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

[Randy Kluth]

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

The environment that includes the clouds in our atmosphere is part of what I call "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.

"They?" The "clouds" don't bring anybody unless via personification.

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?

My version reads, 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.

There is no mention there of Him coming down from heaven.

The *descent* from heaven is implied when one "comes" back to earth from whence he left. If he comes from the clouds it is because he left and was covered with clouds. He was to return in the same way he left, revealed from the clouds and returning to earth.

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?

I can only speculate. The vision of his receiving authority may be coupled with his Return to show that he is bringing God's Kingdom to bear on the earth. The same thing is shown in the book of Revelation where Jesus' Coming is viewed as a prolepsis, and then later, a vision of heaven is shown giving Jesus the authority to come back to earth and establish God's Kingdom.

Nowhere does the NT portray His coming with the clouds of heaven down from heaven after first being brought before God the Father.

Every time the NT shows the Son of Man coming with the clouds it is a "descent from heaven," and a "coming to earth." Being "brought before the Father" is obviously the introduction to this event, which is being shown as a prolepsis.

And so, the vision of his appearance before God is not necessarily in sequence with Christ's arrival on the earth. Yet, it is still part of his Return.

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 could be a review of his authority, as received at Christ's Ascension. But much more, this is no longer "legal papers" allowing this Return. It is a document indicating the *time* of his return.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Yes, I already acknowledged that. Irenaeus also believed the "binding of Satan" would further limit Satan according to Rev 20. The words he used were taken from the book of Revelation.

He also believed in the destruction of Satan at the second coming.

People mean different things by "destruction" and "binding." I'm not sure Irenaeus believed in the complete "annihilation" of Satan, meaning that he ceased to exist?

No, I think Irenaeus was speaking of the *complete defeat* of Satan, 1st legally at the Cross, and then finally at the 2nd Coming (with the exception of Satan's final rebellion at the end of the Millennium).

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.

The 1st Advent "binding of Satan" was certainly not the "full package," as I showed you from Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 23. 7.

Ironically, this is the verbiage of Amillennialism.

No, this is the whole point. You wish to paint Chiliasm as something as much Amil as Premil. But Irenaeus doesn't limit the "binding of Satan" to Christ's legal act on the Cross. He indicates the "Dragon" is bound at the 2nd Coming, initiating the literal Millennium.

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. 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, 1 Corinthians 15:26 which at the first had taken possession of man.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 23, 7.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Answer the questions and stop avoiding!

Stop claiming I'm "avoiding." Obviously, I've been responding to your posts with clarity and to the point.

You or no Premillennialist has any answers to these questions. You have been ducking around these for years. Cough up or shut up.

Your lack of self-control is showing. Please be polite, or I'm done with you...again.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT saying you didn't acknowledge that Irenaeus tied the binding of Satan to both the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ. What I was alluding to was how Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said in his quote that you tried to apply to the 2nd coming instead. It's not even debatable that Luke 10:19 has a first coming context rather than a second coming context. Can you acknowledge that?

Here is what you said:

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.

He clearly indicated that what he was saying here is related to what Luke 10:19 is about and that verse references something that happened in relation to His first coming, which is undeniable. So, why are you trying to say that what Irenaeus said here has anything to do with him believing that Satan would be bound at the second coming? He makes no mention of the second coming here and instead uses a verse related to His first coming to support his understanding of the timing of Satan's binding.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

That is what I was responding to in post #431! So, why are you telling me to go back and read it? I obviously did read it and that's why I was responding to what you said about it. How about you actually respond to what I said in post #431 about your claim that he said something about Satan's binding in relation to the second coming there. In that quote Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there which contradicts your claim that he was talking about Satan being bound at Christ's second coming since Luke 10:19 has a first coming context.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I already acknowledged that. Irenaeus also believed the "binding of Satan" would further limit Satan according to Rev 20. The words he used were taken from the book of Revelation.

People mean different things by "destruction" and "binding." I'm not sure Irenaeus believed in the complete "annihilation" of Satan, meaning that he ceased to exist?

No, I think Irenaeus was speaking of the *complete defeat* of Satan, 1st legally at the Cross, and then finally at the 2nd Coming (with the exception of Satan's final rebellion at the end of the Millennium).

The 1st Advent "binding of Satan" was certainly not the "full package," as I showed you from Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 23. 7.

No, this is the whole point. You wish to paint Chiliasm as something as much Amil as Premil. But Irenaeus doesn't limit the "binding of Satan" to Christ's legal act on the Cross. He indicates the "Dragon" is bound at the 2nd Coming, initiating the literal Millennium.

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. 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, 1 Corinthians 15:26 which at the first had taken possession of man.

LOL. You have added Revelation 20:2 to the original text (with the other two references), as you do. This reinforces a current fulfillment of Rev 20 by Irenaeus.

The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. The work of Christ is seen here by Irenaeus as causing a serious impairment of the devil’s strength, movement and ability. He is a crippled foe. He is impaired in his strategies. Satan had to be defeated for man to receive new life. The writer here shows this victory as a past event. He supports his contention by employing Genesis 3:15, which predicted the injuring of Satan at the cross: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Irenaeus makes it abundantly clear here that “the foe [Satan] was conquered.” He was not describing some future event. He was looking at a past victory which has resulted in an incredible ongoing spiritual victory for God’s people. This is reinforced by the idea that he teaches that the said victory would be evidenced by Satan being subject to the power of man – the New Testament Church. This has been an ongoing reality for 2000 years. This is long been fulfilled. One just has to observe the gospels to see that.

This is therefore not talking about some distant hope in some alleged future millennium after the second coming, it is talking about a current reality in our day. Satan is under the feet of the Church as they spread the good news of the Gospel throughout the nations. Through the binding of Satan, the Church has gained power over Satan.

The ancient Patriarch relates the binding of the devil to the bruising of Satan’s head. He shows, that through this, Satan was subjected “to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down.” Various Scripture support this. 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).

Irenaeus doesn’t just limit the conquest of the First Advent to our arch-enemy Satan. He shows that a victory over every other enemy was secured. 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.” Irenaeus here connects the crushing of Satan to the binding of “the dragon, that old serpent” (predicted in Genesis). 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 includes the defeat of antichrist. Satan had to first be defeated (bound) before every other enemy could be defeated. This fits with the constant teaching of Irenaeus on the binding of Satan. This correlates with Amil and refutes modern Premillennialism. Sin, death, the beast and Satan are all shown to have been defeated through the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ in all Irenaeus' writings.

The writer again shows that death has already been defeated by Christ’s victorious victory over the grave. Death has lost its sting; the grave has lost its victory. Sin death, hell and the devil are inextricably tied together. In Old Testament times, Satan had the power of death, but now, since the First Advent, Christ possess that because Christ defeated death and bound Satan from keeping the world from hearing the Gospel. He can therefore no longer keep liberated believers in bondage to the fear of death but instead gives them hope of eternal life. 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.”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 23, 7.

Where does Irenaeus say anything about the binding of Satan in relation to Christ's second coming there? Show us. He references Luke 10:19 there to support what he was saying. Do you think Luke 10:19 has a second coming context? It clearly does not.

 

[WPM]

Where does Irenaeus say anything about the binding of Satan in relation to Christ's second coming there? Show us. He references Luke 10:19 there to support what he was saying. Do you think Luke 10:19 has a second coming context? It clearly does not.

Exactly! He is speaking about 1 binding. He believed that Satan is destroyed at the second coming, not bound.

 

[WPM]

Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 23, 7.

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

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

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

Premillennialist, Chris Gousmett submits: “The work of redemption not only makes this consummation possible, it actualises it. The restoration of creation is not simply a repristinated original, it is matured and enhanced, brought to what it was intended to become, not simply to what it had once been” (Shall the Body Strive and Not Be Crowned? p. 127).

Gousmett adds: “For Irenaeus, the resurrection is the prelude to the glorification of the entire created order. The creation will also be liberated from bondage to evil, and in its purified state is a suitable reward in itself. Since the creation has suffered from the effects of human sin, it is only just that it should receive liberation along with those who have been redeemed from sin and made righteous. The redemption of the whole creation is at stake in the denial of the resurrection and the millennial kingdom in creation-negating eschatologies, which see redemption not as the restoration of human bodily life in the renewed earth, but as a non-bodily life in heaven” (Shall the Body Strive and Not Be Crowned? p. 134).

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

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

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

Again, the coming of Christ is here represented as glorious and climatic. This sees the resurrection of all mankind. It involves God’s righteous final judgment upon all wickedness. There is no indication that sin and sinners survive the Lord’s future return. Wicked man and wicked angels are both collectively shown to experience “everlasting fire.” The whole demonic realm are finally eliminated forever from the earth.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I already acknowledged that. Irenaeus also believed the "binding of Satan" would further limit Satan according to Rev 20. The words he used were taken from the book of Revelation.

People mean different things by "destruction" and "binding." I'm not sure Irenaeus believed in the complete "annihilation" of Satan, meaning that he ceased to exist?

No, I think Irenaeus was speaking of the *complete defeat* of Satan, 1st legally at the Cross, and then finally at the 2nd Coming (with the exception of Satan's final rebellion at the end of the Millennium).

The 1st Advent "binding of Satan" was certainly not the "full package," as I showed you from Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 23. 7.

No, this is the whole point. You wish to paint Chiliasm as something as much Amil as Premil. But Irenaeus doesn't limit the "binding of Satan" to Christ's legal act on the Cross. He indicates the "Dragon" is bound at the 2nd Coming, initiating the literal Millennium.

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. 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, 1 Corinthians 15:26 which at the first had taken possession of man.

1. When did the last days begin?
2. When do the last days end?
3. When is the last day?
4. Who is antichrist?
5. When did antichrist begin?

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I believe in procreation in a family setting. Its not good idea to invest in single parent believing.

 

[WPM]

Stop claiming I'm "avoiding." Obviously, I've been responding to your posts with clarity and to the point.

Your lack of self-control is showing. Please be polite, or I'm done with you...again.

Stop avoiding.

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?

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is what I was responding to in post #431! So, why are you telling me to go back and read it? I obviously did read it and that's why I was responding to what you said about it. How about you actually respond to what I said in post #431 about your claim that he said something about Satan's binding in relation to the second coming there. In that quote Irenaeus referenced Luke 10:19 in support of what he said there which contradicts your claim that he was talking about Satan being bound at Christ's second coming since Luke 10:19 has a first coming context.

Again, Irenaeus refers to the binding of Satan as both 1st Coming and 2nd Coming events, and shows that they interrelate by applying the *legal aspect* of the binding of Satan at the 1st Coming with the actual binding of Satan on earth at the 2nd Coming. The fact the legal aspect is applied at the 2nd Coming event is not a contradiction but a reinforcement that what was done at the Cross is now being fulfilled at the 2nd Coming.

In other words, Irenaeus would apply Luke 10.19 to the 2nd Coming as the legal qualification obtained at Christ's 1st Coming.

Luke 10.18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

This authority was given during Jesus' earthly ministry, even before the Cross. But it was done in anticipation of the Cross, where Satan would be "bound," as Irenaeus saw it.

But according to Irenaeus, this work at the Cross, and even before, would be realized at the 2nd Coming...

Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 23. 7: 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. 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, 1 Corinthians 15:26 which at the first had taken possession of man.

The place where Irenaeus says "who had been conquered" is a reference back to where Christ, at his 1st Coming, deprived death of its power in Man. And he is saying that the result will be "in the latter days," when "Antichrist is trampled down by Christ."

So, Luke 10.19 belongs to what happened in Jesus' earthly ministry, leading up to the Cross. And the result, according to Irenaeus, would be that the Antichrist is defeated and Satan's power destroyed with the resurrection (1 Cor 15.26).

 

[Randy Kluth]

Stop avoiding.

I've asked you to stop saying that. I've answered everything in sufficient detail.

By regularly stating "stop avoiding," even after I've asked you to quit, you act like you're trying to amuse yourself and be provocative. I said I'll be done with you, and so I am for now...

We had this conversation back in 2022. Go back and read it if you want my answers. I'm not going to just keep repeating unless you have something new. But without respect, our disagreements will not be helpful to us or to anyone else.

 

[WPM]

I've asked you to stop saying that. I've answered everything in sufficient detail.

By regularly stating "stop avoiding," even after I've asked you to quit, you act like you're trying to amuse yourself and be provocative. I said I'll be done with you, and so I am for now...

We had this conversation back in 2022. Go back and read it if you want my answers. I'm not going to just keep repeating unless you have something new. But without respect, our disagreements will not be helpful to us or to anyone else.

• You have been unable to refute the historic evidence above of Irenaeus that shows he believed in the binding of Satan at the First Advent and the destruction of Satan at the Second Advent. That totally destroys your argument. You have no response. You have to run.
• You have been incapable of supporting your thesis.
• You have been unable to answer basic questions I posed.
• It is obvious that you don't know your subject. You're just winging it.

 

[WPM]

I've asked you to stop saying that. I've answered everything in sufficient detail.

By regularly stating "stop avoiding," even after I've asked you to quit, you act like you're trying to amuse yourself and be provocative. I said I'll be done with you, and so I am for now...

We had this conversation back in 2022. Go back and read it if you want my answers. I'm not going to just keep repeating unless you have something new. But without respect, our disagreements will not be helpful to us or to anyone else.

If someone saying "stop avoiding" when you refuse to address any of his questions is "provocative" and 'disrespectful' and a reason to take offence then you are either too thin-skinned or you were looking for a way out. This is nothing compared to some of the insults you and other Premils have thrown at me and fellow posters over the year. The reality is: you were forced into the position where you were going to either admit you were wrong or you had to run. I don't think I've seen you do the latter. So, that left you with one option.

The bottom line is, you need an excuse to run because you have no rebuttal to the evidence.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, Irenaeus refers to the binding of Satan as both 1st Coming and 2nd Coming events, and shows that they interrelate by applying the *legal aspect* of the binding of Satan at the 1st Coming with the actual binding of Satan on earth at the 2nd Coming. The fact the legal aspect is applied at the 2nd Coming event is not a contradiction but a reinforcement that what was done at the Cross is now being fulfilled at the 2nd Coming.

If it isn't fulfilled until the second coming of Christ, then it wasn't done at the cross. The words "done" and "fulfilled" are synonyms.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this because I'm not seeing what you're seeing in his commentary about Satan's binding at all.

It would be nice if you answered a few of the other questions WPM asked. The only one you even attempted to answer was the second question about Satan's binding. How about answering at least a couple of these questions...

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that mortals will populate future millennial earth?

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that sin continues on in a future millennial earth?

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that death continues on in a future millennial earth?

 

[Randy Kluth]

If it isn't fulfilled until the second coming of Christ, then it wasn't done at the cross. The words "done" and "fulfilled" are synonyms.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this because I'm not seeing what you're seeing in his commentary about Satan's binding at all.

It would be nice if you answered a few of the other questions WPM asked. The only one you even attempted to answer was the second question about Satan's binding. How about answering at least a couple of these questions...

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that mortals will populate future millennial earth?

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that sin continues on in a future millennial earth?

Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that death continues on in a future millennial earth?

I'm done with you too, because you and WPM are like a tag team, liking each other as you try to stir things up, saying insulting, provocative things. Actually, I thought you were better than WPM, who is apparently addicted to saying, "You're saying nothing, You're avoiding, or You're running, or You are just 'winging it."

You seemed to be semi-respectful, but you're liking, and thus encouraging, the belittling remarks WPM makes, who is fastened to his aggressive attitude like honey on a bee. I'm done with both of you--not running, not avoiding, just ignoring those who the Bible says we should ignore--troublemakers.

 

[WPM]

I'm done with you too, because you and WPM are like a tag team, liking each other as you try to stir things up, saying insulting, provocative things. Actually, I thought you were better than WPM, who is apparently addicted to saying, "You're saying nothing, You're avoiding, or You're running, or You are just 'winging it."

You seemed to be semi-respectful, but you're liking, and thus encouraging, the belittling remarks WPM makes, who is fastened to his aggressive attitude like honey on a bee. I'm done with both of you--not running, not avoiding, just ignoring those who the Bible says we should ignore--troublemakers.

You are so thin-skinned. You are have such a victim-mentality. That is why you are always taking offence. Stay off these forums if you cannot take criticism or disagreement. The fact is: you are looking for an excuse to run because you are waffling.

Our challenges are minor compared to yours over the years:

I just have concerns about the side effects of being an Amil.

What kind of weird cult do you belong to that you don't believe basic Christian doctrine? Surely you don't belong here, spreading heresy among Christians

Amills here act like a gang of thugs.

You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism.

Why else would you make this an idol?

Amil is his idol, put quite simply. Yes, that's my opinion

I question your Christianity, or the quality of your Christianity.

For you Eternal Life seems to be a concept, a doctrine, rather than a life experience

Are you even a real Christian?

you're a fake Christian, a backslidden Christian, or some kind of egotistical Christian.

I'm honestly concerned for the state of your soul.

you must be spiritually blind

I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

You just seem to be a little more open--angry, paranoid perhaps

How long have you been hood-winking people like this?

Like the carnal person that you are

you've proven yourself to be incorrigible, unteachable, and narcissistic. You seem to be looking for followers, for confirmation that you're right. Why else would you make this an idol?

I lose interest in reading the rest of your trash talk.

It's a work of your own, and not a work of the Lord.

I stand by all of my statements because they're true. And although they're true, that you're a very carnal Christian, who makes me wonder if he isn't in some kind of false Christian cult, I keep trying to reach out in fellowship.

I can't imagine why you think he's a "saint?" He cultivates followers--I know the type, and yes--I have a gift of discernment.

You can sometimes tell that someone is off track and not aligned with the word of God. Their rage is evidence of that fact. Their obsessive idolization of their doctrines indicate that somewhere along the way they've gotten off track, gotten lost, and now find themselves groping in the dark

You try to create carnal divisions in the church to preserve your idol, Amil?

You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism.

you are disruptive,

You don't have love

You're lawless,

You dummy!

This goofball

You're immature.