I pulled this out of the archive. It was addressed to you. I don't think I ever got an answer.
[Begin quote]
Dear FRiend,
While historic premillennialism is far better that the errant subform of dispensationalism, I have a question about the historical evidence for the premil position.
If we define a premillennialist as one who believe that Christ will physically reign on the earth for a thousand years after the second coming and resurrection, what specific evidence would you use to substantiate the premil position in the early church?
I have not gotten an answer to this question.
In reviewing some on the ancient writers who are listed as supporting the premillenarian position, I could not find anything that could identify with this modern definition.[End quote]E.g., in Justin Martyr, we read:
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. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXX)You will note that in these two rather well-known “premillennial” statements there is absolutely no mention of Christ physically on the earth during the thousand years. One can certainly read one’s biases into the statement and come to that reading, but they do not literally teach what modern premillenarians teach.Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Dialogue, Chapter LXXXI)
Where to start? How about Robert Gundry, PHD, Westmont College, Calif.? I quote from the “Historical Confirmation” section of his book, “The Chruch and the Tribulation.” His book is not an argument for futurism per se, it is an argument for the singular second coming (that this thread is about). He argues for posttribulationism over against pretribulationism. In his historical section, every time he cites something from the ECF for posttribulation, he is in effect, citing proof FOR futurism. In his quotes of the ECF concerning the tribulation, it is a FUTURE tribulation that is presupposed.
Gundry makes a survey inclusive of Clement of Rome, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Melito of Sardis, Methodius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Commodianus, Victorinus, and Lactanius, concerning Lactanius’ “Commentary on the Apocalypse” he says:
“Lactanius describes the plagues of the tribulation, the Antichrist, the persecution of the righteous, the coming of Christ and the resurrection, the millennium, and the final judgment.” P. 178. Lactanius is obviously not a preterist, all these things he places as future.
Gundry then says: “We can conclude from the above survey of Ante-Nicene writings that the early church was as explicitly posttribulational as it was premillennial. [I.e., both the tribulation and the millennial are future] … We discover not even a passing reference to, much less a refutation of, any who believed otherwise… Every Ante-Nicene writer who touches in any detail upon the tribulation, resurrection, rapture, or second coming displays a postribulational persuasion. [Again, these ECF he cites were not preterists, they were futurists] … Almost every time, premillennialism and posttribulationism coincide in the early fathers.” P. 178.
“It is simply not true that the Ante-Nicene eschatology lacked maturity and detail. For example, in long eschatological passages in the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactanius we confront full and challenging discussions concerning Daniel’s seventieth week, the 1,260 days, the abomination of desolation, the ten toes, the mixture of iron and clay, the ten horns, the little horn, the Antichrist, the false prophet, the apostasy, the reappearance of Elijah, the restoration of worship in the Jewish temple, the significance of 666, comparison of Daniel and Revelation, Babylon, Armageddon, the first resurrection, the rapture, the second advent, millennial conditions, the final resurrection, and the last judgment. The only significant eschatological matter of which the early fathers were incognizant appears to be a pretribulational rapture!” p. 183.
Gundry is arguing for post-trib over against pretrib here, but I think you get the picture. Everything topic listed was future not in the past. The ECF were FUTURIST NOT PRETERIST.
Note: I hadn’t seen your last post when I wrote this up.