The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

This thread has absolutely blown up, not because people hold legitimate Amil views, but only because the originator of the post began with an insult, referring to the origins of Premillennialism as heresy. I would encourage anybody who wishes to discuss this subject in a civil way to start a thread and engage it in a Christian way, respecting each view and contributor, instead of charging straight ahead with accusations of "heresy!"

I'm fully capable of answering every argument made by Amillennialists, even though some wish to insult every offering with claims that nothing has been successfully referenced, studied, or thought through. Hopefully, some here will want to discuss the subject in an agreeable manner, so that things don't get derailed by "personal issues." It really is of historical interest, since both views have a long history and as such, well-worn arguments. They deserve to be refreshed once in a while for consideration.

No doctrine should become an idol to us, which results in bad feelings if we do not get our way. If we are serving up doctrine, it is up to the Holy Spirit to make the points and convict the heart.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You say "The slight blip at the end of the Millennium." Yea right! Who writes your script. Self-deception is the worst deceit. Convince yourself of this lie and keep repeating it. But the only one you are fooling is yourself. If Satan was destroyed then that would be it! There would be no more Satan.

The basic confusion here with Paul M. is that he thinks the Church Fathers spoke of Satan's destruction with one swing of the axe. In reality, they presented Satan's "destruction" in phases, at the Cross, at the 2nd Coming, and in Eternity. I will show Irenaeus' description here, where Christ is viewed as the "strong man" who disables Satan by the Word of God, or the Law of God.

Satan is determined by Christ to be a law-breaker, and so is defeated in that. He is also defeated in his attempt to drag all of mankind down with him as co-lawbreakers. But Christ's Word liberates them by the mercy of God. And so, Satan's plan is destroyed.

The destruction of Satan's Plan, the destruction of his Kingdom, and the destruction of his existence on earth are 3 different phases, all referred to in the Bible and also in the Church Fathers. I will just show you Irenaeus' view, which the originator of this thread claims is only having to do with the Cross. But 1st, here are the biblical representations of the defeat of Satan in all 3 of these phases.

At the Cross:
Acts 26.18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Heb 2.14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—
Rev 12.9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

At the 2nd Coming:
Rom 16.20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

For Eternity:
Rev 20.10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Here then is how Chiliast Irenaeus saw Christ as binding the "strong man" (Matt 12.29) at his 1st Advent, and then destroying the Kingdom of Antichrist at the 2nd Advent. And he rolled together the destruction of Satan's Kingdom at the 2nd Coming together with Satan's destiny in the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millennium, since Satan's destiny begins with his binding at the 2nd Coming and ends with his being cast into the eternal Lake of Fire.

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book III, Ch. 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.8 (St. Irenaeus)
2. But also, when He spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house. Matthew 12:29 Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. Jeremiah 31:11 If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered. But he also subjoined Him who obtains and retains possession; for he holds who binds, but he is held who is bound. And this he did without any comparison, so that, apostate slave as he was, he might not be compared to the Lord: for not he alone, but not one of created and subject things, shall ever be compared to the Word of God, by whom all things were made, who is our Lord Jesus Christ.
(V. ch. 22):
If, therefore, the law is due to ignorance and defect, how could the statements contained therein bring to nought the ignorance of the devil, and conquer the strong man? For a strong man can be conquered neither by an inferior nor by an equal, but by one possessed of greater power. But the Word of God is the superior above all, He who is loudly proclaimed in the law: Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God; and, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart; and, Him shall you adore, and Him alone shall you serve. Then in the Gospel, casting down the apostasy by means of these expressions, He did both overcome the strong man by His Father's voice, and He acknowledges the commandment of the law to express His own sentiments, when He says, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. Matthew 4:7 For He did not confound the adversary by the saying of any other, but by that belonging to His own Father, and thus overcame the strong man.
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 Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.
V. ch. 21:
3. Who, then, is this Lord God to whom Christ bears witness, whom no man shall tempt, whom all should worship, and serve Him alone? It is, beyond all manner of doubt, that God who also gave the law. For these things had been predicted in the law, and by the words (sententiam) of the law the Lord showed that the law does indeed declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colors, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God.

So please consider the message of Irenaeus above. He places the defeat of Satan at the cross where he speaks of treading upon the enemy's head, and where he speaks of the depriving of the power of sin and death over mankind. This Tertullian views as the "binding of the strong man."

Secondly, he places the binding of Satan, the "dragon," at the time in the "latter days" when Antichrist is "trampled down" by Christ. This takes place at the 2nd Coming. And these things together constitute bringing Satan into eternal judgment, both at the cross and at the 2nd Coming.

And because we know Irenaeus believes in a literal Millennial Kingdom, in which Satan is bound, we can recognize that Tertullian speaks of Satan's binding at the 2nd Coming as the beginning of Satan's eternal judgment, even though he is briefly released at the end of the Millennium.

Therefore, we see the destruction of Satan and his Kingdom in 3 phases, and not just in the Church Fathers' reference to the "binding of the strong man" at the cross. The "binding of Satan" at the time of Antichrist's defeat is clearly a different time from that of the cross, and completes the legal action that began at the cross.

 

[WPM]

The basic confusion here with Paul M. is that he thinks the Church Fathers spoke of Satan's destruction with one swing of the axe. In reality, they presented Satan's "destruction" in phases, at the Cross, at the 2nd Coming, and in Eternity. I will show Tertullian's description here, where Christ is viewed as the "strong man" who disables Satan by the Word of God, or the Law of God.

Satan is determined by Christ to be a law-breaker, and so is defeated in that. He is also defeated in his attempt to drag all of mankind down with him as co-lawbreakers. But Christ's Word liberates them by the mercy of God. And so, Satan's plan is destroyed.

The destruction of Satan's Plan, the destruction of his Kingdom, and the destruction of his existence on earth are 3 different phases, all referred to in the Bible and also in the Church Fathers. I will just show you Tertullian's view, which the originator of this thread claims is only having to do with the Cross. But 1st, here are the biblical representations of the defeat of Satan in all 3 of these phases.

At the Cross:
Acts 26.18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Heb 2.14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—
Rev 12.9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

At the 2nd Coming:
Rom 16.20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

For Eternity:
Rev 20.10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Here then is how Chiliast Tertullian saw Christ as binding the "strong man" (Matt 12.29) at his 1st Advent, and then destroying the Kingdom of Antichrist at the 2nd Advent. And he rolled together the destruction of Satan's Kingdom at the 2nd Coming together with Satan's destiny in the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millennium, since Satan's destiny begins with his binding at the 2nd Coming and ends with his being cast into the eternal Lake of Fire.

Tertullian: Against Heresies (Book III, Ch. 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.8 (St. Irenaeus)
2. But also, when He spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house. Matthew 12:29 Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. Jeremiah 31:11 If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered. But he also subjoined Him who obtains and retains possession; for he holds who binds, but he is held who is bound. And this he did without any comparison, so that, apostate slave as he was, he might not be compared to the Lord: for not he alone, but not one of created and subject things, shall ever be compared to the Word of God, by whom all things were made, who is our Lord Jesus Christ.
(V. ch. 22):
If, therefore, the law is due to ignorance and defect, how could the statements contained therein bring to nought the ignorance of the devil, and conquer the strong man? For a strong man can be conquered neither by an inferior nor by an equal, but by one possessed of greater power. But the Word of God is the superior above all, He who is loudly proclaimed in the law: Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God; and, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart; and, Him shall you adore, and Him alone shall you serve. Then in the Gospel, casting down the apostasy by means of these expressions, He did both overcome the strong man by His Father's voice, and He acknowledges the commandment of the law to express His own sentiments, when He says, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. Matthew 4:7 For He did not confound the adversary by the saying of any other, but by that belonging to His own Father, and thus overcame the strong man.
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 Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.
V. ch. 21:
3. Who, then, is this Lord God to whom Christ bears witness, whom no man shall tempt, whom all should worship, and serve Him alone? It is, beyond all manner of doubt, that God who also gave the law. For these things had been predicted in the law, and by the words (sententiam) of the law the Lord showed that the law does indeed declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colors, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God.

So please consider the message of Tertullian above. He places the defeat of Satan at the cross where he speaks of treading upon the enemy's head, and where he speaks of the depriving of the power of sin and death over mankind. This Tertullian views as the "binding of the strong man."

Secondly, he places the binding of Satan, the "dragon," at the time in the "latter days" when Antichrist is "trampled down" by Christ. This takes place at the 2nd Coming. And these things together constitute bringing Satan into eternal judgment, both at the cross and at the 2nd Coming.

And because we know Tertullian believes in a literal Millennial Kingdom, in which Satan is bound, we can recognize that Tertullian speaks of Satan's binding at the 2nd Coming as the beginning of Satan's eternal judgment, even though he is briefly released at the end of the Millennium.

Therefore, we see the destruction of Satan and his Kingdom in 3 phases, and not just in the Church Fathers' reference to the "binding of the strong man" at the cross. The "binding of Satan" at the time of Antichrist's defeat is clearly a different time from that of the cross, and completes the legal action that began at the cross.

It is really hard to take your posts serious on this subject. Once again, you do not even know who you are quoting here. This was not Tertullian but Irenaeus that said this. You are going to have to grasp the basics first before parading yourself as an authority on the early fathers. You are just confusing the reader and displaying your total ignorance of this subject. This is another reason why it is pointless engaging with you.

It is not just that you are misrepresenting these ancient writers, you do not seem to know who are talking about. I have tried to correct your misunderstandings but you will not listen. You are clearly out of your depth. This engagement has only served to reinforce the Op, and expose the impotence of your position.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is really hard to take your posts serious on this subject. Once again, you do not even know who you are quoting here. This was not Tertullian but Irenaeus that said this. You are going to have to grasp the basics first before parading yourself as an authority on the early fathers. You are just confusing the reader and displaying your total ignorance of this subject. This is another reason why it is pointless engaging with you.

It is not just that you are misrepresenting these ancient writers, you do not seem to know who are talking about. I have tried to correct your misunderstandings but you will not listen. You are clearly out of your depth. This engagement has only served to reinforce the Op, and expose the impotence of your position.

It got quite late last night, and I repeated the same mistake. I'm certainly over your head since you don't even understand the argument, but instead major on the minor mistake. The point isn't how well I know the name of one Church Father over another, but the fact these early Chiliasts did *not* just portray the "binding of Satan" at the Cross. As I clearly show here, Irenaeus also shows that the "binding of Satan" takes place "in the latter days," when "Antichrist is trampled."

I have not paraded myself as very knowledgeable of the Church Fathers--only familiar with some of their writings on certain subjects. Hence, I can easily make these kinds of errors, such as confusing Tertullian with Irenaeus. I get more familiar with them the more often I have to use them in my arguments. But you won't accept the reality no matter what I show you. So I'm really not trying to show you anything--just show others what a poor example you are in using every disagreement as an opportunity to attack and deflect and project.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Church Father IRENAEUS is a good example where a Church Father who is clearly a Chiliast believes that Christ was the "strong man" who was able to bind Satan at the Cross by using the Word of God to convict him of sin and to release from his grasp Christians who avail themselves of the Grace of God. In doing so, it is very clear that the "binding of Satan" to take place at the 2nd Coming is not coincident with the "binding of the strong man" at the Cross, but rather, a separate event taking place in the "latter days" when "Antichrist is trampled."

Anybody, except PM, can see this simply by reading IRENAEUS' quote here. Though it's embarrassing that I keep placing "Tertullian's" name here instead of IRENAEUS, it does reinforce the point by my having to quote the passage so many times!

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book III, Ch. 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.8 (St. Irenaeus)
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.
V. ch. 21:
3. Who, then, is this Lord God to whom Christ bears witness, whom no man shall tempt, whom all should worship, and serve Him alone? It is, beyond all manner of doubt, that God who also gave the law. For these things had been predicted in the law, and by the words (sententiam) of the law the Lord showed that the law does indeed declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colors, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God.

It is indeed sad that PM chooses to ignore the argument and focus on my failure to use the name of IRENAUS, even though I provided the reference and the *name of Irenaeus* in that reference!

It is indeed sad that PM chooses to focus on the fact editors added the biblical reference, which I included in my quote, even though it was not in the original quote. He does this instead of respond to the argument. My hope is that readers will not focus on my mistakes, but rather, on the *truth* of this argument, that the Church Fathers who were Chiliasts were not in any sense Amillennialists, which is an incredibly ludicrous claim that PM makes.

Worst of all, PM hypocritically condemns my defense of these Chiliasts in an aggressive tone while beginning the entire thread with an aggressive attack upon them as heretics. He does this by claiming, like later Amillennialists, that the Chiliasts were following Cerinthus' in his materialistic, lascivious view of the Millennial Age, and that when the Chiliasts completely and overtly rejected Cerinthus as a heretic.

Not only so, but his efforts to both condemn them as heretics, and in particular modern Premillennialists in the same way, is bolstered by a complete failure to understand how the Church Fathers portrayed the defeat of Satan in 3 stages, and not just in a single stage at the Cross. This is a poor effort at trying to undermine their belief in the binding of Satan during the Millennium and conflate it with the "binding of the strong man" at the Cross. But it is quite simple to see that Irenaeus placed the binding of Satan in the Millennial period, after Antichrist is trampled at the 2nd Coming.

All PM has is hostility, in order to hide the argument. I hope others do not buy into that scheme. I regret my mistakes and admit my lack of scholarship, but insist on focusing on the argument.

 

[WPM]

Op Note

While there has been much ranting on here from some Premils, it is very telling that no Premil has been able to refute the Op so far. All we have is the all-to-common online Premil tactic of attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. This is sad and draining. Notwithstanding, it only serves to reinforce the thesis presented.

You only have to read Randy K on this thread to see a picture of the typical Premil response to hard historical facts. While he continually and unfairly attacks the messenger and laments the Op, he has failed to present anything of evidential worth. Most Premil historical accounts are biased, ill-researched and devoid of hard detailed evidence. This is lazy investigation. A sweeping opinion or the quoting of the opinion of another lazy “expert” seems to be the norm. Most Premil Bible students are too lazy to research the subject, choosing rather to rely upon the writings of others they agree with for historical information. This is more pronounced today in our Internet age where many are prone to take a shortcut and visit their favoured doctrinal website for ancient data. The only problem is: many of these sites are just parroting what they have been told by other ill-informed historians. However, to do justice to this subject involves the study of thousands of ancient documents and involves many hours of dedicated examination. Sadly, not many evangelicals are willing to pay the cost or do the work.

Randy K likes to present himself as the online Christian discussion forums ECFs expert yet (by his own confession) he has never taken the time to research the ECFs. He depends on discredited and prejudice historians like Thomas Ice, who has obviously not taken the required time to determine the thrust of the ECFs obscure teaching. Randy's ignorance of the subject is no better revealed in his insistence on applying the writings of Irenaeus to Tertullian, despite being corrected otherwise. This is getting tedious. What is more, he twists these works that he applies to Tertullian attempting to make them say something they are not. This is troubling and wrong. He also hides behind random online links that he has obviously quickly perused after a Google search.

Unfortunately, many of these sources have arrived at their position through the same scant research and by riding on the back of other earlier pseudo-historians who themselves have ill-researched the matter, and simply relayed the party line on the early fathers in order to support their biased doctrine. Historians are as susceptible as anyone else to outside influence. They are often highly swayed by the historic statements of other historians of their own persuasion who predated them. A lot of evidence that is brought to the table is other historians expressing their bias opinion of former days.

It is particularly hard to read many of the Dispensational Premillennialist historians, because they are so extremely bias, un-objective and misguided in their analysis. Most of their conclusions are totally skewed. That is because they have no advocates in the early Church. None! These commentators frequently twist the facts to support their doctrine. They appear unwilling to let the actual evidence speak for itself or do they follow the data to where it leads. Their approach is akin to the recent partisan Democratic impeachment process. All they seem interested in is justifying their partial position and papering over that which they disagree with. This is both disingenuous and unfair. It is misleading! Sadly, many laymen, who do not have the time or interest to do any major research, simply repeat what they have been heard from these proponents.

Even some of the more-trustworthy scholarly academic works seem to miss the unique and obscure brand of eschatology that the early writers professed. They try to analyse them through modern-day eschatological glasses, and then fit the early teaching into our modern existing theological boxes. This is unwise!

The problem today is that few seem to have the interest, motivation or discipline to discover what ancient Chiliasts really believed. Most Premillennialists who have researched this, either paper over the facts or misrepresent what history teaches us. Most refuse to admit that it is an altogether different animal to Premillennialism.

One thing that becomes quickly apparent for those who are well versed in ancient eschatology is that primitive Chiliasm was altogether different from anything we have today within the Premillennial camp. In fact, they are as diverse (if not more diverse) as modern day Amillennialism and Postmillennialism.

Randy claims Chiliasm and modern Premil are the same without doing the research. When simple questions are put to him he ducks around the obvious (see evidence throughout the thread). He then writes his posts to include the ancient language to give the impression of similarity. This is deceitful. If he would only take the time to study it objectively he would come to the same conclusion as the Op. He ducks around the facts and refuses to provide hard historic evidence to support His wild speculations. He does this with doctrine as well. His word is apparently enough!

When he finally gets an ancient Premil (Lactantius) - who wrote 210 years after the cross - he fails to tell the reader that this early writer based his position on the pagan Sibyl prophetesses’. I find it strange that he is comfortable with promoting such a dubious source. But that is the historic hand he has been dealt.

As the watertight evidence in the Op proves, the views Premil hold and promote today were actually 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.

Contrary to popular modern-day thinking, early Chiliasm was more akin to modern-day Amillennialism. For the first 220-230 years after the cross, ancient Chiliasm believed the millennial earth would be devoid of sin and corruption. They saw it as a perfect pristine environment that the righteous would enjoy for 1000 years before the new heavens and new earth. It was not until Victorinus, 240 years after the cross, that any early Chiliast foresaw corruption on the coming earth. No others taught the populating of the millennium with the wicked and the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming. This is in stark contrast to modern-day Premillennialism. Victorinus is the first Chiliast to suggest that a significant amount of mortals would survive the return of Christ and then enter in to populate a future millennium.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please note the complete lack of PM's ability to respond to the quote of Irenaeus in the previous posts! It is ludicrous to claim the early Chiliasts were Amil! Who would make such a claim but PM! And this by authority of his own word!

His theory that early heretics were the carriers of Premil belief is patently absurd since all of the Chiliasts viewed Cerinthus, Marcion, etc. as heretics! Even though heretics have some doctrines in common with orthodox Christians, that doesn't mean they are orthodox in their theology! That doesn't mean they carry doctrinal orthodoxy on behalf of the Church!

This guy is an angry slanderer of early Church Fathers who were clearly Premillennialists. And even modern Premil beliefs, like Dispensationalism, do not embrace the heresies that the early heretics held to.

Do not buy into someone like PM who cannot even address the quote I provided, but instead wishes to divert by majoring on my mistakes. Read it for yourself. It is a misrepresentation to say I'm not letting Irenaeus speak for himself.

For the reader, judge for yourself. Does Irenaeus place the "binding of the strong man" at the Cross? Yes, he does.

But also, judge for yourself honestly: does Irenaeus also place the binding of Satan at the time of Antichrist's defeat? Here it is, contrary to what PM says I'm letting Irenaeus speak for himself now:

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book III, Ch. 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.8 (St. Irenaeus):
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.

The idea that the "binding of the strong man," taking place at the Cross, somehow displaces belief in the "binding of Satan" at the 2nd Coming is absurd! Irenaeus plainly states this belief here! And all early Chiliasts had the same Bible, and the same account in Rev 20 of an age of relative peace, due to the binding of Satan. This is the Kingdom Age, heralded by Jesus, taught by Paul, and believed in by the early Chiliasts. Modern Premillennialism is now carrying the torch for this belief, not in an heretical way, but in a biblical, orthodox way.

 

[Timtofly]

While there has been much ranting

Thanks for this opinionated rant.

I guess you both like to point out each other's failures.

Are you going to refute Irenaeus or not?

 

[WPM]

Thanks for this opinionated rant.

I guess you both like to point out each other's failures.

Are you going to refute Irenaeus or not?

I already did above. You obviously missed it.

Satan bound at the First Advent!

Irenaeus was the great champion of early Chiliasm. He probably wrote in the clearest detail and had the greatest influence of all the early Chiliasts. His origins were notable in from Asia Minor. Notwithstanding, he was Bishop of Lyons, Gaul from where he wrote extensively. He was believed to have died around AD 155–156.

Like ancient and modern Amillennialists, Irenaeus believed in the current binding of Satan. He believed this happened through the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. He also believed in the destruction of Satan at the second coming. This meant he did not see him arising 1000 years after the second coming and raising up a mammoth insurrection in the next age. This too is in keeping with classic Ami position. Irenaeus was very direct, consistent and bold in his declarations on the binding of Satan. He was also clear in identifying the timing of this occurrence.

For He [Jesus] fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 18, 6).​

Irenaeus here links the binding of Satan to Christ “destroying sin.” This of course is a direct reference to the cross-work. The ancient writer saw Christ’s first coming as an overall mission to defeat the wicked one and save men. Both of these go hand-in-hand in the Chiliast approach to Christ’s earthly ministry. This explains how Calvary is at the core of the early Millennialists’ attitude to the subjugation of the devil. There, Jesus fully overcome sin and death.

He continues:

By means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan’s) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under colour of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods [talking about the lie of Satan in the Garden], which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 1).​

Irenaeus saw the First Advent as securing the overall defeat of every enemy of God and righteousness. He saw it as a full package. Christ came (on assignment) to undo all the result of the Fall. His life, cross-work and triumphant resurrection was pivotal in defeating our arch-enemy. The binding was not limited to Christ casting out demons, although this was an integral part of His overall assignment. The cross and the resurrection was the triumphant apex of His earthly assignment. This is where sin was fully paid for, death was defeated and Satan was stripped of his then immense power and widespread control.

Ironically, this is the verbiage of Amillennialism. As a result of the First Advent, Satan is shown to be a prisoner – he is a captive. The spiritual prison man was incarcerated in prior to the cross and the chains the evil one had him incapacitated with were in turn placed upon Satan. The boot was on the other foot. The chains that bound them have now been placed upon Satan. The devil is thus seen as a vanquished foe. Christ’s earthy ministry is seen to undo what the enemy had afflicted all mankind with. It is dealing with sin, and it is dealing with death.

He understood the binding of the strong man 2,000 years ago related to the victory Christ won over Satan and Him spiritually establishing God’s Kingdom on the earth and invading the kingdom of darkness with the light of the Gospel and seeing the ignorance banished amongst the Gentiles. Satan can persecute, he can deceive, he can even destroy the body. But he cannot stop the light of God’s truth, (the good news of the kingdom) from going into the nations. He cannot prevent anyone from repenting and confessing Christ. This is completely up to the individual.

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. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

In keeping with the rest of his writings Irenaeus shows Christ taking back off Satan at the 1st Advent what Adam forfeited at the beginning. This permeates through different writings of Irenaeus. The references to “dragon” and “serpent” here are clear and overt references to Revelation 20:2.

This passage starts off by describing the separation that came “between the serpent and the woman and her seed” after the Fall. Irenaeus identifies man’s great enemy and what he wrought. He then reveals God’s great antidote – the Lord Jesus Christ. He shows how Christ came to rectify what was wrong. He testifies how Satan had been “biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, — which was born of Mary.” Irenaeus confirms: “Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life.” The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. Sin, death and every enemy of righteousness was defeated through the life, death and glorious resurrection of Christ.

Irenaeus doesn’t just limit the conquest of the First Advent to our arch-enemy Satan. He shows that assault also saw the defeat of antichrist. He supports this contention by quoting Psalm 91:13: "You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon." After quoting Psalm 91:13, Irenaeus explains the thinking of the Psalmist: arguing that he was looking forward to the fulfilment of this through the First Advent. Irenaeus was looking at it from the Psalmist's perspective.

The fate of Satan in Scripture normally mirrors that of antichrist (the mystery of iniquity/the beast). Irenaeus here connects the trampling down of Satan to the binding of "the dragon, that old serpent." He then in turn shows how redeemed man was given authority over Satan, after Christ spiritually bound him. He was talking about the after-effects of the cross on Satan, and to this current intra-Advent period (“in the latter days”).

This fits with his constant teaching on the current binding of Satan, which refutes modern Premil. Sin, death, the beast and Satan are all shown to have been defeated through their earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

The writer also shows that the last enemy to be eliminated is death when Jesus returns. But the defeat of death was on the cross, work Christ secured our salvation. That is why Irenaeus concludes – speaking about the final subjugation of death, “This could not be said with justice, if that man, over whom death did first obtain dominion, were not set free. For his salvation is death's destruction.”

 

[WPM]

Thanks for this opinionated rant.

I guess you both like to point out each other's failures.

Are you going to refute Irenaeus or not?

Satan destroyed at the Second Advent!

Irenaeus lists the resurrection at the coming of Christ as the time when the curse is finally removed, incorruption is introduced and death and the devil are eliminated. This climactic portrayal fits consistently with the Chiliast vision of future state. There is no space for sin and sinner, death and disease, war and terror, Satan and his demons. We are looking at a perfect pristine arrangement.

There shall in truth be a common joy consummated to all those who believe unto life, and in each individual shall be confirmed the mystery of the Resurrection, and the hope of incorruption, and the commencement of the eternal kingdom, when God shall have destroyed death and the devil. For that human nature and flesh which has risen again from the dead shall die no more; but after it had been changed to incorruption, and made like to spirit, when the heaven was opened, [our Lord] full of glory offered it (the flesh) to the Father (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, L.).​

The glorification of God’s people described in this ancient text occurs at the second coming. It is here that this corruptible will take on incorruption. This Chiliast father teaches that every vestige of the Fall is removed when Christ returns never to arise again. The approaching earth will be totally different from the current corrupt one and will be totally renewed and eternally free of corruption.

Irenaeus reckons that man’s sinful makeup must be changed in order to allow him to grace a future millennial earth. Every trace of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

According to this early writer, the saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new order. This arrangement is shown to never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible ongoing arrangement.

The ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter X, 1 – Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world).​

Again, the coming of Christ is here represented as glorious and climatic. It involves God’s righteous final judgment upon all wickedness. There is no indication that sin and sinners survive the Lord’s future return. Wicked man and wicked angels are both collectively shown to experience “everlasting fire.”

This is classic Amil. This completely refutes the claims of Premils that Irenaeus was one of them. He wasn't! Ancient Chilaism and modern Premil are as far apart as day and night.

 

[WPM]

Thanks for this opinionated rant.

I guess you both like to point out each other's failures.

Are you going to refute Irenaeus or not?

New!

Satan bound at the First Advent!

The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house." Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, "The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he." If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 8).
​

The binding of Satan and the spoiling of his house were globalized here to relate to mankind.

How, too, could He have subdued him who was stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to, and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And for this reason He did in these last days exhibit the similitude; [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production [of His hands] into His own nature, as I have shown in the immediately preceding book (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 33:4).
​

The writer links the subduing of Satan to Christ's death 2000 years ago. He is shown to be now vanquished. This is the opposite of Premil theology. What is more: he related the binding of Satan at the First Advent to "the last days."

God has banished from His presence him who did of his own accord stealthily sow the tares, that is, him who brought about the transgression … The Scripture tells us that God said to the serpent, And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. And the Lord summed up in Himself this enmity, when He was made man from a woman, and trod upon his [the serpent's] head (Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 40, 3)
​

Satan is shown here to be "banished from His (Christ's) presence" after Christ "trod upon his [the serpent's] head."

He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary (Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 24:1).
​

Satan is a defeated foe and his bound in his influence.

Then in the Gospel, casting down the apostasy by means of these expressions, He did both overcome the strong man by His Father's voice, and He acknowledges the commandment of the law to express His own sentiments, when He says, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. For He did not confound the adversary by the saying of any other, but by that belonging to His own Father, and thus overcame the strong man (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 22, 1)
​

Satan is already "overcome" according to Irenaeus.

Waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed … when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman. For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man’s opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned (ex quo ea quæ secundum mulierem est plasmatio facta est), in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death” (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 1)
​

The first Advent was a victory for Christ and saw Satan be crushed, vanquished and trampled upon.

The Lord did perform His command, being made of a woman, by both destroying our adversary, and perfecting man after the image and likeness of God. And for this reason He did not draw the means of confounding him from any other source than from the words of the law, and made use of the Father’s commandment as a help towards the destruction and confusion of the apostate angel” (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 2)
​

This is a victorious essay.

The law does indeed declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colours, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God … It was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan is bound, man is set free; since "none can enter a strong man's house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself." The Lord therefore exposes him as speaking contrary to the word of that God who made all things, and subdues him by means of the commandment. Now the law is the commandment of God. The Man proves him to be a fugitive from and a transgressor of the law, an apostate also from God. After [the Man had done this], the Word bound him securely as a fugitive from Himself, and made spoil of his goods – namely, those men whom he held in bondage, and whom he unjustly used for his own purposes. And justly indeed is he led captive, who had led men unjustly into bondage; while man, who had been led captive in times past, was rescued from the grasp of his possessor (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 3)
​

Again, Satan is the captive now. He is in a spiritual prion. He is limited with spiritual chains! The spiritual chains that Satan placed upon the wicked to restrain them in a spiritual prison on this earth were now destroyed by Christ and, in turn, placed upon Satan. Obviously, these are not physical chains. Obviously, this is not a literal physical prison that is separate from this earth.

The Word of God, however, the Maker of all things, conquering him by means of human nature, and showing him to be an apostate, has, on the contrary, put him under the power of man. For He says, Behold, I confer upon you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy, in order that, as he obtained dominion over man by apostasy, so again his apostasy might be deprived of power by means of man turning back again to God Against Heresies (Book 5, Chapter 24).​

Irenaeus saw the binding of Satan as pertaining to the liberty of mankind, not some individual human being released.

Every single reference to the binding of Satan here relates to the defeat of Satan at the cross and the taking back of what Adam forfeited in the fall. You fail to even acknowledge that or address that. To do so would obliterate your whole argument.

 

[Timtofly]

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. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

In keeping with the rest of his writings Irenaeus shows Christ taking back off Satan at the 1st Advent what Adam forfeited at the beginning. This permeates through different writings of Irenaeus. The references to “dragon” and “serpent” here are clear and overt references to Revelation 20:2.

This passage starts off by describing the separation that came “between the serpent and the woman and her seed” after the Fall. Irenaeus identifies man’s great enemy and what he wrought. He then reveals God’s great antidote – the Lord Jesus Christ. He shows how Christ came to rectify what was wrong. He testifies how Satan had been “biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, — which was born of Mary.” Irenaeus confirms: “Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life.” The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. Sin, death and every enemy of righteousness was defeated through the life, death and glorious resurrection of Christ.

Irenaeus doesn’t just limit the conquest of the First Advent to our arch-enemy Satan. He shows that assault also saw the defeat of antichrist. He supports this contention by quoting Psalm 91:13: "You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon." After quoting Psalm 91:13, Irenaeus explains the thinking of the Psalmist: arguing that he was looking forward to the fulfilment of this through the First Advent. Irenaeus was looking at it from the Psalmist's perspective.

The fate of Satan in Scripture normally mirrors that of antichrist (the mystery of iniquity/the beast). Irenaeus here connects the trampling down of Satan to the binding of "the dragon, that old serpent." He then in turn shows how redeemed man was given authority over Satan, after Christ spiritually bound him. He was talking about the after-effects of the cross on Satan, and to this current intra-Advent period (“in the latter days”).

This fits with his constant teaching on the current binding of Satan, which refutes modern Premil. Sin, death, the beast and Satan are all shown to have been defeated through their earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

The writer also shows that the last enemy to be eliminated is death when Jesus returns. But the defeat of death was on the cross, work Christ secured our salvation. That is why Irenaeus concludes – speaking about the final subjugation of death, “This could not be said with justice, if that man, over whom death did first obtain dominion, were not set free. For his salvation is death's destruction.”

This quote is not refuted. You explained it according to Amil bias.

Adam has not been done away with.

So you cannot apply this quote to Revelation 20, as ongoing in the here and now.

Irenaeus clearly makes a distinction between the judgment against Satan pronounced at the Cross with that of the Second Coming. It is the binding at the Second Coming that brings the end of Adam.

Of course Irenaeus is referring to Revelation 20. John however declares Adam conquered at the beginning of the 1000 years. No where in this quote does Irenaeus claim Revelation 20:1-3 is about the first coming, but the latter days of the current age, ie at the Second Coming. Latter days being future to the time Irenaeus was writing. Since that is all you provide as a quote, there is no mention that Irenaeus is equating the 1,000 years in Revelation to the current time he was writing in.

No one is arguing that Satan was curtailed by the actions of the Cross. So bringing that up is pointless. Had Irenaeus not mentioned the latter days, you may have a point. So you have to remove those words to make your point. You have not given a strong enough argument to deny Irenaeus was talking about the past and not the future.

I still do not see any point that Satan has been constantly bound in these quotes. That is your Amil fabrication added to Irenaeus as well as God's Word.

Irenaeus points out the power of death was accomplished by Christ on the Cross.

However in the latter days, Satan being bound would eliminate Adam altogether. Do you not understand what that means? Adam was not eliminated at the Cross, nor was sin eradicated. The power was eliminated, but not the means. Obviously Adam and death still is an ongoing phenomenon with or without Satan being bound. Neither of us can point out that Irenaeus accepted a 1,000 year period without Adam and death. But we do know from the material that only at the Second Coming would this condition be met, when Satan was bound.

Unless you deny that Irenaeus held to a 1,000 year period of Satan being bound and Adam eliminated, then this is still future to Irenaeus. He did not indicate that was the current state of mankind.

"should be trampled down by Him"

This is a future tense, not past tense.

"Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life."

This is predicated on the future binding of Satan. Certainly Adam and death are still ongoing even though the power of Adam and death has been taken away.

Now you can argue this only applies to the redeemed. That is not a given in the quote you provided. Does Irenaeus hold to a Chiliast mindset or not?

 

[WPM]

This quote is not refuted. You explained it according to Amil bias.

Adam has not been done away with.

So you cannot apply this quote to Revelation 20, as ongoing in the here and now.

Irenaeus clearly makes a distinction between the judgment against Satan pronounced at the Cross with that of the Second Coming. It is the binding at the Second Coming that brings the end of Adam.

Of course Irenaeus is referring to Revelation 20. John however declares Adam conquered at the beginning of the 1000 years. No where in this quote does Irenaeus claim Revelation 20:1-3 is about the first coming, but the latter days of the current age, ie at the Second Coming. Latter days being future to the time Irenaeus was writing. Since that is all you provide as a quote, there is no mention that Irenaeus is equating the 1,000 years in Revelation to the current time he was writing in.

No one is arguing that Satan was curtailed by the actions of the Cross. So bringing that up is pointless. Had Irenaeus not mentioned the latter days, you may have a point. So you have to remove those words to make your point. You have not given a strong enough argument to deny Irenaeus was talking about the past and not the future.

I still do not see any point that Satan has been constantly bound in these quotes. That is your Amil fabrication added to Irenaeus as well as God's Word.

Irenaeus points out the power of death was accomplished by Christ on the Cross.

However in the latter days, Satan being bound would eliminate Adam altogether. Do you not understand what that means? Adam was not eliminated at the Cross, nor was sin eradicated. The power was eliminated, but not the means. Obviously Adam and death still is an ongoing phenomenon with or without Satan being bound. Neither of us can point out that Irenaeus accepted a 1,000 year period without Adam and death. But we do know from the material that only at the Second Coming would this condition be met, when Satan was bound.

Unless you deny that Irenaeus held to a 1,000 year period of Satan being bound and Adam eliminated, then this is still future to Irenaeus. He did not indicate that was the current state of mankind.

"should be trampled down by Him"

This is a future tense, not past tense.

"Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life."

This is predicated on the future binding of Satan. Certainly Adam and death are still ongoing even though the power of Adam and death has been taken away.

Now you can argue this only applies to the redeemed. That is not a given in the quote you provided. Does Irenaeus hold to a Chiliast mindset or not?

LOL. You guys are clearly desperate for something when you have nothing. It is fun to watch you both trying to make black white and white black.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The book of Revelation called for Christians to take the narrative literally, and to not add nor subtract from the book. Allegorizing Revelation is therefore forbidden. I should think, then, that Christians would hesitate to allegorize the Millennium of Rev 20?

We know there was an early stream of Chiliasts from the time of the Apostle John through the first couple of centuries. They seem to have followed from the tradition of John himself in describing a literal thousand year period following the 2nd Coming.

Amillennialism seems to have found a basis in allegorical interpretation with Philo, who started the Alexandrian school and established the regular use of allegory in interpreting Jewish Scripture. Apparently, Clement and Origen were influenced by the allegorical method, and they led in a diminishment of Premil belief to Amillennialism, particularly when Augustine came to be included in their allegorical kind of school of interpretation.

In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared Premillennialist Apollinaris a heretic, but did not necessarily declare his Premillennialism a heresy. Opposition to Apollinaris' Christology was opposed, but not Premillennialism.

Some people have tried to associate Premillennialism with a heresy promulgated by Apollinaris, and asserted that the Creed was changed to condemn Chiliasm. Apparently, that was not true. Opposition to Millennial thought has occurred time and again, but the early councils did not, apparently, condemn it. A great article on this is HERE.

 

[WPM]

This quote is not refuted. You explained it according to Amil bias.

Adam has not been done away with.

So you cannot apply this quote to Revelation 20, as ongoing in the here and now.

Irenaeus clearly makes a distinction between the judgment against Satan pronounced at the Cross with that of the Second Coming. It is the binding at the Second Coming that brings the end of Adam.

Of course Irenaeus is referring to Revelation 20. John however declares Adam conquered at the beginning of the 1000 years. No where in this quote does Irenaeus claim Revelation 20:1-3 is about the first coming, but the latter days of the current age, ie at the Second Coming. Latter days being future to the time Irenaeus was writing. Since that is all you provide as a quote, there is no mention that Irenaeus is equating the 1,000 years in Revelation to the current time he was writing in.

No one is arguing that Satan was curtailed by the actions of the Cross. So bringing that up is pointless. Had Irenaeus not mentioned the latter days, you may have a point. So you have to remove those words to make your point. You have not given a strong enough argument to deny Irenaeus was talking about the past and not the future.

I still do not see any point that Satan has been constantly bound in these quotes. That is your Amil fabrication added to Irenaeus as well as God's Word.

Irenaeus points out the power of death was accomplished by Christ on the Cross.

However in the latter days, Satan being bound would eliminate Adam altogether. Do you not understand what that means? Adam was not eliminated at the Cross, nor was sin eradicated. The power was eliminated, but not the means. Obviously Adam and death still is an ongoing phenomenon with or without Satan being bound. Neither of us can point out that Irenaeus accepted a 1,000 year period without Adam and death. But we do know from the material that only at the Second Coming would this condition be met, when Satan was bound.

Unless you deny that Irenaeus held to a 1,000 year period of Satan being bound and Adam eliminated, then this is still future to Irenaeus. He did not indicate that was the current state of mankind.

"should be trampled down by Him"

This is a future tense, not past tense.

"Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life."

This is predicated on the future binding of Satan. Certainly Adam and death are still ongoing even though the power of Adam and death has been taken away.

Now you can argue this only applies to the redeemed. That is not a given in the quote you provided. Does Irenaeus hold to a Chiliast mindset or not?

The quotes presented above are damning to your position, showing the wide difference between early Chiliasm and modern Premil and would also confirm my thesis re the similarity between early Chiliasm and modern Amil. 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.

 

[WPM]

Both ancient Amils and ancient Chiliasts opposed these fundamental Premil beliefs.

· The binding of Satan on a future millennial earth after the second coming is a modern-day Premil fundamental; ancient Chiliasm taught it happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
· The elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups is a modern-day Premil innovation; that was done away with at the cross in ancient Chiliasm. All nations were considered chosen equally by God in the old belief.
· The living and the dead will be raised when Jesus comes in ancient Chiliasm; in modern-day Premil they invent 3 groups of humans: saved, lost and a 3rd group unknown to Scripture too righteous to be destroyed and too wicked to be glorified.

· Modern-day Premil postpones Christ reigning over His enemies as God with all power in heaven and on earth until the Second Coming. They also make it a temporal limited earthly rule. Ancient Chiliasm has Christ reigning now in heaven over His enemies.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the renewal of the old abolished Jewish sacrifice system, ancient Chiliasm abhorred and renounced such a proposition.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the multiplication of carnal pleasures on its future new earth involving the abundant indulgence of feasting elect and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come. Most ancient Chiliasts rejected such a carnal proposition.
· Modern-day Premil advocate the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil advocates the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates sin continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates corruption continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates the wicked continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates mortals continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates decay continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates the curse continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates Satan operating on a future new earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that. It believed Satan was destroyed at the Second Coming.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the restoring of Israel back to their ancient borders and their place of favor over all other nations.

 

[Randy Kluth]

A major reason, I think, for abandoning Premillennial Teaching for Amillennial Teaching was the anti-Jewish bent in Jesus' teaching. He viewed then-current Judaism as corrupted by the teachings of men, and abandoned the nation Israel for the full extent of the NT age.

Ultimately, belief in the eventual restoration of the nation Israel waned, even though Jesus and Paul had both asserted it, as in line with the Prophets. It was thought that any notion of Israel's restoration, in association with a Millennial Kingdom, had to be suspect as a kind of reinstitution of Jewish Legalism.

Indeed, as the Roman Church became formally identified with the Roman State, it seemed to many Christians that the true Kingdom was to be identified with the Church of the present age, and not with some future re-institutionalized Judaism. And the heretic Cerinthus even made the idea of a future age even less palatable by associating it with carnal excesses, materialism, and sensuality.

But identifying God's Kingdom with the Roman Church has never been in line with Jesus' Teaching that the Kingdom of God is "near." Misidentification of God's Kingdom with a corruptible Church is dangerous. I would agree that a temporal form of God's Kingdom may be associated with earthly institutions of the Church. But it should never replace our hope of a future Kingdom of Heaven.

If the Kingdom of God is in any way associated with an institutionalized church of the present age, it is strictly a temporal form, and subject to God's judgment. By contrast, the eschatological Kingdom of God is coming in the future and will have no end.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Both ancient Amils and ancient Chiliasts opposed these fundamental Premil beliefs.

· The binding of Satan on a future millennial earth after the second coming is a modern-day Premil fundamental; ancient Chiliasm taught it happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
· The elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups is a modern-day Premil innovation; that was done away with at the cross in ancient Chiliasm. All nations were considered chosen equally by God in the old belief.
· The living and the dead will be raised when Jesus comes in ancient Chiliasm; in modern-day Premil they invent 3 groups of humans: saved, lost and a 3rd group unknown to Scripture too righteous to be destroyed and too wicked to be glorified.

· Modern-day Premil postpones Christ reigning over His enemies as God with all power in heaven and on earth until the Second Coming. They also make it a temporal limited earthly rule. Ancient Chiliasm has Christ reigning now in heaven over His enemies.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the renewal of the old abolished Jewish sacrifice system, ancient Chiliasm abhorred and renounced such a proposition.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the multiplication of carnal pleasures on its future new earth involving the abundant indulgence of feasting elect and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come. Most ancient Chiliasts rejected such a carnal proposition.
· Modern-day Premil advocate the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil advocates the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates sin continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates corruption continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates the wicked continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates mortals continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates decay continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates the curse continuing unabated on a future millennial earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that.
· Modern-day Premil anticipates Satan operating on a future new earth. Ancient Chiliasm knew nothing about that. It believed Satan was destroyed at the Second Coming.
· Modern-day Premil promotes the restoring of Israel back to their ancient borders and their place of favor over all other nations.

And you don't have a clue you've been proven wrong! You still aren't able to answer the quote from IRENAEUS. This proves disastrous to your thesis. Time to pick up your notes and go home, unless you actually wish to answer the question. But you can't.

I actually hate gloating, and I don't really wish to do this. We should conform to truth when it presents itself to us. But you're unable to do that.

 

[WPM]

This quote is not refuted. You explained it according to Amil bias.

Adam has not been done away with.

So you cannot apply this quote to Revelation 20, as ongoing in the here and now.

Irenaeus clearly makes a distinction between the judgment against Satan pronounced at the Cross with that of the Second Coming. It is the binding at the Second Coming that brings the end of Adam.

Of course Irenaeus is referring to Revelation 20. John however declares Adam conquered at the beginning of the 1000 years. No where in this quote does Irenaeus claim Revelation 20:1-3 is about the first coming, but the latter days of the current age, ie at the Second Coming. Latter days being future to the time Irenaeus was writing. Since that is all you provide as a quote, there is no mention that Irenaeus is equating the 1,000 years in Revelation to the current time he was writing in.

No one is arguing that Satan was curtailed by the actions of the Cross. So bringing that up is pointless. Had Irenaeus not mentioned the latter days, you may have a point. So you have to remove those words to make your point. You have not given a strong enough argument to deny Irenaeus was talking about the past and not the future.

I still do not see any point that Satan has been constantly bound in these quotes. That is your Amil fabrication added to Irenaeus as well as God's Word.

Irenaeus points out the power of death was accomplished by Christ on the Cross.

However in the latter days, Satan being bound would eliminate Adam altogether. Do you not understand what that means? Adam was not eliminated at the Cross, nor was sin eradicated. The power was eliminated, but not the means. Obviously Adam and death still is an ongoing phenomenon with or without Satan being bound. Neither of us can point out that Irenaeus accepted a 1,000 year period without Adam and death. But we do know from the material that only at the Second Coming would this condition be met, when Satan was bound.

Unless you deny that Irenaeus held to a 1,000 year period of Satan being bound and Adam eliminated, then this is still future to Irenaeus. He did not indicate that was the current state of mankind.

"should be trampled down by Him"

This is a future tense, not past tense.

"Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life."

This is predicated on the future binding of Satan. Certainly Adam and death are still ongoing even though the power of Adam and death has been taken away.

Now you can argue this only applies to the redeemed. That is not a given in the quote you provided. Does Irenaeus hold to a Chiliast mindset or not?

The issue is: you are both so besotted with your doctrine that you cannot objectively accept the facts. You do with the ECFs what you have done for years with Scripture - you twist teaching to suit your false beliefs.

 

[WPM]

Here are some modern Premil fundamentals promoted by the ancient heretical founders of modern day Premil - Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry [or Porphyrius] and Apollinarius. None of these views can be found amongst the early Chiliasts.

Christ reigning on a future millennial earth.

Caius speaks of this early view as believing that “after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth.”

Dionysius describes this future paradigm as “the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.”

He later expands, “For the doctrine inculcated by Cerinthus is this: that there will be an earthly reign of Christ.”

Jerome simply explains it as “an earthly reign of a thousand years.”

This is what modern Premils teach in their writings and advocate on this board today.

The future life will be centered in Jerusalem with Israel ruling over the Gentiles on a future millennial earth.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, talks about lowering “men's hopes again to the Jerusalem below, imagining its rebuilding with stones of a more brilliant material.”

Origen speaking about those that follow Cerinthus, “imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt.”

He continues, “they think that the natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers of their pleasures, whom they are to employ either as tillers of the field or builders of walls, and by whom their ruined and fallen city is again to be raised up; and they think that they are to receive the wealth of the nations to live on, and that they will have control over their riches.”

This is what modern Premils teach in their writings and advocate on this board today.

A future millennial earth would be a period of materialistic excess, the pursuit of pleasure, the abundance of surfeiting and gluttony and sexual indulgence.

The historian Gennadius (died c. 496) identified all the main Chiliasts among the ECFs, explaining what they expected on the millennial earth, there among them is both Cerinthus and Marcion. An interesting demarcation line is delineated between the ancient Premils and the ancient Chiliasts on the matter of “marriage procreation” in “the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future.” They taught that sexual relations would continue in a future millennium and offspring would be produced to the mortal inhabitants. While Cerinthus and Marcion promoted such, none of the ancient Chiliasts taught anything on the same. Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius were said to advocate “drinking, eating and working” in “the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future.”

Gennadius taught: "Not in the divine order of the promises of earthly and transitory life, as the Melitians hoped. Not in the marriage procreation, such as held by the insane Cerinthus and Marcion. Not in drinking, eating and working, even as Papias authored, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius are satisfied. All this in the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future, so the joy of the saints are to reign with him in the hope that, as Nepos, who believed in a prime resurrection of the righteous, and a second of the wicked."

Gennadius records his own opposition to Chiliasm and a transitory kingdom in between the here-and-now and the new heavens and new earth. He exposes the error Cerinthus and Marcion taught of sexual pleasures continuing on a future millennial earth. This this a classic Premil belief.

This couldn’t be any clearer! This unscriptural belief was invented by the heretics Cerinthus and Marcion and is continued today by modern Premils. No early Chiliast advocated this error. The fact is: there will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

Caius exposed their belief of mortals living in Jerusalem after the second coming, saying: “the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures.”

Gregory the Theologian, concludes: “for the sake of the flesh, they explain all the rest in a gross and carnal manner.”

Theodoret contends, “Those men create for themselves in imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and other pleasures, and along with them.”

This is what modern Premils teach in their writings and advocate on this board today.

The early writers then put meat on the bones by describing what these heretics saw emanating from mortal life in the millennium.

Dionysius explains how Cerinthus “fancied that that kingdom would consist in those kinds of gratifications on which his own heart was set,-to wit, in the delights of the belly, and what comes beneath the belly, that is to say, in eating and drinking, and marrying.”

He then enlarges: “the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying.”

Basically, with the existence of mortality comes all the natural fleshly desires that come with that.

Origen similarly sums up their beliefs as “after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children.”

He adds, “the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood.”

Augustine talks about this theology of these extremists as: “those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets.”

He continues: “furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal.”

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, talks about the “gluttony of the Millennium.”

Caius condemns this alleged future millennium as “a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.”

This is what modern Premils teach in their writings and advocate on this board today.

Various resurrection days in the future

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa informs us that they believe in “three Resurrections.”

Basil the Great describes their view as looking at “the resurrection, from a mythical, or rather Jewish, point of view.”

This is what modern Premils teach in their writings and advocate on this board today.

Sinners on on a future millennial earth.

Origen confirms that they believed that the wicked continued into the millennium, albeit, they pay the consequences for their disobedience. These heretics believed that “they who serve the Lord shall eat and drink, but that sinners shall hunger and thirst; that the righteous shall be joyful, but that sorrow shall possess the wicked.”

This is what modern Premils teach in their writings and advocate on this board today.