The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Maybe you personally have refuted things many times. That is not the same thing as meaning the issue was settled. It's just settled *for you.*

When you say something is "indisputable" I know automatically that is completely a matter of dispute!

As I said, Jesus said this at a time when he had not yet gone to the cross. He was referring to God's position of strength over Satan such that Christ could liberate a person from Satanic bondage. So much for something being "undisputable..." Look forward to your return. Be safe.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
III. ch. 23:
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

 

[Timtofly]

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!

Do you not accept Jesus choosing some sheep over some goats?

Do you object to Jesus witnessing to the lost directly, sowing the seed, and having them choose eternal life?

The sheep and wheat are the final harvest of Jesus Himself. Do you object to Jesus putting in the time to win the lost? Do you not think He did that for 3.5 years in the first century? Why do you object to Him as a King doing even more evangelistic work at the Second Coming?

They are on earth when Jesus comes, so they are lost. They certainly did not leave with the church, and glorified in the air, because they were still on earth when Jesus has a throne and temple in Jerusalem. You do realize that there were redeemed during the 4,000 years prior to the Cross, and the NT church did not evangelize them? The 1992 years of the church will end at the Second Coming, just like it started at the first coming. So there are times on earth when the term Christian was not in use.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Do you not accept Jesus choosing some sheep over some goats?

Do you object to Jesus witnessing to the lost directly, sowing the seed, and having them choose eternal life?

The sheep and wheat are the final harvest of Jesus Himself. Do you object to Jesus putting in the time to win the lost? Do you not think He did that for 3.5 years in the first century? Why do you object to Him as a King doing even more evangelistic work at the Second Coming?

I object to that because I don't see it in the Scriptures. And I don't see Christians in history accepting that as from the Scriptures either. Either God speaks to you alone, or He isn't in this teaching.

They are on earth when Jesus comes, so they are lost. They certainly did not leave with the church, and glorified in the air, because they were still on earth when Jesus has a throne and temple in Jerusalem. You do realize that there were redeemed during the 4,000 years prior to the Cross, and the NT church did not evangelize them? The 1992 years of the church will end at the Second Coming, just like it started at the first coming. So there are times on earth when the term Christian was not in use.

It's not just the use of the term "Christian." It's more that rejection of that word, which applies indefinitely, as long as there is a distinction between Christians and non-Christians. If people are evangelized at all, it is aimed at sinful people who need to learn how to live in righteousness so that they may have hope of immortality, or eternal life with God.

 

[WPM]

Maybe you personally have refuted things many times. That is not the same thing as meaning the issue was settled. It's just settled *for you.*

When you say something is "indisputable" I know automatically that is completely a matter of dispute!

As I said, Jesus said this at a time when he had not yet gone to the cross. He was referring to God's position of strength over Satan such that Christ could liberate a person from Satanic bondage. So much for something being "undisputable..." Look forward to your return. Be safe.

Tertullian, Against Heresies:
III. ch. 23:
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Your quote supports my thesis that Satan was bound through the First Advent. This was the early Chiliast and Amil position. Premils reject that.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures.

No just ONE, Jesus, although I would not call Him shadowy, He is the Light. He gave John the specifics in Revelation and a solid doctrine supported in many other passages throughout the Bible. Amillennialists are the ones who are deceived.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your quote supports my thesis that Satan was bound through the First Advent. This was the early Chiliast and Amil position. Premils reject that.

It doesn't because Irenaeus believed that Rev 20 applies to a future Millennium in which Satan will be bound. Irenaeus' argument is not that Satan was bound only once at the cross, but that there is a perpetual enmity between Man and Satan, and that Christ defeated death legally at the cross, and will bind him during a future Millennium. The fact he cites Rev 20 proves that. It certainly does *not* prove that his future Millennium in Rev 20 suddenly now refers to the 1st Advent of Christ! That's *your* scenario--not Tertullian's!

Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
III. ch. 23:
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Irenaeus indicates that Christ crushed Satan's head at the cross, by rising from the dead and by defeating the power of death, leaving Satan powerless against the Church. But then he shifts to the "latter days," the days of "Antichrist," who will likewise be defeated and at which time Satan is bound.

That means Irenaeus believed Satan will be bound at the defeat of Antichrist "in the latter days." You are twisting Irenaeus' words around to apply the binding of Satan at Christ's 1st Advent, the cross, where he initially defeated Satan and his power to inflict mankind with the judgment of death.

 

[WPM]

It doesn't because Tertullian believed that Rev 20 applies to a future Millennium in which Satan will be bound. Tertullian's argument is not that Satan was bound only once at the cross, but that there is a perpetual enmity between Man and Satan, and that Christ defeated death legally at the cross, and will bind him during a future Millennium. The fact he cites Rev 20 proves that. It certainly does *not* prove that his future Millennium in Rev 20 suddenly now refers to the 1st Advent of Christ! That's *your* scenario--not Tertullian's!

Tertullian, Against Heresies:
III. ch. 23:
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Tertullian indicates that Christ crushed Satan's head at the cross, by rising from the dead and by defeating the power of death, leaving Satan powerless against the Church. But then he shifts to the "latter days," the days of "Antichrist," who will likewise be defeated and at which time Satan is bound.

That means Tertullian believed Satan will be bound at the defeat of Antichrist "in the latter days." You are twisting Tertullian's words around to apply the binding of Satan at Christ's 1st Advent, the cross, where he initially defeated Satan and his power to inflict mankind with the judgment of death.

He does not remotely mention some supposed future millennium, neither is Revelation 20 mentioned in the original manuscript. Everything he says relates to the First Advent and he espouses nothing about sin and sinners, dying and crying, disease and decay, the devil and his demons corrupting a future age. That view belonged to the early Premil heretics and modern Premils. No early orthodox father held that for over 200 years after the cross.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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?



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

REv. 20:4 there it is in teh bible.

 

[Randy Kluth]

He does not remotely mention some supposed future millennium, neither is Revelation 20 mentioned in the original manuscript. Everything he says relates to the First Advent and he espouses nothing about sin and sinners, dying and crying, disease and decay, the devil and his demons corrupting a future age. That view belonged to the early Premil heretics and modern Premils. No early orthodox father held that for over 200 years after the cross.

Yea, I should've caught that about the chapter and verse being added! Obviously, somebody who is a Premil thought that was the reference. So do I, since Antichrist is mentioned, along with "latter days," unless you believe that also is added?

Obviously, "binding the old serpent, the dragon" is indeed a reference to Rev 20. Do you really wish to discard the obvious reference to prove that this is not a reference to that?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
III. ch. 23:
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Since Irenaeus was a Premillennialist, or Chiliast, he obviously was referring to a *future* Millennium in this quotation!

 

[WPM]

Yea, I should've caught that about the chapter and verse being added! Obviously, somebody who is a Premil thought that was the reference. So do I, since Antichrist is mentioned, along with "latter days," unless you believe that also is added?

Obviously, "binding the old serpent, the dragon" is indeed a reference to Rev 20. Do you really wish to discard the obvious reference to prove that this is not a reference to that?

Tertullian, Against Heresies:
III. ch. 23:
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Since Tertullian was a Premillennialist, or Chiliast, he obviously was referring to a *future* Millennium in this quotation!

Sorry? Where is antichrist or the last days mentioned in Rev 20? Your reasoning doesn't add up. Antichrist oppoerates in the last days - which since the cross, not after the second coming. The fact is: this teaching is all referring to the First Advent, as I showed.

You can search all you want for support for modern day Premil amongst the orthodox Chiliasts for 2 full centuries after the cross and you will find nothing. You will only gain support from the heretical camp. All the orthodox writers espoused modern Amil fundamentals re the age to come, of it being the beginning of perfection.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry? Where is antichrist or the last days mentioned in Rev 20? Your reasoning doesn't add up. Antichrist oppoerates in the last days - which since the cross, not after the second coming. The fact is: this teaching is all referring to the First Advent, as I showed.

You can search all you want for support for modern day Premil amongst the orthodox Chiliasts for 2 full centuries after the cross and you will find nothing. You will only gain support from the heretical camp. All the orthodox writers espoused modern Amil fundamentals re the age to come, of it being the beginning of perfection.

Silly! The Antichrist, according to the narrative, is defeated just prior to the start of the Millennium. He is identified in Dan 7 as the "Little Horn" who is defeated in the last days, just prior to the Son of Man receiving God's Kingdom.

The "last days" can refer to the entire NT period or to the last of the last days, which is how the English works in this regard. "Last Days" means what we mean when we use the term, based on the context in which we use it.

Biblically, the "Last Days" may identify the final tribulation of the Jewish People before the coming of the Kingdom of God. It encompasses the entire NT period, which Jesus called a Jewish "Punishment" in Luke 21.

None of this refers to the 1st Advent, with the exception that Israel's Punishment began at that time. Antichrist comes just prior to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom.

But I'm talking about the last of the last days, or the endtimes. Just prior to the coming of the Kingdom, the Antichrist rises up to take God's Kingdom for himself. It utterly fails when Christ returns and destroys his Kingdom.

 

[WPM]

Silly! The Antichrist, according to the narrative, is defeated just prior to the start of the Millennium. He is identified in Dan 7 as the "Little Horn" who is defeated in the last days, just prior to the Son of Man receiving God's Kingdom.

The "last days" can refer to the entire NT period or to the last of the last days, which is how the English works in this regard. "Last Days" means what we mean when we use the term, based on the context in which we use it.

Biblically, the "Last Days" may identify the final tribulation of the Jewish People before the coming of the Kingdom of God. It encompasses the entire NT period, which Jesus called a Jewish "Punishment" in Luke 21.

None of this refers to the 1st Advent, with the exception that Israel's Punishment began at that time. Antichrist comes just prior to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom.

But I'm talking about the last of the last days, or the endtimes. Just prior to the coming of the Kingdom, the Antichrist rises up to take God's Kingdom for himself. It utterly fails when Christ returns and destroys his Kingdom.

Again, you are forcing your own faulty theology upon the early fathers. Why not admit they conflict at every turn with Premil teaching?

None of thus is in the ancient text above. This is a modern apparition.

 

[farouk]

It may shock Premillennialists to know that the views they hold and promote today were sourced and spread in antiquity chiefly among heretics. When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures. The first two operated at the very infancy of early church history – Cerinthus of Asia Minor (50-100 AD) and Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor (Born: 85 AD, Died: 160 AD). Both of these were viewed as arch-heretics and were strongly resisted by the early Church fathers for their corrupt perversion of Christianity. They invented a dual-covenant concept of two parallel yet coexisting peoples of God, under two different agreements, serving two different gods, with two different time-tables and two different ultimate outcomes. This was seasoned throughout with Gnostic elements.

The later advocates of ancient Premillennialism who ran with, and widely promoted, it were Porphyry [or Porphyrius] of Tyre (232- 305) and Apollinarius of Laodicea, Asia Minor (died 382). They took up the baton were Cerinthus and Marcion left off. Not surprisingly, these two unorthodox writers were condemned by the ancient orthodox fathers as heretics and blasphemers.

It is a sad indictment on Premillennialism that the genesis of the doctrine within Christendom can only be found in the ancient writings of these gross heretics.

What set these 4 men apart from the orthodox Chiliasts was obviously not their opinion of the idea of a future millennial earth, no, it was their elevation of the nation Israel in a future millennium, their two-peoples-of-God-theory (including a clear discontinuity between Israel and the Church), their advocacy for the renewal of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, a return of blood sin offerings in a future temple (whether real or memorial) and their support for the restarting of the old covenant priesthood on a future millennial earth.

While these are beliefs that are widely held within Premillennialist circles today, they were unknown to the early orthodox Church Chiliasts. Along with the reintroduction of all the bondage of corruption on a future earth (including sin, death and decay) and the rising up of Satan after 1000 to influence billions of millennial inhabitants against Christ and the glorified saints, this advocacy for the return of all the old covenant apparatus is probably the most unsavory aspect of modern Premillennialism.

Notably: none of the ancient Chiliasts supported the idea of Israel rising again to a place of racial superiority in a future millennial kingdom. They all looked upon the Church as fulfilment of true Israel today. They rejected any idea of God blessing any aspect of the redundant Jewish ceremonial arrangement. They strongly opposed any validity for, or efficacy in, any coexisting dual covenant theory.

They resisted any advancement of the fanciful idea of any type of reintroduction of the old abolished covenant system, including the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the performing of multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man for a thousand years in the future. Such a thought was anathema to them. 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.

The early orthodox heretical apostates found the natural carnal sensual expectations of the Jewish millennial teaching attractive to their thinking. Prior to Cerinthus, and after him up until Victorinus in 270 AD, there are no orthodox Christian writings advocating the continuation of earthly carnal pleasures (including excessive gluttony and continued marriage, ongoing sexual passion and procreation) and materialistic prosperity after the resurrection. This thinking was thought to belong to the Gnostic camp. As Premillennialist Chris Gousmett even conceded: “This emphasis on material and fleshly delights was seen to be typical of ‘Jewish’ understandings of the prophetic promises, and thus a close connection between Gnosticism and Judaism was postulated” (Shall the Body Strive and not be Crowned? Unitary and Instrumentalist Anthropological Models as keys to Interpreting the Structure of Patristic Eschatology).

Neither the heretical Premillennialists or the early orthodox Chiliasts expected a future binding/unbinding of Satan or the uprising of Gog and Magog to surround Christ and the saints 1,000 years after the second coming. They all seem to have believed that Satan was taken out of the game on the actual day of Christ’s appearing.

Darby and Scofield have been influential; and although as characters they were highly individual at times, I guess this does not detract from the organizing idea that in Scripture Israel and the church are distinct.

 

[Christian Gedge]

... and although as characters they were highly individual at times ...

Gotta laugh You're too kind farouk.

 

[farouk]

Gotta laugh You're too kind farouk.

@Christian Gedge I wonder why Scofield dumped the first Mrs. Scofield and decided that someone else instead should be called that............

(I still see Israel and the church in Scripture as distinct, mind you; with all this may imply for Scripture interpretation.)

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, you are forcing your own faulty theology upon the early fathers. Why not admit they conflict at every turn with Premil teaching?

None of thus is in the ancient text above. This is a modern apparition.

Actually, I was basing my view of Antichrist on Dan 7 and 2 Thes 2, as well as on Rev 13. The Antichrist rises up in the endtimes. That's what Irenaeus was talking about, a time when Christ would return to "bind Satan for a thousand years." This wasn't a "modern apparition." This was an ancient Church Father and the ancient Scriptures!

 

[WPM]

Actually, I was basing my view of Antichrist on Dan 7 and 2 Thes 2, as well as on Rev 13. The Antichrist rises up in the endtimes. That's what Tertullian was talking about, a time when Christ would return to "bind Satan for a thousand years." This wasn't a "modern apparition." This was an ancient Church Father and the ancient Scriptures!

We are not talking about your "view of Antichrist on Dan 7 and 2 Thes 2, as well as ... Rev 13." we have are talking about Tertullian's teaching, which made no reference to these.

What is more. He never mentioned your supposed future millennium in that quote. If I am wrong, highlight it in the ancient quote. Sadly, you twist and constantly add unto the teaching of the early Chiliasts because they espoused modern day Amil fundamentals that are in total opposition to your theology.

He was talking about the binding of Satan 2009 years go.

Tertullian, Against Heresies, III. ch. 23:7: "For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down."

 

[Randy Kluth]

We are not talking about your "view of Antichrist on Dan 7 and 2 Thes 2, as well as ... Rev 13." we have are talking about Tertullian's teaching, which made no reference to these.

What is more. He never mentioned your supposed future millennium in that quote. If I am wrong, highlight it in the ancient quote. Sadly, you twist and constantly add unto the teaching of the early Chiliasts because they espoused modern day Amil fundamentals that are in total opposition to your theology.

He was talking about the binding of Satan 2009 years go.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III. ch. 23:7: "For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down."

I already highlighted where Irenaeus said this! How many times must I prove this?
"and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him"

The "seed," namely Christ, was destined to "trample down the dragon," namely Satan, as well as "the lion," namely Antichrist. And this would be in "the latter days," since Antichrist comes in the *latter days.*

This is proven, as I indicated, by Dan 7, 2 Thes 2, and Rev 13. The Son of Man comes "with the clouds" at that time to defeat the Antichrist, according to Dan 7.

This is the context Irenaeus uses to explain the "binding of Satan." It is a process that began at the cross, when death was defeated, legally, but is completed at the 2nd Coming, when Antichrist is defeated and the 1st resurrection takes place.

That is when, according to Rev 20, Satan is fully bound. Until that time, Satan remains free, though his power to impose eternal death upon Christians is quashed.

Irenaeus reference to the Millennium is obviously being indicated by reference to the very words used in Rev 20...

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

The "thousand years" is part of the context of Rev 20, to which Irenaeus is referring. He does not need to repeat the words "thousand years" since it is in the very reference to which he refers.

Irenaeus clearly wrote:
"and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon."

In referring to the language of Rev 20, he clearly places the "binding of Satan" at the start of the Millennium, since that is the context of Rev 20. And the Millennium begins when Antichrist is defeated "in the latter days."

Dan 7 places the defeat of Antichrist in the days just prior to the establishment of Christ's eternal Kingdom. In other words, the "binding of Satan" takes place at the *2nd Coming,* when death is fully conquered on behalf of the saints.

So no, Irenaeus' reference proves that Premillennialism viewed the binding of Satan at the start of a future Millennium, at the time of the defeat of Antichrist "in the latter days." It is *not* a modern invention, produced by modern Premillennialists!

Since you've studied this a long time, you know all this. So I doubt you're able to admit it. And so, I'm detailing this for others who may read and give it serious thought.

 

[WPM]

I already highlighted where Tertullian said this! How many times must I prove this?
"and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him"

The "seed," namely Christ, was destined to "trample down the dragon," namely Satan, as well as "the lion," namely Antichrist. And this would be in "the latter days," since Antichrist comes in the *latter days.*

This is proven, as I indicated, by Dan 7, 2 Thes 2, and Rev 13. The Son of Man comes "with the clouds" at that time to defeat the Antichrist, according to Dan 7.

This is the context Tertullian uses to explain the "binding of Satan." It is a process that began at the cross, when death was defeated, legally, but is completed at the 2nd Coming, when Antichrist is defeated and the 1st resurrection takes place.

That is when, according to Rev 20, Satan is fully bound. Until that time, Satan remains free, though his power to impose eternal death upon Christians is quashed.

Tertullian's reference to the Millennium is obviously being indicated by reference to the very words used in Rev 20...

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

The "thousand years" is part of the context of Rev 20, to which Tertullian is referring. He does not need to repeat the words "thousand years" since it is in the very reference to which he refers.

Tertullian clearly wrote:
"and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon."

In referring to the language of Rev 20, he clearly places the "binding of Satan" at the start of the Millennium, since that is the context of Rev 20. And the Millennium begins when Antichrist is defeated "in the latter days."

Dan 7 places the defeat of Antichrist in the days just prior to the establishment of Christ's eternal Kingdom. In other words, the "binding of Satan" takes place at the *2nd Coming,* when death is fully conquered on behalf of the saints.

So no, Tertullian's reference proves that Premillennialism viewed the binding of Satan at the start of a future Millennium, at the time of the defeat of Antichrist "in the latter days." It is *not* a modern invention, produced by modern Premillennialists!

Since you've studied this a long time, you know all this. So I doubt you're able to admit it. And so, I'm detailing this for others who may read and give it serious thought.

Hello! The last days began at the First Advent. Jesus ushered these in and subjugated the whole kingdom of darkness. Satan will get a little season before the second coming. The devil's head has been bruised and the people of God are now enforcing this great victory.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The last days began at the First Advent. Jesus ushered these in and subjugated the whole kingdom of darkness. Satan will get a little season before the second coming. The devil's head has been bruised and the people of God are now enforcing this great victory.

I already answered this. The "Last Days" have application based on the context we're using. Biblically, the Last Days did begin with Jesus' 1st Coming because the era, at that time, was characterized by the progress Israel was making towards arriving at the inception of the Kingdom. It was the "Last Days" for them because it would be the age of their final punishment, in preparation for their final national salvation.

None of this has a thing to do with how Tertullian was applying "the latter days" during which Antichrist will reign. According to Daniel, and also according to Tertullian, Antichrist reigns just prior to Christ's 2nd Coming and the establishment of his Kingdom on earth.

Also, the defeat of Satan in the matter of accusing the saints, along with the defeat of death, legally, have no bearing on the final defeat of death spoken of elsewhere in the Bible. The 1st Resurrection, ie the resurrection of the Church, takes place when death is defeated at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

But you've already heard my arguments for all this, and as I guessed, you would show no inclination towards serious consideration of the points.