The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

You don't get to determine what is an "authentic Premil." As far as I'm concerned, the vast number of the early Church Fathers were Chiliasts and Premils. The fact Lacantius came when he did is all the more convincing of this fact since he indicated his view had been dominant.

Immediately after Lacantius relates these things he says this: This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.

Sounds like he is pretty convinced that Premil covers the preceding era as well as his own?

Totally disagree. Where is your evidence? I will not hold my breath. You make these claims yet fail to carry through with hard evidence. Your claims are simply based on discredited "historians" like Thomas Ice. That says it all! The pattern is: one partial Premil advocate bases his views upon another partial Premil advocate in order to build a false narrative. The reality is: Amil was the predominant viewpoint between AD30-AD430.

Lacantius is no different to any other ancient or modern commentator, he believed his view was the biblical view. He didn't argue anywhere that his position was that of the ECFs. You forced that on his comments. You continually foist your narrative upon historical data. You have to.

The fact is, you have finally found your first Premil over 200 years after the cross (Lacantius). What you negate to tell the reader is that he built his eschatology upon the heathen Sibyl prophetesses. This confirms the Op and shows the dubious origins of ancient Premil.

 

[Taken]

Yea, okay you have 50 cents more, and I'm all out of spare change. I really can't be too specific about what the Millennium will hold. I just see it as a continuation of the world as it presently is, though without interference from Satan. I suppose you could be right that mankind is judged at that time for what they do without pressure from Satan?

The present age is gathering a witness of Christians leading to the judgment of this present age. When it is over at the 2nd Coming, a new age will begin, and the glorified saints will be, I think, somewhere else. On earth, it will reflect pretty much what we have today except that God's promises to Abraham will finally come to fulfillment, something that has failed to last in the present age.

Israel will become a Christian nation and never be destroyed again. And Christian nations will re-emerge in a more lasting way, without the pressure of resistance from non-Christian countries.

So yes, I can call them "Christian" in the next age. But they will have to start from scratch, as "nominal Christians," discovering at Christ's Coming what true Christian living is. All true Christians in the present age will be gone at that time, either dead or raptured. A lot of guesswork...... Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks Randy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Totally disagree. Where is your evidence? I will not hold my breath. You make these claims yet fail to carry through with hard evidence. Your claims are simply based on discredited "historians" like Thomas Ice. That says it all! The pattern is: one partial Premil advocate bases his views upon another partial Premil advocate in order to build a false narrative. The reality is: Amil was the predominant viewpoint between AD30-AD430.

Lacantius is no different to any other ancient or modern commentator, he believed his view was the biblical view. He didn't argue anywhere that his position was that of the ECFs. You forced that on his comments. You continually foist your narrative upon historical data. You have to.

The fact is, you have finally found your first Premil over 200 years after the cross (Lacantius). What you negate to tell the reader is that he built his eschatology upon the heathen Sibyl prophetesses. This confirms the Op and shows the dubious origins of ancient Premil.

The reality for me is that you're disinterested in any Premil evidence. The moment I provide it you act as if it is worthless. Again, you wanted evidence that Premil was the dominant position in the early centuries of the Church. Lacantius provided that evidence by declaring:

This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.

Lacanatius may have come a bit later (4th century), but this is all the more convincing. This was after Origen began his allegorical methodology, supporting Amil. And yet, Lacanatius still viewed Premil as the dominant "Christian" teaching!

Sure, earlier it was acknowledged that Premil was not the *only* teaching. But the early *orthodoxy* of Church eschatology appears to have been Premil, continuing all the way up until Lacantius.

Justin Martyr: "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."
"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 he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

Augustine apparently began as a Premill, but became convinced by other noted Christian leaders who utilized allegorical interpretation. And his great influence succeeded in providing for the Catholic Church the basis for establishing itself as the new Kingdom of God in place of Israel. Instead of looking to a future restoration of Israel, Augustine looked to the present spiritual Kingdom of the Catholic Church for biblical Salvation.

Now we can debate these points, but it's plain that you wish to follow the argument that Chiliasm contained the seeds of Amil, and that modern Premil has gone far astray of early Chiliasm.

Be happy with what you believe. But I don't and wont' buy it because it flies in the face with what the overwhelming testimony seems to be, that Chiliasm is Premillennialism, and was the early dominant eschatology of Church history.

Allegorical Interpretation, such as Origen provided, subverted this orthodoxy, making the Catholic Church the replacement for a future realization of the Kingdom of God on earth, including both Israel and many nations, all of whom are to become Christian, as I see it. Origen, as solid as he was as a Christian, held to some pretty questionable teachings!

I reject all of your insulting remarks. They are not friendly, and they are not of good Christian character. If you wish to agree to disagree, I can accept that and move on to different subjects with you. I'm sure we agree on a whole range of issues besides this one issue, which seems to have become all-important to you?

May I suggest that perhaps it is Reform Teaching that is your dominant burden, rather than the teaching of Amil itself? We can agree on many items on that list! It surprises me that you would so strongly support a "Catholic" teaching from Augustine when you're so solidly Reform in your theology?

 

[WPM]

The reality for me is that you're disinterested in any Premil evidence. The moment I provide it you act as if it is worthless. Again, you wanted evidence that Premil was the dominant position in the early centuries of the Church. Lacantius provided that evidence by declaring:

This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.

Lacanatius may have come a bit later (4th century), but this is all the more convincing. This was after Origen began his allegorical methodology, supporting Amil. And yet, Lacanatius still viewed Premil as the dominant "Christian" teaching!

Sure, earlier it was acknowledged that Premil was not the *only* teaching. But the early *orthodoxy* of Church eschatology appears to have been Premil, continuing all the way up until Lacantius.

Justin Martyr: "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."
"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 he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

Augustine apparently began as a Premill, but became convinced by other noted Christian leaders who utilized allegorical interpretation. And his great influence succeeded in providing for the Catholic Church the basis for establishing itself as the new Kingdom of God in place of Israel. Instead of looking to a future restoration of Israel, Augustine looked to the present spiritual Kingdom of the Catholic Church for biblical Salvation.

Now we can debate these points, but it's plain that you wish to follow the argument that Chiliasm contained the seeds of Amil, and that modern Premil has gone far astray of early Chiliasm.

Be happy with what you believe. But I don't and wont' buy it because it flies in the face with what the overwhelming testimony seems to be, that Chiliasm is Premillennialism, and was the early dominant eschatology of Church history.

Allegorical Interpretation, such as Origen provided, subverted this orthodoxy, making the Catholic Church the replacement for a future realization of the Kingdom of God on earth, including both Israel and many nations, all of whom are to become Christian, as I see it. Origen, as solid as he was as a Christian, held to some pretty questionable teachings!

I reject all of your insulting remarks. They are not friendly, and they are not of good Christian character. If you wish to agree to disagree, I can accept that and move on to different subjects with you. I'm sure we agree on a whole range of issues besides this one issue, which seems to have become all-important to you?

May I suggest that perhaps it is Reform Teaching that is your dominant burden, rather than the teaching of Amil itself? We can agree on many items on that list! It surprises me that you would so strongly support a "Catholic" teaching from Augustine when you're so solidly Reform in your theology?

How possibly can you deduce from this that Lacantius viewed Premil to be " the dominant Christian teaching" within the early Church? That is totally twisting his words to mean something he didn't say. You have clearly a vivid imagination and a severe lack of objectivity with your analysis of history. It is truly hard to take your writings serious. It is difficult to engage with this type of partisan approach.

Lacantius simply said: "This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom."

That was his opinion, which he was entitled to, even though there is nothing strange about his boast. Every preacher and writer thinks his views are the right one. We are convinced ours is biblical. We have a habit of talking on behalf of others.

if this the best you have to support your case, then you obviously have nothing.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How possibly can you say Lacantius viewed Premil was " the dominant Christian" teaching"? That is totally twisting his words to mean something he didn't say. You have clearly a vivid imagination and a severe lack of objectivity with your analysis of history. It is truly hard to engage with you.

Lacantius simply said: "This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom."

That was his opinion, which he was entitled to, even though there is nothing strange about his boast. Every preacher and writer thinks his views are the right one.

if this the best you have, you have nothing.

On the contrary, I have all of the early Chiliasts, as well as Lacantius. It is *you* who have nothing by which to dispute this, apart from the claim that their differences on the nature of the Millennium makes them more Amil than Premil, which is patently absurd, in my view.

I have no illusions about changing your mind. You've read all these things for years, and it's only made you more convinced that your views are correct. Be happy with your beliefs, and let others believe as they wish. I don't need the "color commentary."

 

[WPM]

On the contrary, I have all of the early Chiliasts, as well as Lacantius. It is *you* who have nothing by which to dispute this, apart from the claim that their differences on the nature of the Millennium makes them more Amil than Premil, which is patently absurd, in my view.

I have no illusions about changing your mind. You've read all these things for years, and it's only made you more convinced that your views are correct. Be happy with your beliefs, and let others believe as they wish. I don't need the "color commentary."

Not so. You have one tenet in common with early Chiliasts. That is it. Amils have many common beliefs. What is more, all the early Chiliasts and Amils for 210 years after the cross believed in a climactic return of Christ that saw the end of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions. You have no rebuttal to that because it is a fact.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not so. You have one tenet in common with early Chiliasts. That is it. Amils have many common beliefs. What is more, all the early Chiliasts and Amils for 210 years after the cross believed in a climactic return of Christ that saw the end of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions. You have no rebuttal to that because it is a fact.

Mormons have 99% of our Bible, but are in gross error. Percentages of agreement do not translate into equation.

I really don't care if the nature of the Millennium is spelled out in great detail. If the focus is on the restoration of the earth through the fulfillment of God's promises, then the absence of information on the negative aspects of the Kingdom Age are not very important in the discussion.

It weighs much more with me the idea that the Chiliasts accepted John's literal account of a future Millennium. If so, they likely also accepted his account of a future rebellion, which would not be true if everything will be perfect in the Millennial Age.

As I said before, Christians today should be much more focused on the *perfection* we are to see in the Millennial Age because we will be at that time glorified. That's why I think the Chiliasts likely focused on that rather than explain what John meant by the future rebellion. Many of the Church Fathers may simply have assumed that this will be explained in the future, rather than requiring immediate explanation?

And as I also said before, there may have been concern that the Jewish teaching about the flawed conditions in the Millennium might be misinterpreted, equating Chiliasm with Cerinthus' teaching. And they didn't want that.

I don't think we're going anywhere in this, brother. If you have any more quotes to bring, I'd like to see them. But so far, the only thing you've proven is that Chiliasts and Amils had some similar beliefs. But it is nonsensical to say that Chiliasts were therefore disbelieving in a future Millennium!

 

[WPM]

Mormons have 99% of our Bible, but are in gross error. Percentages of agreement do not translate into equation.

I really don't care if the nature of the Millennium is spelled out in great detail. If the focus is on the restoration of the earth through the fulfillment of God's promises, then the absence of information on the negative aspects of the Kingdom Age are not very important in the discussion.

It weighs much more with me the idea that the Chiliasts accepted John's literal account of a future Millennium. If so, they likely also accepted his account of a future rebellion, which would not be true if everything will be perfect in the Millennial Age.

As I said before, Christians today should be much more focused on the *perfection* we are to see in the Millennial Age because we will be at that time glorified. That's why I think the Chiliasts likely focused on that rather than explain what John meant by the future rebellion. Many of the Church Fathers may simply have assumed that this will be explained in the future, rather than requiring immediate explanation?

And as I also said before, there may have been concern that the Jewish teaching about the flawed conditions in the Millennium might be misinterpreted, equating Chiliasm with Cerinthus' teaching. And they didn't want that.

I don't think we're going anywhere in this, brother. If you have any more quotes to bring, I'd like to see them. But so far, the only thing you've proven is that Chiliasts and Amils had some similar beliefs. But it is nonsensical to say that Chiliasts were therefore disbelieving in a future Millennium!

Hello! The ECFs never mentioned any negative aspects in the age to come for 210 years after the cross because they didn't believe it. It is not until AD240 that there is a non-heretical Premil ECF who believed in another age of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions, as you promote. That is damning for Premil.,

Your whole thesis is based on silence.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hello! The ECFs never mentioned any negative aspects in the age to come for 210 years after the cross because they didn't believe it. It is not until AD240 that there is a non-heretical Premil ECF who believed in another age of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions, as you promote. That is damning for Premil.,

Your whole thesis is based on silence.

If I say I agree with John in Rev 20 that there will be a future Millennium, I don't have to loudly voice my agreement with the rest of the narrative. If I agree with the literal account of the Millennium as future, I also state, logically, my agreement with the future rebellion at the end of the Millennium.

So no, it is not an argument from silence. It is a logical argument based on the statement, loud and clear, that John's view of the future Millennium, together with its future rebellion, is to be literally believed in. Do Chiliasts like Justin Martyr and Lacantius state they believe in the literal view of Rev 20? I believe so.

Exaggerating the rebellion to render the perspective different than the biblical account is a flagrantly false argument. Nobody has said this, except folks like you, that Chiliasts or Premils teach "sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions." Though there is an aspect of truth in it, you distort the picture to make it appear as obviously false.

Premills view this future world much as it is today, mankind being saddled with the Sin Nature. But it is to be noted that "Satan will be bound," and that the *glorified Church will rule, together with Christ.* That is very different from your crude picture of the Millennium the way Premils see it.

I'm 100% completely disinterested in your continued characterization of the future Millennium in a way that Premils do *not* see it! I'll leave it to you to explain why you wish to do this?

 

[Timtofly]

Not only is that wrong, it is the antithesis to Christian Salvation. The world cannot be restored back to a state of innocence apart from physical regeneration. And that only comes for those who are both spiritually and physically regenerated.

Yes, God can do all kinds of things for non-Christians. But He won't undo the curse of sin apart from both spiritual and physical restoration.

Yes, the Millennial earth will experience a measure of physical restoration. But this is not in any way a new creation yet--just the same old earth at peace--still mortal and sinful.

Nope, because the sheep and wheat are the regenerated, free from sin remnant. They like Noah will populate the earth. Are you declaring Noah was the only redeemed soul and the other 7 died in their sins, and will never escape sheol, and the LOF?

Hi brother--thanks for the 25cents. Here's mine. The millennium is simply an extension of the present age--no new creation but with a new set of Christians given birth--a mortal, still sinful world but without Satan's harassment and provocations. I can't say how sin will effect the world--probably trouble, but no international war, and no persecution of Christian kingdoms.

I believe the world will consist of Christian and non-Christian nations. Christian nations fulfill God's promise to Abraham to have many nations of faith. Israel will be one of those Christian nations, yet not superior to any others.

The rise of nations against God's Kingdom will likely be focused on Jerusalem, a future symbol of international Christianity. God will destroy the rebellion.

I'm not a Pretrib, so I think the Church will face the Antichrist. The Church will obtain the right to judge from heaven during the Millennium, keeping Satan bound and Christian nations free of harassment. It is our testimony of resistance to sin that earns the right to judge, and it is our word that maintains this restraint of evil.

Why? That is just the same as saying it is the here and now. It would not be a Sabbath Day of rest, but just another day of sin and death.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Nope, because the sheep and wheat are the regenerated, free from sin remnant. They like Noah will populate the earth. Are you declaring Noah was the only redeemed soul and the other 7 died in their sins, and will never escape sheol, and the LOF?

I never mentioned Noah, and I don't think he has a thing to do with this. Yes, the "sheep" and the "wheat" refer to believers, and they will be physically regenerated, or rendered immortals, at the Coming of the Lord. But I don't believe they will populate the earth during the Millennium. Rather, I believe they will rule over the mortal earth from heaven, while on earth mortals will continue human history for another thousand years. I do realize that much of this is speculative.

Why? That is just the same as saying it is the here and now. It would not be a Sabbath Day of rest, but just another day of sin and death.

Yes, it will be the same old earth. The New Earth begins at the end of the Millennium. The difference between the Millennial Age and the Present Age is, as I indicated, a matter of Satan being bound and the glorified Church reigning over the earth, to maintain a shield of protection for Christian nations. This is in order to fulfill God's promise to Abraham to have a continuous witness to Himself among many nations, including Israel.

Of course, the predicted rebellion at the end of the Millennium requires that there also be many non-Christian nations. When Satan is released at the end of this period, these non-Christian nations will, I think, come against the Christian nations. Either that, or the Christian nations will once again apostacize, just as we are seeing today.

 

[Timtofly]

I never mentioned Noah, and I don't think he has a thing to do with this. Yes, the "sheep" and the "wheat" refer to believers, and they will be physically regenerated, or rendered immortals, at the Coming of the Lord. But I don't believe they will populate the earth during the Millennium. Rather, I believe they will rule over the mortal earth from heaven, while on earth mortals will continue human history for another thousand years. I do realize that much of this is speculative.



Yes, it will be the same old earth. The New Earth begins at the end of the Millennium. The difference between the Millennial Age and the Present Age is, as I indicated, a matter of Satan being bound and the glorified Church reigning over the earth, to maintain a shield of protection for Christian nations. This is in order to fulfill God's promise to Abraham to have a continuous witness to Himself among many nations, including Israel.

Of course, the predicted rebellion at the end of the Millennium requires that there also be many non-Christian nations. When Satan is released at the end of this period, these non-Christian nations will, I think, come against the Christian nations. Either that, or the Christian nations will once again apostacize, just as we are seeing today.

The sheep and wheat are not the glorified church. They are the only remnant left of human kind to live on the earth. They are the firstfruits of the Millennium to populate the earth. They are your mortals, no one else survives.

But they do not have Adam's dead corruptible flesh. They have permanent incorruptible physical bodies without a sin nature. They are not Christians. They are free from the sin bondage of the last 6,000 years. They live in everlasting righteousness. They live in the physical state Adam lived in before he disobeyed God.

There is no more bringing sin into the world, because sin is defeated at the 7th Trumpet per Daniel 9:24, and the end of the 70th week.

They don't rule from heaven. They rule over their families for dozens of generations. They are the left behind after the church is removed and glorified.

The rebellion is not about the lost being able to make a stand.

This group are redeemed without any sin who are deceived by Satan, and consumed by fire because they listened to Satan, just like Eve did. Eve was not a sinner that rebelled. Eve was a son of God, who listened to Satan.

 

[WPM]

If I say I agree with John in Rev 20 that there will be a future Millennium, I don't have to loudly voice my agreement with the rest of the narrative. If I agree with the literal account of the Millennium as future, I also state, logically, my agreement with the future rebellion at the end of the Millennium.

So no, it is not an argument from silence. It is a logical argument based on the statement, loud and clear, that John's view of the future Millennium, together with its future rebellion, is to be literally believed in. Do Chiliasts like Justin Martyr and Lacantius state they believe in the literal view of Rev 20? I believe so.

Exaggerating the rebellion to render the perspective different than the biblical account is a flagrantly false argument. Nobody has said this, except folks like you, that Chiliasts or Premils teach "sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions." Though there is an aspect of truth in it, you distort the picture to make it appear as obviously false.

Premills view this future world much as it is today, mankind being saddled with the Sin Nature. But it is to be noted that "Satan will be bound," and that the *glorified Church will rule, together with Christ.* That is very different from your crude picture of the Millennium the way Premils see it.

I'm 100% completely disinterested in your continued characterization of the future Millennium in a way that Premils do *not* see it! I'll leave it to you to explain why you wish to do this?

These men believed Satan was bound at the First Advent and will be destroyed at the second coming. This will see the climactic abolition of the bondage of corruption. This is completely the opposite to ancient heretical Premil and modern Premil.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The sheep and wheat are not the glorified church. They are the only remnant left of human kind to live on the earth. They are the firstfruits of the Millennium to populate the earth. They are your mortals, no one else survives.

But they do not have Adam's dead corruptible flesh. They have permanent incorruptible physical bodies without a sin nature. They are not Christians. They are free from the sin bondage of the last 6,000 years. They live in everlasting righteousness. They live in the physical state Adam lived in before he disobeyed God.

There is no more bringing sin into the world, because sin is defeated at the 7th Trumpet per Daniel 9:24, and the end of the 70th week.

They don't rule from heaven. They rule over their families for dozens of generations. They are the left behind after the church is removed and glorified.

The rebellion is not about the lost being able to make a stand.

This group are redeemed without any sin who are deceived by Satan, and consumed by fire because they listened to Satan, just like Eve did. Eve was not a sinner that rebelled. Eve was a son of God, who listened to Satan.

I understand your scenario, but I can't agree for a number of reasons.
1) The glorified Church is absent from your scenario. And Jesus promised his apostles they would be part of the ruling class in the Millennial Age.
2) Sin is absent from your scenario, which is unlikely to me since the glorified saints are to rule over mortal humanity during the Millennium. This implies the notion that sin must be restrained on earth. Furthermore, we are told that the present saints will judge angels. What that means to me is that during the Millennial age it is the job of the glorified Church to keep Satan at bay and to keep sin on earth at bay.
3) You have a sinless unglorified mortal humanity on earth during the Millennium. This implies the curse of Adam has been lifted. But biblically, the only thing that can remove the curse is death. If these people survive the 2nd Coming and its judgments, they have not yet died, and cannot yet be sinless. Also, biblically it is glorification that rids sin from men--and not any current reproductive process continuing in the present age. By definition, it is immortalization that removes mortality and the very sin that causes us to be mortal, ie subject to death.
4) Dan 9 is not related to the end of the age, in my theology. It was completed at Christ's 1st Coming. A misinterpretation of this passage may have led you to drawing the wrong conclusions about the 2nd Coming and the Millennium. That's one reason I think we need to get the 70 Weeks prophecy right!

But it's something you're going to have to settle yourself. I'm not sure about my own views, as well. I do think it's worth the time thinking about it, since it is in Scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

These men believed Satan was bound at the First Advent and will be destroyed at the second coming. This will see the climactic abolition of the bondage of corruption. This is completely the opposite to ancient heretical Premil and modern Premil.

That is another issue worth addressing. How all of the Church Fathers viewed the "binding of the strong man" I don't know?--I know they mentioned it, and may have even related it to the binding of Satan at the beginning of the Millennium. If you have the references to that, I'd be willing to accept that as evidence.

However, biblically, the "binding of the strong man" really has to do, I think, with exorcism--not the cross. People were delivered from demon possession before the cross, and so, indicates the reference is simply to the superiority of God over devils.

That same superiority of God over Satan will be shown at the beginning of the Millennium, when Satan's efforts at stirring up the world against Christ will be temporarily halted until the rebellion at the end of the Millennium. Comparing these matters do not imply that "binding the strong man" is an eschatological event, but only a proposal that God is stronger than Satan.

Therefore, whatever the Church Fathers thought, the limitations placed on Satan at the cross did not mean for the Church Fathers that Satan is bound in the present age, nor that he will avoid being bound at Christ's 2nd Coming. If they followed the Millennial account literally, they would, I should think, have Satan bound *at* the 2nd Coming?

If you have anything to contradict this, other than simply comparisons between the "binding of the strong man" and Satan's current restraint in the present age, I'd be willing to listen to it? Although I do find that the cross imposed some restraints on Satan in the present age, just as he has always been somewhat restrained, this does not mean that this is the eschatological bondage of Satan as indicated in Rev 20.

Mark 3.22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

It seems all too apparent to me that in practicing exorcism Jesus did not cast Satan out of the world, which is what will happen when Satan is bound, in a different way, at the 2nd Coming.

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.

Is Satan in the Abyss now? I don't believe so. Paul calls him the "prince of the power of the air." He is presently in heaven until he is cast down to the earth in the last days, according to Rev 12.

Eph 2.2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
Rev 12.7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.

Satan is kicked out of heaven *after* the ascension of Christ in vs. 5. (I believe it will be when he gives all of his power to the Antichrist.)
She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

When the Church Fathers mention the destruction of Satan at the 2nd Coming, logically they must be referring to the complete *defeat* of Satan, since the held to a literal interpretation of Rev 20. To say Satan is completely defeated at the 2nd Coming is tantamount to saying he is "destroyed." It does not, obviously, mean Satan is annihilated, but that the forces to whom he gave his authority were defeated.

Again, if you can show me that the Church Fathers believed that Satan is annihilated at the 2nd Coming, as opposed to "being bound," I'd be interested in looking at that.

 

[Timtofly]

Also, biblically it is glorification that rids sin from men--and not any current reproductive process continuing in the present age. By definition, it is immortalization that removes mortality and the very sin that causes us to be mortal, ie subject to death.

This is your problem. The sheep and wheat were made dead out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. They were changed just like you were changed out of death. They were not glorified.

The disciples will still reign in Paradise with the glorified church. They are the thrones mentioned in Revelation 20:4.

If those beheaded are out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, even more so the wheat and tares. None of Adam's flesh is allowed in the Millennium.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is your problem. The sheep and wheat were made dead out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. They were changed just like you were changed out of death. They were not glorified.

I'm sorry, Tim, but such statements are incomprehensible to me! What does it mean for sheep and wheat to be "made dead out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh?" If you're going to state something biblically, it must somehow relate to Scripture. I know of no biblical statements remotely close to that?

"I was changed out of death?" Do you refer to the fact that I was able to put on Christ due to the atonement of Christ? If so, I can understand how I "died with Christ" and became in Christ a "new creature." But I can't understand how *non-Christians* can do so?

Furthermore, when I displayed the fact I was a new creature in Christ, I still had sin in my life. And you indicate these people have no sin?

The disciples will still reign in Paradise with the glorified church. They are the thrones mentioned in Revelation 20:4.

If those beheaded are out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, even more so the wheat and tares. None of Adam's flesh is allowed in the Millennium.

I don't see that anywhere in the Bible. Sorry.

 

[WPM]

That is another issue worth addressing. How all of the Church Fathers viewed the "binding of the strong man" I don't know?--I know they mentioned it, and may have even related it to the binding of Satan at the beginning of the Millennium. If you have the references to that, I'd be willing to accept that as evidence.

However, biblically, the "binding of the strong man" really has to do, I think, with exorcism--not the cross. People were delivered from demon possession before the cross, and so, indicates the reference is simply to the superiority of God over devils.

That same superiority of God over Satan will be shown at the beginning of the Millennium, when Satan's efforts at stirring up the world against Christ will be temporarily halted until the rebellion at the end of the Millennium. Comparing these matters do not imply that "binding the strong man" is an eschatological event, but only a proposal that God is stronger than Satan.

Therefore, whatever the Church Fathers thought, the limitations placed on Satan at the cross did not mean for the Church Fathers that Satan is bound in the present age, nor that he will avoid being bound at Christ's 2nd Coming. If they followed the Millennial account literally, they would, I should think, have Satan bound *at* the 2nd Coming?

If you have anything to contradict this, other than simply comparisons between the "binding of the strong man" and Satan's current restraint in the present age, I'd be willing to listen to it? Although I do find that the cross imposed some restraints on Satan in the present age, just as he has always been somewhat restrained, this does not mean that this is the eschatological bondage of Satan as indicated in Rev 20.

Mark 3.22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

It seems all too apparent to me that in practicing exorcism Jesus did not cast Satan out of the world, which is what will happen when Satan is bound, in a different way, at the 2nd Coming.

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.

Is Satan in the Abyss now? I don't believe so. Paul calls him the "prince of the power of the air." He is presently in heaven until he is cast down to the earth in the last days, according to Rev 12.

Eph 2.2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
Rev 12.7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.

Satan is kicked out of heaven *after* the ascension of Christ in vs. 5. (I believe it will be when he gives all of his power to the Antichrist.)
She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

When the Church Fathers mention the destruction of Satan at the 2nd Coming, logically they must be referring to the complete *defeat* of Satan, since the held to a literal interpretation of Rev 20. To say Satan is completely defeated at the 2nd Coming is tantamount to saying he is "destroyed." It does not, obviously, mean Satan is annihilated, but that the forces to whom he gave his authority were defeated.

Again, if you can show me that the Church Fathers believed that Satan is annihilated at the 2nd Coming, as opposed to "being bound," I'd be interested in looking at that.

I am out of the country at the moment and do not have access to all my historic data. I can provide that when I return.

Scripture shows Christ bound the strong man 2000 years ago. That is indisputable. This is another proof that supports Amil. Your hyper-literal view of the abyss is in error and has been ably refuted many times. The abyss is a spiritual state of restraint that prevents Satan from stopping the great commission.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm sorry, Tim, but such statements are incomprehensible to me! What does it mean for sheep and wheat to be "made dead out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh?" If you're going to state something biblically, it must somehow relate to Scripture. I know of no biblical statements remotely close to that?

"I was changed out of death?" Do you refer to the fact that I was able to put on Christ due to the atonement of Christ? If so, I can understand how I "died with Christ" and became in Christ a "new creature." But I can't understand how *non-Christians* can do so?

Furthermore, when I displayed the fact I was a new creature in Christ, I still had sin in my life. And you indicate these people have no sin?

What do you think happens at the rapture for those in Christ?

They leave Adam's flesh behind.

The same thing happens to the sheep and wheat, but they remain on the earth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What do you think happens at the rapture for those in Christ?

They leave Adam's flesh behind.

The same thing happens to the sheep and wheat, but they remain on the earth.

You're saying that the identical thing happens to non-Christians that happens to me after 1) I became a Christian, and 2) I went home to be with the Lord?

Gee, why even accept Christ when you can get a free ride like that? You can keep control of your own life, be sinless, have an incorruptible body...

Wait a minute! How can a non-Christian be "sinless?" And why would a non-Christian warrant getting an incorruptible body when I had to give my life up to Christ to get the same thing?

You're proposing something that I believe is impossible. A non-Christian cannot be sinless. By definition he is not in line with the will of Christ if he is a non-Christian!