I didn't at all avoid your "facts," which aren't really facts at all. As I said,
THIS in "3" proves you wrong.
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 justly indeed is he led captive, who had led men unjustly into bondage; while man, who had been led captive in times past, was rescued from the grasp of his possessor, according to the tender mercy of God the Father, who had compassion on His own handiwork, and gave to it salvation, restoring it by means of the Word — that is, by Christ — in order that men might learn by actual proof that he receives incorruptibility not of himself, but by the free gift of God.
And so, IRENAEUS applies the "strong man" idea to the Cross, where Christ, the stronger one, prevailed over Satan, who according to IRENAEUS, was bound and rendered impotent so that Man can be saved. Clearly, this reference to the "strong man" IRENAEUS is applying to the Cross.
Since IREANEUS is Premil, calling me a "liar" for saying Premils adhere to the idea of the "strong man" applying to the cross is unfounded, unfair, and mean-spirited. And you are surprised that my protesting this seems in itself "insulting?" The "strong man" account is a *principle* that applies, whether at the cross or at any exorcism. It is not to be tied to a particular event, like the binding of Satan in a pit will be!
Your 2nd point, that Premils do not accept the final defeat of Satan at the 2nd Coming is ludicrous, since Premils accept the Bible as written, and the Bible itself indicates that Satan is completely defeated at the 2nd Coming. I've already quoted the passages.
The defeat of Antichrist *is* the defeat of Satan's Kingdom, as we read in Rev 11...
“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”
Many Premils would accept this defeat of Satan's Kingdom as taking place at the 2nd Coming of Christ.
Your 3rd point, that Premils believe Satan is alive and well in the Millennium is the most ridiculous point of the 3! We have been arguing all along that Premils believe Satan is bound during that period. And now, you would call that a lie?
I said:
Since Christ defeated Satan at the cross, legally, obviously using Christ's own description Satan had to have been bound in some sense. He was not bound in the sense of being imprisoned, but he was bound in the sense of being prevented from successfully bringing capital charges against the saints.
Satan was defeated, legally, at the cross, because he became inept at charging the saints with fatal acts of sin. Complete absolution came into operation at the cross, leading to eternal life. And Satan was powerless, in this instance, to stop it. God was the one who could forgive, and Satan couldn't stop him.
So the work of Christ was *legal,* and did not stop Satan from ruling in our atmosphere, in our world. He continues to assault us, accuse us, oppose us, and hinder us. He won't stop until his Kingdom is destroyed at Armageddon.
Satan is still on a rampage, like an angry lion. But Christ gives us a down payment on a victory that he has already won on our behalf, being both our lawyer and our God.
As I said, Satan was not formally bound at the cross, even if the Church Fathers used that language. It was a principle that Jesus posed, that if Satan is to be defeated, it must be by one who is stronger, namely himself.
Jesus had the ability to legally defeat Satan, and did that, though the defeat of his Kingdom awaits the 2nd Coming. Jesus said his own future Kingdom is "near," but not yet *here.* When it comes, Satan's Kingdom will be defeated, or "obliterated," for all time. There will be a final "cough," but it will not last long.
So if Satan was not formally bound, as if he was sentenced and imprisoned, then he never was in a prison that he had to be released from in order to rampage through the earth in the present age! He was simply defeated by one who is stronger, namely God. And this was to accomplish salvation for the saints, and not yet to put Satan into a prison. That will happen at the 2nd Coming.
I've been saying this all along. When we say that "Satan is obliterated," what we're saying is that his Kingdom is obliterated, that Satan suffers a form of "death" at the same time the Antichristian Kingdom is destroyed from the earth.
After all, the kind of defeat we're talking about has to do with removing impurities and evil from the earth. Removing Antichrist and with him, Satan, from the earth is a major step in this direction. However, sinful humanity continues even without the Antichrist and Satan, so that God allows Satan a very brief re-visitation of the earth prior to confirming his destination.
Satan begins his prison sentence at the 2nd Coming, which effectively removes him from the earth. But after his brief release at the end of the Millennium, his prison sentence will be confirmed as final. And the Lake of Fire simply means that he is removed from the earth into Outer Darkness forever.
Quite simply, sinful mankind doesn't stop at the 2nd Coming. It is just restrained. The rule of the glorified Church, together with Christ, restrain the world from doing what it would do, just as in a Christian Kingdom many subjects are not true believers but are bound by the laws and army of the King. At any time, should a pretender with great magnetism arise, the people will join in a rebellion against the King and against his Kingdom. Don't be surprised that so many on earth under the laws of Christ can be secret imposters, who suddenly reveal their betrayal in the millions!
When this restraint is lifted, then the millions of people who lived nominal Christian lives or even restrained pagan lives will suddenly join forces with Satan to try to defeat Christian rule over their lives.
and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him
IRENAEUS is here quoting Rev 20, where "the dragon" and "the old serpent" is referenced. We know he is referencing that not just because he uses the exact same names of Satan as mentioned there, but also because that passage immediately follows the defeat of Antichrist in ch. 19.
So, it is not Rev 20 but Rev 19 that references the defeat of Antichrist, and Rev 20 follows by showing that this time is simultaneous with the binding of Satan for a thousand years. Clearly, IRENAEUS is extending his support for this interpretation when he alludes to the "binding of Satan."
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.
IRENAEUS sort of encapsulates the entirety of history, from Eden to the 2nd Coming, to show that the Serpent would be bruised by Christ to pay him back for "biting him," legally removing death from the saints. It would lead to the "death" of the Serpent at the 2nd Coming, which begins with his binding and ends with his eternal extermination.
