The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence

[Spiritual Israelite]

Heaven knows I have no wish to continue a conversation with someone who accuses me of deliberately sabataging a biblical text! But you ask, and I'll give you this one chance to hear.

If I just change the text I'm guilty as charged. But if I read it differently than you, and whether you agree or not it makes sense to me, then I'm not guilty as charged.

In this case, I already explained to you how I read this logically, which means that I'm not guilty of altering the text. I read it as follows.

Dan 7.8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.

I read this Little Horn as the Antichrist, and the context describing Heaven's verdict on his reign. So the context involves the terminal point of the reign of Antichrist which, of course, is when the Son of Man descends from heaven.

Dan 7.9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.

This is the exact same context as we see in the book of Revelation, where the Son of Man has hair white like wool, and where he is coming with the clouds. This most certainly is well *after* the Ascension of Jesus! The vision, therefore, to me takes place as viewed in the book of Revelation, *after* the Ascension has already taken place and pertaining to the detruction of Antichrist and the inception of the Kingdom of God.

Rev 1.7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”
So shall it be! Amen.....
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow.

So, we have the Son of Man being revealed to John in his vision, and like Dan 7 he has white hair and is proceeding with the clouds in an apparent fiery judgment.

Dan 7.12 I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire....
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

So, the Son of Man, as in Rev 1, is coming with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. The difficult part, as you suggest, is when we see the Son of Man approach the Ancient of Days. This appears to be very similar to the Heavenly throne room scene in Rev 4-5, which is establishing the authority given to the Son of Man to bring an end to Antichrist's Reign and to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Therefore, I will explain to you once again that to me this is not suggesting that Christ's descent from the clouds in heaven is being interrupted in Dan 7.13. Rather, the throne room scene is *paranthetical,* explaining the fact this entering into God's throne room to obtain his mandate was part of the process of carrying out his mission. He was obtaining authority to do what must be done.

There is obviously no effort to create an itinerary to reconcile these two events--the coming with the clouds and the throne room scene. There is only an explanation as to the fact the Son of Man had in fact obtained authority to carry out his mission.

The fact the entry into the throne room was mentioned *after* the coming with the clouds is purely a convention of explaining, after the fact, that he had done this. In other words, it was a kind of "flashback" explanation, indicating that he had obtained this authority before. It's just that it is presented in the form of a vision following, to show how it had been done.

So as far as I know, Jesus may have obtained his authority at the Ascension. Or, he may be revieving his commission right before he returns, or pursue an additional mandate to destroy the Antichrist and to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. But it is clear to me, from Dan 7, that the Son of Man is coming with the clouds with the authority obtained at the time he was to destroy the Antichrist, and not before. If he obtained this authority at the Ascension he is here reviewing his authority and putting it into effect with documentary authority.

In other words, there is no explicit chronology between the vision of the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds and the vision of his entrance into God's throne room. They are two distinct visions, the throne room vision appearing last not due to chronological sequence, but rather, due to the convention of explaining an activity after it has already been portrayed.

This is not an unusual rendition or way of describing things. I could say I headed straight for the library, and then explain how I had received an assignment earlier requiring I go to the library. The explanation clearly can follow the initial event being described, namely heading straight for the library.

In this case, the Son of Man coming with the clouds is the main event described 1st. Then, it is followed by an explanatory vision showing how he had 1st obtained a mandate to return from heaven. There is a complete lack of any attempt to establish a timing sequence between visions in this prophecy.

Whether you agree or not, I hope you can understand how I see this? I'm not altering anything. I have a different understanding of the same text you read. Your view is sequential. Mine is parenthetical. You have a vested interest in not reading this out of order, and you've become judgmental.

The book of Revelation is much like this, as well. Some see the visions as given in the chronological sequence of their fulfillment. I do not. I see the visions as separate, sometimees looking back, and sometimnes looking forward--also repeating the same time periods in different ways. Those who disagree with me are sometimes judgment--sometimes not.

Many times those who have a vested interest in seeing their preferred interpretation as sequential judge me for viewing the visions separately. That's sad.

John, in the book of Revelation, saw his visions on the "day of the Lord." This suggests to me that he received heavenly visions with no interest in forming exact historical time sequences, whether within visions or as the visions relate to one another. Visions are sort of timeless and symbolic, and we should read them as such, in my view.

For one thing, I do NOT see everything in Daniel 7 or everything in Revelation in chronological order. So, that's a strawman argument. I frequently point out that not everything written in Daniel and Revelation are in chronological order.

But, with that said, there is no basis at all for seeing anything parenthetical our out of chronological sequence in Daniel 7:13 itself. It clearly refers to Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven and being brought before the Ancient of Days (God the Father). Do you understand that "the clouds of heaven" represent angels?

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

You are trying to say that the topic completely changes after saying "the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven", but there is no indication of that whatsoever. Notice after it says that, it says "AND came to the Ancient of days, and THEY brought him near before him". So, there is no division of events made here. No change of topic. You make it as if instead of it saying "and came to the Ancient of Days...", you think it says "after long before previously coming to the Ancient of Days...", but that's not what it says. It's clearly saying that the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and they (the clouds of heaven - angels) brought him (the Son of Man) before Him (the Ancient of Days), which would have taken place in heaven where the Ancient of Days (God the Father) is located.

Let me ask you this. When Jesus ascended to heaven, do you not think He was accompanied by the clouds of heaven (His angels) and brought before God the Father at which point He was placed at His right hand and given all power and authority over all things, as Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:19-23?

 

[WPM]

The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics. post #582
I've answered these points before in the thread,

"The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics."​

• Thread starterWPM
• Start dateAug 4, 2022

You have not answered anything in that post. All we have is evasive words from you, and personal opinions. That is what you do. That is because you have not studied this in depth. You have admitted to this previously. You go to questionable Premil website and get your arguments there in regard to this subject, without doing due diligence. There is, therefore nothing to refute in that post. I dealt with it years ago.

The Chiliasts presented their Premil views with a lack of detail, consistency, and organization perhaps because they had not yet faced future challenges by Amils. They did share with Amils, however, a lack of faith in large-scale Jewish reformation and recovery, which modern Premils see as consistent with what is to take place in a literal Millennium.

This weakness in rejecting hope in a future salvation of national Israel caused the Chiliast position to recede, as the Amil position, affirming the "replacement" of the Jews and Israel with Christians and the Church, found opportunity to establish itself through most of NT history.

But the Amils, as well as the Chiliasts, could not have anticipated that the Jews would recollect in a modern state of Israel, suggesting there really may be hope for a Millennial recovery for national Israel. Premils, therefore, carry the early Premil torch for the Chiliasts, but reject their denial of a Jewish national salvation.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.21 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Irenaeus presents Satan as bound *legally* at the Cross (Book 5, Ch. 21, 3.):
...yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he bound man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, 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.

And yet here, Irenaeus contrasts the legal binding of Satan at the Cross with the eschatological binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming to begin the literal Millennium...

Against Heresies Book 3, Ch. 23
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

You have not answered anything. You are actually twisting the last quote from Irenaeus. Other Premillennialist that have done the same recently have retracted their false claims. It is time for you to humble yourself and do the same.

Have a look at what the binding of Satan secures, according to Irenaeus, who you continue to misrepresent. The binding of Satan allowed the devil to be subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. Christ actually "subject him to the power of man" (namely His followers). Sorry that you are not grasping this! Demons are now under our feet as they have been defeated. This has already been achieved. You are so consumed by Premil that you cannot approach any subject objectively that exposes your narrative. You even reference Luke 10:19 which (along with many other NT passages) supports the outworking of this 2000 years ago. This occurred during the ministry of Christ. There is no mention here of the second coming. You add it unto the text, in the same way you add unto Scripture.

In Luke 9:1 Jesus “called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils.” In Luke 10:17 the disciples testified: “Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” He responded: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:18-19).

 

[WPM]

The Chiliasts presented their Premil views with a lack of detail, consistency, and organization perhaps because they had not yet faced future challenges by Amils. They did share with Amils, however, a lack of faith in large-scale Jewish reformation and recovery, which modern Premils see as consistent with what is to take place in a literal Millennium.

This weakness in rejecting hope in a future salvation of national Israel caused the Chiliast position to recede, as the Amil position, affirming the "replacement" of the Jews and Israel with Christians and the Church, found opportunity to establish itself through most of NT history.

But the Amils, as well as the Chiliasts, could not have anticipated that the Jews would recollect in a modern state of Israel, suggesting there really may be hope for a Millennial recovery for national Israel. Premils, therefore, carry the early Premil torch for the Chiliasts, but reject their denial of a Jewish national salvation.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.21 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Irenaeus presents Satan as bound *legally* at the Cross (Book 5, Ch. 21, 3.):
...yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he bound man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, 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.

And yet here, Irenaeus contrasts the legal binding of Satan at the Cross with the eschatological binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming to begin the literal Millennium...

Against Heresies Book 3, Ch. 23
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter XXIII, 7

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. 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; and the last enemy, death, is destroyed, which at the first had taken possession of man. Therefore, when man has been liberated, "what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting?" 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. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed.​

The whole focus and context here is the First Advent. Irenaeus outlines 3 victories that resulted from the trampling down of Satan at the cross: (1) death lost its hold over man, (2) antichrist would be trampled down by Him, and (3) Satan would be bound and subjected to the power of man.

Irenaeus was a Chiliast. He was not a modern day Premil. He did not think like modern day Premils. Because antichrist (the beast, the mystery of iniquity) is an end time reality for Premils and "the last days" relate to the end of time, some Premils misunderstand and misinterpret this quote above. The ancient fathers looked upon antichrist as a present ongoing reality in the form of the Roman Empire. But they believed the light (the Word of God) was overcoming it, which it was. Chiliasts had a positive view of the accomplishments of Christ 2000 years ago. The Gospel was spreading like wildfire. They had a victorious Christ, a small devil and were part of an overcoming Church.

Irenaeus believed in one binding of Satan - back 2000 years ago. 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. Here he takes the Old Testament text Psalm 91:13 and applies it to the ministry of Christ and the last days period between His Advents where He subjugates the enemy. The conclusion of this quote confirms our contention: “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 fits in with the consistent teaching of Irenaeus that Satan was bound at and through the cross.

Have a look at what the binding of Satan secures, according to Irenaeus. The binding of Satan allowed the devil to be subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. Christ actually "subject him to the power of man" (namely His followers). Sorry that you are not grasping this! Demons are now under our feet as they have been defeated. This has already been achieved. Luke 10:19 which (along with many other NT passages) supports the outworking of this 2000 years ago. This occurred during the ministry of Christ. There is no mention here of the second coming. You add it unto the text.

He is talking about death being defeated by Christ through His death, burial and resurrection. We know the victory has already been won. But upon salvation we never die spiritually. We die physically. Yes, death will be totally abolished at the second coming. But Irenaeus here is focusing in on what Jesus secured 2000 years ago.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have not answered anything in that post. All we have is evasive words from you, and personal opinions. That is what you do. That is because you have not studied this in depth. You have admitted to this subject this previously. You go to questionable Premil website and get your arguments there in regard to this subject, without doing due diligence. There is, therefore nothing to refute in that post. I dealt with it years ago.


You have not answered anything. You are actually twisting the last quote from Irenaeus. Other Premillennialist that have done the same recently have retracted their false claims. It is time for you to humble yourself and do the same.

Have a look at what the binding of Satan secures, according to Irenaeus, who you continue to misrepresent. The binding of Satan allowed the devil to be subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. Christ actually "subject him to the power of man" (namely His followers). Sorry that you are not grasping this! Demons are now under our feet as they have been defeated. This has already been achieved. You are so consumed by Premil that you cannot approach any subject objectively that exposes your narrative. You even reference Luke 10:19 which (along with many other NT passages) supports the outworking of this 2000 years ago. This occurred during the ministry of Christ. There is no mention here of the second coming. You add it unto the text, in the same way you add unto Scripture.

In Luke 9:1 Jesus “called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils.” In Luke 10:17 the disciples testified: “Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” He responded: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:18-19).

He blatantly misrepresented that last quote from Irenaeus as relating to the second coming of Christ. Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there and it's very clear that Luke 10:19 relates to the first coming of Christ, not the second. Over and over again we see Premills not only misrepresent Amil beliefs, but also the beliefs of the ECFs.

 

[WPM]

He blatantly misrepresented that last quote from Irenaeus as relating to the second coming of Christ. Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there and it's very clear that Luke 10:19 relates to the first coming of Christ, not the second. Over and over again we see Premills not only misrepresent Amil beliefs, but also the beliefs of the ECFs.

This is the same ancient text that Shepherd and Diva detracted their argument and apologized above with.

 

[WPM]

He blatantly misrepresented that last quote from Irenaeus as relating to the second coming of Christ. Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there and it's very clear that Luke 10:19 relates to the first coming of Christ, not the second. Over and over again we see Premills not only misrepresent Amil beliefs, but also the beliefs of the ECFs.

He has never researched this. Few Premils have. That is why they end up at the same bias and misleading Premil sites with the same erroneous arguments. Their research involves a quick Google search and they land on a Premil site that is sympathetic to their beliefs.

 

[Randy Kluth]

For one thing, I do NOT see everything in Daniel 7 or everything in Revelation in chronological order. So, that's a strawman argument. I frequently point out that not everything written in Daniel and Revelation are in chronological order.

But, with that said, there is no basis at all for seeing anything parenthetical our out of chronological sequence in Daniel 7:13 itself. It clearly refers to Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven and being brought before the Ancient of Days (God the Father). Do you understand that "the clouds of heaven" represent angels?

No, I think "clouds" means "clouds." I do understand that some see "clouds" as "angels." Certainly, Christ's Coming will be with angels because this is said elsewhere. The point is, this Son of Man is coming from heaven, and as such, is likely coming with the angels of heaven.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

You are trying to say that the topic completely changes after saying "the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven", but there is no indication of that whatsoever.

No, I'm saying that part of the coming of the Son of Man begins with an appearance before the Ancient of Days. The vision begins with a prolepsis, in which he is seen coming from heaven, and then explains that he derives his authority from the God of heaven. That way his Coming is understood to be a mandate from God.

Notice after it says that, it says "AND came to the Ancient of days, and THEY brought him near before him".

Yes, so the Son of Man, in coming from heaven, is *also* viewed as being conjoined with his appearing before God to receive the mandate to descend from heaven and establish the authority of God on earth. In other words, his coming from heaven is being depicted in a wide view, including the mandate that had initiated the process.

So his Coming was not a finished act, as if he had completely arrived on earth. Rather, in his coming from heaven there is an inclusion of the act of obtaining authority from God in heaven, as he begins his descent. Time is, in effect, slowed down to a stop, so that it can be shown the Son of Man appears before God in heaven at the start of his journey downward.

So, there is no division of events made here. No change of topic. You make it as if instead of it saying "and came to the Ancient of Days...", you think it says "after long before previously coming to the Ancient of Days...", but that's not what it says.

On the contrary, I'm not "making it" anything. I'm beginning with the natural recognition that this Coming is viewed in the NT as a descent from heaven. So, I'm seeing it as an event that begins with an appearance before God to obtain authority to establish His Kingdom on earth.

I could quite easily say you're "making" this not about a "descent from heaven to the earth," which in my view it plainly is. The NT appears to interpret it as such in all the places where we see the Son of Man coming with the clouds, whether in 1 Thes 4 or in the book of Revelation.

It is all about a descent from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. And it is always in the context of the end of the age where Antichrist is destroyed and the Kingdom of God is set up, ie it is alwasys eschatological.

It's clearly saying that the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and they (the clouds of heaven - angels) brought him (the Son of Man) before Him (the Ancient of Days), which would have taken place in heaven where the Ancient of Days (God the Father) is located.

What is "clear" to you is not clear to me. It is clear to me that this is an eschatological Coming, and as such relegates the appearance in the throne room to be a part of this Coming, in particular at the very beginning.

Let me ask you this. When Jesus ascended to heaven, do you not think He was accompanied by the clouds of heaven (His angels) and brought before God the Father at which point He was placed at His right hand and given all power and authority over all things, as Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:19-23?

As I said, I don't interpret "clouds" to be "angels" at all. I think Jesus can be accompanied by angels at any time since they are his ministering spirits.

But yes, Jesus obtained authority in heaven when he ascended--he just refrained from using that authority to establish God's Kingdom on earth, which he will only do at the proper time. That's when the Son of Man returns from heaven with his angels and in the clouds to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Thank you for being more civil in our discussion. I very much appreciate it and respect you for that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have not answered anything in that post. All we have is evasive words from you, and personal opinions. That is what you do.

This is what you always do brother--make things personal. It doesn't make for good conversation. We can always disagree "agreeably?" To say I've said "nothing" is insulting because it is plain to anyone reading that I've done some homework, whether you agree or not.

That is because you have not studied this in depth. You have admitted to this subject this previously. You go to questionable Premil website and get your arguments there in regard to this subject, without doing due diligence. There is, therefore nothing to refute in that post. I dealt with it years ago.

Blah, blah, blah--of course I'm not claiming to be an esteemed scholar. You aren't either, as I see it.

You have not answered anything. You are actually twisting the last quote from Irenaeus. Other Premillennialist that have done the same recently have retracted their false claims. It is time for you to humble yourself and do the same.

I quoted Irenaeus exactly. You mean, I'm "twisting things" if you wish it to say something else?

Have a look at what the binding of Satan secures, according to Irenaeus, who you continue to misrepresent.

I quoted Irenaeus directly!

The binding of Satan allowed the devil to be subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. Christ actually "subject him to the power of man" (namely His followers).

Satan is not subject to the authority of the Church except when God prioritizes our mission over his wish to persecute and obstruct us. Satan is under God's authority--not ours.

Satan is still free to roam like a ravenous lion--we can't stop that. We can cast demons out of people, but we can't cast Satan out of the world! That would mean we have full authority over him. But we don't--God does.

Irenaeus spoke of Satan being bound *legally* at the Cross so that he cannot prevent us from getting Saved. That means the authority Christ uses to ultimately bind Satan at his 2nd Coming derives from the authority he obtained to bind Satan when he died on the Cross.

But Satan still rules as a prince of the power of the air, and Christians are still being persecuted and obstructed. That is plainly the reality in this present age!

Irenaeus, however, speaks of another "binding of Satan," which takes place in Rev 20, when he is bound for a thousand literal years. Irenaeus was a Premillennialist. That is plainly in the text since Irenaeus refers to the "Dragon" who, in the Revelation, is defeated at Christ's 2nd Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter XXIII, 7

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. 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; and the last enemy, death, is destroyed, which at the first had taken possession of man. Therefore, when man has been liberated, "what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting?" 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. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed.​

The whole focus and context here is the First Advent. Irenaeus outlines 3 victories that resulted from the trampling down of Satan at the cross: (1) death lost its hold over man, (2) antichrist would be trampled down by Him, and (3) Satan would be bound and subjected to the power of man.

Irenaeus was a Chiliast. He was not a modern day Premil. He did not think like modern day Premils. Because antichrist (the beast, the mystery of iniquity) is an end time reality for Premils and "the last days" relate to the end of time, some Premils misunderstand and misinterpret this quote above. The ancient fathers looked upon antichrist as a present ongoing reality in the form of the Roman Empire. But they believed the light (the Word of God) was overcoming it, which it was. Chiliasts had a positive view of the accomplishments of Christ 2000 years ago. The Gospel was spreading like wildfire. They had a victorious Christ, a small devil and were part of an overcoming Church.

Irenaeus believed in one binding of Satan - back 2000 years ago. 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. Here he takes the Old Testament text Psalm 91:13 and applies it to the ministry of Christ and the last days period between His Advents where He subjugates the enemy. The conclusion of this quote confirms our contention: “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 fits in with the consistent teaching of Irenaeus that Satan was bound at and through the cross.

Have a look at what the binding of Satan secures, according to Irenaeus. The binding of Satan allowed the devil to be subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. Christ actually "subject him to the power of man" (namely His followers). Sorry that you are not grasping this! Demons are now under our feet as they have been defeated. This has already been achieved. Luke 10:19 which (along with many other NT passages) supports the outworking of this 2000 years ago. This occurred during the ministry of Christ. There is no mention here of the second coming. You add it unto the text.

He is talking about death being defeated by Christ through His death, burial and resurrection. We know the victory has already been won. But upon salvation we never die spiritually. We die physically. Yes, death will be totally abolished at the second coming. But Irenaeus here is focusing in on what Jesus secured 2000 years ago.

I already addressed this. Yes, Irtenaeus was a Chiliast and a Premillennialist, which means he agrees with modern Premillennialism that the Millennium is a literal future period of a thousand years.

There are some differences between early Chiliasts and modern Premillennialists--I've already stated that. And not all modern Premillennialists are the same either--not all are Dispensationalists.

As I said, Irenaeus utilized the sense of Satan's binding to be an authority he obtained *legally* at the Cross, and also something to be applied just before the advent of the Millennium, ie at Christ's 2nd Coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is the same ancient text that Shepherd and Diva detracted their argument and apologized above with.

Right. He, like them, did not bother to look at the context of the verses that Irenaeus referenced in support of his belief in relation to the binding of Satan, which are clearly in relation to the first coming of Christ and not the second.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I already addressed this. Yes, Irtenaeus was a Chiliast and a Premillennialist, which means he agrees with modern Premillennialism that the Millennium is a literal future period of a thousand years.

There are some differences between early Chiliasts and modern Premillennialists--I've already stated that. And not all modern Premillennialists are the same either--not all are Dispensationalists.

As I said, Irenaeus utilized the sense of Satan's binding to be an authority he obtained *legally* at the Cross, and also something to be applied just before the advent of the Millennium, ie at Christ's 2nd Coming.

In another thread where you referenced your post #582 in this thread, you said this:

And yet here, Irenaeus contrasts the legal binding of Satan at the Cross with the eschatological binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming to begin the literal Millennium...

Against Heresies Book 3, Ch. 23
7. For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy's head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head — which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon; — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Where do you see any mention of Christ's second coming here? Notice that he references Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there. Do you try to claim that Luke 10:19 applies to the second coming of Christ? It clearly does not.

The context of Luke 10:19 is in relation to the first coming of Christ, not the second.

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. 3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So, Jesus sent 70 of His followers to go, two by two, "into every city and place, whither he himself would come" to preach to them "as lambs among wolves".

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

After His 70 followers returned, they reported to Him that "even the devils are subject unto us through thy name". And He then "beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". And then Jesus told His 70 followers that He had sent out: "I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.". This relates to that time long ago, not to when He comes in the future. Satan was bound back then which is why Christ's followers had power "over all the power of the enemy", which included Satan. So, you are misrepresenting what Irenaeus said there by saying He was relating the binding of Satan with the second coming. He did not. He would not have used Luke 10:19, which clearly has a first coming context, in support of what he was saying there if he was relating the binding of Satan to the second coming rather than the first coming of Christ.

 

[WPM]

I already addressed this. Yes, Irtenaeus was a Chiliast and a Premillennialist, which means he agrees with modern Premillennialism that the Millennium is a literal future period of a thousand years.

There are some differences between early Chiliasts and modern Premillennialists--I've already stated that. And not all modern Premillennialists are the same either--not all are Dispensationalists.

As I said, Irenaeus utilized the sense of Satan's binding to be an authority he obtained *legally* at the Cross, and also something to be applied just before the advent of the Millennium, ie at Christ's 2nd Coming.

Irenaeus was a Chiliast NOT a Premillennialist. BIG difference. You or no Premil has been able to refute that. All we have is avoidance and insults. So, will you be honest and admit you have nothing. One misrepresented quote does not cut it. It exposes the fallacy of your position.

1. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Satan being cast down from heaven at the second coming?
2. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the binding of Satan at the second coming?
3. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?
4. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Satan survives the second coming?
5. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the second coming?
6. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked populate a future millennial earth?
7. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that the curse continues unabated on a future millennial earth?
8. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that mortals will populate future millennial earth?
9. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that marriage and procreation continue on on a future millennial earth?
10. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that sin continues on in a future millennial earth?
11. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that death continues on in a future millennial earth?
12. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that corruption continues unabated on in a future millennial earth?
13. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus will rule over his enemies for a thousand years after the second coming?
14. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the saints rule over mortal humanity for a thousand years?
15. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the glorified Church will rule in the Millennial era, causing all on earth to submit to the rule of Christ at that time?
16. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the restoring of Israel back to her old covenant theocratic status in a future millennium?
17. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Israel retaking her ancient borders in a future millennium?
18. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan will be released from the bottomless pit 1000 years after the second coming?
19. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as the sand of the sea?
20. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
21. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
22. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second (or 3rd for Pretribbers) rapture when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
23. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second glorification when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
24. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 last days periods - one before the second coming and one after?
25. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 new heavens and new earths one with sin, sinners and corruption in it and the other perfect?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I think "clouds" means "clouds."

What does that mean? Do you think there are clouds in heaven like the clouds we see in the earth's atmosphere?

I do understand that some see "clouds" as "angels." Certainly, Christ's Coming will be with angels because this is said elsewhere. The point is, this Son of Man is coming from heaven, and as such, is likely coming with the angels of heaven.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

When it says "they brought him near before him" who do you think "they" are? It implies that they are previously mentioned. Who else can "they" be except for the previously mentioned "clouds of heaven" that Jesus comes with?

No, I'm saying that part of the coming of the Son of Man begins with an appearance before the Ancient of Days. The vision begins with a prolepsis, in which he is seen coming from heaven, and then explains that he derives his authority from the God of heaven. That way his Coming is understood to be a mandate from God.

There is no mention there of Him coming down from heaven. There is only a mention of Him coming TO the Ancient of Days, implying that He was not previously there with Him. So, where do you think He was before being brought TO God the Father, if not earth? If He is already in heaven when Daniel 7:13 takes place, as you are claiming, then He would already be in God the Father's presence at His right hand where He has been since His ascension.

Is it just a coincidence that Daniel 7:13-14 describes what happened at Christ's ascension as we can see described in passages like Ephesians 1:19-23? At His ascension, He disappeared when a cloud (of angels, imo) received Him out of the sight of those watching Him ascend (Acts 1:9). And then He ascended up to heaven where He was then placed at the right hand of the Father and giving power and dominion over all things. How is that not what Daniel 7:13-14 is about when that is exactly what is described in Daniel 7:13-14?

Yes, so the Son of Man, in coming from heaven, is *also* viewed as being conjoined with his appearing before God to receive the mandate to descend from heaven and establish the authority of God on earth. In other words, his coming from heaven is being depicted in a wide view, including the mandate that had initiated the process.

He is portrayed as being brought before God the Father. Why would He need to be brought before God the Father in the future when He has been at the right hand of the Father since His ascension?

On the contrary, I'm not "making it" anything. I'm beginning with the natural recognition that this Coming is viewed in the NT as a descent from heaven. So, I'm seeing it as an event that begins with an appearance before God to obtain authority to establish His Kingdom on earth.

Why can't His ascent to heaven not be seen as Him coming to heaven from earth?

I could quite easily say you're "making" this not about a "descent from heaven to the earth," which in my view it plainly is.

Plainly? Even though it nowhere mentions Him coming from earth in Daniel 7:13 and only mentions Him coming to the Ancient of Days in heaven? To me, you are plainly twisting the text to fit your doctrine.

The NT appears to interpret it as such in all the places where we see the Son of Man coming with the clouds, whether in 1 Thes 4 or in the book of Revelation.

Nowhere does the NT portray His coming with the clouds of heaven down from heaven after first being brought before God the Father. Again, He has been in God the Father's presence since His ascension, so there would be no need for Him to be brought to God the Father in the future.

It is all about a descent from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

No, it's all about Him ascending to the right hand of the Father while being given dominion, authority and power over all things just as scripture says occurred at His ascension in passages like Ephesians 1:19-23.

As I said, I don't interpret "clouds" to be "angels" at all. I think Jesus can be accompanied by angels at any time since they are his ministering spirits.

What exactly do you think "clouds of heaven" are? Do you think there are literal clouds in heaven?

But yes, Jesus obtained authority in heaven when he ascended--he just refrained from using that authority to establish God's Kingdom on earth, which he will only do at the proper time.

This is sad to see. You are on the earth now. Do you deny being in the kingdom of God now which "is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17)? Do you not think Jesus exercises any authority in your life? Is He not your King right now?

That's when the Son of Man returns from heaven with his angels and in the clouds to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Thank you for being more civil in our discussion. I very much appreciate it and respect you for that.

It's not easy because of what I see you doing with the text in Daniel 7:13.

 

[WPM]

I quoted Irenaeus exactly. You mean, I'm "twisting things" if you wish it to say something else?

I quoted Irenaeus directly!

Satan is not subject to the authority of the Church except when God prioritizes our mission over his wish to persecute and obstruct us. Satan is under God's authority--not ours.

Satan is still free to roam like a ravenous lion--we can't stop that. We can cast demons out of people, but we can't cast Satan out of the world! That would mean we have full authority over him. But we don't--God does.

Irenaeus spoke of Satan being bound *legally* at the Cross so that he cannot prevent us from getting Saved. That means the authority Christ uses to ultimately bind Satan at his 2nd Coming derives from the authority he obtained to bind Satan when he died on the Cross.

But Satan still rules as a prince of the power of the air, and Christians are still being persecuted and obstructed. That is plainly the reality in this present age!

Irenaeus, however, speaks of another "binding of Satan," which takes place in Rev 20, when he is bound for a thousand literal years. Irenaeus was a Premillennialist. That is plainly in the text since Irenaeus refers to the "Dragon" who, in the Revelation, is defeated at Christ's 2nd Coming.

This is simply not true. 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 Amil 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.

Irenaeus is applying the binding of Satan to the First Advent. He believed and taught that Satan would be destroyed at the second coming, like all the ancient Chiliasts. You are fighting with the evidence.

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.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

He blatantly misrepresented that last quote from Irenaeus as relating to the second coming of Christ. Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there and it's very clear that Luke 10:19 relates to the first coming of Christ, not the second. Over and over again we see Premills not only misrepresent Amil beliefs, but also the beliefs of the ECFs.

False. I acknowledged that Irenaeus tied the "binding of Satan" to *both* the 1st and 2nd Comings. Your continued insistence on using provocative characterizations of what I'm doing is despicable.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In another thread where you referenced your post #582 in this thread, you said this:


Where do you see any mention of Christ's second coming here? Notice that he references Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there. Do you try to claim that Luke 10:19 applies to the second coming of Christ? It clearly does not.

The context of Luke 10:19 is in relation to the first coming of Christ, not the second.

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. 3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So, Jesus sent 70 of His followers to go, two by two, "into every city and place, whither he himself would come" to preach to them "as lambs among wolves".

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

After His 70 followers returned, they reported to Him that "even the devils are subject unto us through thy name". And He then "beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". And then Jesus told His 70 followers that He had sent out: "I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.". This relates to that time long ago, not to when He comes in the future. Satan was bound back then which is why Christ's followers had power "over all the power of the enemy", which included Satan. So, you are misrepresenting what Irenaeus said there by saying He was relating the binding of Satan with the second coming. He did not. He would not have used Luke 10:19, which clearly has a first coming context, in support of what he was saying there if he was relating the binding of Satan to the second coming rather than the first coming of Christ.

Go back and read where I referenced Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 23, 7.

 

[WPM]

False. I acknowledged that Irenaeus tied the "binding of Satan" to *both* the 1st and 2nd Comings. Your continued insistence on using provocative characterizations of what I'm doing is despicable.

LOL, where does he relate the binding of Satan to the second coming? You insert texts into the original text but fail to see that they are pointing to the First Advent.

 

[WPM]

Go back and read where I referenced Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 23, 7.

More avoidance. This is the Premil MO.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Irenaeus was a Chiliast NOT a Premillennialist. BIG difference.

We've had this discussion before, and I just referenced it and explained it. Irenaeus was *both* a Chiast and a Premillennialist. He believed in a literal thousand year period following Christ's Return. You claim things even after your claims have been disproved. You don't have to agree. My view only.

 

[WPM]

We've had this discussion before, and I just referenced it and explained it. Irenaeus was *both* a Chiast and a Premillennialist. He believed in a literal thousand year period following Christ's Return. You claim things even after your claims have been disproved. You don't have to agree. My view only.

Answer the questions and stop avoiding! You or no Premillennialist has any answers to these questions. You have been ducking around these for years. Cough up or shut up.