Christ is Risen!

Peace and grace to all readers.

Over the years I have seen numerous misuse, misquoting and outright misrepresentation by members of Protestant congregations of the Early Church Fathers over a host of topics. These have included John Calvin's misuse of blessed Augustine, Wesley's misuse of st Macarius and many others which I have addressed in various forums over the years, but, I must say that in all my years of studying the Church Fathers (over 12 years to date from my own hard copy complete set at home with me) I cannot recall such a glaring misrepresentation of a particular Church Father and what he -actually- stated and intended as opposed to what has been misrepresented that he never stated, and this misrepresentation has been purported on this Tweb board by one "Just the Facts", which in consideration to the size of the misrepresentation I find the tag name quite ironic. I am completely unable to determine whether this misrepresentation was accomplished through ignorance of the facts or by malicious intention, but taking the provisions of Christian love as outlined by St Paul I hope and pray the deception was an ignorant mistake by one who failed to study the original translation and perhaps cut and pasted from some other third party to whom the guilt of intended misrepresentation rests. I state absolutely that there just is no way that one can read the original translation and get this wrong, to cut the quote in half and then build a lie based on the misrepresentation can only have been accomplished by intention.

So my question for "just the Facts" is this. Did you actually read the early Church father Justin martyr's translated writings of chapter LXXX Dialogue with Trypho or have you snipped the portion which misrepresents him and the supposed anti amil view you espoused from some other third party?

Your answer will speak volumes.

Twice in recent days Chapter LXXX of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew has been quoted in part by "Just the Facts". Both times he asserted that Justin actually attacked the amil position with a horrendous attack and I noticed from both threads no one challenged those false quotes and false presuppositions regarding the amil position, so I can only assume the falsity was believed and left. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two threads:

Re: Amill/Preterist Kingdom of God on Earth
January 18th 2005 , 01:55 AM
Just the Facts
Justin Martyr: Second Apology
[Dialogue with Trypho]
Chap. LXXX
Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you.(3) 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],(4) 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, Meristae,(5)Gelilaeans, Hellenists,(6) 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(7) in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged,[as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

Yes Justin leaves little doubt that Amill is a big fat lie and those who espouse it are teaching Doctrine's of Demons, and are Heretics in fact he says they are no better than Atheists.

and

Re: Questions To Preterists On Zechariah 14
January 17th 2005 , 03:13 AM
Just the Facts


I think Justin Martyr explained amill/preterism best

Justin Martyr: Second Apology
[Dialogue with Trypho]
Chap. LXXX

Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you.(3) 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],(4) 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, Meristae,(5)Gelilaeans, Hellenists,(6) 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(7) in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged,[as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

We note with dismay in both of the above quotes the poster started Justin's quote at the word "moreover", which is about one/third into the said chapter being misquoted. Why? Because the very sentence left out previous to the word 'moreover' absolutely refutes the assumption that those who quote Justin are trying to foister that he denounced any other eschatological view asd evil, ON THE CONTRARY. Obviously by refusing to quote the complete chapter and the most relevant sentence which was snipped they do falsely and intentionally (whoever originated this snipped quote) try to build up a false pre-mill universal idea amongst the sub-apostolic fathers of the second century, which did not exist even by the words of this VERY CHURCH FATHER HIMSELF!

Here below appears the complete Chapter LXXX without snipping and some comments of mine afterwards:

Chapter LXXX.-The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies? "
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. 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 Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, 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." p. 239. Vol. 1. ANF.

The above can be read online as well verbatim at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P4767_1027095

Now the relevant sentence again is this which was snipped intentionally by whoever the original finder of this quote was:

"but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. "

Now on two occassions "Just the facts" stated that Justin martyr believed:

Yes Justin leaves little doubt that Amill is a big fat lie and those who espouse it are teaching Doctrine's of Demons, and are Heretics in fact he says they are no better than Atheists.

and again he ties in the amil position with Justins words of heresy etc:

I think Justin Martyr explained amill/preterism best

Justin Martyr: Second Apology
[Dialogue with Trypho]
Chap. LXXX

Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish.

here we see the misrepresentation and twisting at its very highest. So what -actually- did Justin martyr say about those other second century church fathers who did NOT AGREE with his Chiliasm? Well far from calling them godless heretics as "Just the Facts" imagines he states these comforting words:

"but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. "

When we read the complete quote we NOTE that (as the editors noted as well and left an editors footnote number (4) in the original text that Justin martyr was calling those who deny the resurrection as blasphemers:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth],(4) 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,

Thus Justin then leads into his statement that he was not like that and believes in the resurrection AND THE Chiliast position:

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

So we see that FAR from Justin marytrs position being the ONLY sub apostolic position as alleged by our proponents, and

Far from Justin martyr calling those who disagreed with his stated eschatological position as blasphemers and heretics as alleged by our proponents,

We see rather that opposings views existed among other sub apostolic fathers of which Justin martyr calls "pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise".

I hope in this post I have put to rest the misapplication, misinformation, misquoting and false modern views placed irrevently back on to this great saint who would have anathematised those who have done this in about five seconds flat.

This by the way was -not- the post I referred to to Tim C that I was going to deal with Justin martyr, this was just one matter I had to clean up BEFORE I went to the next stage. Some of the points here are relevant to that next post though so I won't need to repeat them.

Peace and grace to all.

Dcn,

Great email brother, again you represent the kingdom well. However, you should have added Tim C to the list of folks misrepresnting JM.

In Christ,
Paul

DCN, Tim advocates the very same thing with Justin Martyr.

Originally posted by Dcn_Athanasius

Twice in recent days Chapter LXXX of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew has been quoted in part by "Just the Facts". Both times he asserted that Justin actually attacked the amil position with a horrendous attack and I noticed from both threads no one challenged those false quotes and false presuppositions regarding the amil position, so I can only assume the falsity was believed and left. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two threads:

Most of us are tired of beating our head against the wall.

Your insite is wonderful and thank you for sharing your years of study here.

HI

yes the amill twisting of Justin is a gross misrepresentation

I twisted nothing.........I am well aware of how amill twist this to say they are the other pure and pious true Christians,

It is not me twisting it is you

the other Christians are other premill WHO DO NOT THINK JERUSALEM WILL BE REBUILT.

Let us look at this conversation

the conversation Justin is having is this.

Trypho is accusing him of only saying Jerusalem will be rebuilt to avoid being contradicted by Scripture. Because he has talked to other Christians who do not believe it will be rebuilt.

And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"


Trypho states that he has talked to Christians that say it will not be rebuilt

To this Justin replies

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,(1) that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, (Jerusalem rebuilt)as you assuredly are aware;(2) but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. (Jerusalem will not be rebuilt)

So he says there are many TRUE Christians that do not believe Jerusalem will be rebuilt

Then Justin Continues and talks about another group that calls themselves Christians who believe when you die you go right to heaven Before the First resurrection.

Justin Directly ties Judgement day and the first resurrection together.

Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you.(3) 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],(4) 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,

Justin clearly is talking about the new belief that has surfaced that belief was the heresy of Amill.

yes I have read it and ever early writing and miles of History and miles of commentary...............that is your problem with me I am just as well studied as you if not more so....................so all your twisting of the facts does not wash with me like your other victims.

So twist away .............the truth is obvious to all but you and the rest of the amill crowd.

Justin clearly states that the amill introduced doctrine that when you die you go right to heaven is heresy.

Hi Study

No most of you are sick of being shown to be wrong in scripture and the Historical rerecord..................Preterists are well studied in their doctrines of men and like to beat up those less studied……………………. you parade your amill teachers like it is proof...it is no more proof then David Koresh's students being proof David was right.

On every Subject I have ever posted here I have solidly defeated the arguments of the preterists.

As always your claims are just smoke and mirrors. Then when defeated you claim you are just tired of banging your head….well keep banging maybe the truth will sink in.

Almost Every preterist I have ever discussed with is down right nasty and spend more time attacking the person throwing a barge of insults and personal attacks.

It is a well know fact of debate.

When your opponent in a debate starts hurling insults at you……….. you know you have not only defeated his points but his intellect as well.

JTC,

Who were the,"many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."(Jerusalem will not be rebuilt)? Weren't these the Amill folks?

In Christ,
Paul

Christ has Risen!

Well at least I now know that the misrepresentation was not by accident.

Originally posted by Just The Facts

Trypho is accusing him of only saying Jerusalem will be rebuilt to avoid being contradicted by Scripture. Because he has talked to other Christians who do not believe it will be rebuilt.

Even allowing this above, this is exactly the amil position, Jerusalem is not to be rebuilt. It is only -you- and you alone who has frawn an imaginary line between chiliast who believed in a temple to be rebuilt and chiliasts who did not. Such fable is not found in any of these writings.

Originally posted by Just The Facts

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,(1) that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, (Jerusalem rebuilt)as you assuredly are aware;(2) but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. (Jerusalem will not be rebuilt)

So he says there are many TRUE Christians that do not believe Jerusalem will be rebuilt.

What we call today amils.

Originally posted by Just The Facts

Then Justin Continues and talks about another group that calls themselves Christians who believe when you die you go right to heaven Before the First resurrection.

Justin Directly ties Judgement day and the first resurrection together.

Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you.(3) 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],(4) 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,

Justin clearly is talking about the new belief that has surfaced that belief was the heresy of Amill.

The -translators- of the passage did not think so did they? You still include their footnote in your above quote (4), said footnote at the bottom of the page (which I hold in my hand) states:

4. ie: resurrection.

So we see that the translators, and the tense and clear reading of the passage shows Justin rebuking harshly those who deny the resurrection and in no way is the imaginary rebuke against any amils present. Clearly the pious Christians who did not agree with him regarding the thousand years rule in Jerusalem were said amils.

Originally posted by Just The Facts

Justin clearly states that the amill introduced doctrine that when you die you go right to heaven is heresy.

You are confusing the Orthodox doctrines of Paradise and Heaven where God dwells which is a common Protestant error when reading our writings with obviously the views of those people who denied a physical resurrection but taught that in some way their resurrection was going straight to God. Pious Christians do not deny the resurrection, in this matter your whole defense and attack fails. Your self proclamation establishes your spiritual state and the fact that you knew full well you were half quoting this passage back when you did in a vain attempt to hide facts that were against your case is all evidence that I ever required from you.

I have no need to discuss this matter further with you and shall move on the the next post in this series about whether justin held premill views, of course, you most likely already know the impending answer.

Unless you introduce a -new- or -ingenius- point in whatever you post I will just allow it to stand as I have noted you desire last word posts. The folly of pride and the untruthful handling of documents written by saints.

No peace and no grace in pride.

Well said DCN. And I correct myself - TimC does not try the slippery tactic that there were premills who do not think Jerusalem will be rebuilt - he alleges a translation error in which Justin's words are made their opposite in which Justin is actually equating those who deny the rebuilding of the Temple with the class of error of denying the resurrection.

Hi Don and d-dizzle


Quote of don
Well at least I now know that the misrepresentation was not by accident.
End Quote

quote of d-dizzle
Well said DCN. And I correct myself - TimC does not try the slippery tactic
end quote

As Always attacks on the person.You hurl baseless accusations..................as I have stated these attacks only further prove your points have been defeated. very Christian of you.

Unable to show your position in the text itself as I have clearly done, you hold up the commentary/ doctrine of the amill translator as proof. .........Please your accumulated teachers words mean nothing.

Yes there are many premills that do not beleive jerusalem will be built again. They believe it will be Holy jerusalem out of Heaven. This has been a debate in premill from the beginning.

While Amill’s have no problem with what I am about to show Everyone else INCLUDING JUSTIN have major problems with it.

HOW CAN YOU GO RIGHT TO HEAVEN AT DEATH ....................THERE HAS BEEN NO JUDGEMENT DAY.............Resurrection IS JUDGEMENT DAY.........Now I realise that amills do not understand that you can not receive the reward until the Books are open.

What you are saying is that when you die you receive your reward WITHOUT being Judged...........Scripture clearly says THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

That is why Justin ties resurrection with going right to heaven.....................he is saying that those who believe they go to RIGHT heaven BEFORE resurrection/judgement day Are not Christians they are Heretics.

Amills believe they go right to heaven WITHOUT the General Resurrection /judgement day..............................Justin says this is heresy. plain and simple

Hi Paul

One again I thank you for your christian behavour and for sticking to the points of discussion.

No they were other premill.there has been a debate in premill from the start that goes on today.

That debate is this............. when the 1,000 years reign begins......... is jerusalem rebuilt by our hands................ or do the Saints rule from Holy Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven as described in rev.

JTF,

How do you know Jerusalem was this issue and not the 1000 years?

Originally posted by JTF

Hi Study

No most of you are sick of being shown to be wrong in scripture and the Historical rerecord..................Preterists are well studied in their doctrines of men and like to beat up those less studied……………………. you parade your amill teachers like it is proof...it is no more proof then David Koresh's students being proof David was right.

On every Subject I have ever posted here I have solidly defeated the arguments of the preterists.

OK. I was not going to get involved here, as I have already had my fair share of thrashing Just the Facts arguments, and DA was doing an excellent job of thrashing him here in this thread.

My intent was to read this thread to learn more about the position of the ECF's particularly the ANF's, as this is an area where I need more knowledge.

However, I had to laugh at JTF’s claim that he has solidly defeated the arguments in every thread he ever posted in.

It appears that JTF needs a little lesson in humility. He has debated IMHO some of the brightest minds in internet debating and thinks he has “solidly defeated” their arguments.

He also needs a little lesson in recent history. He debated a not so bright mind (me) and got totally thrashed.

Either that or he needs a lesson in the definition of “solidly defeated”. In this thread, we (JTF and I) were debating the meaning of a Hebrew word. I presented dozens of verses a couple of lexicon definitions and a comparison of the Hebrew word and the Greek word translated from it in the Septuagint and how that word was used in the NT. JTF countered with a map.

To sum up, I had dozens of verses, lexicon support, and detailed words study to support my definition of a Hebrew word, and JTF had a map.

Yet he soundly defeated me????



It is easy to see why JTF would get the definition “solidly defeated” wrong. He must have looked it up in an atlas.

As always your claims are just smoke and mirrors. Then when defeated you claim you are just tired of banging your head….well keep banging maybe the truth will sink in.

Almost Every preterist I have ever discussed with is down right nasty and spend more time attacking the person throwing a barge of insults and personal attacks.

Once again JTF has gotten his definitions confused. Personal attack? Baseless Accusations?


Example below:

Originally posted by JTF

Hi Don and d-dizzle

Quote of don
Well at least I now know that the misrepresentation was not by accident.
End Quote

quote of d-dizzle
Well said DCN. And I correct myself - TimC does not try the slippery tactic
end quote

As Always attacks on the person. You hurl baseless accusations..................as I have stated these attacks only further prove your points have been defeated. very Christian of you.

Don’s accusation that the JTF’s misrepresentation was not accidental is far from baseless IMHO. It was based on the full quote from JM, with the understanding that JTF was fully aware of the important part that he (JTF) left off. But then it is much easier to call the accusation baseless, than to explain how such a damaging portion of the relevant quote was “unintentionally” left off.

And D-Dizzle did not attack JTF’s person at all, she attacked his tactic. Which is exactly what JTF did here:

Originally posted by JTF

It is a well know fact of debate.

When your opponent in a debate starts hurling insults at you……….. you know you have not only defeated his points but his intellect as well.

So JTF is guilty of what he is accusing others of. If attacking an opponent’s tactics is the equivalent of a personal attack, then he is guilty of the same thing he is complaining about here.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the following is in jest:

It is a well known fact of debate.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the following is in jest:

When your opponent in a debate starts calling your valid attacks on his tactics “hurling insults”……… you know you have not only defeated his ponits but his intellect as well.

Note that I did not attack your person. I did not call you names, or say bad things about the way you dress. I did attack your argument and/or your tactics, and you have done the same to me in the past. This is to be expected on a debate forum. And this is a sound debate tactic. (Whining that someone is attacking your person when in fact they are attacking your tactics, is not. That is what some would call “smoke and mirrors” )

I desire serious debate, poor tactics are nothing but “smoke and mirrors” and need to be exposed as such. You expose what you think are “smoke and mirrors”, but when the tables are turned on you, you cry foul.

Give me a break.

I agree that persnal attacks are bad form. But if I see "smoke and mirror" tactics, you better beleive that I will call you out on it and attack them without mercy. I expect my opponents to do the same, and expect my opponents to be able to take it as well as they can dish it out. After all, this is a debate forum, not a "patty cake" forum.


Now that I have shown that there are no baseless accusations nor personal attacks, and that your complaints thus far are nothing but “smoke and mirrors” I will now address the “substantive” part of your argument.


Note, I have already admitted that I am not as knowledgeable in this area as I would like, and while I find DA’s arguments much more persuasive, I will not try to argue for his position, he is doing a more than adequate job. What I will do is to articulate what I find weak about JTF’s position and ask questions to make sure I understand JTF’s position accurately.

Unable to show your position in the text itself as I have clearly done, you hold up the commentary/ doctrine of the amill translator as proof. .........Please your accumulated teachers words mean nothing.

At this point, I can see why DA no longer wishes to dialog with you. You have basically said that you will not trust the opinion of experts in a field simply because they happen to disagree with you. You have said that the accumulated knowledge of experts is insignificant, and only your interpretation is right. But this is the same argument you used against John Resse’s use of a lexicon in the Zech 14 thread.

Other than the fact that the interpreters are amil (and how do you know that they are amill?), why should we take your opinion over the opinion of experts in the field?

What linguistic/historic evidence do you have to support your assertion that the “different belief” was Jerusalem and not the resurrection? I do not have blind faith in the translators, but if it comes down to taking the word of experts in the field, and taking your word without any linguistic and/or historic support, then excuse me for trusting the experts.

Yes there are many premills that do not believe jerusalem will be built again. They believe it will be Holy jerusalem out of Heaven. This has been a debate in premill from the beginning.

Can you please site the earliest records of this “internal debate”?

While Amill’s have no problem with what I am about to show Everyone else INCLUDING JUSTIN have major problems with it.

HOW CAN YOU GO RIGHT TO HEAVEN AT DEATH ....................THERE HAS BEEN NO JUDGEMENT DAY.............Resurrection IS JUDGEMENT DAY.........Now I realise that amills do not understand that you can not receive the reward until the Books are open.

What you are saying is that when you die you receive your reward WITHOUT being Judged...........Scripture clearly says THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

That is why Justin ties resurrection with going right to heaven.....................he is saying that those who believe they go to RIGHT heaven BEFORE resurrection/judgement day Are not Christians they are Heretics.

Amills believe they go right to heaven WITHOUT the General Resurrection /judgement day..............................Justin says this is heresy. plain and simple

Well, I am not amill I am post mill, but my postmill is very similar to amill, and I tend to agree with what DA said here (though I am protestant):

Originally posted by DA

You are confusing the Orthodox doctrines of Paradise and Heaven where God dwells which is a common Protestant error when reading our writings with obviously the views of those people who denied a physical resurrection but taught that in some way their resurrection was going straight to God. Pious Christians do not deny the resurrection, in this matter your whole defense and attack fails.

The confusion between paradise and heaven is common among unstudied protestants, and I doubt there is a consensus on the terminology for these different states of the soul/body after death. However, I am not aware of any systematic theology that does not differentiate between the state of man after death and the fully glorified state of the elect after the final resurrection. With the exception of heretical pantelism (aka full preterism).

Outside of full preterism, can you show anyone who claims that the elect get their full glorification (or reward as you call it) upon death, and before the final judgment?

I’m not saying that this does not exist, I am certainly no expert in all systems of theology. This is a legitimate question on my part. I think you have erected a royal straw man , but will give you the benifit of the doubt.

Also, are you a proponent of soul sleep?


If not, then what do you call the state of man between death and the final resurrection? I think a lot of our disagreements may be about terms and not ideas.


I hope we can now move this thread beyond "smoke and mirrors" and get to honest discussion. I would really like to learn more about what the ECF had to say about eschatology.

A few points here:

1.) JustTheFacts is correct that, based upon Justin's statement, the only real deduction we can draw here is that some disputed the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This could possibly mean nothing more than that some Christians believed a city other than Jerusalem would serve as the capitol of the Messianic Kingdom, or, as JustTheFacts mentioned, it could indicate a dispute over the pre or post millennial aspect of the New Jerusalem. I believe the Montanists were somewhat premillennial in doctrine, but believed a city other than Jerusalem would serve as the centre of Christ's kingdom (I'll have to search out the relevant history and etc. on that if anyone is interested), but it is likely this sort of issue was what Justin had in mind. Bottom line: non-premillennialists are reading alot into Justin's statement.

2.) Regardless of how one views Justin's statement, he still suggests that those who disagree with his position are not "right-minded Christians on all points." This basically shows that premillennialism was the orthodox teaching of the church during Justin's time.

3.) Athanasius, there is a textual issue in the portion of Justin's comment you have emphasized. George N.H. Peters has commented upon this textual issue as follows:

"Another disreputable mode of procedure to lower the Fathers in the estimation of others or to make them contradictory, is (1) to interpolate or omit, (2) to ascribe to them what they never said, (3) and to ascribe to them some heretical sentiments. In reference to the first, Brooks shows (El. Proph. Interp., p. 52, 53) that in printed copies of Justin the word "not" was omitted in the sentence which expressly asserts that those who are not following the pure doctrine - who are the unorthodox - reject the Chiliastic view.1"

"1 The student who desires to investigate the controversy respecting the suppression of the word "not," will find in favor if its retention : Mede, Works, B. 3, P. 2, p. 533; Arch. Tillotson, Works, vol. 3, p. 380; Daille, Use of the Fathers, p. 289; Chillingworth's Works, p. 732; Muencher, His. Ch. Doctrine, vol. 2, p. 450, etc. Dr. Macdill refers to the following as favoring the suppression of the word "not :" Thirlby, Hagenbach, Neander (!), Shedd (!), Kelly (a Pre-Mill. !), Rossler, Semisch (!), Ed. of the Parisian Ed.; to which we add Jebb. Dr. Morehead, in his reply to Dr. Macdill (in the Chicago U.P. Ch. paper, The Instructor, 1879), takes the former view." - George N.H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol.1, p.452

And,

"Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld (Chiliasm). Justin's language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec. 2); for after stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts : "it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many - even those of that race of Christians who follow not godly and pure doctrine - do not acknowledge it.1 For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians ; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound," etc." - George Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol.1, p.480

"1 This is the passage that has been tampered with in some MSS., the "not" being omitted (comp. Prop. 73, Obs. 3, note 2). For the genuineness of the passage, see e.g. Brooks' El. of Proph. Interp., ch. 3. Semisch (Herzog's Cyclop) remarks on it : "Chiliasm constituted in the sec. century so decidedly an article of faith that Justin held it up as a criterion of perfect orthodoxy." Numerous writers have made the same comment. This has, unfortunately, lead some (as Shimeall, the Christadelphians, etc.) to apply it as a measure of orthodoxy at the present day. To avoid a wrong inference, we may add, that the criterion set up by Justin in his day might well answer the purpose at that time, but is inapplicable to the present day. The reason is simple : those who rejected Chiliasm in Justin's time were also guilty of subverting the essential, fundamental doctrines of religion (and hence the force of his comparison), while this is not true of a large number of our opponents at this day." - George N.H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, vol.1, p.480-481

So, we see there is a textual issue in this particular statement from Justin. And, if we follow the alternate reading, this means Justin was only contrasting his view against Gnosticism, and there never was any third party of so-called "orthodox non-premillennialists" in view.

-Tim

My only question about this is there really any evidence that Justin was a chiliast? Cerinthius was associated with chiliasm. He believed in a thousand year kingdom on earth.

Justin describes the thousand years in chapter LXXXI as the New heaven and earth. Then in chapter LXXXII he says the prophetical gifts of the Jews were transferred to the Christians. Can there be any doubt that the thousand years in Jerusalem are something other than a literal thousand years on this earth? How can they be both the New heaven and earth and the earthly Jerusalem in this present world? If he understood Isaiah and Ezekiel literally, then how could the gifts be transferred to the church?

Which is basically what Irenaeus said about the promise.

If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham."279 Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise."280 And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, "The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."281 And again, confirming his former words, he says, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, fore-seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham."282 Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."283
Against the Heresies Book V, Chapter XXXII.-In that Flesh in Which the Saints Have Suffered So Many Afflictions, They Shall Receive the Fruits of Their Labours; Especially Since All Creation Waits for This, and God Promises It to Abraham and His Seed.