The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

I already answered this. The "Last Days" have application based on the context we're using. Biblically, the Last Days did begin with Jesus' 1st Coming because the era, at that time, was characterized by the progress Israel was making towards arriving at the inception of the Kingdom. It was the "Last Days" for them because it would be the age of their final punishment, in preparation for their final national salvation.

None of this has a thing to do with how Tertullian was applying "the latter days" during which Antichrist will reign. According to Daniel, and also according to Tertullian, Antichrist reigns just prior to Christ's 2nd Coming and the establishment of his Kingdom on earth.

Also, the defeat of Satan in the matter of accusing the saints, along with the defeat of death, legally, have no bearing on the final defeat of death spoken of elsewhere in the Bible. The 1st Resurrection, ie the resurrection of the Church, takes place when death is defeated at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

But you've already heard my arguments for all this, and as I guessed, you would show no inclination towards serious consideration of the points.

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

Irenaeus believed the last days began with Jesus' 1st Coming, just as we all should believe. But he also believed "the latter days" in context was being applied to the reign of Antichrist, which for Irenaeus is to take place just prior to Christ's 2nd Coming.

In other words, "latter days" is a generic designation that applies differently, depending on the user's context. You are conflating the "latter days" connected to the reign of Antichrist with the "latter days" referring to the entire NT age as the era before the Kingdom of God.

Since Irenaeus was specifically applying the "latter days" to the time of Antichrist's reign, and not to the entire NT age, this shouldn't be in question. Irenaeus clearly believed that Antichrist is going to reign in the latter days of the NT era.

 

[Timtofly]

I object to that because I don't see it in the Scriptures. And I don't see Christians in history accepting that as from the Scriptures either. Either God speaks to you alone, or He isn't in this teaching.

It's not just the use of the term "Christian." It's more that rejection of that word, which applies indefinitely, as long as there is a distinction between Christians and non-Christians. If people are evangelized at all, it is aimed at sinful people who need to learn how to live in righteousness so that they may have hope of immortality, or eternal life with God.

Then you have two groups of Christians.

One, the body of Christ in Paradise.

The other separate from Christ on earth with Christ.

When Christ is on earth, He is a person, not a group. The whole group of disciples did not all join Jesus on the Cross as a group. The sheep were scattered until Pentecost. Matthew 25:31 is Jesus on a throne in Jerusalem. The sheep are brought before Him. Jesus pronounces them righteous. Did they come to Jerusalem on their own free will, or did angels bring them to Jerusalem? Did they submit to Jesus as sheep on their own free will, or did Jesus choose them to be sheep? Was there an alter call of faith?

They were only called Christians after Jesus was already back in heaven. They trusted in faith. How can you call them Christians in Egypt before Moses led them out? How are they called Christians at the time of Davd and Solomon. How were they Christians during Daniel's Babylonian captivity?

When Jesus rules from His throne in the Millennium, all will be righteous. They will not be called Christians, because there are no unsaved to point out a difference between redeemed and those not redeemed. There will not be those who follow King Jesus, and then a rebel group who vote against King Jesus. There is only one kingdom, that all nations are in subjection to. It is not a democracy.

Any separatist group were killed as children and never took root. There is no tolerance under the iron rod rule to think outside the box.

 

[Timtofly]

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 for support for modern day Premil amongst the orthodox Chiliasts for 2 full centuries after the cross and you will find nothing. You will only gain support from the heretical camp. All the orthodox writers espoused modern Amil fundamentals re the age to come, of it being the beginning of perfection.

Are you saying Tertullian was a heretic?

Tertullian put the last days in reference to an antichrist. The binding of Satan is mentioned in Revelation 20. Paul is the one that places an "antichrist" at the Second Coming. Unless you think Paul is talking only about Satan and not a human at all.

I guess when Satan holds a news conference, you all Amil will know he is loosed and the Second Coming will soon happen, no? Where is this news conference of Satan mentioned in the Olivet Discourse?

Why don't you post the original manuscript of Tertullian, if you don't like the "doctored" one? Is there another Scripture that should be noted where Satan is bound in the latter days?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Then you have two groups of Christians.

One, the body of Christ in Paradise.

The other separate from Christ on earth with Christ.

Exactly! I have the glorified saints in heaven ruling over a still-mortal earth, filled with people who have come through Armageddon intact. These people range from undeveloped faith to no faith at all, but will then be exposed to the revival of Christian states throughout the world.

This will be an opportunity for the Millennial population to fill the earth with genuine Christians, fulfilling God's plan to fill the world with the knowledge of Himself, "as the waters cover the sea."

When Christ is on earth, He is a person, not a group. The whole group of disciples did not all join Jesus on the Cross as a group. The sheep were scattered until Pentecost. Matthew 25:31 is Jesus on a throne in Jerusalem. The sheep are brought before Him. Jesus pronounces them righteous. Did they come to Jerusalem on their own free will, or did angels bring them to Jerusalem? Did they submit to Jesus as sheep on their own free will, or did Jesus choose them to be sheep? Was there an alter call of faith?

I'm having trouble understanding your confusion here! You are just discussing a single passage, Matt 25, and not expressing the entire biblical portrait of a future Kingdom of God. So, you are trying to use a questionable, debatable passage to design your overall view of the Millennium.

I certainly wouldn't think that Christ is a "group!" In Matt 25 he appears to assume reign over the earth in the Kingdom of God. So this is reference, I think, to the Rapture of the Church, in which God selects out from the whole group those who are to inherit the eternal Kingdom of God, and selects out those who are not going to be part of this group--they will be sent later to the Lake of Fire, according to Rev 20. But they are immediately excluded from Paradise, and sent away to be kept for eternal punishment.

 

[Timtofly]

Exactly! I have the glorified saints in heaven ruling over a still-mortal earth, filled with people who have come through Armageddon intact. These people range from undeveloped faith to no faith at all, but will then be exposed to the revival of Christian states throughout the world.

This will be an opportunity for the Millennial population to fill the earth with genuine Christians, fulfilling God's plan to fill the world with the knowledge of Himself, "as the waters cover the sea."

No, all you have is the here and now.

The point of Jesus on earth, is that it is no longer the here and now.

I am not seeing any proof of your theoretical Millennium from Scripture.

All I am seeing in the Millennium are the sheep and wheat, the final harvest after the Second Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, all you have is the here and now.

The point of Jesus on earth, is that it is no longer the here and now.

I am not seeing any proof of your theoretical Millennium from Scripture.

All I am seeing in the Millennium are the sheep and wheat, the final harvest after the Second Coming.

Well yes, there is the final harvest of the present age, at which time the Church of the current age enters into her period of rule in the Age to Come, the Kingdom Age. And if we are to rule and reign with Christ, then there must be mortals to rule over!

I call it "the Jewish Hope," the hope of the Kingdom of God, that sets the stage for belief in the Millennial age to come. The Jews will never believe that it has arrived until they have been fully recovered from all of God's punishments, and finally liberated for all time from their enemies. This hope is based on the Abrahamic Covenant, which was God's promise to give him a nation. There must be a future age to allow for this fulfillment, in my opinion. But you're entitled to yours.

 

[WPM]

Tertullian believed the last days began with Jesus' 1st Coming, just as we all should believe. But he also believed "the latter days" in context was being applied to the reign of Antichrist, which for Tertullian is to take place just prior to Christ's 2nd Coming.

In other words, "latter days" is a generic designation that applies differently, depending on the user's context. You are conflating the "latter days" connected to the reign of Antichrist with the "latter days" referring to the entire NT age as the era before the Kingdom of God.

Since Tertullian was specifically applying the "latter days" to the time of Antichrist's reign, and not to the entire NT age, this shouldn't be in question. Tertullian clearly believed that Antichrist is going to reign in the latter days of the NT era.

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,

 

[Randy Kluth]

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,

No, I wasn't forcing my beliefs on Irenaeus' statements--I was quoting him. He clearly mentioned the latter days of Antichrist's reign. If you can't recognize that, then there's no use sharing. You're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what.

You asked for real evidence. I give it, and you fall back on complete denial of the facts. Sorry, nothing more needs to be said. Here it is again...

Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
III. 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 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down.

You are conflating the defeat of death and of Satan's power to accuse the saints at the cross with the binding of Satan at Antichrist's defeat. They are *2 separate events!* And that's what the early Church Fathers believed, as evidenced by Tertullian's statement here!

 

[WPM]

No, I wasn't forcing my beliefs on Tertullian's statements--I was quoting him. He clearly mentioned the latter days of Antichrist's reign. If you can't recognize that, then there's no use sharing. You're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what.

You asked for real evidence. I give it, and you fall back on complete denial of the facts. Sorry, nothing more needs to be said. Here it is again...

Tertullian, Against Heresies:
III. 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 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down.

You are conflating the defeat of death and of Satan's power to accuse the saints at the cross with the binding of Satan at Antichrist's defeat. They are *2 separate events!* And that's what the early Church Fathers believed, as evidenced by Tertullian's statement here!

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

My reason is based on what Irenaeus said, and avoids your attempts to rationalize it away. Death was defeated at the cross. Satan's accusation of the Church, consigning us to Hell, was defeated at the cross. That already happened. The cross already happened. That may be described by some as a "binding of Satan," but it bears no relation to the binding of Satan mentioned in Rev 20.

The binding of Satan in Rev 20, mentioned by Irenaeus, happens in the latter days, when Antichrist is defeated. That is when Satan is bound for a thousand years. The assumption that this "binding of Satan" is for a thousand years comes from Tertullian's obvious reference to Rev 20, where it is explicitly said that Satan is bound *for a thousand years!*

You wish to allegorize the thousand years. I don't. We're at an impasse. But you won't be able to prove Tertullian or other early Church Fathers believed that Satan was *completely* bound at the cross. They only believed, rightly, that Satan was *defeated* at the cross, with respect to his wish to impose eternal death on the saints.

Satan was defeated at the cross, but he remains the prince of the power of the air, and he continues to assail believers. His continuing attack on Christianity will only end at the 2nd Coming, when Antichrist is defeated.

That is what Irenaeus taught. I am twisting nothing in this! I'll let others judge, with the exception that I have no interest in hearing from any "cheerleaders." I just want the truth.

 

[Timtofly]

Well yes, there is the final harvest of the present age, at which time the Church of the current age enters into her period of rule in the Age to Come, the Kingdom Age. And if we are to rule and reign with Christ, then there must be mortals to rule over!

I call it "the Jewish Hope," the hope of the Kingdom of God, that sets the stage for belief in the Millennial age to come. The Jews will never believe that it has arrived until they have been fully recovered from all of God's punishments, and finally liberated for all time from their enemies. This hope is based on the Abrahamic Covenant, which was God's promise to give him a nation. There must be a future age to allow for this fulfillment, in my opinion. But you're entitled to yours.

The church is already in Paradise ruling over current humans.

Right now is when the kingdom of rule cannot be observed on earth.

Right now is when sinners are adopted into the family from above.

That will change at the Second Coming.

No more of Adam's dead corruptible flesh to change during the Millennium Kingdom. All will be born righteous into permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

We are not arguing over if it happens. You think there will be no change. I claim there will be a change out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. My point is that earth will be restored to the conditions prior to when Adam disobeyed God. Except humans on earth will not be glorified. The sons of God remain in Paradise. The firstfruits of the Millennium Kingdom will be those harvested after the Second Coming in the Trumpets and Thunders. The church will be removed and all the church from all 6,000 years of Adam's punishment, will be glorified at the 5th and 6th Seals. The souls under the alter is symbolic of the entire church body covered by the Atonement of the Lamb.

Those during the final harvest will be changed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, just like the church was. That is what the symbolism of "being killed like they were". Many take that phrase as literal martyrdom. This is not martyrdom. This is the soul leaving Adam's dead corruptible flesh behind.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The church is already in Paradise ruling over current humans.

I certainly don't see that, nor do I believe it. We've received authority to testify to the Gospel, to live the Christian life, to carry out our ministries, but unless we're a political ruler we don't rule yet.

Right now is when the kingdom of rule cannot be observed on earth.

If it can't be observed, then it isn't happening.

Right now is when sinners are adopted into the family from above.

What do you mean family *from above?* The only family I know is the one down here on earth!

That will change at the Second Coming.

No more of Adam's dead corruptible flesh to change during the Millennium Kingdom. All will be born righteous into permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

There you go again--making things up! Where do you get this stuff? Yes, Christians of the present age will be given immortality. But who is "born" righteous into permanent incorruptible physical bodies?

We are not arguing over if it happens. You think there will be no change. I claim there will be a change out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. My point is that earth will be restored to the conditions prior to when Adam disobeyed God. Except humans on earth will not be glorified.

This gets so confusing! If people are not yet glorified, they *cannot* return to Paradise! That was the curse God laid upon all of mankind. Until they are glorified they cannot return to Paradise. And until we are glorified, we continue in corruptible, sin-infected bodies, or bodies of death.

The sons of God remain in Paradise. The firstfruits of the Millennium Kingdom will be those harvested after the Second Coming in the Trumpets and Thunders. The church will be removed and all the church from all 6,000 years of Adam's punishment, will be glorified at the 5th and 6th Seals. The souls under the alter is symbolic of the entire church body covered by the Atonement of the Lamb.

Once you've stated the unScriptural items above, you cannot now begin to apply your imagined scenario to the various visions of Revelation. I need not untangle them for you because you begin with false notions from the start.

Those during the final harvest will be changed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, just like the church was. That is what the symbolism of "being killed like they were". Many take that phrase as literal martyrdom. This is not martyrdom. This is the soul leaving Adam's dead corruptible flesh behind.

Only martyrdom leaves Adam's "dead corruptible flesh behind." Men are not "changed" in such a process without dying first. They may obtain the righteousness of Christ, but this does not remove their sinful flesh--they can only choose not to live by the flesh, and to choose instead to live by Christ.

 

[WPM]

My reason is based on what Tertullian said, and avoids your attempts to rationalize it away. Death was defeated at the cross. Satan's accusation of the Church, consigning us to Hell, was defeated at the cross. That already happened. The cross already happened. That may be described by some as a "binding of Satan," but it bears no relation to the binding of Satan mentioned in Rev 20.

The binding of Satan in Rev 20, mentioned by Tertullian, happens in the latter days, when Antichrist is defeated. That is when Satan is bound for a thousand years. The assumption that this "binding of Satan" is for a thousand years comes from Tertullian's obvious reference to Rev 20, where it is explicitly said that Satan is bound *for a thousand years!*

You wish to allegorize the thousand years. I don't. We're at an impasse. But you won't be able to prove Tertullian or other early Church Fathers believed that Satan was *completely* bound at the cross. They only believed, rightly, that Satan was *defeated* at the cross, with respect to his wish to impose eternal death on the saints.

Satan was defeated at the cross, but he remains the prince of the power of the air, and he continues to assail believers. His continuing attack on Christianity will only end at the 2nd Coming, when Antichrist is defeated.

That is what Tertullian taught. I am twisting nothing in this! I'll let others judge, with the exception that I have no interest in hearing from any "cheerleaders." I just want the truth.

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 your theology.

My understanding is consistent with the position of both early Amils and early Chiliasts.

Who said "completely bound" and what does that mean to you? You seem to be playing word games.

 

[Timtofly]

I certainly don't see that, nor do I believe it. We've received authority to testify to the Gospel, to live the Christian life, to carry out our ministries, but unless we're a political ruler we don't rule yet.



If it can't be observed, then it isn't happening.



What do you mean family *from above?* The only family I know is the one down here on earth!



There you go again--making things up! Where do you get this stuff? Yes, Christians of the present age will be given immortality. But who is "born" righteous into permanent incorruptible physical bodies?



This gets so confusing! If people are not yet glorified, they *cannot* return to Paradise! That was the curse God laid upon all of mankind. Until they are glorified they cannot return to Paradise. And until we are glorified, we continue in corruptible, sin-infected bodies, or bodies of death.



Once you've stated the unScriptural items above, you cannot now begin to apply your imagined scenario to the various visions of Revelation. I need not untangle them for you because you begin with false notions from the start.



Only martyrdom leaves Adam's "dead corruptible flesh behind." Men are not "changed" in such a process without dying first. They may obtain the righteousness of Christ, but this does not remove their sinful flesh--they can only choose not to live by the flesh, and to choose instead to live by Christ.

So your whole objection, hinges on the fact Jesus is not the Resurrection and the Life, but will be in the future?

Like Amil, you only see a partial Atonement. And that souls are still stuck in Abraham's bosom just like they were before Jesus came in the first century. You just view a spiritual sense, and not a complete fulfillment. What we do on earth is all there is, then we wait, and wait, and wait.

Your view of the kingdom is that there is no kingdom at all. Instead of a kingdom that cannot be seen, it cannot be seen, because it does not exist. I guess that is one interpretation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So your whole objection, hinges on the fact Jesus is not the Resurrection and the Life, but will be in the future?

No, Jesus said that's who he was at that time, and always will be. The fact he is the source of our resurrection does not mean we are instantly resurrected in the body. But it does mean that we've been qualified to receive that in the future, and to presently receive what makes us worthy of it, including his forgiveness and righteousness.

Like Amil, you only see a partial Atonement. And that souls are still stuck in Abraham's bosom just like they were before Jesus came in the first century. You just view a spiritual sense, and not a complete fulfillment. What we do on earth is all there is, then we wait, and wait, and wait.

Paul taught that our hope presently exists in heaven with Christ. He is our hope, and is not yet giving us new physical bodies, incorruption, or immortality.

Christ's atonement was a complete atonement, finished on the cross. But that doesn't mean we receive our physical resurrection immediately. It only means that we are now fully qualified to receive that, when the time comes.

Your view of the kingdom is that there is no kingdom at all. Instead of a kingdom that cannot be seen, it cannot be seen, because it does not exist. I guess that is one interpretation.

No, I do believe there is presently a spiritual Kingdom in heaven, with Christ. He is the King over the future Kingdom. His present Kingdom is not, however, on earth yet. It is "near," but not yet *here.* That was the message Jesus gave while he was on earth. "The Kingdom is near."

 

[Randy Kluth]

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 your theology.

My understanding is consistent with the position of both early Amils and early Chiliasts.

Who said "completely bound" and what does that mean to you? You seem to be playing word games.

Who is playing games? I'm telling you my honest opinion, and though it appears contradictory *to you,* it is completely consistent to me. The Kingdom drew near at Christ's 1st advent. God's Kingdom is always spiritual in the heavens, but it has not yet come. The only thing that arrived was Christ himself, as an atonement for sin. It was a complete atonement, and completely defeated sin *with respect to the power of death to keep us from the Tree of Life.*

So our removal from this eternal death sentence is what Jesus accomplished, completely defeating Satan at the cross. We have received a down payment of Christ's eternal righteousness through the gift of the Spirit. Satan cannot take this away from us, nor prevent us from using it. But he is still as active as ever in the present age of human carnality.

What we have now through the Spirit is not what Christ holds for us presently in the heaven, namely our resurrection hope. Our lives presently on earth shows that we've been made worthy to receive this hope at the proper time. But that time is not yet--it is only "near."

So Satan was defeated at Christ's 1st Coming, but he was not completely bound. He was completely defeated with respect to our receiving Christ's righteousness and with respect to our obtaining the right to have eternal life. But he is still trying to accuse us, hinder us, and tempt us.

Satan's binding at the 2nd Coming is what Tertullian referred to and what Rev 20 refers to. It happens just after Antichrist is defeated in the "latter days."

This is different than the "last days" mentioned by the Apostle John in reference to the period of Jewish Punishment. John anticipated, like Jesus, that the time of Jewish Punishment immediately precedes the arrival of the Kingdom.

What we have now is a down payment on our future Resurrection and immortality. We have access to Christ's righteousness, but we still must fight against these carnal passions, which spiritually reside in these bodies of sin.

We can prevail over our inclinations to sin by choosing to live in the power of Christ, putting on his righteousness. It does not make us sinless, but it proves that we are victorious over sin until we obtain our reward at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

 

[WPM]

Who is playing games? I'm telling you my honest opinion, and though it appears contradictory *to you,* it is completely consistent to me. The Kingdom drew near at Christ's 1st advent. God's Kingdom is always spiritual in the heavens, but it has not yet come. The only thing that arrived was Christ himself, as an atonement for sin. It was a complete atonement, and completely defeated sin *with respect to the power of death to keep us from the Tree of Life.*

So our removal from this eternal death sentence is what Jesus accomplished, completely defeating Satan at the cross. We have received a down payment of Christ's eternal righteousness through the gift of the Spirit. Satan cannot take this away from us, nor prevent us from using it. But he is still as active as ever in the present age of human carnality.

What we have now through the Spirit is not what Christ holds for us presently in the heaven, namely our resurrection hope. Our lives presently on earth shows that we've been made worthy to receive this hope at the proper time. But that time is not yet--it is only "near."

So Satan was defeated at Christ's 1st Coming, but he was not completely bound. He was completely defeated with respect to our receiving Christ's righteousness and with respect to our obtaining the right to have eternal life. But he is still trying to accuse us, hinder us, and tempt us.

Satan's binding at the 2nd Coming is what Tertullian referred to and what Rev 20 refers to. It happens just after Antichrist is defeated in the "latter days."

This is different than the "last days" mentioned by the Apostle John in reference to the period of Jewish Punishment. John anticipated, like Jesus, that the time of Jewish Punishment immediately precedes the arrival of the Kingdom.

What we have now is a down payment on our future Resurrection and immortality. We have access to Christ's righteousness, but we still must fight against these carnal passions, which spiritually reside in these bodies of sin.

We can prevail over our inclinations to sin by choosing to live in the power of Christ, putting on his righteousness. It does not make us sinless, but it proves that we are victorious over sin until we obtain our reward at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

It's obvious you don't wish to address the "finer details" of my argument. You don't come close to dealing with how I see the Chiliasts' belief about Satan's "binding." They sort of blended together a so-called "binding" of Satan at the 1st Advent with another "binding" of Satan at the 2nd Advent.

If you don't want to believe that fine. But don't just assert things, and expect that to fly!

 

[Timtofly]

No, Jesus said that's who he was at that time, and always will be. The fact he is the source of our resurrection does not mean we are instantly resurrected in the body. But it does mean that we've been qualified to receive that in the future, and to presently receive what makes us worthy of it, including his forgiveness and righteousness.



Paul taught that our hope presently exists in heaven with Christ. He is our hope, and is not yet giving us new physical bodies, incorruption, or immortality.

Christ's atonement was a complete atonement, finished on the cross. But that doesn't mean we receive our physical resurrection immediately. It only means that we are now fully qualified to receive that, when the time comes.



No, I do believe there is presently a spiritual Kingdom in heaven, with Christ. He is the King over the future Kingdom. His present Kingdom is not, however, on earth yet. It is "near," but not yet *here.* That was the message Jesus gave while he was on earth. "The Kingdom is near."

The OT redeemed came out of their graves with permanent incorruptible physical bodies. You think God took those away as a ticket into Paradise?