Search results

MORE AVOIDANCE! You have to. Your argument is in tatters.

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...

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. Where do...

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.

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

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...

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...

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? Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the binding of Satan at the second coming? Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts...

LOL. Let's put your wild claims to the test and see who the real spiritualizers are and who the real literalists are. I put it to you it is the Premils who are the real spiritualizers and Amils who the real literalists! I Thessalonians 5:2-3: “the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the...

Answer what he asked you. You're always avoiding the obvious.

Romanists hate Reformed theology.

You do not address the counter-arguments of others, you just talk around them. The previous post that you replied to actually refutes your claims here.

I reject your small-god man-centered theology.

You are fighting Scripture. You need to change your title. The truth will set you free.

Christians can live in the past and the future, and miss the moment. Both are equally wrong. Both cause a believer to take their eye off the ball. Extreme Pretersists are the most fixated group I have ever met. All they want to talk about is AD70, which was an ancient judgment on the Jews. What...

I agree!

I was simply looking some historic evidence to back up your claims. After all, the first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. But, alas, I got nothing

But these threads are presented to address the historic data or scriptural data on the table. So, it is understandable and profitable to see if you have real proof to support your position. From my perspective it seems you do not. I feel I am always refuting your opinions, not hard solid...

There was no reason to take offense. I'm judging your mode of interpretation not your character. I disagree with your hermeneutics. I'm entitled to do that. So are you.

I have no difficulty with you disagreeing with me. But it is needful for you too support your claims with hard evidence. I'm sure you would agree, personal opinion means nothing. Most Christians that comment on Church history just repeat erroneous claims that they have heard from others say or...