The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

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!

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 are gerrymandering his argument. There is nothing in history until AD240 (yes AD240). That is not all, they all anticipated a perfect Sabbath rest in the age to come pertaining exclusively to the resurrected redeemed, not some sin-cursed goat-infested death-blighted future millennium as you argue

When I return from my travels I will present the evidence re the Chiliasts advocating the binding of Satan 2000 years ago.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

Why do you latch onto the most difficult or controversial passages to form your theology around? You should think you would get your theological material from things that the Holy Spirit emphasized and repeated clearly to be understood and firmly held to?

To take a story of resurrected OT saints from the Gospels and then create a theology around it appears to be your means of creating just about any theology you want to create? The Mormons take the "stick of Joseph" in Ezekiel 37 to make it into the "stick of Joseph Smith!"

No, there are far more important doctrines that deal with the subjects you refer to. Don't think that picking out obscure verses that few can contend with will give you an excuse to establish novel theologies. Doesn't work with me.

In dealing with that particular account I would have to try to see how it fits in with more general theology in the Bible. I rarely have attempted this, since this is so obscure and unrelated to more important passages. But that being said, I still think it's worth looking at.

Again, I would refer you back to my earlier reasons for rejecting a premature experience of "incorruptibility" before glorification. The curse of God since Adam's Fall does not allow it!

So clearly, I don't think your example fits what you're trying to prove, that these saints in their "resurrection" experienced incorruptibility. What I personally think is that these people likely had not been dead long and experienced a resurrection to mortality, just as Lazarus did, which means that they had to die again, just like everybody else in mortal bodies have to die.

I would refer you to this, as a biblical precedent...

2 Kings 13.20 Elisha died and was buried.
Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. 21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

I have to assume this resurrected man was resurrected into a mortal, corruptible body, and had to die again. If so, the same was likely true of the OT saints raised at the death of Jesus.

Matt 27.52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When did one single ECF expressly predict the binding of Satan at the second coming? Nowhere!

I already showed you where. And we've been round and round on this. And your choice seems to be to act as if we haven't even been around the block on this yet? Well, we have, and everybody should know that. Here is the quote for the umpteenth time:

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.

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.

No, I'm "butchering" your mischaracterization of what Irenaeus clearly said. He clearly said that the "binding of Satan" takes place in the "latter days," when "Antichrist" reigns. This is *not* the First Advent, and everybody here should see that! So who is doing the "butchering?" Using "loud" language like that simply reflects someone who is desperate. I prefer more of a "calm" conversation, with no axe to grind.

You are gerrymandering his argument. There is nothing in history until AD240 (yes AD240). That is not all, they all anticipated a perfect Sabbath rest in the age to come pertaining exclusively to the resurrected redeemed, not some sin-cursed goat-infested death-blighted future millennium as you argue.

You're now returning to an earlier argument we already had. How about properly dealing with the one at hand? We also dealt with your false characterization of the Millennium as "goat-infested?"

But you wish to change from one argument to another in an endless circle, so as not to finish off with any one of them. It seems you are unable to make a point about what Tertullian said--just assert your wish that it be viewed as "wrong?"

 

[Randy Kluth]

That first generation that experienced life in sin, and then life without sin cannot disobey. That would mean they face the second death.

We are talking about their offspring 20 to 30 generations later, 1,000 years later.

No, we're talking about an eternal curse, something that random chance plus time cannot evolve. The Adamic race may *not* obtain incorruptibility until each one dies and is resurrected in Christ.

 

[Timtofly]

Why do you latch onto the most difficult or controversial passages to form your theology around? You should think you would get your theological material from things that the Holy Spirit emphasized and repeated clearly to be understood and firmly held to?

To take a story of resurrected OT saints from the Gospels and then create a theology around it appears to be your means of creating just about any theology you want to create? The Mormons take the "stick of Joseph" in Ezekiel 37 to make it into the "stick of Joseph Smith!"

No, there are far more important doctrines that deal with the subjects you refer to. Don't think that picking out obscure verses that few can contend with will give you an excuse to establish novel theologies. Doesn't work with me.

In dealing with that particular account I would have to try to see how it fits in with more general theology in the Bible. I rarely have attempted this, since this is so obscure and unrelated to more important passages. But that being said, I still think it's worth looking at.

Again, I would refer you back to my earlier reasons for rejecting a premature experience of "incorruptibility" before glorification. The curse of God since Adam's Fall does not allow it!

So clearly, I don't think your example fits what you're trying to prove, that these saints in their "resurrection" experienced incorruptibility. What I personally think is that these people likely had not been dead long and experienced a resurrection to mortality, just as Lazarus did, which means that they had to die again, just like everybody else in mortal bodies have to die.

I would refer you to this, as a biblical precedent...

2 Kings 13.20 Elisha died and was buried.
Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. 21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

I have to assume this resurrected man was resurrected into a mortal, corruptible body, and had to die again. If so, the same was likely true of the OT saints raised at the death of Jesus.

Matt 27.52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

You don’t think that when Jesus led captivity captive, Jesus was not portraying to Satan and the lost Jews their failure in rejecting Him?

Certainly we as the church don’t necessarily need that kind of information as we are 1992 years removed from the event.

But while the disciples themselves were clueless that week, why do you think that information was for them? Or necessary to spread the Gospel? But to deny it happened or think you know exactly what happened when you were not there seems like someone who does not even want to know the truth.

You are too comfortable with hundreds of years of human theology. I am not even forming doctrine nor forcing any one to start teaching God's Word as my theology. It is something to think about besides man's failed theology.

Adam's dead corruptible flesh cannot enter Paradise. But God never said His permanent incorruptible physical body given to the soul could not enter Paradise. Paul indeed said that such a permanent incorruptible physical body was waiting when this temporal corruptible body had dissolved in death.

You keep giving excuses of obscure Scripture. Put all that obscure Scripture together then, and it will form a better clearer picture.

Your example of the body thrown into Elisha’s grave was not a soul that had been in Abraham's bosom yet. You are missing the point that Lazarus had been dead 4 days. 12 hours longer than Jesus was in the tomb. The point is the soul had not left the body, or the body was still able to be miraculously healed. But after 4 days, which is more of a miracle: a healed sinful physically corruptible body, or a permanent incorruptible physical body?

Lazarus would have left Abraham's bosom a few days later at the time of the Cross any way. Jesus showed Satan and those rebellious Jews who rejected Him just what they were rejecting, a permanent incorruptible physical body. A body that could enter Paradise, that city that Abraham was promised and by faith sought. That was the victory over death at the Cross. Not just the same old OT waiting. The Cross removed the veil from the Holy of Holies, and opened Paradise to be enjoyed physically.

Claiming souls merely "float" around Paradise, is totally missing the whole point of a first, physical resurrection.

 

[Timtofly]

No, we're talking about an eternal curse, something that random chance plus time cannot evolve. The Adamic race may *not* obtain incorruptibility until each one dies and is resurrected in Christ.

There is no Adamic race in the Millennium. They are all in Christ a new creature. All are born without sin, from parents no longer in Adam's image, but in the image of Christ.

Matthew 25:46

"but the righteous into life eternal."

These are righteous in an eternal state of being. They cannot die naturally. The only reason to die is to disobey Jesus. They are in the image of Jesus, not Adam. They have offspring in Christ's image, not Adam's image.

 

[WPM]

I already showed you where. And we've been round and round on this. And your choice seems to be to act as if we haven't even been around the block on this yet? Well, we have, and everybody should know that. Here is the quote for the umpteenth time:

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 have questioned your sources and quality of research for years. I have found these to be questionable. Your research is bias, defective and ad-hoc.

Irenaeus was the great champion of early Chiliasm. He probably wrote in the clearest detail and had the greatest influence of all the early Chiliasts. His origins were notable in from Asia Minor. Notwithstanding, he was Bishop of Lyons, Gaul from where he wrote extensively. He was believed to have died around AD 155–156.

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 arising 1000 years after the second coming and raising up a mammoth insurrection in the next age. This too is in keeping with classic Ami 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.

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. Christ came (on assignment) to undo all the result of the Fall. His life, cross-work and triumphant resurrection was pivotal in defeating our arch-enemy. The binding was not limited to Christ casting out demons, although this was an integral part of His overall assignment. The cross and the resurrection was the triumphant apex of His earthly assignment. This is where sin was fully paid for, death was defeated and Satan was stripped of his then immense power and widespread control.

Ironically, this is the verbiage of Amillennialism. As a result of the First Advent, Satan is shown to be a prisoner – he is a captive. The spiritual prison man was incarcerated in prior to the cross and the chains the evil one had him incapacitated with were in turn placed upon Satan. The boot was on the other foot. The chains that bound them have now been placed upon Satan. The devil is thus seen as a vanquished foe. Christ’s earthy ministry is seen to undo what the enemy had afflicted all mankind with. It is dealing with sin, and it is dealing with death.

He understood the binding of the strong man 2,000 years ago related to the victory Christ won over Satan and Him spiritually establishing God’s Kingdom on the earth and invading the kingdom of darkness with the light of the Gospel and seeing the ignorance banished amongst the Gentiles. Satan can persecute, he can deceive, he can even destroy the body. But he cannot stop the light of God’s truth, (the good news of the kingdom) from going into the nations. He cannot prevent anyone from repenting and confessing Christ. This is completely up to the individual.

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. 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 (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

This thesis starts off by describing the separation that came “between the serpent and the woman and her seed” after the Fall. Irenaeus identifies man’s great enemy and what he wrought. He then reveals God’s great antidote – the Lord Jesus Christ. He shows how Christ came to correct what was wrong. He testifies how Satan had been “biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man,” until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, — which was born of Mary.”

Most sane theologians relate Genesis 3:15 to the cross of Calvary. They identify the injuring of Christ’s heel with the cross and the crushing of Satan’s head to the same. Once again, the defeat of sin and death are carefully identified with the binding of Satan. Irenaeus once again highlights the successful mission of Christ in addressing the sin issue and its awful consequences death. Sin was “deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men].”

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 doesn’t just limit the conquest of the First Advent to our arch-enemy Satan. He shows that assault also saw the defeat of antichrist. 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.” The fate of Satan in Scripture normally mirrors that of antichrist (the mystery of iniquity/the beast). Irenaeus here connects the trampling down of Satan to the binding of “the dragon, that old serpent.” 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 fits with his constant teaching on the current binding of Satan, which refutes modern Premillennialism. Sin, death, the beast and Satan are all shown to have been defeated through their earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Cause Jesus conquered these they no longer have any dominion over the believer. They have lost their power and fear.

 

[WPM]

I already showed you where. And we've been round and round on this. And your choice seems to be to act as if we haven't even been around the block on this yet? Well, we have, and everybody should know that. Here is the quote for the umpteenth time:

Irenaeus repeatedly teaches in his writings that Satan was bound at the First Advent.

The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way “spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house.” Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, “The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.” If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 8).​

The continuous message from Irenaeus is that Satan is a defeated foe that has been stripped of his previous power and influence through his spiritual binding in spiritual chains. It is equally that the redeemed have been fully rescued from the clutches and influence of the wicked one. As a result, he has no ability to stop the advance of the kingdom of God from being completed, though he tries with all his might.

This teaching is consistent with the inspired text where the Lord identifies the casting out of devils, and the resulting liberating of souls, with the actual binding of the strong man. Jesus in turn presents this as proof that Satan is curbed through the presence and victorious function of the kingdom of God. Christ was specifically referring to Satan here (the strong man) and his demonic kingdom, and expressly connects his binding with the manifestation of the kingdom of God during His earthly ministry. The subjugating of devils was proof of the spiritual restraint of the evil one. Satan could not prevent this. Satan could not overcome those who had been rescued by Christ.

The devil was subject to the purposes of God and hurt by the spiritual advance of the kingdom of God. This kingdom is still alive and active today. Souls are still being marvelously delivered from the power of Satan. The binding of the strong man continues today wherever the Gospel prevails. The binding of Satan and the spoiling of his house were globalized to relate to mankind.

[T]he law does indeed declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colours, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God. For as in the beginning he enticed man to transgress his Maker’s law, and thereby got him into his power; yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he bound man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, it was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. 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.” The Lord therefore exposes him as speaking contrary to the word of that God who made all things, and subdues him by means of the commandment. Now the law is the commandment of God. The Man proves him to be a fugitive from and a transgressor of the law, an apostate also from God. After [the Man had done this], the Word bound him securely as a fugitive from Himself, and made spoil of his goods – namely, those men whom he held in bondage, and whom he unjustly used for his own purposes. 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 (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 3).​

Irenaeus concludes by stressing the grounds of Satan’s defeat – the perfect obedience of Christ as our substitute in fulfilling the Law. He shows: through Christ’s perfect submission to the Law, through His substitutionary work, He totally removed our condemnation. As the expressed manifestation of the Word and every promise contained within it, Christ came to destroy the works of darkness. A lot of Christians overlook the fact that Calvary would have been ineffective if our Lord hadn’t been a perfect sinless sacrifice. Christ had to meet every demand of the Law. No ordinary mortal man could achieve that. That is why the Lord had to take upon Himself human form and fulfil every minute detail of the Law on his behalf. In doing so He destroyed the claim that Satan had over all mankind.

He explains that the chains that weighed down the people of God of all nations since the Fall have now been placed upon Satan thus curtailing or binding his power. Gentiles have been liberated by the substitutionary work of Christ in living the life they could never live and paying the debt they could never pay. In life and death Jesus was that perfect representative. Those who would put their personal trust in Christ and His finished work at the cross enter into the spiritual benefits of what He secured for them through Calvary. By faith they appropriate victory over sin, death and eternal damnation. By faith they overcome the devil. Whilst man cannot overcome the devil on his own merits, Satan is defeated through our federal head – Jesus Christ – who took the place and penalty of the believer at the cross.

Obviously, the bonds Irenaeus speaks of are not physical chains, clearly, this is not a literal physical prison. Satan’s control was demolished everywhere the kingdom triumphed - in the case of individuals, nations and peoples.

Then in the Gospel, casting down the apostasy by means of these expressions, He did both overcome the strong man by His Father's voice, and He acknowledges the commandment of the law to express His own sentiments, when He says, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. For He did not confound the adversary by the saying of any other, but by that belonging to His own Father, and thus overcame the strong man (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 22, 1).​

Every single reference to the binding of Satan here relates to the defeat of Satan through Christ’s earthly assignment and the taking back of what Adam surrendered in the Fall. Satan is therefore already “overcome” according to Irenaeus.

 

[WPM]

I already showed you where. And we've been round and round on this. And your choice seems to be to act as if we haven't even been around the block on this yet? Well, we have, and everybody should know that. Here is the quote for the umpteenth time:

Tertullian was a Romanized African citizen based in Carthage, in current Tunisia. He lived between 160 – 240 AD. He was one of the main Chiliast heavy-weights. But unlike modern day Premillennilaists, and in keeping with the uniform early Millennialist position, saw Christ as a conquering king who came and overcome man’s common foe.

[T]he heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator Himself ... even the devil according to our Gospel recognised Jesus in the temptation, and, according to the record which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He was come to destroy them. The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by Marcion to have reference to the Creator: therefore the Creator could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him; nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay their masters. For it is written in my Gospel that Satan entered into Judas. (Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter VI.).​

Tertullian agrees with Irenaeus. He pictures the overcoming of the strong man and the defeating of Satan at the First Advent. To most of the early fathers, this was the pivotal moment in history, where the kingdom of God confronted the powers of darkness and overwhelmed them. Tertullian alludes to the crucifixion here when speaking of the binding of Satan and how he was overcome. This is the constant theme of the early Chiliasts. This seemed to be an accepted reality that was widespread in the early Church of all views.

This position is altogether different from the classic modern Premillennial position, which typically overlooks (or rejects) the spiritual binding of Satan by Jesus 2000 years ago and transfers that great momentous event to the second coming of Christ. This is a great point of contention between modern-day Amillennialists and Premillennialists.

Tertullian acknowledges the historic result of the defeat of Satan was that the enemy’s “goods” (you and me) were “seized” by the Lord. This is talking about our deliverance from the from the power of darkness, and our translation “into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Colossians 1:13).

 

[WPM]

I already showed you where. And we've been round and round on this. And your choice seems to be to act as if we haven't even been around the block on this yet? Well, we have, and everybody should know that. Here is the quote for the umpteenth time:

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.



No, I'm "butchering" your mischaracterization of what Tertullian clearly said. He clearly said that the "binding of Satan" takes place in the "latter days," when "Antichrist" reigns. This is *not* the First Advent, and everybody here should see that! So who is doing the "butchering?" Using "loud" language like that simply reflects someone who is desperate. I prefer more of a "calm" conversation, with no axe to grind.



You're now returning to an earlier argument we already had. How about properly dealing with the one at hand? We also dealt with your false characterization of the Millennium as "goat-infested?"

But you wish to change from one argument to another in an endless circle, so as not to finish off with any one of them. It seems you are unable to make a point about what Tertullian said--just assert your wish that it be viewed as "wrong?"

Hippolytus of Rome was a disciple of Irenaeus of Lyons and like him an advocate of early Chiliasm. He lived around AD 170 – 236. He was another who was unapologetic in his belief that Satan was bound since the earthly ministry of Christ.

Referring to Luke 13:15-16, Hippolytus declares:

For when He came who is the fulfilling of the law and of the prophets (for the law and the prophets were till John), it was necessary that the things spoken by them should be confirmed (sealed), in order that at the coming of the Lord all things loosed should be brought to light, and that things bound of old should now be loosed by Him, as the Lord said Himself to the rulers of the people, when they were indignant at the cure on the Sabbath day: You hypocrites, does not each one of you loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years, be loosed on the Sabbath-day? Whomsoever, therefore, Satan bound in chains, these did the Lord on His coming loose from the bonds of death, having bound our strong adversary and delivered humanity. As also Isaiah says: Then will He say to those in chains, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves (Commentary of Daniel, II. 18, 5).​

Hippolytus believed Satan was bound 2000 years ago. The loosing of God’s people through Christ impeccable mission coincided with the binding of Satan. This is describing the great invisible spiritual battle that occurred over the souls of mankind. You see the constant theme of what held man down spiritually being transferred to Satan. Our Savior is seen liberating those that the devil had afflicted, whether that was through sickness or through demonic affliction.

The early Chiliasts seemed to have had no difficulty grasping that Satan was bound through the earthly ministry of Christ. They saw this as an ongoing victorious reality for the early Church. The defeat of Satan was therefore already inaugurated. This came out repeatedly in their teaching. The early Christians lived out their spiritual walk in the light of this great divine truth.

Here again, we see the evil one getting a taste of his own medicine. That which afflicted man before the First Advent is said to now restrain the devil. in the eyes of these early Chiliasts, the binding of Satan relates to a spiritual curtailment of the devil and his minions.

He advances a classic belief of Amillennialism that demons are now in the abyss. He teaches:

Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word! You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins (The Refutation of All Heresies, The Author’s Concluding Address).​

Tartarus [Gr. tartaroō] is considred the deepest abyss. Hippolytus describes the “fallen angels chained in Tartarus.” Tartarus is considered the lowest part of the abyss. This shows the current imprisonment of the demonic realm during this new covenant era. Of course, the writer is speaking about a spiritual prison that holds imprisoned demonic angels.

Methodius who was the Bishop of Olympus, Asia Minor, and who is believed to have died 311 A.D, shared the same view as his fellow Chiliasts. He too presents a victorious Christ subjugating a defeated enemy.

[L]et us, beloved, return in our discourse to that point whence we digressed, exclaiming, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord: that good and kind Shepherd, voluntarily to lay down His life for His sheep. That just as hunters take by a sheep the wolves that devour sheep, even so the Chief Shepherd, offering Himself as man to the spiritual wolves and those who destroy the soul, may make His prey of the destroyers by means of that Adam who was once preyed on by them. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: God against the devil; not manifestly in His might, which cannot be looked on, but in the weakness of the flesh, to bind the strong man that is against us. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the King against the tyrant; not with omnipotent power and wisdom, but with that which is accounted the foolishness of the cross, which hath reft his spoils from the serpent who is wise in wickedness (Oration on the Psalms, VI.).​

Methodius believed that the binding of the evil one came about through Christ’s humiliation as a servant in this life. The result of this is shown to be the defeating of Satan and the deliverance of God’s people (his spoil). The cross was the critical nail in his coffin. The moment where Satan was finally forced to relinquish “his spoil” is here said to be “the cross.” Taking on human flesh, and living that perfect and holy life, qualified Him to make that vicarious sacrifice on behalf of the redeemed.

It is remarkable that all of these Chiliasts big-hitters are solid in their belief of the current binding of Satan and the resulting deliverance of the people of God. This is a notable refrain amongst these early Millennialists. It confirms that there was a uniform understanding on the enormity of our Lord’s great conquest of Satan 2000 years ago. It also exposes a massive difference with the focus and theology of current Premillennialism. It either overlooks this great truth or firmly opposes it. But on this significant point: there is strong agreement between the early Chiliasts and Amillennialists throughout the centuries.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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 have questioned your sources and quality of research for years. I have found these to be questionable. Your research is bias, defective and ad-hoc.

Well yes, I try to utilize the Church Fathers largely because that seems to be the only thing you're willing to cite and respect in this regard. I'm sorry--I can easily make these kinds of mistakes because I don't live and breathe the Church Fathers. I sure don't mind resorting to them though--I do find them interesting.

I don't claim to have the best brain around. I pray for God to provide wisdom for me where I lack IQ.

I apologize for confusing Irenaeus with Tertullian--shouldn't have done that. And because I quoted this portion so often I've had to go back and tediously try to change my posts citing "Tertullian," because it needs to be done.

If you want to ignore all the arguments on this basis, that's up to you. My argument from *Irenaeus'* quote still stands.

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 arising 1000 years after the second coming and raising up a mammoth insurrection in the next age. This too is in keeping with classic Ami 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.

I've addressed all this. If you're saying that Irenaeus *did not see Satan arising 1000 years after the second coming,* what do you base this on? Are you using an "argument from silence?"

Again, I've already discussed this. By quoting words from Rev 20, and by establishing his belief in the *literal* view of Rev 20, he logically embraces the entire story, whether he mentions the final battle at the end of the Millennium or not.

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).​

​

I already anticipated your argument here. In quoting Irenaeus I showed that he viewed the defeat of Satan as a two-fold work, one defeating death legally on our behalf and the other taking place in "the latter days" when Antichrist is defeated.

And it is in the time of Antichrist's defeat that Irenaeus shows that Satan is bound at that time--quite different from the "binding of the strong man" that Irenaeus placed at the defeat of death, when Christ died and rose again.

Irenaues Against Heresies Book 3. Ch. 23:
7. ...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]; 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. 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, which at the first had taken possession of man. Therefore, when man has been liberated, what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting? 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. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed.

Please note that Irenaeus' view of the defeat of Satan conflates the defeat of death at the Cross with the defeat of death at the 2nd Coming. And so, Irenaeus applied the "binding of Satan" to both, without any intention of removing the binding of Satan at the beginning of the Millennium, which is at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Irenaeus doesn’t just limit the conquest of the First Advent to our arch-enemy Satan. He shows that assault also saw the defeat of antichrist. 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.” The fate of Satan in Scripture normally mirrors that of antichrist (the mystery of iniquity/the beast). Irenaeus here connects the trampling down of Satan to the binding of “the dragon, that old serpent.” 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”).

And here is where your "thesis" fails, in my opinion. You simply tie the Antichrist to the overall defeat of Satan at the Cross without proving that Irenaeus also viewed a special binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming, at the beginning of the Millennium.

The quote, more properly given, is once again, provided above. Satan was *legally defeated* at the cross, to remove the power of sin to inflict eternal death on us.

But Satan's complete defeat, and the binding associated with that, takes place at the 2nd Coming, and Irenaeus clearly and explicitly embraces that. He does so by placing the binding of Satan in the latter days at the time of Antichrist's defeat, and ensures we know he is talking about that time by quoting from Rev 20.

"that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent."

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years

We know where, in time, Irenaeus placed this "binding of Satan" because he viewed the Millennium of Rev 20 as a future reality, following the 2nd Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Tertullian was a Romanized African citizen based in Carthage, in current Tunisia. He lived between 160 – 240 AD. He was one of the main Chiliast heavy-weights. But unlike modern day Premillennilaists, and in keeping with the uniform early Millennialist position, saw Christ as a conquering king who came and overcome man’s common foe.

[T]he heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator Himself ... even the devil according to our Gospel recognised Jesus in the temptation, and, according to the record which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He was come to destroy them. The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by Marcion to have reference to the Creator: therefore the Creator could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him; nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay their masters. For it is written in my Gospel that Satan entered into Judas. (Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter VI.).​

Tertullian agrees with Irenaeus. He pictures the overcoming of the strong man and the defeating of Satan at the First Advent. To most of the early fathers, this was the pivotal moment in history, where the kingdom of God confronted the powers of darkness and overwhelmed them. Tertullian alludes to the crucifixion here when speaking of the binding of Satan and how he was overcome. This is the constant theme of the early Chiliasts. This seemed to be an accepted reality that was widespread in the early Church of all views.

This position is altogether different from the classic modern Premillennial position, which typically overlooks (or rejects) the spiritual binding of Satan by Jesus 2000 years ago and transfers that great momentous event to the second coming of Christ. This is a great point of contention between modern-day Amillennialists and Premillennialists.

Tertullian acknowledges the historic result of the defeat of Satan was that the enemy’s “goods” (you and me) were “seized” by the Lord. This is talking about our deliverance from the from the power of darkness, and our translation “into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Colossians 1:13).

Again, from the start I stated this argument, anticipating it and already knowing it from arguments long ago. They did quote the "strong man" passage of Scripture and applied it to the Cross. I think I even discussed this with you on a previous now-unusable forum?

What I said then and what I still say is that no matter how Tertullian and Irenaeus used the "strong man" passage in connection with Jesus' death, it still doesn't mean they didn't apply the "binding of Satan" to the time of Antichrist's defeat. I already proved that by quoting Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3. Ch. 23.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hippolytus of Rome was a disciple of Irenaeus of Lyons and like him an advocate of early Chiliasm. He lived around AD 170 – 236. He was another who was unapologetic in his belief that Satan was bound since the earthly ministry of Christ.

Referring to Luke 13:15-16, Hippolytus declares:

For when He came who is the fulfilling of the law and of the prophets (for the law and the prophets were till John), it was necessary that the things spoken by them should be confirmed (sealed), in order that at the coming of the Lord all things loosed should be brought to light, and that things bound of old should now be loosed by Him, as the Lord said Himself to the rulers of the people, when they were indignant at the cure on the Sabbath day: You hypocrites, does not each one of you loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years, be loosed on the Sabbath-day? Whomsoever, therefore, Satan bound in chains, these did the Lord on His coming loose from the bonds of death, having bound our strong adversary and delivered humanity. As also Isaiah says: Then will He say to those in chains, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves (Commentary of Daniel, II. 18, 5).​

Methodius who was the Bishop of Olympus, Asia Minor, and who is believed to have died 311 A.D, shared the same view as his fellow Chiliasts. He too presents a victorious Christ subjugating a defeated enemy.

[L]et us, beloved, return in our discourse to that point whence we digressed, exclaiming, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord: that good and kind Shepherd, voluntarily to lay down His life for His sheep. That just as hunters take by a sheep the wolves that devour sheep, even so the Chief Shepherd, offering Himself as man to the spiritual wolves and those who destroy the soul, may make His prey of the destroyers by means of that Adam who was once preyed on by them. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: God against the devil; not manifestly in His might, which cannot be looked on, but in the weakness of the flesh, to bind the strong man that is against us. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the King against the tyrant; not with omnipotent power and wisdom, but with that which is accounted the foolishness of the cross, which hath reft his spoils from the serpent who is wise in wickedness (Oration on the Psalms, VI.).​

Methodius believed that the binding of the evil one came about through Christ’s humiliation as a servant in this life.

Although all of these quotes are interesting, showing the early Church Fathers' view of the binding of Satan in association with the cross, all you are really showing is that they relied on one another, and borrowed from one another, in saying the same things.

None of it at all meant that the binding of Satan mentioned in Rev 20 was what they were referring to! On the contrary, by their very nature, Chiliasts would've separated their sense of the "binding of Satan" at the cross from the "binding of Satan" at the start of the Millennium, which they took literally from Rev 20.

Go ahead and quote all day long how Christ defeated Satan in the matter of legally removing the threat of death from us. But it has zero to do with how the Chiliasts saw the "binding of Satan" in the matter of Antichrist's defeat in the latter days. These are two separate matters, tied together only in the sense that Christ is the one defeating Satan in both instances.

Satan is defeated legally at the Cross and more completely at Christ's 2nd Coming. All Christians would likely sign on to that idea. So it has zero to do with proving the Chiliasts had Amillennial qualities. That's like saying because Amils believed in the Cross, and Chiliasts believed in the Cross, that Chiliasts were Amil!

I'm not sure the belief that "some demons are in the Abyss" is a strictly Amil belief? I'm Premil, and I certainly believe that!

 

[Timtofly]

Every single reference to the binding of Satan here relates to the defeat of Satan through Christ’s earthly assignment and the taking back of what Adam surrendered in the Fall. Satan is therefore already “overcome” according to Irenaeus.

If Satan was bound in the chains of sin, why are humans still born in sin, and still in sins bondage? Christ on the Cross provided an escape from the bondage that Adam provided. Adam was also the strong man of the world enjoying sin. Adam was bound as well, and loosened. Adam was the one holding us captive. We are still bound in sin. Each one of us still need to be loosed. The old man still needs to be crucified and bound daily.

Are you purposely overlooking part of the problem since the fall?

This position is altogether different from the classic modern Premillennial position, which typically overlooks (or rejects) the spiritual binding of Satan by Jesus 2000 years ago and transfers that great momentous event to the second coming of Christ. This is a great point of contention between modern-day Amillennialists and Premillennialists.

Pre-mill do not transfer the spiritual binding from the first coming to a second coming. That is a false accusation by Amil as if they are to defeat a dragon of their own making. A smoke screen and strawman argument.

The Second Coming will be a physical binding of Satan to prevent any physical and spiritual action of Satan for 1,000 years, not some undefined period of time.

Of course Satan was spiritually bound as per the parable of the first coming. Adam was also bound, the old nature no longer a threat to those submitting to the will of the Holy Spirit, working within, and not the law (physical) working on the outside, or man's implementation of slavery over their fellow humans.

 

[WPM]

I've addressed all this addressed all this. If you're saying that Irenaeus *did not see Satan arising 1000 years after the second coming,* what do you base this on? Are you using an "argument from silence?"

Again, I've already discussed this. By quoting words from Rev 20, and by establishing his belief in the *literal* view of Rev 20, he logically embraces the entire story, whether he mentions the final battle at the end of the Millennium or not.

No, you have not! Your pattern is to dismiss explicit statements that these early Chiliasts made that conflict with modern-day Premil and you counter with arguing from silence to support your theory re Rev 20. This is unacceptable, inadmissible and damning to your position. The bottom line is: you have nothing in these early writers that show Satan and his demons invading the age to come and deceiving your millennial inhabitants as the sand of the sea. You are hung up with Revelation 20 and cannot get loose.

I already anticipated your argument here. In quoting Irenaeus I showed that he viewed the defeat of Satan as a two-fold work, one defeating death legally on our behalf and the other taking place in "the latter days" when Antichrist is defeated.

And it is in the time of Antichrist's defeat that Irenaeus shows that Satan is bound at that time--quite different from the "binding of the strong man" that Irenaeus placed at the defeat of death, when Christ died and rose again.

Irenaues Against Heresies Book 3. Ch. 23:
7. ...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]; 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. 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, which at the first had taken possession of man. Therefore, when man has been liberated, what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting? 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. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed.

Please note that Irenaeus' view of the defeat of Satan conflates the defeat of death at the Cross with the defeat of death at the 2nd Coming. And so, Irenaeus applied the "binding of Satan" to both, without any intention of removing the binding of Satan at the beginning of the Millennium, which is at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

He doesn't mention the second coming, you do. You are always foisting your opinions upon these ancient writings. You have nothing of historic value to refute my thesis. That is why i struggle to take your arguments on the ECFs serious. "Silence" and "inference" are your main friends.

And here is where your "thesis" fails, in my opinion. You simply tie the Antichrist to the overall defeat of Satan at the Cross without proving that Irenaeus also viewed a special binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming, at the beginning of the Millennium.

The quote, more properly given, is once again, provided above. Satan was *legally defeated* at the cross, to remove the power of sin to inflict eternal death on us.

But Satan's complete defeat, and the binding associated with that, takes place at the 2nd Coming, and Irenaeus clearly and explicitly embraces that. He does so by placing the binding of Satan in the latter days at the time of Antichrist's defeat, and ensures we know he is talking about that time by quoting from Rev 20.

"that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent."

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years

We know where, in time, Irenaeus placed this "binding of Satan" because he viewed the Millennium of Rev 20 as a future reality, following the 2nd Coming.

You are fighting Irenaeus here with your modern (faulty) opinion of Revelation 20. You do not seem to get it: early Chiliasm was a completely different animal to modern Premil. It was more akin to Amil on most of its view of the character of the age to come.

Your theology rejects "Satan's complete defeat" at the second coming. Why do you keep giving lip-service to it? Sin, sickness, decay, corruption, war and terror, Satan and his demons all continue in your age to come. Billions of rebels against God overrun your millennium. Hardly the perfect age of Aquarius that you portray.

The reality is: Irenaeus 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.” Multiple Scripture support this. This is 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. Jesus said in Luke 10:19, “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.” We also see this in Matthew 16:16, 1 John 2:14, 1 John 4:4 and Revelation 12:11.

The writer also (once again) connects the defeating of sin and death and identifies these as occurring 2000 years ago. The defeat of death occurred through the first resurrection where Christ secured our salvation and secured the keys of death and of hell. 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.”

 

[WPM]

Again, from the start I stated this argument, anticipating it and already knowing it from arguments long ago. They did quote the "strong man" passage of Scripture and applied it to the Cross. I think I even discussed this with you on a previous now-unusable forum?

What I said then and what I still say is that no matter how Tertullian and Irenaeus used the "strong man" passage in connection with Jesus' death, it still doesn't mean they didn't apply the "binding of Satan" to the time of Antichrist's defeat. I already proved that by quoting Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3. Ch. 23.

Please do not talk on behalf of Tertullian. You have been blatantly misrepresenting him for weeks on this thread. The evidence i presented supports my thesis and refutes yours.

Admit that you have nothing to support your opinions. You have brought no quotes to support your speculations.

 

[WPM]

Although all of these quotes are interesting, showing the early Church Fathers' view of the binding of Satan in association with the cross, all you are really showing is that they relied on one another, and borrowed from one another, in saying the same things.

None of it at all meant that the binding of Satan mentioned in Rev 20 was what they were referring to! On the contrary, by their very nature, Chiliasts would've separated their sense of the "binding of Satan" at the cross from the "binding of Satan" at the start of the Millennium, which they took literally from Rev 20.

Go ahead and quote all day long how Christ defeated Satan in the matter of legally removing the threat of death from us. But it has zero to do with how the Chiliasts saw the "binding of Satan" in the matter of Antichrist's defeat in the latter days. These are two separate matters, tied together only in the sense that Christ is the one defeating Satan in both instances.

Satan is defeated legally at the Cross and more completely at Christ's 2nd Coming. All Christians would likely sign on to that idea. So it has zero to do with proving the Chiliasts had Amillennial qualities. That's like saying because Amils believed in the Cross, and Chiliasts believed in the Cross, that Chiliasts were Amil!

I'm not sure the belief that "some demons are in the Abyss" is a strictly Amil belief? I'm Premil, and I certainly believe that!

Once again, here is the core of your responses: you counter with arguing from silence in regards to the ECFs to support your theory re Rev 20. This is not historically admissible evidence. It is prejudiced commentary. That is all you have!

Having engaged with you for years on this, there is no way i would accept you talking on their behalf.

 

[WPM]

The reality for me is that you're disinterested in any Premil evidence. The moment I provide it you act as if it is worthless. Again, you wanted evidence that Premil was the dominant position in the early centuries of the Church. Lacantius provided that evidence by declaring:

This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.

Lacanatius may have come a bit later (4th century), but this is all the more convincing. This was after Origen began his allegorical methodology, supporting Amil. And yet, Lacanatius still viewed Premil as the dominant "Christian" teaching!

Sure, earlier it was acknowledged that Premil was not the *only* teaching. But the early *orthodoxy* of Church eschatology appears to have been Premil, continuing all the way up until Lacantius.

Justin Martyr: "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."
"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

Augustine apparently began as a Premill, but became convinced by other noted Christian leaders who utilized allegorical interpretation. And his great influence succeeded in providing for the Catholic Church the basis for establishing itself as the new Kingdom of God in place of Israel. Instead of looking to a future restoration of Israel, Augustine looked to the present spiritual Kingdom of the Catholic Church for biblical Salvation.

Now we can debate these points, but it's plain that you wish to follow the argument that Chiliasm contained the seeds of Amil, and that modern Premil has gone far astray of early Chiliasm.

Be happy with what you believe. But I don't and wont' buy it because it flies in the face with what the overwhelming testimony seems to be, that Chiliasm is Premillennialism, and was the early dominant eschatology of Church history.

Allegorical Interpretation, such as Origen provided, subverted this orthodoxy, making the Catholic Church the replacement for a future realization of the Kingdom of God on earth, including both Israel and many nations, all of whom are to become Christian, as I see it. Origen, as solid as he was as a Christian, held to some pretty questionable teachings!

I reject all of your insulting remarks. They are not friendly, and they are not of good Christian character. If you wish to agree to disagree, I can accept that and move on to different subjects with you. I'm sure we agree on a whole range of issues besides this one issue, which seems to have become all-important to you?

May I suggest that perhaps it is Reform Teaching that is your dominant burden, rather than the teaching of Amil itself? We can agree on many items on that list! It surprises me that you would so strongly support a "Catholic" teaching from Augustine when you're so solidly Reform in your theology?

Why do you not tell us where Lactanius received his theology? I am shocked that you are promoting Lactanius and his Divine Institues to support Premil as he relied upon the pagan Sibyllines for his views rather than Scripture.

Chapter XXIV — Of the Renewed World

Now I will subjoin the rest. Therefore the Son of the most high and mighty God shall come to judge the quick and the dead, as the Sibyl testifies and says:—

“For then there shall be confusion of mortals throughout the whole earth, when the Almighty Himself shall come on His judgment-seat to judge the souls of the quick and dead, and all the world.”

But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command. Which the Sibyl proclaims in another place, as she utters her inspired predictions:—

“Hear me, ye mortals; an everlasting King reigns.”

Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges. But the nations shall not be entirely extinguished, but some shall be left as a victory for God, that they may be the occasion of triumph to the righteous, and may be subjected to perpetual slavery.

This shows that modern-Premil originated from apostate Judaism and pagan superstitions. What you claim as Premil in the ECFs actually refutes modern-day Premil.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, you have not! Your pattern is to dismiss explicit statements that these early Chiliasts made that conflict with modern-day Premil and you counter with arguing from silence to support your theory re Rev 20. This is unacceptable, inadmissible and damning to your position. The bottom line is: you have nothing in these early writers that show Satan and his demons invading the age to come and deceiving your millennial inhabitants as the sand of the sea. You are hung up with Revelation 20 and cannot get loose.

Actually, brother, you appear to be the intractable one. I clearly showed you that Irenaeus was *quoting Rev 20.* The words "Rev 20" doesn't have to be in the quotation from Irenaeus to see that he was quoting from that passage!

And if he was quoting from that passage--and he was---then any objective observer could see that he was placing the "binding of Satan" just where Rev 20 put it, at the defeat of Antichrist, the 2nd Coming, and the start of the Millennium. This is clearly when Irenaeus saw the "binding of Satan" taking place.

Your argument is merely that the "strong man" passage, where he is said to have been "bound," applies, according to the Church Fathers, to the Cross. That is in itself an argument from silence about the "binding of Satan" with respect to the defeat of Antichrist, whereas my argument is *not* from silence, and is based on Irenaeus' actual words!

He doesn't mention the second coming, you do. You are always foisting your opinions upon these ancient writings. You have nothing of historic value to refute my thesis. That is why i struggle to take your arguments on the ECFs serious. "Silence" and "inference" are your main friends.

When Irenaeus mentions the binding of Satan, he is talking about Rev 20, which follows the account of the defeat of Antichrist. That is at the 2nd Coming.

Rev 20.2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies: 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 ...

You are fighting Irenaeus here with your modern (faulty) opinion of Revelation 20. You do not seem to get it: early Chiliasm was a completely different animal to modern Premil. It was more akin to Amil on most of its view of the character of the age to come.

You are arguing what you haven't proven. I'm not fighting anything. I quoted Irenaeus, and you just refuse to see it. Irenaeus is, in fact, referring to Rev 20 and its future application of the Millennium. As such, he is placing the "binding of Satan" there, and not at the 1st Advent of Christ.

Your theology rejects "Satan's complete defeat" at the second coming. Why do you keep giving lip-service to it? Sin, sickness, decay, corruption, war and terror, Satan and his demons all continue in your age to come. Billions of rebels against God overrun your millennium. Hardly the perfect age of Aquarius that you portray.

Again you mischaracterize Premil teaching. We do not teach the kind of hostile conditions you dredge up, because we teach that Satan is *bound* for a thousand years.

The reality is: Irenaeus 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.” Multiple Scripture support this.

I already addressed that. Christ is the common element in the defeat of Satan at the cross and the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. But they are different events, the Cross and the 2nd Coming. Satan loses the power of death over us, legally, at the 1st Coming. And he loses the ability to stir up war against Christians at the 2nd Coming.

The writer also (once again) connects the defeating of sin and death and identifies these as occurring 2000 years ago.

You're preaching to the choir here--I already agreed with that. But that does not remove Irenaeus' reference to Antichrist's defeat at which time "Satan is bound," in reference to Rev 20.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please do not talk on behalf of Tertullian. You have been blatantly misrepresenting him for weeks on this thread. The evidence i presented supports my thesis and refutes yours.

Admit that you have nothing to support your opinions. You have brought no quotes to support your speculations.

I have not been "blatantly" misrepresenting Tertullian! I *mistakenly* quoted him for quite a while, which makes me wonder why you never corrected me sooner? Since I've already conceded to you that you know the Church Fathers much better than me, I have to believe you saw the mistake right away?

Though you know the Church Fathers better than me, it appears that *you* are the one "blatantly" disregarding my quote of Irenaeus? It clearly shows he believed the binding of Satan will take place at the 2nd Coming, the end of the age, the defeat of Antichrist, and the beginning of a literal Millennium. Nothing about this is in any way, shape, or form Amil!