Search results

I am finally home! There is such a palpable danger in taking your word for things when it comes to historic detail pertaining to the early Church fathers. The quote you have been presenting for weeks to support your theology was not from Tertullian but was actually from Irenaeus. This is why I...

When did one single ECF expressly predict the binding of Satan at the second coming? Nowhere! What you are foisting upon Tertullian is butchering his teaching on the subjugation of the kingdom of darkness at the First Advent. He is showing how we rule over the devil/demons because He did. You...

Satan is already spiritually bound. Our Chilast brethren saw that. They also knew they were in the last days.

No. Not correct. Your posts are contradicting each other. In one breath you accept Satan was bound at the First Advent, in the next you refute that, to accommodate your theology. In one breath you accept that the last days began at the First Advent, in the next you refute that, to accommodate...

This has already happened. He will soon be released before the second coming. Your reasoning is back to front.

Again, you are forcing your opinion on an ECF in order to support your beliefs. The early Chiliasts believed Satan was bound 2000 years ago, as was his kingdom. They believed there would be an end-time last throw of the enemy. Tertullian's view of the new earth align more with modern day Amil,

Not so. Tertullian believed the last days were ushered in 2000 years ago.

Hello! The last days began at the First Advent. Jesus ushered these in and subjugated the whole kingdom of darkness. Satan will get a little season before the second coming. The devil's head has been bruised and the people of God are now enforcing this great victory.

We are not talking about your "view of Antichrist on Dan 7 and 2 Thes 2, as well as ... Rev 13." we have are talking about Tertullian's teaching, which made no reference to these. What is more. He never mentioned your supposed future millennium in that quote. If I am wrong, highlight it in the...

Again, you are forcing your own faulty theology upon the early fathers. Why not admit they conflict at every turn with Premil teaching? None of thus is in the ancient text above. This is a modern apparition.

Sorry? Where is antichrist or the last days mentioned in Rev 20? Your reasoning doesn't add up. Antichrist oppoerates in the last days - which since the cross, not after the second coming. The fact is: this teaching is all referring to the First Advent, as I showed. You can search all you want...

He does not remotely mention some supposed future millennium, neither is Revelation 20 mentioned in the original manuscript. Everything he says relates to the First Advent and he espouses nothing about sin and sinners, dying and crying, disease and decay, the devil and his demons corrupting a...

Your quote supports my thesis that Satan was bound through the First Advent. This was the early Chiliast and Amil position. Premils reject that.

I am out of the country at the moment and do not have access to all my historic data. I can provide that when I return. Scripture shows Christ bound the strong man 2000 years ago. That is indisputable. This is another proof that supports Amil. Your hyper-literal view of the abyss is in error...

These men believed Satan was bound at the First Advent and will be destroyed at the second coming. This will see the climactic abolition of the bondage of corruption. This is completely the opposite to ancient heretical Premil and modern Premil.

Hello! The ECFs never mentioned any negative aspects in the age to come for 210 years after the cross because they didn't believe it. It is not until AD240 that there is a non-heretical Premil ECF who believed in another age of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his...

Not so. You have one tenet in common with early Chiliasts. That is it. Amils have many common beliefs. What is more, all the early Chiliasts and Amils for 210 years after the cross believed in a climactic return of Christ that saw the end of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay...

How possibly can you deduce from this that Lacantius viewed Premil to be " the dominant Christian teaching" within the early Church? That is totally twisting his words to mean something he didn't say. You have clearly a vivid imagination and a severe lack of objectivity with your analysis of...

Where are the survivors in 1 Thess 4 and 5?

Totally disagree. Where is your evidence? I will not hold my breath. You make these claims yet fail to carry through with hard evidence. Your claims are simply based on discredited "historians" like Thomas Ice. That says it all! The pattern is: one partial Premil advocate bases his views upon...