The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics

[WPM]

And if we resist him he must flee from us (James 4:7). Was this kind of authority over the spiritual enemy available in Old Testament times? No, it was not. So, you are not understanding what Satan's binding is about.


Who in the world are you and where did you come from? WPM is not a heretic. Stop making false personal accusations towards someone who you don't even know at all. What heresy is he teaching? No one in their right mind would consider Amillennialism to be heresy. Premils believe it is false teaching, but what is heretical about it? It's not like we're denying the deity of Christ or anything like that. Our doctrine actually promotes the CURRENT kingship and authority of Christ and emphasizes the power and authority He and His followers have over the spiritual enemy, unlike Premil.


LOL! You're all talk, buddy. That is very clear. If you really could tear his post apart, line by line, then you would do so. But, you did not because you're just making that up.

Do you need to have a chip on your shoulder to promote Premil on these online forums?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you need to have a chip on your shoulder to promote Premil on these online forums?

That is apparently an unwritten rule that Premils have for themselves on all online forums. They can't ever just address the scriptures and address the points being made and the questions being asked. They always go out of their way to make things personal instead. It's apparently a tactic they use to hide the fact that they have no answers.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

Lol. You have a lovely way of interacting with fellow believers, not. Get off your high chair before you fall off it.

You have no answer to what I have presented so far. All you have is your own private interpretation, insults and avoidance.

So far, no Premil can rebut the Op. Telling!!!!

I just gave you an answer that refuted your nonsensical claim. In fact, you quoted it, and then you did not address it...just like I expected.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I just gave you an answer that refuted your nonsensical claim. In fact, you quoted it, and then you did not address it...just like I expected.

You didn't address what he said when pointing out this passage...

Acts 26:17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

Do you not think that Satan would need to be bound first before the Gentiles could be turned "from the power of Satan to God"? In Old Testament times, the Gentiles were said to have "no hope" and were "without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12-13). Satan had the power of death in those times which allowed him to keep people in slavery to the fear of death. But, Jesus took the power of death away from Satan (Hebrews 2:14-15) so that people could be set free and have the hope of eternal life. That has resulted in "a great multitude that no man can count" from all nations (Rev 7:9) being saved. Satan needed to be bound so that the gospel could bring light into the world that was formerly in almost complete darkness. That is what the binding of Satan is about. To think that he won't be bound until Jesus returns and that mortals will live on the earth for a thousand years after He returns without Satan's influence contradicts many scriptures.

 

[pandaflower]

I don't care what the Roman "church" thinks? It is apostate. It is destroying itself throughout the world with its pedophile scandals. It is revealing who it really is.

While not Catholic myself, I think the owner of this community would commit to the public service of full disclosure if they installed a banner warning on the homepage.

One that informs CB is hostile towards and intolerant of the Roman Catholic faith and faithful.

This way when alleged Protestants act without grace toward the topic or any brave Catholic here who would admit they are so, readers via Google or members ,would understand why they are witnessing the sin nature of the hateful individuals expressing itself openly.

And without shame before our Omnipresent God.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

In Old Testament times, the Gentiles were said to have "no hope" and were "without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12-13).

As I previously and accurately pointed out to your buddy, all of the earliest believers, from the time of Adam up until the time that God changed Jacob's name to "Israel," were GENTILES. Again, that would include such notable GENTILES as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham. That is biblical reality...whether you like it or not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As I previously and accurately pointed out to your buddy, all of the earliest believers, from the time of Adam up until the time that God changed Jacob's name to "Israel," were GENTILES. Again, that would include such notable GENTILES as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham. That is biblical reality...whether you like it or not.

No one is saying otherwise, but that doesn't address the point being made. What does that have to do with what is written in Acts 26:17-18 in relation to Gentiles being turned from the power of Satan to God? How about you actually address the point instead of evading it? What happened that made it so that the Gentiles, who Paul said were formerly without hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:11-12) and who formerly were slaves to the fear of death because of Satan wielding the power of death over them (Hebrews 2:14-15), were able to turn from the power of Satan to God? Why would that not relate to the binding of Satan?

Maybe you missed my post where I asked you to tell me how it can be possible for mortals to populate the earth after Jesus returns in light of scripture like this...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Explain to me how you reconcile your Premil doctrine with this passage.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

While not Catholic myself, I think the owner of this community would commit to the public service of full disclosure if they installed a banner warning on the homepage.

One that informs CB is hostile towards and intolerant of the Roman Catholic faith and faithful.

This way when alleged Protestants act without grace toward the topic or any brave Catholic here who would admit they are so, readers via Google or members ,would understand why they are witnessing the sin nature of the hateful individuals expressing itself openly.

And without shame before our Omnipresent God.

What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[pandaflower]

What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

It is in response to the anti-Catholic rhetoric that derailed this thread. Through no fault of my own.

Perhaps you will ask the same of @WPM.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is in response to the anti-Catholic rhetoric that derailed this thread. Through no fault of my own.

Perhaps you will ask the same of @WPM.

You are the one who brought up Catholics, not him. You derailed the thread with your out of the blue post that had nothing to do with what anyone was talking about.

 

[pandaflower]

You are the one who brought up Catholics, not him. You derailed the thread with your out of the blue post that had nothing to do with what anyone was talking about.

WPM, the author of this thread,does not know the definition of heretic.

His OP is groundless because of that.

The hatred in some at this site for whatever is of a mind,is a shame before the eyes of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

WPM, the author of this thread,does not know the definition of heretic.

Did you read his original posts of this thread? I think what he said about some of those early Premills is an accurate description of heretics because they taught non-Christian heresy. He made it clear that he wasnt saying that Premillennialism itself is heretical. Do you understand that?

His OP is groundless because of that.

Prove it. What makes you say he doesn't know the definition of heretic? His descriptions of what some of those early Premils believed were descriptions of heresy. How can you say otherwise? And, keep in mind, I'm not talking about Premillennialism itself here.

The hatred in some at this site for whatever is of a mind,is a shame before the eyes of Christ.

We should all hate heresy. Don't you? I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. I don't get the sense that you actually read his original posts in this thread.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

No one is saying otherwise,

Well, I am happy to hear that.

but that doesn't address the point being made.

It most certainly does.

What does that have to do with what is written in Acts 26:17-18 in relation to Gentiles being turned from the power of Satan to God?

Everything.

How about you actually address the point instead of evading it?

I did address it.

What happened that made it so that the Gentiles, who Paul said were formerly without hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:11-12) and who formerly were slaves to the fear of death because of Satan wielding the power of death over them (Hebrews 2:14-15), were able to turn from the power of Satan to God?

There were plenty of GENTILES prior to this, as you already acknowledged yourself, who turned from the power of Satan unto God, so why are you insisting that something had changed?

Why would that not relate to the binding of Satan?

Because it simply relates to them placing saving faith in Christ.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Eph. 2:11-13)

Previously, they had been "without Christ."

"Now," they were "in Christ Jesus."

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I am happy to hear that.

It most certainly does.

Everything.

I did address it.

There were plenty of GENTILES prior to this, as you already acknowledged yourself, who turned from the power of Satan unto God, so why are you insisting that something had changed?

Wow. There were not plenty of Gentiles saved from the beginning of time until Jesus came. Do you understand that? Why are you making what is written in the following passage meaningless, as if what is written here has always occurred?

Acts 26:16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

Why did Jesus say this to Paul if what he was telling him to do was already occurring? You are trying to claim that the Gentiles were already being turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God before Paul preached the gospel to them? If so, why did Jesus bother sending him to them?

Because it simply relates to them placing saving faith in Christ.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Eph. 2:11-13)

Previously, they had been "without Christ."

"Now," they were "in Christ Jesus."

What is so hard to understand about that?

What is so hard to understand about Satan's role in them being "without Christ" while having "no hope" and being "without God in the world"? Do you know that Satan had the power of death and kept people as slaves to the fear of death before Jesus came to take the power of death away from Satan so that He could set people free?

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Why do you act as if nothing changed as it relates to Satan after Jesus died and rose again? Why do Premils like you minimize the effect that Jesus's ministry, death, resurrection and gospel had on Satan as if nothing changed in relation to Satan from the times before Jesus came and after He came to earth?

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

Maybe you missed my post where I asked you to tell me how it can be possible for mortals to populate the earth after Jesus returns in light of scripture like this...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Explain to me how you reconcile your Premil doctrine with this passage.

This is very easy to explain...if you learn to pay attention to things IN CONTEXT. Backing up just a little bit, Peter said:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2 Pet. 3:8-13)

Peter flat out told us not to be ignorant of one thing, and you have apparently missed it. While alluding to this...

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4)

...Peter told us to not be ignorant that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Immediately thereafter, he began to describe "the day of the Lord" which is NOT going to be a literal 24 hour day, but rather a one thousand year timeframe. Certain prophesied events surrounding "the day of the Lord" will transpire at the beginning of that one thousand year timeframe, others will transpire during the one thousand year timeframe, and the one that you are referencing will occur at the end of that one thousand year timeframe....just like the Apostle John said it would.

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev. 20:7-21:1)

At the end of Christ's coming millennial or one thousand year reign, the great white throne judgment will occur. At that time, the present earth and heaven will flee away and a new heaven and a new earth will come. Peter's eschatology perfect aligns with John's eschatology UNLESS we are ignorant of the very thing that Peter told us not to be ignorant of.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is very easy to explain...if you learn to pay attention to things IN CONTEXT.

Hahaha. This should be entertaining....a Premil trying to tell me about paying attention to context....that is hilarious...

Backing up just a little bit, Peter said:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2 Pet. 3:8-13)

Peter flat out told us not to be ignorant of one thing, and you have apparently missed it. While alluding to this...

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4)

...Peter told us to not be ignorant that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Talk about missing the context. Wow. What did Peter relate that to? Read verse 9. He was relating that to how long it was taking Jesus to return. From man's perspective, it might seem like a long time. But, from the Lord's perspective where one day is no different than a thousand years, it has not been a long time, so He is not being slow to fulfill the promise of His second coming. There is no reason to read any more into 2 Peter 3:8 than that. But, naturally, that's what you're doing because you don't understand context like you claim to...

Immediately thereafter, he began to describe "the day of the Lord" which is NOT going to be a literal 24 hour day, but rather a one thousand year timeframe.

LOL. I thought you were going to teach me how to pay attention to things IN CONTEXT? You are butchering the text and taking it completely OUT OF CONTEXT. 2 Peter 3:8 has absolutely NOTHING to do with the duration of the day of the Lord. That is not at all the context of that verse. It relates to how long it is taking the Lord to return, which is not long from His eternal perspective where one day and a thousand years are no different to Him.

Certain prophesied events surrounding "the day of the Lord" will transpire at the beginning of that one thousand year timeframe, others will transpire during the one thousand year timeframe, and the one that you are referencing will occur at the end of that one thousand year timeframe....just like the Apostle John said it would.

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev. 20:7-21:1)

At the end of Christ's coming millennial or one thousand year reign, the great white throne judgment will occur. At that time, the present earth and heaven will flee away and a new heaven and a new earth will come. Peter's eschatology perfect aligns with John's eschatology UNLESS we are ignorant of the very thing that Peter told us not to be ignorant of.

Where are you seeing any indication anywhere in 2 Peter 3:10-12 that the fiery destruction described there would not occur until 1,000+ years after Christ's return? That is NONSENSE! Instead, Peter indicated that the destruction would occur upon the arrival of the day of the Lord and it would come unexpectedly as a thief in the night. The destruction coming 1,000+ years later is not a case of it coming unexpectedly as a thief in the night.

If you think the destruction described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 doesn't occur until 1,000+ years after Christ's return, then how do you interpret this passage about the same day of the Lord that Peter wrote about...

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.

Do you try to claim that the "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" does not occur until 1,000+ years after the day of the Lord arrives like you do with the destruction described in 2 Peter 3:10-12?

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

Wow. There were not plenty of Gentiles saved from the beginning of time until Jesus came.

There most certainly were.

Do you understand that?

No offense, but what I understand is that you do not presently know what you are talking about. Hopefully, that will change in a moment.

Why are you making what is written in the following passage meaningless, as if what is written here has always occurred?

Acts 26:16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

Have you ever heard of Jonah and the Ninevites who were GENTILES? Jesus said that they will rise up in the judgment and condemn the unbelieving Jews of his day because THEY REPENTED at the preaching of Jonah (Mat. 12:41). Whose power do you suppose they turned from while repenting?

Why did Jesus say this to Paul if what he was telling him to do was already occurring? You are trying to claim that the Gentiles were already being turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God before Paul preached the gospel to them? If so, why did Jesus bother sending him to them?

Because Paul's commission was primarily to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13).

 

[Davidpt]

Did you read his original posts of this thread? I think what he said about some of those early Premills is an accurate description of heretics because they taught non-Christian heresy. He made it clear that he wasnt saying that Premillennialism itself is heretical. Do you understand that?


Prove it. What makes you say he doesn't know the definition of heretic? His descriptions of what some of those early Premils believed were descriptions of heresy. How can you say otherwise? And, keep in mind, I'm not talking about Premillennialism itself here.


We should all hate heresy. Don't you? I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. I don't get the sense that you actually read his original posts in this thread.

What about the way @WPM blatantly misrepresents all early Chiliasts by insisting they all have satan cast into the LOF prior to the beginning of the millennium rather than after the millennium? Unless you haven't noticed, Chiliasts placed the millennium after the 2nd coming not prior to the 2nd coming like Amils do.

Yet, @WPM would have us believe that these same Chiliasts have satan cast into the LOF during the 2nd coming, which equals in their case, that satan is cast into the LOF before the beginning of the millennium rather than after. Except there is not one single person other than @WPM that would have anybody, per their view, whether their view is Premil or whatever, having satan cast into the LOF before the millennium rather than after. But, apparently, since he is an Amil like you, he gets a pass when he blatantly misreprsents Premil rather than calling him out on it.

There is nobody past or present to where their reading comprehension is so subpar that they are going to have satan cast into the LOF before the millennium rather than after. But I suspect you don't care in @WPM case since you don't want to bite the hand that does a lot of the patting on your back with all these Likes you accumulate over time.

Or maybe this instead? It's not just him misrepresenting early Chiliasts by insisting they had satan cast into the LOF before the millennium rather than after, you too have early Chiliasts having satan cast into the LOF before the beginning of the millennium rather than after, except in your case, if so, I guess I just never noticed it since @WPM is more vocal about early Chiliasts that I have noted you being.

Or if none of the above, maybe this? None of them had access to Revelation 20:1-3 and 7-9, they only had access to Revelation 20:4-6 and 10-15 since these other verses were missing from their Bibles. Maybe that explains it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

wh oThere most certainly were.

No offense, but what I understand is that you do not presently know what you are talking about. Hopefully, that will change in a moment.

Have you ever heard of Jonah and the Ninevites who were GENTILES? Jesus said that they will rise up in the judgment and condemn the unbelieving Jews of his day because THEY REPENTED at the preaching of Jonah (Mat. 12:41). Whose power do you suppose they turned from while repenting?

LOL. Your responses are very weak. There were relatively few Gentiles saved in those times compared to New Testament times and you know it. You make passages like Ephesians 2:11-13, Acts 26:17-18 and Hebrews 2:14-15 meaningless because you act as if nothing changed in relation to Satan and in relation to the Gentiles after Christ came, which is utterly ridiculous and clearly contradicts what scripture teaches.

Because Paul's commission was primarily to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13).

Why did you not answer my questions? This does not answer them. Why did Jesus say what He did to Paul in Acts 26:17-18 if what he was telling him to do was already occurring? What you said does not answer this question.

You are trying to claim that the Gentiles were already being turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God before Paul preached the gospel to them? Yes or no? You did not answer this question, so please answer it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What about the way @WPM blatantly misrepresents all early Chiliasts by insisting they all have satan cast into the LOF prior to the beginning of the millennium rather than after the millennium? Unless you haven't noticed, Chiliasts placed the millennium after the 2nd coming not prior to the 2nd coming like Amils do.

Yet, @WPM would have us believe that these same Chiliasts have satan cast into the LOF during the 2nd coming, which equals in their case, that satan is cast into the LOF before the beginning of the millennium rather than after. Except there is not one single person other than @WPM that would have anybody, per their view, whether their view is Premil or whatever, having satan cast into the LOF before the millennium rather than after. But, apparently, since he is an Amil like you, he gets a pass when he blatantly misreprsents Premil rather than calling him out on it.

There is nobody past or present to where their reading comprehension is so subpar that they are going to have satan cast into the LOF before the millennium rather than after. But I suspect you don't care in @WPM case since you don't want to bite the hand that does a lot of the patting on your back with all these Likes you accumulate over time.

LOL. You are so jealous and petty. Grow up.

Or maybe this instead? It's not just him misreprsenting early Chiliasts by insisting they had satan cast into the LOF before the millennium rather than after, you too have early Chiliasts having satan cast into the LOF before the begining of the millennium rather than after, except in your case, if so, I guess I just never noticed it since @WPM is more vocal about early Chiliasts that I have noted you being.

Or if none of the above, maybe this? None of them had access to Revelation 20:1-3 and 7-9, they only had access to Revelation 4-6 and 10-15 since these other verses were missing from their Bibles. Maybe that explains it?

David, will you never grow up? What does any of this have to do with the Premils he referenced believing in heretical things, which is what I was talking about? Why aren't you addressing that? You're trying to change the subject instead.

Why don't you ask WPM about what you're asking me about? I don't have as much knowledge about what the early church fathers wrote as he does. What a joke that you would not address him about this before addressing me, as if I should speak for him about this.

What proof do you have that he misrepresented early Chiliasts? All I see from you is your opinions here without any evidence being offered. As if I would ever just take your word for anything.