The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[jeffweeder]

As far as you referring to "the 6 occurrences of 1,000 years" in Revelation 20, you're not trying to say it has to be literal just because it's used 6 times, are you? I've seen that argument before and it's the most ridiculous argument imaginable. The number of times the word is used is irrelevant in terms of determining if it's literal or not.

Why isnt it literally spelled out in the rest of the NT?
Some will then say its figuratively spelled out Lol.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When people delve into the deeper abstract allegorical/metaphorical/theological aspects of the Bible, it's little wonder that their interpretations differ, hence Paul's advice to keep it simple..-

Paul said- "I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3)

Yet, he also said that scripture must be spiritually discerned. Also, Peter said that Paul taught some things that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16), so I'm not so sure that "keeping it simple" is really a good approach when it comes to the deeper things. Yes, the basics of Christianity are mostly simple, but we are talking about some deeper things on this forum that aren't so simple.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, my problem with you is a lack of charity. You don't demonstrate the virtues that Christ said we should have, that the Apostle John said was necessary for us to show. You create divisions over one very peripheral doctrine, and make it into one of the most important things in your life, without a hint of modesty. Christians should be able to discuss these things without being accused of "ducking things, or being called "bitter."

You should look in the mirror, Randy. I see those same kinds of things from you on this forum as well. You are not obligated to talk about this doctrine as much as you do. Yet, you talk about it quite a bit. So, who exactly is supposedly placing too much importance on it? If it's not that important to you, why do you spend so much time talking about it and defending your view of it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why isnt it literally spelled out in the rest of the NT?
Some will then say its figuratively spelled out Lol.

And that is rather ironic, isn't it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wrong. One hour (heis hora) is also defined as a time span. 1,000 years (chilio etos) is never defined as an undefined time span.

Where is one hour defined as a time span? As for 1,000 years, there's only two other verses in all of scripture that refer to a thousand years besides in Revelation 20 (Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8), so that is no basis for drawing the conclusion that it can't refer to an undefined time span in Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is inconsistent only in your mind! but for careful students of Gods INSPIRED WORD WE KNOW THAT TEH TERM "DAY OF THE LORD" HAS MORE THAN ONE MEANING AND CONTEXT DETERMINES WHICH DAY (OR TIME FRAME) IT IS REFERRING TO. The above passage is speaking of REv. 21:1 When John saw the old heaven and earth passed away. This event happens at teh end of the thousand years as is clearly shown in REvelation. all one has to do is read.

Just as a reminder, "the above passage" you referenced here was 2 Peter 3:10-13. That passage is talking about something that will happen in fulfilling the promise of Christ's second coming, which means it will happen when He comes as a thief in the night, not 1,000+ years later as you believe.

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”...9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

First, notice how Peter talked about scoffers in the last days scoffing and asking "where is this coming he promised"? Then Peter makes it clear that the Lord is not being slow in keeping the promise of His second coming. Then he later said in keeping with the promise of His second coming, we are looking forward to a new heaven and new earth. That places the timing of the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth directly at His second coming. It would make no sense to say that we look forward to a new heaven and new earth in keeping with the promise of His second coming, if the new heaven and new earth aren't ushered in until 1,000+ years later.

Another thing to note is that Peter talks about the importance of living "holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming". And he said that in relation to the burning up of the heavens, elements and the earth. This statement would make no sense whatsoever if the day when the heavens and earth are burned up didn't happen until 1000+ years after the return of Christ. He's clearly talking about the importance of living holy and godly lives in order to avoid the wrath that He wrote about. If that didn't even occur until 1,000+ years after the return of Christ then how can anything he said there ever apply to anyone reading those words?

The context of the entire passage of 2 Peter 3:3-13 is in relation to the day Christ returns. Like Peter, Paul also wrote about the importance of being careful about how we live our lives in relation to the coming of the day of the Lord.

1 Thess 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.

Paul is clearly writing here about the day of Christ's return and how we should be ready for it, unlike unbelievers who are spiritual darkness. That means the day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night is a reference to the day Christ returns. On that day destruction will come suddenly and unexpectedly upon people like those scoffers that Peter wrote about "and they will not escape". Why will they not escape? Because you can't escape fire coming down upon the entire earth. The timing of 2 Peter 3:10-12 and 1 Thess 5:2-3 is very clearly the day Christ returns, not 1000+ years later as Premils like you believe.

And to repeat what I wrote above, the bible is clear- this event occurs after teh 1,000 year millenial reign of Jesus on earth. It is written that way in the bible. Amils I know have to take a corkscrew to Scripture to twist this passage to fit somewhere it doesn't belong, but The universe passes away after teh thousand years, when Satan is loosed, leads a rebellion against Jerusalem and God sends fire down. Then comes the great white throne judgment where all the dead not resurrected in the first resurrection are raised, death and the grave are desatroyed and the lost are thrown in to the lake of fire.

As I showed above, it's not possible for a 1,000 year millennial reign to occur after what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Well as teh destruction of the Universe is not tied to Jesus second coming, your slander against teh Holy Spirit is duly noted and ignored.

Yes, it is. That is why in 2 Peter 3:13 Peter indicated that we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in direct fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. Instead of looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfilling the promise of His second coming, you are instead looking forward to a millennial earthly reign of Christ after which a number "as the sand of the sea" (Rev 20:8) rebel against Him and end up having fire come down upon them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I will give you one to nibble on, but just one until y9ou answer my questions.

In the millennial kingdom here on earth that will last for 1,000 years. representatives from all gentile nations that are repopulating the earth (from the survivors of the tribulation or 70th week of Daniel) will have to come to Jerusalem and celebrate the feast of tabernacles and present offerings at the Millennial temple. If a nation does not, their nation will have a drought that year.

Zechariah 14:16-19
King James Version

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


Now this cannot be in eternity for there is no sin in heaven!

What would be the purpose of these supposed offerings at this supposed Millennial temple? Keep in mind that keeping the feast of tabernacles involves giving offerings for the atonement of sins.

 

[jeffweeder]

The above passage is speaking of REv. 21:1 When John saw the old heaven and earth passed away. This event happens at teh end of the thousand years as is clearly shown in REvelation. all one has to do is read.




Well as teh destruction of the Universe is not tied to Jesus second coming, your slander against teh Holy Spirit is duly noted and ignored. Jesus returns in REv. 19, described in detail in Matt. 25 and the destruction of the old to make way for the new occurs after the 1,000 years as is written in SCripture.

Glad you believe the heaven and the earth pass away after this millennium period.

Matt 24
35 Heaven and earth [as now known] will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36 “But of that [exact] day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son [in His humanity], but the Father alone. 37 For the coming of the Son of Man (the Messiah) will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the [very] day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know or understand until the flood came and swept them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be [unexpected judgment].


Luke 21
33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
34 “But be on guard, so that your hearts are not weighed down and depressed with the giddiness of debauchery and the nausea of self-indulgence and the worldly worries of life, and then that day [when the Messiah returns] will not come on you suddenly like a trap; 35 for it will come upon all those who live on the face of all the earth. 36 But keep alert at all times [be attentive and ready], praying that you may have the strength and ability [to be found worthy and] to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man [at His coming].”



If your willing to accept it the Lord said his coming is after the millennium when the H/E pass away.

The Lord is therefore Amill.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You should look in the mirror, Randy. I see those same kinds of things from you on this forum as well. You are not obligated to talk about this doctrine as much as you do. Yet, you talk about it quite a bit. So, who exactly is supposedly placing too much importance on it? If it's not that important to you, why do you spend so much time talking about it and defending your view of it?

Tossing it back at me, huh? Nice try.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I was talking about Premils, but did you somehow miss that I said "some of them"? That means not all of them. So, I wasn't talking about you.

That is not at all what I'm doing.

That is not at all what the warning is about. The warning is about people PURPOSELY twisting the text to say something different than what it says. That is NOT AT ALL what I'm doing. I interpret the text in such a way that is CONSISTENT with how I interpret the rest of scripture. Don't you think it's a good thing to try to be consistent with how I interpret scripture as a whole, regardless of whether you agree with my conclusions or not?

I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm saying that if God threatens us if we add or subtract with respect to the Revelation, perhaps it's safest to say, "I think this," or "I think that," rather than take a statement, turn it into an allegory, and then badger those who disagree with you?

We need to keep God front and center in our thoughts and doctrines, and keep charity our rule. This is not a competition. This is not about human pride. This is about us being the subjects, and God being the Lord. We should not be promoting doctrines as if they belonged to us. They belong to God, and He decides what they mean.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course context matters. We all believe that.

I should hope so. However, the argument about how "thousand" is used elsewhere in Scripture then is not valid. We already know it can be used as a saying, a metaphor, a symbol, or literally. Why go to lengths to show it can be used metaphorically, if it is context that determines the meaning in Rev 20?

Show me the scripture which teaches this. I don't need to go by your man-made rules.

I'm telling you what *God* said--not Man! God said don't mess with what is being said. That means, don't assume a passage, given at face value, can be interpreted symbolically.

He didn't say to interpret it all literally! Which is basically what you're saying here. That's nonsense! You are trying to tell me that God said to interpret an undeniably highly symbolic book literally. You can't be serious.

In a book of Aesop's Fables you can find many statements that are made to be taken quite literally. The book of Revelation had many obvious symbols. That doesn't mean you can reduce to symbols everything you read in the book!

We agree that context determines how a word should be used. We cannot go to other books of the Bible to see how "thousand" should be used in Rev 20. We can't say, "Revelation has many symbols so I can reduce "thousand" in Rev 20 to a symbol." Without any obvious statement that renders "thousand" a metaphor, we must take it literally. At best we should say, "I'm not sure."

Who are you to decide what the context demands? You don't decide that for me. What I believe is demanded is to interpret the text in such a way that doesn't contradict other scripture. The context is not just determined by the Revelation 20 text alone.

I'm not arguing what I wish to see in Rev 20. I'm arguing only what is there. Do you see anything in Rev 20 itself that demands a "thousand years" be taken symbolically? I don't.

Randy isn't making that his claim. Randy is saying that is what he sees, the same that you see, the same that we all see. We do not see an obvious need to take a "thousand years" symbolically.

That's why Amils typically go elsewhere in the Bible to prove that a "thousand" can be used symbolically. But we already know this. We already know "thousand" can be taken any number of ways, and we don't need to prove it.

It is the context in Rev 20 that determines whether a "thousand years" is to be taken literally or not. To be safe, I just take it as I read it, with full recognition of the context.

I cannot assume that the thousand years is symbolic of the NT age. That actually sounds way off the charts of what is in this chapter. And that's why early Church Fathers had a number of prominent Chiliasts.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have never expected anyone to agree with me, just because i say so. I want people to consider the historic evidence, which (I believe) is plain and overwhelming. Go where the evidence goes. We cannot rewrite history. The ancient ECFs can speak for themselves. If there are holes in my conclusions, of course, I want them exposed. But it seems like my thesis is pretty watertight at the moment. You haven't even landed a punch on it. To present wild unsubstantiated conspiracy theories on the Amils as rebuttals is absurd and shows that you have nothing of a viable rebuttal. This is not evidence, but a sign you have no evidence.

Most objective historians accept: Jerome censored one Chiliastic document written by Victorinus. There is no other credible evidence of anything similar. If there is: present it.

I don't have the evidence--just memories of things I've read over the years. Amils in ancient times tended to look almost with hostility at the Chiliasts. So I wouldn't be surprised if they edited out material they didn't agree with, just as you would reject what others say that has nothing of significance to you.

Where you stand determines whether you think a disagreement has value or not. From my perspective, my claim that Irenaeus taught the binding of Satan at the defeat of Antichrist and at the 2nd Coming as "knocking you out of the ring" in light of your claim there was no such thing in that time period. And the fact later Church Fathers filled in the blanks makes it likely to me that there was more available to them that was not preserved from among the earlier Church Fathers.

But I don't like to talk about "throwing punches" and "knocking people out of rings," because that sounds more like a battle than a discussion. And as I said earlier, I don't care for the loveless insulting comments one makes about another in these discussions.

Some of it may be okay to express emotion and conviction. But you have to decide for yourself personally what is "over the top." Personally, I think showing respect lends to better conversations.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Once again, you totally sidestepped all the strong evidence presented, refusing to even acknowledge what was being quoted, and then proceeded to take us off on a tangent. Notwithstanding, you totally reinforced my overriding thesis here. The first orthodox ECFs to (indeed) advocate key elements of modern-day beliefs came from Commodianus, Lactantius and Victorinus. But they did not bring their mellow form of Premil to the table until after AD 250. Think about that! That is over 220 years after the cross! All we had before that was Chiliasm, which was more akin to Amil, believing in a new perfect impending arrangement. Even then, Commodianus, Lactantius and Victorinus anticipated a milder and more palatable millennium than what Premils promote today. There is no elevation of ethnic Israel or reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus in their writing. That is not insignificant, because these are central tenets of modern-day Premil.

What you don't seem to be considering is that later Church Fathers read earlier Church Fathers. And they certainly read earlier Chiliasts like Irenaeus.

Does it seem likely to you that later Church Fathers, who share the Chiliastic convictions of Irenaeus, would suddenly develop new and different details that were completely inconsistent with Irenaeus? I don't think so!

Your argument is basically an argument from silence. We don't know how much material from the earlier Chiliasts has been lost or edited. But you are basing a firm theory on something you don't know!

 

[WPM]

What you don't seem to be considering is that later Church Fathers read earlier Church Fathers. And they certainly read earlier Chiliasts like Irenaeus.

Does it seem likely to you that later Church Fathers, who share the Chiliastic convictions of Irenaeus, would suddenly develop new and different details that were completely inconsistent with Irenaeus? I don't think so!

Your argument is basically an argument from silence. We don't know how much material from the earlier Chiliasts has been lost or edited. But you are basing a firm theory on something you don't know!

No it is not. Quite the opposite. I am the one taking each ECF at their word. I am quoting what they taught, not what I want them to teach. You are the one trying to impute all types of unmentioned beliefs to them that they did not express or believe. What is more, because of your severe lack of historic data, you are now inventing conspiracy theories to justify your position.

Sadly for you, your beliefs are traced back to the early heretics who were crystal clear in their Premil beliefs.

As for your unsubstantiated claims about Irenaeus, that has been repeatedly and suitably refuted. You know that. You are just being difficult.

Satan bound at the First Advent!

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).​

In keeping with the rest of his writings Irenaeus shows Christ taking back off Satan at the 1st Advent what Adam forfeited at the beginning. This permeates through different writings of Irenaeus. The references to “dragon” and “serpent” here are clear and overt references to Revelation 20:2.

This passage 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 rectify 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.” Irenaeus confirms: “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.” The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. Sin, death and every enemy of righteousness was defeated through the life, death and glorious resurrection 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." After quoting Psalm 91:13, Irenaeus explains the thinking of the Psalmist: arguing that he was looking forward to the fulfilment of this through the First Advent. Irenaeus was looking at it from the Psalmist's perspective.

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 Premil. Sin, death, the beast and Satan are all shown to have been defeated through their earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

The writer also shows that the last enemy to be eliminated is death when Jesus returns. But the defeat of death was on the cross, work Christ secured our salvation. 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]

What you don't seem to be considering is that later Church Fathers read earlier Church Fathers. And they certainly read earlier Chiliasts like Irenaeus.

Does it seem likely to you that later Church Fathers, who share the Chiliastic convictions of Irenaeus, would suddenly develop new and different details that were completely inconsistent with Irenaeus? I don't think so!

Your argument is basically an argument from silence. We don't know how much material from the earlier Chiliasts has been lost or edited. But you are basing a firm theory on something you don't know!

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 binding of Satan and the spoiling of his house were globalized here to relate to mankind.

How, too, could He have subdued him who was stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to, and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And for this reason He did in these last days exhibit the similitude; [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production [of His hands] into His own nature, as I have shown in the immediately preceding book (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 33:4).
​

The writer links the subduing of Satan to Christ's death 2000 years ago. He is shown to be now vanquished. This is the opposite of Premil theology. What is more: he related the binding of Satan at the First Advent to "the last days."

God has banished from His presence him who did of his own accord stealthily sow the tares, that is, him who brought about the transgression … The Scripture tells us that God said to the serpent, And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. And the Lord summed up in Himself this enmity, when He was made man from a woman, and trod upon his [the serpent's] head (Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 40, 3)
​

Satan is shown here to be "banished from His (Christ's) presence" after Christ "trod upon his [the serpent's] head."

He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary (Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 24:1).
​

Satan is a defeated foe and his bound in his influence.

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)
​

Satan is already "overcome" according to Irenaeus.

Waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed … when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman. For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man’s opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned (ex quo ea quæ secundum mulierem est plasmatio facta est), in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death” (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 1)
​

The first Advent was a victory for Christ and saw Satan be crushed, vanquished and trampled upon.

The Lord did perform His command, being made of a woman, by both destroying our adversary, and perfecting man after the image and likeness of God. And for this reason He did not draw the means of confounding him from any other source than from the words of the law, and made use of the Father’s commandment as a help towards the destruction and confusion of the apostate angel” (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 21, 2)
​

This is a victorious essay.

The 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 … 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)
​

Again, Satan is the captive now. He is in a spiritual prion. He is limited with spiritual chains! The spiritual chains that Satan placed upon the wicked to restrain them in a spiritual prison on this earth were now destroyed by Christ and, in turn, placed upon Satan. Obviously, these are not physical chains. Obviously, this is not a literal physical prison that is separate from this earth.

The Word of God, however, the Maker of all things, conquering him by means of human nature, and showing him to be an apostate, has, on the contrary, put him under the power of man. For He says, Behold, I confer upon you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy, in order that, as he obtained dominion over man by apostasy, so again his apostasy might be deprived of power by means of man turning back again to God Against Heresies (Book 5, Chapter 24).​

Irenaeus saw the binding of Satan as pertaining to the liberty of mankind, not some individual human being released.

Every single reference to the binding of Satan here relates to the defeat of Satan at the cross and the taking back of what Adam forfeited in the fall. You fail to even acknowledge that or address that. To do so would obliterate your whole argument.

 

[WPM]

What you don't seem to be considering is that later Church Fathers read earlier Church Fathers. And they certainly read earlier Chiliasts like Irenaeus.

Does it seem likely to you that later Church Fathers, who share the Chiliastic convictions of Irenaeus, would suddenly develop new and different details that were completely inconsistent with Irenaeus? I don't think so!

Your argument is basically an argument from silence. We don't know how much material from the earlier Chiliasts has been lost or edited. But you are basing a firm theory on something you don't know!

Satan destroyed at the Second Advent!

Irenaeus lists the resurrection at the coming of Christ as the time when the curse is finally removed, incorruption is introduced and death and the devil are eliminated. This climactic portrayal fits consistently with the Chiliast vision of future state. There is no space for sin and sinner, death and disease, war and terror, Satan and his demons. We are looking at a perfect pristine arrangement.

There shall in truth be a common joy consummated to all those who believe unto life, and in each individual shall be confirmed the mystery of the Resurrection, and the hope of incorruption, and the commencement of the eternal kingdom, when God shall have destroyed death and the devil. For that human nature and flesh which has risen again from the dead shall die no more; but after it had been changed to incorruption, and made like to spirit, when the heaven was opened, [our Lord] full of glory offered it (the flesh) to the Father (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, L.).​

The glorification of God’s people described in this ancient text occurs at the second coming. It is here that this corruptible will take on incorruption. This Chiliast father teaches that every vestige of the Fall is removed when Christ returns never to arise again. The approaching earth will be totally different from the current corrupt one and will be totally renewed and eternally free of corruption.

Irenaeus reckons that man’s sinful makeup must be changed in order to allow him to grace a future millennial earth. Every trace of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

According to this early writer, the saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new order. This arrangement is shown to never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible ongoing arrangement.

The ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter X, 1 – Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world).​

Again, the coming of Christ is here represented as glorious and climatic. It involves God’s righteous final judgment upon all wickedness. There is no indication that sin and sinners survive the Lord’s future return. Wicked man and wicked angels are both collectively shown to experience “everlasting fire.”

This is classic Amil. This completely refutes the claims of Premils that Irenaeus was one of them. He wasn't! Ancient Chilaism and modern Premil are as far apart as day and night.

 

[Timtofly]

That is not true. The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical future earthly millennium. Such people confidently advance it in such a way, as if it states, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’. However, a careful reading of this inspired narrative reveals that it rather in stark contrast declares, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” This passage therefore does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium.

The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3, 6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

See you are missing the historical value for your own interpreted opinion. You are not numbering your days, but spiritually highlighting them.

Adam lived for 1930 years, but you will never accept nor know that fact, until you leave this earth. Solomon was pointing out that even if Adam had lived for 2,000 years, he was still no better off than any other human. Adam was the only human that lived on earth for that amount of time. By Solomons time humans only lived for 70 years.

After 7,000 years we have forgotten the point of some Scripture. So sure, go ahead, and believe as you will. It won't make a difference one way or the other, because no human here is calling the shots. God is.

 

[WPM]

See you are missing the historical value for your own interpreted opinion. You are not numbering your days, but spiritually highlighting them.

Adam lived for 1930 years, but you will never accept nor know that fact, until you leave this earth. Solomon was pointing out that even if Adam had lived for 2,000 years, he was still no better off than any other human. Adam was the only human that lived on earth for that amount of time. By Solomons time humans only lived for 70 years.

After 7,000 years we have forgotten the point of some Scripture. So sure, go ahead, and believe as you will. It won't make a difference one way or the other, because no human here is calling the shots. God is.

Why can you not tell the truth?

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

 

[Timtofly]

You know this is not true. Most Premils i have engaged with believe in the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future.

Were you hoping they all would come on line and defend their error?

Has any poster here even defended that position?

What about all the pre-mill who don't push such theories?

 

[Prim]

It may shock Premillennialists to know that the views they hold and promote today were sourced and spread in antiquity chiefly among heretics. When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures. The first two operated at the very infancy of early church history – Cerinthus of Asia Minor (50-100 AD) and Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor (Born: 85 AD, Died: 160 AD). Both of these were viewed as arch-heretics and were strongly resisted by the early Church fathers for their corrupt perversion of Christianity. They invented a dual-covenant concept of two parallel yet coexisting peoples of God, under two different agreements, serving two different gods, with two different time-tables and two different ultimate outcomes. This was seasoned throughout with Gnostic elements.

The later advocates of ancient Premillennialism who ran with, and widely promoted, it were Porphyry [or Porphyrius] of Tyre (232- 305) and Apollinarius of Laodicea, Asia Minor (died 382). They took up the baton were Cerinthus and Marcion left off. Not surprisingly, these two unorthodox writers were condemned by the ancient orthodox fathers as heretics and blasphemers.

It is a sad indictment on Premillennialism that the genesis of the doctrine within Christendom can only be found in the ancient writings of these gross heretics.

What set these 4 men apart from the orthodox Chiliasts was obviously not their opinion of the idea of a future millennial earth, no, it was their elevation of the nation Israel in a future millennium, their two-peoples-of-God-theory (including a clear discontinuity between Israel and the Church), their advocacy for the renewal of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, a return of blood sin offerings in a future temple (whether real or memorial) and their support for the restarting of the old covenant priesthood on a future millennial earth.

While these are beliefs that are widely held within Premillennialist circles today, they were unknown to the early orthodox Church Chiliasts. Along with the reintroduction of all the bondage of corruption on a future earth (including sin, death and decay) and the rising up of Satan after 1000 to influence billions of millennial inhabitants against Christ and the glorified saints, this advocacy for the return of all the old covenant apparatus is probably the most unsavory aspect of modern Premillennialism.

Notably: none of the ancient Chiliasts supported the idea of Israel rising again to a place of racial superiority in a future millennial kingdom. They all looked upon the Church as fulfilment of true Israel today. They rejected any idea of God blessing any aspect of the redundant Jewish ceremonial arrangement. They strongly opposed any validity for, or efficacy in, any coexisting dual covenant theory.

They resisted any advancement of the fanciful idea of any type of reintroduction of the old abolished covenant system, including the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the performing of multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man for a thousand years in the future. Such a thought was anathema to them. For the 1st 240 years after the cross there was no classic Dispensational or “Historic” Premil beliefs in the early Church. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amil new earth - it was perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death- free.

The early orthodox heretical apostates found the natural carnal sensual expectations of the Jewish millennial teaching attractive to their thinking. Prior to Cerinthus, and after him, up until Victorinus in 270 AD, there are no orthodox Christian writings advocating the continuation of earthly carnal pleasures (including excessive feasting, continued marriage, ongoing sexual passion and procreation) and materialistic prosperity after the resurrection. This thinking was thought to belong to the Gnostic camp. As Premillennialist Chris Gousmett even conceded: “This emphasis on material and fleshly delights was seen to be typical of ‘Jewish’ understandings of the prophetic promises, and thus a close connection between Gnosticism and Judaism was postulated” (Shall the Body Strive and not be Crowned? Unitary and Instrumentalist Anthropological Models as keys to Interpreting the Structure of Patristic Eschatology).

Finally, none the early orthodox Chiliasts expected a future binding/unbinding of Satan or the uprising of Gog and Magog to surround Christ and the saints 1,000 years after the second coming. They all seem to have believed that Satan was taken out of the game on the actual day of Christ’s appearing.

Paul from what source material do you glean your information? Do you have any books or publications you recommend. I have read some on the Gnostics they were most fanatical in corrupting the word of God with their own translations and falsifying truthful texts. But I’ve never come across their views on their covenant beliefs. I’d be interested to know.