Never the less to base one's theology or his foundation of his theology on what the church fathers said is bad theology, good theology stands on it's own outside of what the church fathers said.
Use of the church fathers statements to further argue your beliefs, but don't use them to build your foundational beliefs, use them after your foundational beliefs are founded. I remember studying the seventh day Adventist arguments for the Sat worship from a historical point of view, they quoted several old church fathers from several early centuries to get their point across, I was convinced they were right, shortly after I shown differently, that they had misquoted the Church fathers and taken them out of context. That work that shown me differently was Walter Martin's book "The Kingdom of the cults" Now whether the Seventh day Adventist quote the church fathers correctly or incorrectly is beside the point that I really want to make, and that is if you can't argue your premillennialism view point outside of quoteing church fathers you have already failed in your theology or your search for the truth. Foundation Premillennialism needs to be built on the scripture it self, not church father statements. Same goes for the Postmillennial view point.
11 Saying, “’I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and what thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Aisa: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
I do not read the ‘day of the LORD’ as being a Sunday morning worship service. The reference to this is a specific particular time that is a dispensation of time. The so called ‘old’ is filled with references to ‘in that day’, ‘on that day’, and ‘day of the LORD’. The Bible is not nearly as disjointed as so many down through the ages have tried to make it appear.
Here is the quote from his book.
Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians reign.
Titus Flavius Domitianus was Roman Emperor from 81 to 96. Domitian was the third and last emperor of the Flavian dynasty.
Proves that Irenaeus claimed that John wrote the book of Revelation toward the end of Domitians reign which would have been in the 90s long after 70AD.
>> the point that I really want to make, and that is if you can’t argue your premillennialism view point outside of quoteing church fathers you have already failed in your theology or your search for the truth.<<
The theology isnt based on the quotes of church fathers. In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that Johns prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.
Wise words to live by.