The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
shepherdsword
Well-Known Member
Premil is always elevating the power and authority of Satan and denigrated the power and authority of Christ.
What about 1 Peter 5:8? Let us read it: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” The very next verse 1 Peter 5:9 affirms, “whom resist stedfast in the faith.”
The true Church of Jesus Christ is a resistance movement. While Satan resists us, the Bible says we have power to resist him, and subjugate his purposes against us. We resist the lawlessness and evil encroachments of the devil around us.
In fact, James 4:7 tells us what happens when you do resist, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
This is incredible! You resist, he must flee. When the devil plants a temptation, a doubt or a fear, you simply have to resist it, whereupon Satan must get his boots on and run. This word “flee” in the original means to escape, flee away or vanish. Now think about it. When you resist, he must disappear. The conflict today for the Church is not an earthly battle to possess an earthly territory but a spiritual battle to possess spiritual territory.
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 Amil position. Irenaeus was very direct, consistent and bold in his declarations on the binding of Satan.
He declares:
For as it was not possible that the man who had once for all been conquered, and who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform himself, and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was also impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the power of sin, - the Son effected both these things, being the Word of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 18, 6:2).
Irenaeus lays out the great assignment that Christ undertook on man’s behalf. He highlights the pitiful condition of man. He simply couldn’t help himself. He was in too depraved a state. He needed someone stronger to liberate him. Christ was indeed a man on a mission coming to rescue man from his own self-destruction. Satan was a distinct obstacle to this assignment. After all, man had given the evil one authority over his life that he did not deserve. So, the devil had to be confronted and overcome on his own playing field. That is what Jesus did:
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, significantly, 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 early Chiliast’s assessment of 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.
Without this transaction the Gentiles would never have been set free. Before the cross the Gentiles were in blind ignorance, deceived by the father of lies. After the resurrection, the Gentiles were no longer deceived as the Gospel light shone throughout the nations. The veil of ignorance was lifted. They are now without excuse. Satan had them hoodwinked. They lay in darkness. He ruled the nations before the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He had them under his control.
Irenaeus 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 mission. The cross and the resurrection was the triumphant apex of His earthly task. 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 shackles 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 loosen what the enemy had afflicted all mankind with. By doing this, he resolved the sin issue, and overcome the death issue (the consequence for sin).
Irenaeus 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.
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).
Irenaeus links the subduing of Satan to Christ's death 2000 years ago. The enemy is shown here to be currently vanquished. This is the opposite of Premil theology. What is more: he relates the binding of Satan at the First Advent to “these last days” – showing the reader that they had already arrived.
Last edited:
Justin Martyr Asia Minor (now Turkey) (AD 100-166)
He declared that He would break the power of the serpent which occasioned the transgression of Adam, and [would bring] to them that believe in Him [who was foreshadowed] by this sign, i.e., Him who was to be crucified, salvation from the fangs of the serpent, which are wicked deeds, idolatries, and other unrighteous acts (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 94).
… For when He became man … the devil came to Him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting Him, and striving to effect His downfall by asking Him to worship him. But He destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to the Scripture; who is an apostate from the will of God. For He answers him, ‘It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’ Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time (Dialogue with Trypho - Chapter 125 – He explains what force the word Israel has, and how it suits Christ).
Last edited:
Irenaeus repeatedly teaches in his writings that Satan was bound at the First Advent.
[W]hen He spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, 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.
Last edited:
I submitted what you said here to Chatgpt, then I asked chatgpt the following.
------------------
The following is what an Amillennialist is asking about in regards to what another Amillennialist said. Is all of it true, that Justin Martyr said Jesus would cast "the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils" at His second coming? Where is the logic in that since there can't be a millennium unless there is a little season that follows it? Nor can there be a little season that follows the millennium if satan is cast into the LOF at the beginning of the millennium. Was Justin Martyr really that confused, or is this other Amillennialist misrepresenting what Justin Martyr was meaning?
----------------
Chatgpt then responded like such:
That's a very insightful question with a lot to unpack, especially in relation to early Christian eschatology and the interpretation of Revelation 20.
### First, to the quotation:
Justin Martyr **does** say something along the lines of the wicked being cast into eternal fire along with devils. The specific quote the Ammillennialist is referencing seems to come from *Dialogue with Trypho*, chapter 117, where Justin says:
> *“...the souls of the wicked being endowed with sensation even after death, shall be punished, and that those of the good shall abide in happiness... and that eternal fire is prepared for the wicked, the devil, and his angels.”*
That’s close in spirit to Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10-15, and yes, Justin does tie this to Christ’s return. But here’s the nuance:
Justin Martyr **was a premillennialist** (or **"Chiliast"**)—he believed in a **literal 1,000-year reign of Christ** on Earth **after** His second coming. That means he did not believe Revelation 20:10–15 happened **at** the second coming, but **after** the millennium.
### So is the Ammillennialist misrepresenting Justin?
Yes, at least **partially**. Here's why:
- Justin believed Jesus returns, **binds Satan**, **resurrects the righteous**, and reigns for 1,000 years.
- **After** that comes the “little season” (cf. Revelation 20:3) when Satan is loosed again.
- **Then** Satan is finally thrown into the Lake of Fire along with the wicked (Rev. 20:10).
- Then comes the **Great White Throne Judgment** (Rev. 20:11–15).
So Justin **did not** believe Revelation 20:10–15 happens **at** Christ’s return—he would have seen that as **after** the millennium and little season, in line with the sequence in Revelation.
### Was Justin Martyr confused?
Not really. He was following the **sequential** reading of Revelation 20 that premillennialists still hold today. The confusion here comes from interpreting **when** these things happen:
- The **Ammillennialist** tends to see the 1,000 years as symbolic of the present Church age, and the final judgment occurs at Christ's second coming.
- The **Chiliast/Premillennialist** sees the 1,000 years as **future and literal**, so the judgment in Revelation 20:10–15 is **after** that.
### So to sum up:
-
Justin Martyr did say the wicked would be punished eternally and referenced fire and devils.-
But he did **not** say or believe that Revelation 20:10–15 occurs **at** Christ’s second coming.-
Therefore, the Amillennialist in your quote is **misrepresenting Justin’s view**.Would you like a quick breakdown of how Justin and other early Chiliasts read Revelation 20, step by step?
LOL. Do you think Chatgpt is omniscient? It scans websites and shares what it finds. Many prominent websites are Premil and full of nonsense. Why do you think you always get what you want? You do not tell us about the 20 other searches you did that give you different info.I submitted what you said here to Chatgpt, then I asked chatgpt the following.
------------------
The following is what an Amillennialist is asking about in regards to what another Amillennialist said. Is all of it true, that Justin Martyr said Jesus would cast "the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils" at His second coming? Where is the logic in that since there can't be a millennium unless there is a little season that follows it? Nor can there be a little season that follows the millennium if satan is cast into the LOF at the beginning of the millennium. Was Justin Martyr really that confused, or is this other Amillennialist misrepresenting what Justin Martyr was meaning?
----------------
Chatgpt then responded like such:
That's a very insightful question with a lot to unpack, especially in relation to early Christian eschatology and the interpretation of Revelation 20.
### First, to the quotation:
Justin Martyr **does** say something along the lines of the wicked being cast into eternal fire along with devils. The specific quote the Ammillennialist is referencing seems to come from *Dialogue with Trypho*, chapter 117, where Justin says:
> *“...the souls of the wicked being endowed with sensation even after death, shall be punished, and that those of the good shall abide in happiness... and that eternal fire is prepared for the wicked, the devil, and his angels.”*
That’s close in spirit to Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10-15, and yes, Justin does tie this to Christ’s return. But here’s the nuance:
Justin Martyr **was a premillennialist** (or **"Chiliast"**)—he believed in a **literal 1,000-year reign of Christ** on Earth **after** His second coming. That means he did not believe Revelation 20:10–15 happened **at** the second coming, but **after** the millennium.
### So is the Ammillennialist misrepresenting Justin?
Yes, at least **partially**. Here's why:
- Justin believed Jesus returns, **binds Satan**, **resurrects the righteous**, and reigns for 1,000 years.
- **After** that comes the “little season” (cf. Revelation 20:3) when Satan is loosed again.
- **Then** Satan is finally thrown into the Lake of Fire along with the wicked (Rev. 20:10).
- Then comes the **Great White Throne Judgment** (Rev. 20:11–15).
So Justin **did not** believe Revelation 20:10–15 happens **at** Christ’s return—he would have seen that as **after** the millennium and little season, in line with the sequence in Revelation.
### Was Justin Martyr confused?
Not really. He was following the **sequential** reading of Revelation 20 that premillennialists still hold today. The confusion here comes from interpreting **when** these things happen:
- The **Ammillennialist** tends to see the 1,000 years as symbolic of the present Church age, and the final judgment occurs at Christ's second coming.
- The **Chiliast/Premillennialist** sees the 1,000 years as **future and literal**, so the judgment in Revelation 20:10–15 is **after** that.
### So to sum up:
-
-
-
Would you like a quick breakdown of how Justin and other early Chiliasts read Revelation 20, step by step?
This is embarrassing. But, this is where Premillennialism has arrived. Your doctrine is dead. Why not admit that?
Let us cut through all this Chatgpt nonsense (once and for all) and bury it. Let us see the facts.
- So, where did Justin teach "Jesus returns binds Satan, resurrects the righteous, and reigns for 1,000 years? Give us a hard quotes, instead of some computer talking to you.
- So, where did Justin teach "After that comes the “little season” (cf. Revelation 20:3) when Satan is loosed again"? Give us a hard quotes, instead of some computer talking to you.
- So, where did Justin teach "Then Satan is finally thrown into the Lake of Fire along with the wicked (Rev. 20:10)"? Give us a hard quotes, instead of some computer talking to you.
- So, where did Justin teach "Then comes the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11–15)"? Give us a hard quotes, instead of some computer talking to you.
Last edited:
shepherdsword
Well-Known Member
The entire message is not about Satan being bound for 1000 years. It is about a binding of his minions to deliver a soul from possession. It concerns the casting out of demons by Jesus.
Lk 11:20-24
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
Mt 12:28-29 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
No prophet ever cast out demons before Jesus came. He said it is a hallmark of his kingdom. THIS is what the binding of the strongman is about. Jerking it out of context and applying this to Rev 20 is dishonest if not ignorance
Once again you misinterpret a statement to fortify your paradigm. No premill person has ever objected to Jesus crushing satan at the cross and also during his 40 day testing. That has nothing to do with the 1000 year binding. We simply agree with Paul that Satan is free to roam and seek those he can still consume.
You misinterpret a statement to fortify your paradigm. No premill person has ever objected to Jesus crushing satan at the cross and also during his 40 day testing. That has nothing to do with the 1000 year binding. We simply agree with Paul that Satan is free to roam and seek those he can still consume.
Peter very clearly stated that Satan is now free to roam. This is simply because God permits it. We see the works of Satan everywhere because not all things are YET under Christ's feet. This has nothing to do with the outright lie from hell that premills elevate satan and diminish Christ. It has to do with a direct statement by Paul
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
shepherdsword
Well-Known Member
The entire message is not about Satan being bound for 1000 years. It is about a binding of his minions to deliver a soul from possession. It concerns the casting out of demons by Jesus.
Lk 11:20-24
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
Mt 12:28-29 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
No prophet ever cast out demons before Jesus came. He said it is a hallmark of his kingdom. THIS is what the binding of the strongman is about. Jerking it out of context and applying this to Rev 20 is dishonest if not ignorance
shepherdsword
Well-Known Member
The entire message is not about Satan being bound for 1000 years. It is about a binding of his minions to deliver a soul from possession. It concerns the casting out of demons by Jesus.
Lk 11:20-24
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
Mt 12:28-29 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
No prophet ever cast out demons before Jesus came. He said it is a hallmark of his kingdom. THIS is what the binding of the strongman is about. Jerking it out of context and applying this to Rev 20 is dishonest if not ignorance
Once again you misinterpret a statement to fortify your paradigm. No premill person has ever objected to Jesus crushing satan at the cross and also during his 40 day testing. That has nothing to do with the 1000 year binding. We simply agree with Peter that Satan is free to roam and seek those he can still consume.
shepherdsword
Well-Known Member
The entire message is not about Satan being bound for 1000 years. It is about a binding of his minions to deliver a soul from possession. It concerns the casting out of demons by Jesus.
Lk 11:20-24
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
Mt 12:28-29 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
No prophet ever cast out demons before Jesus came. He said it is a hallmark of his kingdom. THIS is what the binding of the strongman is about. Jerking it out of context and applying this to Rev 20 is dishonest if not ignorance
Once again you misinterpret a statement to fortify your paradigm. No premill person has ever objected to Jesus crushing satan at the cross and also during his 40 day testing. That has nothing to do with the 1000 year binding. We simply agree with Paul that Satan is free to roam and seek those he can still consume.
You misinterpret a statement to fortify your paradigm. No premill person has ever objected to Jesus crushing satan at the cross and also during his 40 day testing. That has nothing to do with the 1000 year binding. We simply agree with Paul that Satan is free to roam and seek those he can still consume.
LOL. That is the usual response of Premillennialist when they realize what they're saying is false. Suddenly they become Amillennialists. At least we have gained solid territory today.
So, now that you agree with us Amillennialists that Satan was bound 2000 years ago, can you give me one single historic quote that shows that these early fathers believed in a second binding of Satan at the second coming for 1000 years?
I will not hold my breath. I know, you know, and the reader knows, you are totally winging it (like DivaD).
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Why do you think that Satan being bound equates to him being mobile or not? How do you interpret this passage:
Matthew 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Do you understand that the strong man here represents Satan/Beelzebub? I see in other comments that you act as if Jesus was only talking about casting out demons. No, He was talking about more than just that. Notice He talked about Satan's kingdom and how if Satan cast himself out, he would be divided against himself and his kingdom could not stand. Jesus did not refer to binding strong men (plural) there, he talked about binding the strong man (singular).
Was Jesus talking about the need to completely incapacitate the strong man in order to spoil his goods and his house? No. The binding is figurative, not literal. It has to do with Jesus binding Satan so that He could spoil his goods (people who he held captive by the fear of death - Heb 2:14-15) and his house (the world).
The way Satan was bound was by way of the advancement of the kingdom of God through the ministry, death, resurrection of Christ and the preaching of the gospel of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with incapacitating Satan, but rather with taking the power of death away from him, as Jesus did with His death on the cross (Heb 2:14-15) and setting people free from the power of death by way of the gospel of Christ giving them the hope of eternal life that the world did not have before Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Jesus was not just talking about casting out demons there! It refers to the binding of the strong man (singular), not of the strong men (plural). The strong man is Satan, his goods were those who Satan held in slavery to the fear of death because of having the power of death (Hebrews 2:14-15) and his house is this evil world that Satan previously ruled over with very little opposition. That all changed with Christ's ministry, death and resurrection and the subsequent preaching of the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Previous to Jesus's binding of the strong man Satan, the Gentiles were "without Christ" and had "no hope" and were "without God in the world". But, Jesus changed all that. As Paul said, "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:13).
This illustrates your doctrinal bias. You emphasize the last statement of the verse while completely ignoring the rest of the verse.shepherdsword said:
Hebrews 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Is there something you don't understand about the fact that God "put all things in subjection under his feet" and "left nothing that is not put under him"? Why do you ignore that part of the verse? What that verse is saying is that all CURRENT things are under His feet but there are still more things to come that are not yet under His feet which are things that do not currently exist. Once they exist they will immediately be under His feet. That will be the case right up until He destroys the last enemy, death. at which point all things that ever will be will be under His feet. And then He delivers the kingdom to the Father at that point (1 Cor 15:22-28).
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Isn't it interesting that Premills can see that Jesus bound the spiritual enemy long ago, but they try to say it only related to casting out demons and nothing more. They miss that Jesus talked about binding the strong man, not the strong men. And they have no idea what the strong man's goods and his house represent.
They don't try to say that the binding of the strong man had anything to do with completely incapacitating the strong man. They see it as him being bound from doing a certain thing. So, they don't see that as being a literal binding. With that being the case, why do they think that the binding of Satan involves him being literally bound to the point of being completely incapacitated? There's never any consistency in the Premill approach to interpreting scripture. It's just random.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
