No one here will disagree that dispensationalists grossly misread the ECFs
Most Premils generally misrepresent the ECFs. For the 1st 240 years after the cross there was no classic Dispensational or "Historic" Premil beliefs in the early Church. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amil new earth - it was perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death-free.
Victorinus was the first of the orthodox writers to teach that the wicked populate a future millennial kingdom. He is also the first to detail Satan’s release after a literal thousand years in the future, and his baleful influence on the wicked who supposedly during Satan’s little season. Victorinus wrote mainly around AD 270. It is both notable and amazing, in light of the loud noise, and constant boastings coming from the Premillennial camp re its ancient heritage, that for 240 years after the cross there is no existing Premillennial teaching pertaining to the populating of the millennium with the wicked and the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming. Consequently, there was nothing taught by any traditional Chiliast before this that the second coming would be followed by Satan’s deceit of billions of millennial inhabitants, who come against the righteous as the sand of the sea in allegiance to Satan and overrun the millennium. For the first 240 years of the early church these key elements of Premil were either unknown or rejected by all the orthodox early church writers. This is not insignificant!
Victorinus concisely submits: "And the scarlet devil is imprisoned and all his fugitive angels in the Tartarus of Gehenna at the coming of the Lord; no one is ignorant of this. And after the thousand years he is released, because of the nations which will have served Antichrist (Revelation commentary: 20.1)."
This is the sum total of information we have on this supposed future uprising. Victorinus is markedly succinct on this matter. He doesn’t elaborate any more on his position. This is the totality of his surviving views. While Victorinus did previously make a passing comment about Satan being released, “because of the nations which will have served Antichrist,” he doesn’t expand and delineate their activity, numbers, location and influence.
When historic premils appeal to ECF, they are appealing to a belief in a future, bodily, thousand year reign of Christ on earth since that is usually the debate in question. They aren’t appealing to them in all the particulars.
In refuting the HP in the particulars of ECF beliefs, you are appealing to similarities between ECF and the amil position. But surely you realize that you don’t stand with the ECF either! And even within amil/postmil camps, there is debate over the nature of the millennium in many of the particulars, so pointing out varieties within premil as a refutation tactic falls flat.
I agree with Jacob (and Calvin): The ECF have some helpful things to say on a variety of topics, but they are hardly a reliable source of anything consistent!
As an aside, I was “historic premil” for years and didn’t believe hardly any of the things you claim HPs believe.
Do you have quotes from modern HPs that have them arguing for a return to the temple system?
My post, interest, and research have been focused on the ECFs. I have discussed this subject on forums like this for years, and my conclusions are the same as Davis: there are two types of "Historist" Premils: those who believe in the return of the old covenant apparatus and those who spiritualize this away. Maybe not on this forum, but on other forums, the promotion of a rebuilt millennial temple, a restoration of animal sacrifices and the restarting of the Zadok priesthood, has been preeminent position among "Historist" Premils. Here are the types of statements that I hear:
"Im a historic premilennialist and I believe there will be a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem complete with symbolic animal sacrifices and ceremonial activities."
"why all the hatred of animal sacrifices in today's christianity? Are they really a afront to the gospel and a blasphemous acts that tramples on the blood of Christ? There are many passages in the scriptures that do not have a historical fulfillment (without making them unnecessarily allegorical) that speak of future animal sacrifices."
"There are a ton of scriptures that speak of animal sacrifices in context to unfufilled passages (unless they are unnecessarily allegorized). in my opinion, the primary reason they get allegorized is because they talk about animal sacrifices."
"symbolic future animal sacrifices will only serve to, provide "sanctifciation, reconciliation, and atonement" by looking back to the only means of salvation, the cross of Christ."
"being a premil who does think there will be future sacrifices, and that is that so far not a single amil (nor premil) person has given a valid reason why animal sacrifices should stop.
"there will be a time when there will no longer be animal sacrifices. That time though is not until AFTER the Millennium and the GWToJ. This is because death itself is cast into the LoF and Jesus hands back the kingdom to the Father. The role and value for sacrifices will be entirely removed."
"If you took Zech 14 as being literal THEN you would have to accept some form of future animal sacrifice."
The animal sacrifices, then, stand as both a tutor and a ritual expression of righteous sentiment. The animal sacrifices stood ritual expressions of atonement, which anticipate the actual atonement, which is the cross of Christ. God would not be offended at something he commanded according to his purpose as long as it continued to serve his purpose. I see no scriptural evidence to support the claim that God no longer has a need for their original pedagogical purpose, or that he will no longer recognize such an offering as a ritual expression of righteous sentiment, if indeed, the heart of the penitent is both honest and contrite.
"so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me."
"These are celebrated in the millennium: The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).
"Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years)."
"Maybe its reinstated not out of necessity but out of remembrance. Imagine being a human in the 3rd generation of humans born into the millennium, it would be a totally different time."
"the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices."
"Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok … The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10 … The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6."
"I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one."
"But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again."
"it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign."
I don't recognize any of these scholars? In fact, I am not sure what I am looking at.
Please read what I wrote.
The modern Premils are not the focus of this thread. The early Chiliast are. I showed you Davis' conclusions, who has researched it in great detail. Please address the topic of the thread the ECFs, instead of trying to derail this thread.
No, you asserted that HPs hold to the sacrificial system. I want to see published scholars who hold that. I'm not derailing the thread. You mentioned that, not me.
Davis lists them. Do your own research! Your avoidance of the subject of this thread is what is telling!
I think Jacob's request is fair. I am interested, too, in fact. I find it odd, also, that the requests for supporting primary source material has been met with, "Do your own research." In general, the burden of providing evidence for positive claims rests with the one who made the claim, not with those being presented with the claim. Several people at this point have asked for primary sources or expressed confusion. I think it is only fair that you provide something. Simply making an assertion and then saying, "Do your own research," is not the most charitable or helpful thing.
(Also, I will say, I have disagreed with @BayouHuguenot a few times in the past, sometimes strongly. But one thing I have never encountered from him is an unstudied avoidance of issues.)
Historic and Posttrib Premils believe in a rebuilt millennial temple, the restoration of the ancient sacrifices (which they call "memorial sacrifices"), and the restarting of the old covenant priesthood of Zadok (Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 14).
Well, he is avoiding the Op completely. Where has he addressed it?
I was mainly just confused about a statement made in a previous post:
I think others have shared their confusion about this statement as well. It seems fairly cut and dry, absolute. In response, one person brought up Spurgeon, who as far as I know was historic premillennial. I mentioned John Gill, who was also historic premillennial. Others have asked for any major historic premillennialists who held to a rebuilt temple, etc. I have even looked through the Systematic Theology of Robert Duncan Culver, who as far as I know is mildly Dispensational (of the progressive stripe), and I can't find anything about a rebuilt temple or reinstated animal sacrifices even in his work.
Like I said, brother, we are just confused. A little help would be nice.