiliasts but anticipated on the millennial earth by most Premils today. Marcion also believed that there were two peoples of God, a doctrine unknown to ancient Chiliasm, but prevalent with Dispensationalism today. He made a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, although this arch heretic imagined two different God’s and two different Messiahs overseeing each company.

Tertullian explains in Chapter VI:

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.​

It seems from the early censures of Marcion by both early Chiliasts and early Amillennialists that the restoration of the Jewish state was at the center and forefront of his eschatological hope. This was not found in any of the orthodox early writers. The Church was God’s only spiritual elect and the true people of God.

Tertullian continues in Chapter XXIV (Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints),

God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom.​

Tertullian takes Marcion to task over his view that the Jewish Messiah (who was said to be different from Jesus Christ) would give “the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country.” Here he was advocating the legitimacy of, and the Jewish return to, the old covenant ceremonial system. It is important to say at this juncture, not one of the orthodox early Chiliasts promoted this theology. This was a belief that was outside of the pale of orthodoxy – both Amillennial and Chiliast. It was a Jewish heresy advocated by the neo-Gnostics like Cerinthus and Marcion.

In Marcion’s theology, we see how there was a strong prevailing view among the early heretics that God would bring Israel back to their previous theocratic place of favor. This was strongly rejected by ancients Amils and Premils.

Tertullian (an early Chiliast) refutes Marcion’s error, stating:

As for the restoration of Judæa, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof.​

Orthodox early Chiliast, Tertullian represents the prevailing thought among his peers on national Israel here, demonstrating that the people of God can only be found in the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no second group. There is no alternative place of favor. There is no other plan of salvation.

Marcion's invented Christ would meet all the faulty hyper-literal expectations that the apostate Christ-rejecting Jews desired - including restoring them back to their former land and elevating them to their former glory as God's chosen people and an elite race lording over all the Gentile nations. Whilst orthodox Premils reject the "2 Messiahs heresy" they run with Marcion's future millennial expectancy of a temporary carnal earthly kingdom focused mainly upon the Jews, Jerusalem and the old covenant practice. This is classic Premil!

Hill argued: “Marcion conceded to the Jews the reality of a full chiliastic hope, complete with a messianic deliverer, restoration to the land of promise, and refreshment in the infernal realms for the faithful dead! (The lack of any mention of resurrection is, however, to be noted.) He agreed with the Jews, and against catholic Christians, that the Christ promised in the Old Testament had not yet come. Marcion taught that the Creator’s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong about the interpretation of the prophets. The Jewish, nationalistic Messiah predicted in the Old Testament bore no likeness to the Christ of the higher God who came to earth during the reign of Tiberius to effect the salvation of mankind.”

The heretical dualists were Premil literalists who opposed the more-figurative Amillennialist position. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3, explained how Marcion "prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."

As a Premil, Marcion was a literalist and took the thousand years as a literal period of time after the second coming that involved the continuation of this physical age and all its pleasures and afflictions.

Origen actually summed up the ethos of those that held to a future millennium saturated in mortals (including the wicked) and who promoted the return of the old covenant arrangement as “understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense” (De Principiis, Book 2, Chapter XI).

This is the classic MO of modern-day Premils. They hurl the same charges at Amillennialists as these ancient heretics through at ancient orthodox Church generally. It comes up continually in discussions with Premils.

The historian Gennadius (died c. 496) identified all the main Millenialists among the ECFs, explaining what they expected on the millennial earth, there among them is both Cerinthus and Marcion:

Not in the divine order of the promises of earthly and transitory life, as the Melitians hoped. Not in the marriage procreation, such as held by the insane Cerinthus and Marcion. Not in drinking, eating and working, even as Papias authored, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius are satisfied. All this in the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future, so the joy of the saints are to reign with him in the hope that, as Nepos, who believed in a prime resurrection of the righteous, and a second of the wicked.​

Gennadius records his own opposition to millenialism and a transitory kingdom in between the here-and-now and the NHNE. He exposes the error Cerinthus and Marcion taught of sexual pleasures continuing on a future millennial earth. This this a classic Premil belief. This runs against the teaching of Jesus. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come.

William Rounseville Alger comments: “According to the heretics Cerinthus and Maricon, the millennium was to consist in an abundance of all sorts of sensual riches and delights. Many of the orthodox Fathers held the same view, but less grossly; while others made its splendors and its pleasures mental and moral” (The Destiny of the Soul).

This couldn’t be any clearer! This unscriptural belief was invented by the heretics Cerinthus and Marcion and is continued today by modern Premils. No early Chiliast advocated this error. The fact is: there will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

Even Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) rebukes Marcion in Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 38, speaking on Luke 20:34-36:

He therefore gave His answer, that the children of this world marry. You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection.
​

 

[sovereigngrace]

THE UNSCRIPTURAL THEOLOGIES OF AMILLENNIALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

Part one:


by Thomas Ice


The twentieth century has been a time dominated by the outworking of one’s eschatology. In addition to the various eddies and movements within Christianity, just think of the impact that Communism and Islam had on the last hundred years. Both are corrupted forms of a Christian, postmillennial determinism. One’s view of the future has tremendous impact upon what one believes an individual should do in the present.

Historically, only the Bible looks ahead to the future as a time when life will be better than in the past. All pagan religions look to the past and think, “If only we could return to the good old days, then that would be wonderful.” “If we could just return the days of the Pharaohs of Egypt.” “If we could bring back the wonderful days of Nebuchadnezzar.” “If we could just get back to the 50s.” Only the Bible says the best is yet to come.

Porphyry/Porphyrius

Porphyrius is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm. He was another Judaizer who tried to foist old covenant practices upon New Testament Christianity. He also promoted the full return of the old covenant ceremonial law and festivals.

Jerome strongly refuted him, and exposed his error:

[T]he blasphemer Porphyrius – and who assert that the ceremonies of the old Law should be observed in the Church of Christ by the stock of faithful Israel, those should also look forward to a golden Jerusalem for 1000 years, that they may offer sacrifices and be circumcised, that they may sit on the Sabbath, sleep, become sated, drunk, and to rise to frolic, their amusement being offensive to God (Commentary to Isaiah, Chapter XXIV).​

Jerome was not painting all Chiliasts with the same brush. Quite the opposite. He was specifically exposing this early heretical Premillennialist who advocated the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in a future thousand years, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period. This was not an opinion that orthodox Chiliasts held, taught or accepted anywhere throughout the early Church.

All of these Premil heretics were notably professing Gentile "Christians" who were besotted with Old Testament Israel and its ancient practices. Consequently, they tried to create a theological system that would accommodate their distorted view of Christianity and Judaism. They achieved this by creating parallel train-tracks that could accommodate the coexistence and co-acceptance of two diverse religious systems in a dual covenant theology. This is exactly what Dispensationalism has done today. It is fixated with natural Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the return of animal sacrifices in some supposed future millennium and the restarting of the abolished old covenant priesthood. They have invented two peoples of God to suit its theology.

The heretics believed that their hopes would be finally realized after the second coming, in an earthly messianic kingdom, one in which Israel would be brought back to its ancient favored position reigning over the Gentile nations from old Jerusalem. This new arrangement would see Gentiles submitting to the long-abolished primitive old covenant customs, rules and ceremonies. Ancient Jerusalem would become the center-point once again of global worship to Israel’s God. This age would last a thousand years and would see the full return of all Old Testament religious structure, including priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.

Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel. Jerome strongly refuted his teaching point by point. Speaking about Daniel 2.40 (“He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth”), he responded:

This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever (Commentary on Daniel, Prologue, on Daniel 2.40).​

According to Jerome: Porphyrius expected the restoration of natural Israel to its old covenant place of favor over all other nations in the last of the last days. Israel would then subjugate the Gentile nations and rule over them. He anticipates a superior position for ethnic Israel above all nations, with them exercising "the strongest power" over them.

Porphyry cuts across the widespread belief amongst the ECFs (Chiliast and early Amils) that the New Testament persistently teaches that under the new covenant, and in Christ Jesus, all nationalities equally partake of the spiritual blessings God promised to that nation through faith. Basically: Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. The whole notion of ethnicity deserving some type of special favor with God in our day is repeatedly and strongly blown out of the water in the early Christian writers.

Apollinarius of Laodicea

Apollinarius took up the ancient Premillennial baton from these early heretics. Notably, he too was a prominent heretic who was strongly opposed and renounced by the universal Church of his day. Very little of what he wrote has been passed down to us. Most of it was destroyed as heretical. Most of what we have comes from his theological opponents who were strong in their renunciations.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa said of Apollinarius of Laodicea, that his theology taught that “the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored.”

Basil the Great describes what Apollinarius believed

Apollinarius [of Laodicea], who is no less a cause of sorrow to the Churches. With his facility of writing, and a tongue ready to argue on any subject, he has filled the world with his works ... What he writes on theology is not founded on Scripture, but on human reasonings. He has written about the resurrection, from a mythical, or rather Jewish, point of view; urging that we shall return again to the worship of the Law, be circumcised, keep the Sabbath, abstain from meats, offer sacrifices to God, worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, and be altogether turned from Christians into Jews. What could be more ridiculous? Or, rather, what could be more contrary to the doctrines of the Gospel?​

Here is an outline of classic Premillennial teaching. Again, noticeably, this was held by an early heretic who was strongly resisted by the orthodox Christian Church. This was foreign teaching to them in the light of what Christ ushered in through the new covenant. Apollinarius taught that Israel would be restored to her previous old covenant place for preference over all other nations.

But, most troubling to the early writers, was the early Premillennial promotion of the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. This was despite the well-established beliefs of the Patristic writers that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5).

Apollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria in 362 A.D. at Roman councils in 377 A.D. and 378 A.D. In the second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD the Church leaders renounced Apollinarius as a heretic. He is actually repudiated by name in Canon 1 and Canon 7. Along with his other fellow heretics he was to be “anathematized.”

Gregory the Theologian also criticized Apollinarius in his letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius (Epistle CI. (101), highlighting his Premillennial beliefs.

I would they were even cut off that trouble you, and would reintroduce a second Judaism, and a second circumcision, and a second system of sacrifices. For if this be done, what hinders Christ also being born again to set them aside, and again being betrayed by Judas, and crucified and buried, and rising again, that all may be fulfilled in the same order, like the Greek system of cycles, in which the same revolutions of the stars bring round the same events​

Jerome targets the theology of the early Premillennial heretics, mentioning Apollinaris in particular in his renunciation:

Dionysius the bishop of the church of Alexandria, wrote a fine book mocking the tale of the millennium, as well as the golden and bejeweled earthly Jerusalem, the restoration of the temple, the blood of sacrifices, the idleness of the sabbath, the injury of circumcision, nuptials, child birth, child-rearing, the delights of feasting, and the servitude of all nations, and once again wars, armies, and triumphs, and the slaughter of the vanquished, and the death of the hundred-year-old sinner. Apollinaris responded to him in two volumes, and he is followed not only by men of his own sect, but also by a great multitude of our own, at least in this matter, so that I already perceive with foreboding that the anger of many will be aroused against me.​

For Jerome, the Premillennial scheme was “a tale.” Others would similarly call it “a fable.” The idea of a future age in-between “this age” and “the age to come” was quite fanciful to many of the early Amil writers. When the detail of the heretical Premillennialist heretics were threw into the mix, with their expectation of more ongoing sin, more decay, more sickness, more death, more sin offerings, etc, etc, it was hardly surprising that many found this far-fetched. When you add all the religious actors that populate the millennium and give their feigned allegiance to Christ and then turn on Him when Satan appears 1000 years after the second coming, then you are looking at a doctrine that seems beyond the pale of reality and truth. When they then argued that a future earth will see the mortal wicked interact with the glorified saints for a thousand years then you are looking at a clear non-corroborative doctrine.

In an article Jerome’s Judaizers, Hillel I. Newman argues: “So far as we know, none of these authors maintained hopefully that in the millennial kingdom all would offer sacrifices and keep the sabbath and that all men would be circumcised.”

Premil Lyford Paterson Edwards even concedes: “we see the unfortunate fate of Chiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had nothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris as arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged Chiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter and though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more interest for our purpose” (The Transformation of Early Christianity from an Eschatological to a Socialized Movement).

The later Jacobite bishop of Dara, in Mesopotamia (d. 845), John of Dara exposes Apollonarius for his millennialist teaching:

Apollonarius the heretic, with his companions, abandoned the glorious illumination of the living words and became blind to the faith like the Jews. He dared to speak, like the Pharisees, that after the resurrection of the dead, we shall live again for a thousand years in Jerusalem with the Messiah, with bodily pleasures, and childish sacrifices, and earthly libations before him [the Messiah?]. After these things are fulfilled, at that time we shall be taken up into heaven. And he was not shamed by the voice of Paul who said, “The kingdom of God is not of eating or drinking. But of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Also in like manner Irenaeus bishop of Lyon in Gaul wandered in these matters, which are in the book of Papias as Eusebius narrates (On the Resurrection of Bodies 2.13).​

John of Dara likens Apollonarius’ Premillennialism to Phariseeism. He rubbishes the idea of Judaic temple ceremonial in Jerusalem for a thousand years in front of the Messiah.

These ancient heretical Premillennialists fell into the same trap as the Pharisees with their faulty hyper-literal mind-set, who because of such, ended up crucifying Christ. The problem was, they were stuck in the Old Testament, fixated with the earthly, physical, temporal and the natural. These ancient writers focused in on Israel and a temporal future earthly kingdom full of warfare, carnal pleasures and ethnic separation. They promise a continuation of pain, sin, death, suffering, tears, hatred, war, funerals. This whole carnal expectation seems to blue the reason why the second coming is so splendid. It is the final return of Christ in all power and glory to abolish all unrighteousness and to set up a perfect, just and eternal kingdom where wickedness and corruption are forbidden.

Conclusion

What I have discovered is that whilst the above is all widely-accepted standard Premil beliefs today, none of the early Chiliasts taught this. In fact, it seems like the early Chiliasts distanced themselves especially from the heretic authors of this doctrine. Notably, nowhere is it taught in New Testament Scriptures. Nowhere can it be found in Revelation 20. It was an early heretical invention that ran contrary to New Testament Christianity and early Church theology.

What would be the purpose of reinstituting animal sacrifices in the future? After all, the old sacrificial system simply served as an imperfect type that foreshadowed Christ and pointed to His ultimate sacrifice for sin at the cross. Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin. He was the eternal fufilment of every type and shadow in the Old Testament. Anyway, since God destroyed the Temple Israel can no longer administer these unsatisfactory ordinances. They were effectively and finally nailed to the cross in the death of Christ.

The whole Judaic blood sacrifice system was rendered redundant through Calvary. It has no further purpose. What is its purpose? Why would we need further sin offerings (and that is exactly what they are)? The old covenant "ceremonial use" was for a purpose to atone for sin and cover it until the cross. It is this "ceremonial use" that you speak of? How could the slaughter of animals be pleasing onto God today or in the future? They can't. Christ's once perfectly satisfied all the elevated demands of God for a final offering for sin. What exactly does it do to sin in a supposed future millennium? I am truly at a loss to see what you think its useful purpose is.

For more info on this subject:

20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

 

[chad kincham]

In all this text the positions were not proven to be unscriptural and some vague and undefined "literal interpretation" (which doesn't exist) was invoked. Interesting thread.[/QUOTE£]

Literal interpretation does exist and is the obvious and common sense interpretation of scripture.

 

[chad kincham]

By your own admission on another thread, you do not do your own research on the ECFs. You simply trust and depend upon Thomas Ice, who has been widely proven to be bias in his Pretrib judgment and lacking in his historic evidence. What you submit is simply his opinions, not hard facts. That is because it takes deep research to discover what the ECFs really believed. Here are my own findings on the history of Premil.

The founders of Premil

The first promoter of what we know today as modern-day Premillennialism was Cerinthus who lived in the first century, who was strongly opposed by the early Christian Church. Cerinthus was from Western Asia Minor (now Turkey) and lived around A.D. 100. He was a shady individual who promoted a perverted blend of Judaism and Christianity. Two issues that seem to stand out more than anything else in his writings are his heretical Gnostic beliefs and his eschatological Premillennialism. That is not to say that Premillennialism is in any way heretical, it is not! Notwithstanding, these two matters are the preeminent focus of early church criticism of him.

Cerinthus

Cerinthus of Asia Minor promoted the restoration of the old covenant arrangement, believing that the earthly Jewish temple would be rebuilt, the old covenant Aaronic priesthood revived and sin offerings restarted. Dionysius describes the millennium Cerinthus anticipated in the future. It is a classic but crude summation of many of the core tenets of modern-day Premillenialism.

Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.​

This summary covers some of the core tenets of what we know today as Premillennialism. But the key element that is present here, but absent in the Chiliast hope, is where Dionysius describes Cerinthus’ expectation of a return to the Jewish “festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims.” Cerinthus saw the reintroduction of the old covenant arrangement. With the return of “festivals and sacrifices,” came (of necessity) the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the restoration of the old covenant priesthood. This was anathema to orthodox early Christianity. It ran contrary to New Testament teaching and principles.

The early Christians writers of all shades believed that Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. They held that the old covenant was a temporary imperfect unsatisfactory covenant pointing forward to the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice. They taught that the new divine arrangement had superseded the shadow, type and figure.

There is no allowance made by the Patristic writers for a restoration of the Old Testament sacrifice system with its festivals and feast, its meat offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings and drink offerings. They made no mention, as today, of “memorial sacrifices.” That is a modern man-made extra-biblical term that is rabbited by the masses in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The old imperfect sacrifices made by the representative priests in the old covenant were superseded at the cross by the one final satisfactory sacrifice by the one true eternal priest – the Lord Jesus Christ. Man has now only one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. The new covenant with a new priesthood had eternally removed the old covenant with the old priesthood.

Eusebius the historian records Caius of Rome, (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), in his criticism of Cerinthus. He does not go into all the detail of Dionysius, but makes general sweeping statements in regard to his Premillennialism:

By means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.​

Cerinthus was a follower and advocate of the Jewish law, something Epiphanius (who was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, 310-403AD) alludes to in his writings:

Cerinthus … adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 1:3).​

He goes on to allege:

Cerinthus stirred the circumcised multitudes up over Peter on his return to Jerusalem by saying, “He went in to men uncircumcised.” Cerinthus did this before preaching his doctrine in Asia and falling into the deeper pit of his destruction. For, because he was circumcised himself he sought an excuse, through circumcision if you please, for his opposition to the uncircumcised believers (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 2:5-6).​

Theodoret (Antioch Syria, died October 22, 362) also strongly repudiates Cerinthus and his false teaching, saying:

For, unlike that of Cerinthus and of those whose views are similar to his, the kingdom of our God and Saviour is not to be of this earth, nor circumscribed by a specific time. Those men create for themselves in imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and other pleasures, and along with them, sacrifices and Jewish solemnities. As for ourselves, we await the life that knows no growing old.​

This is the simplistic early overview of modern day Premilennialism. It is what they teach and preach. Little do many know, but, the ancient source of their teaching is the ancient Judaizing heretics. The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for this founder of early Premillennialist. He wrongly and strongly promoted the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. The “sacrifices and Jewish solemnities” endorsed to arise in a future millennium refers to the full gamut of the Old Testament Mosaic sacrifice system. Cerinthus is the first promoter of a thousand years of blood-letting surrounding the abolished old covenant feasts and festivals.

Marcion

Through his distorted view of the Hebrew Scriptures, Marcion also advanced the idea of the full recovery of the Jewish tradition in the future. He saw the nation retaking its favored Old Testament position above all nations again in the future. He absurdly believed that Israel, according to Old Testament prophecies, has its own unique Messiah, who is distinct to the Jesus of the New Testament.

Listen to Tertullian, a well-known Chiliast, of Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia), (160 – 220 AD) in Against Marcion Book III, Chapter XXI:

So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race. Because, after all, the earliest Christians are found on the side of the Creator, not of Marcion, all nations being called to His kingdom, from the fact that God set up that kingdom from the tree (of the cross).​

Here you have the seeds of modern-day Premillennialism. To Marcion, the whole idea of the “restoration” of the “Jewish … people” to their land involved the full return of the old covenant scheme, something rejected by early Chiliasts but anticipated on the millennial earth by most Premils today. Marcion also believed that there were two peoples of God, a doctrine unknown to ancient Chiliasm, but prevalent with Dispensationalism today. He made a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, although this arch heretic imagined two different God’s and two different Messiahs overseeing each company.

Tertullian explains in Chapter VI:

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.​

It seems from the early censures of Marcion by both early Chiliasts and early Amillennialists that the restoration of the Jewish state was at the center and forefront of his eschatological hope. This was not found in any of the orthodox early writers. The Church was God’s only spiritual elect and the true people of God.

Tertullian continues in Chapter XXIV (Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints),

God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom.​

Tertullian takes Marcion to task over his view that the Jewish Messiah (who was said to be different from Jesus Christ) would give “the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country.” Here he was advocating the legitimacy of, and the Jewish return to, the old covenant ceremonial system. It is important to say at this juncture, not one of the orthodox early Chiliasts promoted this theology. This was a belief that was outside of the pale of orthodoxy – both Amillennial and Chiliast. It was a Jewish heresy advocated by the neo-Gnostics like Cerinthus and Marcion.

In Marcion’s theology, we see how there was a strong prevailing view among the early heretics that God would bring Israel back to their previous theocratic place of favor. This was strongly rejected by ancients Amils and Premils.

Tertullian (an early Chiliast) refutes Marcion’s error, stating:

As for the restoration of Judæa, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof.​

Orthodox early Chiliast, Tertullian represents the prevailing thought among his peers on national Israel here, demonstrating that the people of God can only be found in the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no second group. There is no alternative place of favor. There is no other plan of salvation.

Marcion's invented Christ would meet all the faulty hyper-literal expectations that the apostate Christ-rejecting Jews desired - including restoring them back to their former land and elevating them to their former glory as God's chosen people and an elite race lording over all the Gentile nations. Whilst orthodox Premils reject the "2 Messiahs heresy" they run with Marcion's future millennial expectancy of a temporary carnal earthly kingdom focused mainly upon the Jews, Jerusalem and the old covenant practice. This is classic Premil!

Hill argued: “Marcion conceded to the Jews the reality of a full chiliastic hope, complete with a messianic deliverer, restoration to the land of promise, and refreshment in the infernal realms for the faithful dead! (The lack of any mention of resurrection is, however, to be noted.) He agreed with the Jews, and against catholic Christians, that the Christ promised in the Old Testament had not yet come. Marcion taught that the Creator’s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong about the interpretation of the prophets. The Jewish, nationalistic Messiah predicted in the Old Testament bore no likeness to the Christ of the higher God who came to earth during the reign of Tiberius to effect the salvation of mankind.”

The heretical dualists were Premil literalists who opposed the more-figurative Amillennialist position. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3, explained how Marcion "prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."

As a Premil, Marcion was a literalist and took the thousand years as a literal period of time after the second coming that involved the continuation of this physical age and all its pleasures and afflictions.

Origen actually summed up the ethos of those that held to a future millennium saturated in mortals (including the wicked) and who promoted the return of the old covenant arrangement as “understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense” (De Principiis, Book 2, Chapter XI).

This is the classic MO of modern-day Premils. They hurl the same charges at Amillennialists as these ancient heretics through at ancient orthodox Church generally. It comes up continually in discussions with Premils.

The historian Gennadius (died c. 496) identified all the main Millenialists among the ECFs, explaining what they expected on the millennial earth, there among them is both Cerinthus and Marcion:

Not in the divine order of the promises of earthly and transitory life, as the Melitians hoped. Not in the marriage procreation, such as held by the insane Cerinthus and Marcion. Not in drinking, eating and working, even as Papias authored, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius are satisfied. All this in the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future, so the joy of the saints are to reign with him in the hope that, as Nepos, who believed in a prime resurrection of the righteous, and a second of the wicked.​

Gennadius records his own opposition to millenialism and a transitory kingdom in between the here-and-now and the NHNE. He exposes the error Cerinthus and Marcion taught of sexual pleasures continuing on a future millennial earth. This this a classic Premil belief. This runs against the teaching of Jesus. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come.

William Rounseville Alger comments: “According to the heretics Cerinthus and Maricon, the millennium was to consist in an abundance of all sorts of sensual riches and delights. Many of the orthodox Fathers held the same view, but less grossly; while others made its splendors and its pleasures mental and moral” (The Destiny of the Soul).

This couldn’t be any clearer! This unscriptural belief was invented by the heretics Cerinthus and Marcion and is continued today by modern Premils. No early Chiliast advocated this error. The fact is: there will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

Even Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) rebukes Marcion in Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 38, speaking on Luke 20:34-36:

He therefore gave His answer, that the children of this world marry. You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection.​

Say what you will author nicely exposed the pagan Greek influence in rejection of literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello Sovereign

Good job and picking and choosing.

You left out other Church Father like Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr

I notice the amills avoid Justin Martyr like the plague. They say they have the true understanding of Revelation and then totally ignore a Saint who was taught at John's Church at Ephesus. How was taught by elders that knew John personally and was at the church within 25 years of John's death.

Yet we are to believe Justin got it all wrong and the amills know better as to what John was saying and taught to his Church at Ephesus. More than a man who lived, learned and was converted by John's very Church within 25 Years of John's death by an elder that knew John personally.

It is sooooo ridiculas it is laughable. Here is what Justin said about amill doctrine and the straight to heaven belief taught by it.

Dialogue with Trypho

"For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

Ah but who are those who were taught by John himself...At John's Church at Ephesus.......why listen to them...Better off listening to the heaped up piles of false teachers who Paul warned us would come.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Premillennialism harmonizes the entire bible

Thank you for the indepth post. I have to chuckle at this comment. As a recovering Premillinialist, this is far from being accurate. It wasn't until I left this movement that the lens of my understanding began to clear.
Be blessed.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hello Sovereign

Good job and picking and choosing.

You left out other Church Father like Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr

I notice the amills avoid Justin Martyr like the plague. They say they have the true understanding of Revelation and then totally ignore a Saint who was taught at John's Church at Ephesus. How was taught by elders that knew John personally and was at the church within 25 years of John's death.

Yet we are to believe Justin got it all wrong and the amills know better as to what John was saying and taught to his Church at Ephesus. More than a man who lived, learned and was converted by John's very Church within 25 Years of John's death by an elder that knew John personally.

It is sooooo ridiculas it is laughable. Here is what Justin said about amill doctrine and the straight to heaven belief taught by it.

Dialogue with Trypho

"For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

Ah but who are those who were taught by John himself...At John's Church at Ephesus.......why listen to them...Better off listening to the heaped up piles of false teachers who Paul warned us would come.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hello Sovereign

Good job and picking and choosing.

You left out other Church Father like Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr

I notice the amills avoid Justin Martyr like the plague. They say they have the true understanding of Revelation and then totally ignore a Saint who was taught at John's Church at Ephesus. How was taught by elders that knew John personally and was at the church within 25 years of John's death.

Yet we are to believe Justin got it all wrong and the amills know better as to what John was saying and taught to his Church at Ephesus. More than a man who lived, learned and was converted by John's very Church within 25 Years of John's death by an elder that knew John personally.

It is sooooo ridiculas it is laughable. Here is what Justin said about amill doctrine and the straight to heaven belief taught by it.

Dialogue with Trypho

"For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

Ah but who are those who were taught by John himself...At John's Church at Ephesus.......why listen to them...Better off listening to the heaped up piles of false teachers who Paul warned us would come.

There is complete silence on a millennial existence in the first 100 years after the cross apart from Papias. Remember, Revelation was a later manuscript that was not believed to have gained wide influence outside of Asia Minor for quite a while. So, the absence of these early writers exegeting it is not strange.

Contrary to what many modern Dispensationalist apologists argue, the early church writers were not mainly Premillennialist. In fact, the doctrine, which seems to have had its origin in Asia Minor, was mainly limited to that area for many yrs.

We do not have one single clear or obscure quote teaching any of the following Premillennial fundamentals in the first 120 years after the cross (pre-AD 150):

1. The elevation of natural Israel to their old covenant place of favour over all other nations.
2. The restoring of Israel back to her ancient borders.
3. The return of the whole old covenant arrangement.
4. The rebuilding of a brick temple in earthly Jerusalem.
5. The restarting of the mass slaughter of innocent animals on the new earth.
6. The resuscitation of the ancient old covenant priesthood again in a future millennium.
7. Christ’s kingship and kingly reign being suspended until the second coming.
8. The multiplication of carnal pleasures on a future new earth, involving excessive gluttony and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come.
9. The final removal of Satan from heaven at the second coming.
10.The binding of Satan at the second coming.
11.His placement in the abyss for 1000 years after the second coming.
12.The release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming.
13.The revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium.
14.Sin continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
15.Corruption continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
16.The wicked inheriting a future millennial earth.
17.Mortals inheriting a future millennial earth.
18.Decay continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
19.The curse continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
20.Satan operating on a future new earth.

 

[Timtofly]

There is complete silence on a millennial existence in the first 100 years after the cross apart from Papias. Remember, Revelation was a later manuscript that was not believed to have gained wide influence outside of Asia Minor for quite a while. So, the absence of these early writers exegeting it is not strange.

Contrary to what many modern Dispensationalist apologists argue, the early church writers were not mainly Premillennialist. In fact, the doctrine, which seems to have had its origin in Asia Minor, was mainly limited to that area for many yrs.

We do not have one single clear or obscure quote teaching any of the following Premillennial fundamentals in the first 120 years after the cross (pre-AD 150):

1. The elevation of natural Israel to their old covenant place of favour over all other nations.
2. The restoring of Israel back to her ancient borders.
3. The return of the whole old covenant arrangement.
4. The rebuilding of a brick temple in earthly Jerusalem.
5. The restarting of the mass slaughter of innocent animals on the new earth.
6. The resuscitation of the ancient old covenant priesthood again in a future millennium.
7. Christ’s kingship and kingly reign being suspended until the second coming.
8. The multiplication of carnal pleasures on a future new earth, involving excessive gluttony and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come.
9. The final removal of Satan from heaven at the second coming.
10.The binding of Satan at the second coming.
11.His placement in the abyss for 1000 years after the second coming.
12.The release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming.
13.The revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium.
14.Sin continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
15.Corruption continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
16.The wicked inheriting a future millennial earth.
17.Mortals inheriting a future millennial earth.
18.Decay continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
19.The curse continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
20.Satan operating on a future new earth.

Scripture does not support your (A)wefulMill. It is the Sabbath set apart as Holy. Remember the Sabbath Day of Adonai? Not the observance of the Law. Not the imagination of evil surmisings. The view of God in all His Holiness. The sons of God in the image of God. If one keeps stressing this is about man, they will never see Christ on earth.

 

[RandyPNW]

THE UNSCRIPTURAL THEOLOGIES OF AMILLENNIALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM
Part one:
by Thomas Ice
Historically, only the Bible looks ahead to the future as a time when life will be better than in the past. All pagan religions look to the past and think, “If only we could return to the good old days, then that would be wonderful.” “If we could just return the days of the Pharaohs of Egypt.” “If we could bring back the wonderful days of Nebuchadnezzar.” “If we could just get back to the 50s.” Only the Bible says the best is yet to come.

Though it's true that some want to regress back into a more primitive, more nostalgic past, it is also true that many are optimistic about the upward path of technology and science. The search for the "utopia" has never gone away.

Though I largely agree with the author, I don't believe that Premlll is strictly the domain of Dispensationalism, as he seems to infer. It is, however, a major contributing factor to the rise of modern Premillennialism, and Israel is part of the explanation for Premill being distinct from Amil or Postmill.

The latter 2 theories are Replacement Theology, wanting to explain the disappearance of Israel in history. But in modern history, Israel has reemerged, providing for a return of Premillennialism.

I don't believe Premill presents a binary choice between Israel or the Church, placing them in separate "dispensations." Rather, Israel is merely a nation that has been left out of the number of nations who have become Christian in NT history, and is now preparing to return to the fold.

But all is true about Postmill's bankruptcy on the idea of universal salvation, or improving the world, and about Amill's failure to explain how the Kingdom of God presently exists in a world dominated by Satan. Thanks for a good read!

 

[sovereigngrace]

But all is true about Postmill's bankruptcy on the idea of universal salvation, or improving the world, and about Amill's failure to explain how the Kingdom of God presently exists in a world dominated by Satan. Thanks for a good read!

I find it rich that Premils dismiss the current existence of the kingdom because there is evil in the world when their future millennium is overrun by evil and the wicked (as the sand of the sea). So, this is weak reasoning and a moot point.

The kingdom of God exists wherever the king – the Lord Jesus Christ – exercises His intimate spiritual jurisdiction. The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and incorporates the whole domain over-which the Lord Jesus Christ exercises His divine kingship, dominion and intimate rule. It includes heaven (and all those who are in heaven) – the place where with the kingdom is centered and administrated. That is why Matthew frequently described the kingdom of God as the kingdom of heaven. Notwithstanding, it also includes the full extent of the true Church, the spiritual temple of God, the body of Christ on earth. It is therefore the whole realm in which the rule of man becomes the rule of God; it is the area where the law of God and of righteousness is pre-eminent.

Whilst the kingdom is coming in all its final eternal glory at the coming of the Lord, the kingdom is here now spiritually.

The kingdom is sometimes described as “the kingdom of heaven” and at other times “the kingdom of God.” An elementary comparison between the two in the New Testament will show that “the kingdom of heaven” and “the kingdom of God” are just similar expressions to describe the one same Kingdom.

The term “the kingdom of God” refers to the One from whom it originates, whereas, the term “the kingdom of heaven” describes the place where it is centered. The word kingdom simply means ‘king [with a] domain’. It refers to the territory and the people over whom a King rules and exercises sovereign authority. The term also includes the laws that administer that kingdom.

The word employed in the New Testament for ‘kingdom’ is the Greek word ‘basileia’ denoting ‘sovereignty, royal power, kingship and dominion’. A kingdom must therefore have (1) a king – or a head, (2) a domain to rule over – namely subjects and territory, (3) and rules and laws which govern it.

The King in God’s kingdom is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. And since we got saved we are His subjects. The laws that govern Christ’s spiritual kingdom are found in this precious Book. Jesus declared in Matthew 6:33, “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Israel looked for a kingdom, and Christ brought it. The literalist Jews missed it as they had no concept of the spiritual nature of it. Daniel 2:34-35 says, "a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

Whilst we are looking at a literal prophecy and a literal truth we are looking at a literal metaphor. Stones don’t naturally grow into mountains. There is no doubt that we are looking at a spiritual prediction.

The kingdom began as a small stone with the early church in a small nation and has now become (as predicted) a large mountain today throughout the world covering all nations.

It is explicitly stated that the kingdom of God would be set up in the days of the Roman Empire (Daniel 2:44).

The prophet Daniel predicted this eternal kingdom, which would emanate from “the God of heaven” in Daniel 2:44-45, saying, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

Christ did not come to set up a kingdom that was limited to time, it would rather be an eternal kingdom that would last forever.

Albert Barnes explains: “The natural and obvious sense of the passage is, that during the continuance of the kingdoms above-mentioned, or before they should finally pass away, that is, before the last one should become extinct, another kingdom would be established on the earth which would be perpetual.”

 

[Freedm]

I'm not sure that posting excerpts from somebody else's writings, without even explaining your own position in your own words, is a valid thread starter.

 

[DavidPT]

I find it rich that Premils dismiss the current existence of the kingdom because there is evil in the world when their future millennium is overrun by evil and the wicked (as the sand of the sea). So, this is weak reasoning and a moot point.

That's not entirely correct. You're confusing the millennium with satan's little season. What you are not considering is the fact that the text tells us, that once satan is loosed, he then goes out to deceive the nations. Surely this means that during the millennium the nations are not deceived since the idea is to deceive someone not already deceived rather than someone already deceived.

Comparing to reality, and assuming the millennium is meaning in this age, one has to be blind to not notice that the nations are still deceived and have been deceived, not only for the past 2000 years, but since the beginning of time. The way some Amils try and get around this, it is not countries meant by nations, it is individual Gentiles meant by nations. What some aren't taking into account, the same ones not deceived during the thousand years are the same ones deceived after the thousand years and rebel against Christ and His one world government He establishes in the earth when He returns. Per Amil, since they take nations to be meaning individual Gentiles, thus it means they each become saved at some point, meaning the ones that do, that this equals the saved attacking the saved after the thousand years.

 

[sovereigngrace]

That's not entirely correct. You're confusing the millennium with satan's little season. What you are not considering is the fact that the text tells us, that once satan is loosed, he then goes out to deceive the nations. Surely, this means that during the millennium the nations are not deceived since the idea is to deceive someone not already deceived rather than someone already deceived.

Comparing to reality, and assuming the millennium is meaning in this age, one has to be blind to not notice that the nations are still deceived and have been deceived, not only for the past 2000 years, but since the beginning of time. The way some Amils try and get around this, it is not countries meant by nations, it is individual Gentiles meant by nations. What some aren't taking into account, the same ones not deceived during the thousand years are the same one deceived after the thousand years and rebel against Christ and His one world government He establishes in the earth when He returns. Per Amil, since they take nations to be meaning individual Gentiles, thus it means they each become saved at some point, meaning the ones that do, that this equals the saved attacking the saved after the thousand years, per Amil.

Premillennialists like to portray their millennium as all sweetness and light. They like to portray it as some type of age of Aquarius. But the opposite is the truth. These billions of wicked people actually reside in the millennium. Premils argue they have prolonged lives (1,000 years+).

These rebels grow to such an overwhelming amount that they overrun your MK as the sand of the sea. But at the drop of a hat they switch their allegiance from Jesus to say. These billions of millennial phonies are obviously not serious or genuine in their submission to Christ (or they would not be instantly wooed by Satan away from the glorified Christ), they are actors on a stage deceiving Christ into believing they are real. This is a total mess. What a debacle and what an evangelistic bust!

This doesn't add up. The reality is: what you portray will never happen. The wicked are all destroyed at the second coming.

 

[sovereigngrace]

That's not entirely correct. You're confusing the millennium with satan's little season. What you are not considering is the fact that the text tells us, that once satan is loosed, he then goes out to deceive the nations. Surely this means that during the millennium the nations are not deceived since the idea is to deceive someone not already deceived rather than someone already deceived.

Comparing to reality, and assuming the millennium is meaning in this age, one has to be blind to not notice that the nations are still deceived and have been deceived, not only for the past 2000 years, but since the beginning of time. The way some Amils try and get around this, it is not countries meant by nations, it is individual Gentiles meant by nations. What some aren't taking into account, the same ones not deceived during the thousand years are the same ones deceived after the thousand years and rebel against Christ and His one world government He establishes in the earth when He returns. Per Amil, since they take nations to be meaning individual Gentiles, thus it means they each become saved at some point, meaning the ones that do, that this equals the saved attacking the saved after the thousand years.

Revelation 20 is just saying what repeated Scripture had been prophesying for centuries about the new covenant period: that the Gentiles would be enlightenment through receiving the truth. There is frequently no qualification as to the extent of the enlightenment. Each statement re the removal of the darkness enveloping the nations is broad and sweeping. If Premil arguments (or modes of interpretation) are applied to Scripture after Scripture like this then one might arrive at the place of universal salvation of the nations. This is absurd, and contrary to what is regularly represented in Scripture.

In the OT the Gentiles were considered blind, death, ignorant, in darkness and in imprisoned. Today they have been enlightened by the truth through the great commission. This is a general statement. Basically: the light has shone, the darkness has been dispelled, the ignorance is gone, and the veil has been lifted! The Gentiles are now without excuse.

God’s heart was to reach the Gentile nations through the earthly ministry of Christ! In the OT the Gentiles were considered blind, death, ignorant, in darkness and in imprisoned. Today they have been enlightened by the truth through the great commission. This is a general statement. Basically: the light has shone, the darkness has been dispelled, the ignorance is gone, and the veil has been lifted! The Gentiles are now without excuse.

God’s heart was to reach the Gentile nations through the earthly ministry of Christ!

Right from the book of Genesis, God promised Abraham in Genesis 17:5-6: “a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.”

Psalms 22:27-28: “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations.”

Psalms 72:8-11: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.”

Psalms 72:17: “His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.”

Isaiah talks often about the great commission going out to the nations and enlightening the Gentiles.

Isaiah 2:2: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it."

Isaiah 11:10 predicts: “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, (namely Jesus Christ) which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”

Isaiah 25:6-7: “And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.”

The testimony of God’s covenant people and the truth of the Gospel Christ was predicted to be “a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house” (Isaiah 42:6-7). The scope of that influence would reach “the end of the earth … the isles, and the inhabitants thereof” (Isaiah 42:10).

Did this mean they would all believe? No! It simply described the invasion of the enemy’s territory and the Gospel favour that has been extended to all nations in this current new covenant age.

Isaiah 49:6 likewise teaches: “I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”

Isaiah 52:10-15: “The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God … So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.”

Isaiah 55:5: “Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.”

Isaiah 57:19: “I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.”

Isaiah prophesied of Christ that “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee” (Isaiah 60:1-5).

Even with these sweeping statements; when Scripture speaks of the enlightenment of the Gentiles it doesn’t suggest that every individual Gentile will be saved. No. It is demonstrating that this grouping that was once outside of the Gospel message, and therefore hope, would now be subjected to the light of truth. Anyway, Satan and demons don't deceive nations, they deceive people within the nations. Satan and demons don't inhabit nations, they inhabit people within the nations. Before Christ’s earthy ministry there was a blanket of deception over the Gentiles. Entire nations were deceived. That is no longer the case. Satan fell from high and lofty place.

Isaiah 62:2: “And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.”

Jeremiah 16:19 says, "O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth"

Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”

The Gentiles sat in darkness (outside of God's plan of salvation with a few occasional exceptions) prior to the cross, after the cross salvation visited the nations and light shone in darkness. The light has been shining on the nations for near 2,000 years – the darkness has been dispelled. The deception is gone and the truth is available, however, whilst the general deception has been lifted and the Gospel opportunity is now available to the Gentiles, individuals must personal take a hold of Christ for salvation to be a reality.

Before the cross the Gentiles were considered blind, ignorant, in bondage and living in darkness, deceived by the father of lies. Satan had them hoodwinked. He ruled the nations. He had them under his control. After the resurrection, the Gentiles were no longer deceived as the Gospel light shone throughout the nations. The veil of ignorance was lifted. They are now without excuse.

Zacharias the father of John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost in Luke 1:78-80 and prophesied: “Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Simeon acknowledged in Luke 2:30-32 says: “For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Prior to Christ’s earthly ministry believers knew that the Gospel was going to go the Gentiles.

Many conveniently overlook the seismic change in regard to the Gospel opportunity that exist today (in comparison to before the cross) in regard to the nations access to truth.

 

[RandyPNW]

I find it rich that Premils dismiss the current existence of the kingdom because there is evil in the world when their future millennium is overrun by evil and the wicked (as the sand of the sea). So, this is weak reasoning and a moot point.

The Millennial age is said, by us Premills, to still have mortal, sin-infected inhabitants on the earth, just as today. But we also say that Satan is removed, allowing the world to enjoy a measure of peace and fulfillment. So no--it is not a ruthless, wicked world as we have today!

Satan is released for only a brief moment at the end of the Millennium, and quickly his fire is exterminated. Rather, he is thrown into the fire!

Although I do respect the fact that Amil was basically the eschatology of the Church for 2 millennia, it remains true that, AFAIK, the Church started out with Premil convictions. The central reason for giving up on Premil was the failure of Israel to realize the promise of inheriting God's Kingdom, and the Church then became the focus in the NT age.

But as we near the end of this age, I'm supposing, Israel has come back into the news, and Premil suddenly looks very viable. So I don't get hostile towards Amil, but I do have my own convictions on the matter. I now have the opportunity to find God true to His word, with respect to Israel's place in His Kingdom.

Inasmuch as Israel, in the present age, is not interested, as a majority, in Christianity, it seems necessary to have a literal Millennium following the return of Christ. I'm not Dispensational, but I do agree with that school that Israel has a place, as a nation, in future prophecy.

What you say about the Kingdom being present is true in some respects. Jesus said he would take the Kingdom from Israel and give it to another nation, which I assume to be the Roman nation. That means the Kingdom was already present in the OT era, when Israel possessed the Kingdom, and will continue to be present in the NT era, since Christian nations now possess it.

But the Kingdom, as much as it may be present, remains not yet *here.* Jesus said his Kingdom is "near" in the present age, and not yet *here.* Certainly there is a future Kingdom, beyond what we don't yet have at present, because Jesus prayed, "Thy Kingdom come."

 

[Abaxvahl]

Literal interpretation does exist and is the obvious and common sense interpretation of scripture.

What do you mean by "literal"? Do you mean historical? Sure, many prophecies refer to events in history or concerning it. That is not really helpful.