25 questions that prove that ancient Chiliasm was a different animal to modern Premil

[Randy Kluth]

Please stay away from this thread if you have no interest in addressing these historic issues or you wish to engage in ad hominem.

I'm not surprised you add the "ad hominem" warning since on another forum somebody contacted the mods about my treating you in ad hominem fashion. And while I was banned, you doubled down on the claim I have nothing to respond to your 25 points. I was utterly prevented from responding. And though I refused to complain about your thread, claiming heretics founded Modern Premillennialism, they apparently ended your thread anyway?

I do apologize for allowing myself to get too mouthy. But it is flat out wrong to claim "victory" on your points when all you do is ignore arguments against them. When somebody challenges you, you simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

Again, I challenged you with Irenaeus' quote, which showed he believed that the binding of Satan (Rev 20) takes place at the 2nd Coming. Your response? It's a minor point in light of many other statements Irenaeus made.

But the point is, all of the other statements you cite Irenaeus as making had to do with the "strong man" story, which is different from the binding of Satan in Rev 20. So all of your statements about Irenaeus' belief on the subject are worthless, and the quote I gave you is all-important. Your response is to ignore it and to continue with your 25 points as if you've had no real challenges.

Quite frankly, you don't even seem to respond to my claim that the "strong man" story is different than the "binding of Satan" event? One is a principle by which the superior is able to defeat an inferior. That's how Christ defeated Satan, legally, at the cross.

But the event in which Satan is bound in Rev 20 is more than a principle by which a stronger defeats a weaker. It is the event in which Christ, the stronger, imprisons Satan for a thousand years.

If this is how you treat real challenges to your position, it isn't worthy my time responding to them. You're only looking for your supporters to "cheer lead" your positions.

I have given RandyPNW time to prove his unsubstantiated and repeated claim that the beliefs of the ancient Chiliasts were the same (or similar) as modern Premil.

As you likely know, I was reported for "abusing you" with name-calling and banned from further responses on another forum. And when you continued to claim I had nothing, *after I was banned,* and ridiculed me for not responding, your whole thread was shut down. Just sayin.'

I'm not surprised you call me out. After all, you or a supporter of yours, felt I needed to be shut down in order for you to continue your meaningless claim that you have 25 unchallenged points. But just one quote from Church Father Irenaeus destroys your 25 points. And whether you shut me down or not, you have no answer for that.

 

[Truth7t7]

Time after time.

Reformed Preterist Eschatology In Denial, Join The Pre-Mills in Denial Also

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not surprised you add the "ad hominem" warning since on another forum somebody contacted the mods about my treating you in ad hominem fashion. And while I was banned, you doubled down on the claim I have nothing to respond to your 25 points. I was utterly prevented from responding. And though I refused to complain about your thread, claiming heretics founded Modern Premillennialism, they apparently ended your thread anyway?

I do apologize for allowing myself to get too mouthy. But it is flat out wrong to claim "victory" on your points when all you do is ignore arguments against them. When somebody challenges you, you simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

Again, I challenged you with Irenaeus' quote, which showed he believed that the binding of Satan (Rev 20) takes place at the 2nd Coming. Your response? It's a minor point in light of many other statements Irenaeus made.

But the point is, all of the other statements you cite Irenaeus as making had to do with the "strong man" story, which is different from the binding of Satan in Rev 20. So all of your statements about Irenaeus' belief on the subject are worthless, and the quote I gave you is all-important. Your response is to ignore it and to continue with your 25 points as if you've had no real challenges.

Quite frankly, you don't even seem to respond to my claim that the "strong man" story is different than the "binding of Satan" event? One is a principle by which the superior is able to defeat an inferior. That's how Christ defeated Satan, legally, at the cross.

But the event in which Satan is bound in Rev 20 is more than a principle by which a stronger defeats a weaker. It is the event in which Christ, the stronger, imprisons Satan for a thousand years.

If this is how you treat real challenges to your position, it isn't worthy my time responding to them. You're only looking for your supporters to "cheer lead" your positions.

As you likely know, I was reported for "abusing you" with name-calling and banned from further responses on another forum. And when you continued to claim I had nothing, *after I was banned,* and ridiculed me for not responding, your whole thread was shut down. Just sayin.'

Once again a shamefully poor show.

I'm not surprised you call me out. After all, you or a supporter of yours, felt I needed to be shut down in order for you to continue your meaningless claim that you have 25 unchallenged points. But just one quote from Church Father Irenaeus destroys your 25 points. And whether you shut me down or not, you have no answer for that.

See the parts of your post above I highlighted in bold red.

It's things like the above and the use of the Report button every time they feel you're being rude when you're only being straight-forward and expressing frustration at the way whatever you say gets ignored whenever it's 100% valid, and their frequently subtle rudeness and insults that cause me never to respond to any a-millennialist's "Satan is bound" claims anymore.

I understand exactly what you are saying in the post above. "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt" - to the "t" if you'll pardon the pun.

I was interested in the historical ECF info that may come up in this thread, but at the risk of being tempted to challenge what is being said by a-millennialists and getting into the same old same old morass that you are now in, I won't challenge it and will stop reading this thread now (or at least resolve not to, and hope I don't get tempted again after now).

I'm only posting this because it's time this is called out. if he does not hear you, you now have a brother to take with you to the elders.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Once again a shamefully poor show.

See the parts of your post above I highlighted in bold red.

It's things like the above and the use of the Report button every time they feel you're being rude when you're only being straight-forward and expressing frustration at the way whatever you say gets ignored whenever it's 100% valid, and their frequently subtle rudeness and insults that cause me never to respond to any a-millennialist's "Satan is bound" claims anymore.

I understand exactly what you are saying in the post above. "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt" - to the "t" if you'll pardon the pun.

I was interested in the historical ECF info that may come up in this thread, but at the risk of being tempted to challenge what is being said by a-millennialists and getting into the same old same old morass that you are now in, I won't challenge it and will stop reading this thread now (or at least resolve not to, and hope I don't get tempted again after now).

I'm only posting this because it's time this is called out. if he does not hear you, you now have a brother to take with you to the elders.

I really do appreciate that! I do try heart to remain civil. I've tried to keep the "extracurricular commentary" out of the discussions. Whatever side is speaking its mind, I find the comments thoughtful and useful. I don't have as much knowledge of the Church Fathers as some of them have, so I'm always keen to learn more in the way of summaries of "what exactly they believed." The only alternative is to read, laboriously, through all of their material. And it's difficult for me unless I have all of their works at home in book form. Reading off the internet is difficult for me.

But the Church Fathers had their own problems, and representing their beliefs isn't as important as Scriptures. As you say, when I bring up a valid quote from a Church Father that contradicts what is being said, I would expect an honest person to at least recognize the debate value. But that isn't being done. Instead, there is this "political bloc" of Amils who band together to insult anybody not up to their standards of "truth." At least it comes across to me as such.

So I think you're right. We should avoid the temptation to get pulled into this worthless presentation of "facts." They aren't facts at all, but only propaganda, completely uninterested in anything but the underlying agenda, which is to promote Amillennialism over every other competing position.

I find the Lord can correct any errors I may have better when I take my opponents seriously and consider whether some of their points have validity or not. But I've been utterly unable to engage any of them in a "friendly" way--it always turns to negative commentary. And that never helps me maintain a decent Christian witness.

 

[WPM]

I do apologize for allowing myself to get too mouthy. But it is flat out wrong to claim "victory" on your points when all you do is ignore arguments against them. When somebody challenges you, you simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

Thanks for your apology. I accept it. I have no difficulty with you disagreeing with me. I have no difficulty with you attacking my hermeneutics. What i (and many other Amils) have a major issue with is your constant ad hominem. They are not prepared to ignore it any more. I am willing to move on if you desist from these personal attacks.

Again, I challenged you with Irenaeus' quote, which showed he believed that the binding of Satan (Rev 20) takes place at the 2nd Coming. Your response? It's a minor point in light of many other statements Irenaeus made.

But the point is, all of the other statements you cite Irenaeus as making had to do with the "strong man" story, which is different from the binding of Satan in Rev 20. So all of your statements about Irenaeus' belief on the subject are worthless, and the quote I gave you is all-important. Your response is to ignore it and to continue with your 25 points as if you've had no real challenges.

Quite frankly, you don't even seem to respond to my claim that the "strong man" story is different than the "binding of Satan" event? One is a principle by which the superior is able to defeat an inferior. That's how Christ defeated Satan, legally, at the cross.

But the event in which Satan is bound in Rev 20 is more than a principle by which a stronger defeats a weaker. It is the event in which Christ, the stronger, imprisons Satan for a thousand years.

If this is how you treat real challenges to your position, it isn't worthy my time responding to them. You're only looking for your supporters to "cheer lead" your positions...

I'm not surprised you call me out. After all, you or a supporter of yours, felt I needed to be shut down in order for you to continue your meaningless claim that you have 25 unchallenged points. But just one quote from Church Father Irenaeus destroys your 25 points. And whether you shut me down or not, you have no answer for that.

How does that one quote from Irenaeus cover all 25 points? This is simply not true. You know it! Why do you say things like this? You immediately lose credibility when you say this. It does not even come close to being right or objective. If you would be more measured in your claims then we might take your posts more serious. The fact is: it doesn't even answer one question. Maybe if you genuinely believe what you claimed you would identify the 25 points in his quote. Remember, the first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." The burden of proof is with you as you have made the big claim. So, we will await with bated breath.

What you call "the strong man story" is actually the story of Satan being bound by Jesus 2000 years ago. This is in the sacred text and is also an historic reality in Irenaeus' teaching. That is a repeated fact. It is a well-explained fact. It is not ambiguous. The best way to truly understand where the early Chiliasts were coming from is to bring as much relevant material on each given subject to the table and then try to discern and disseminate what they were intimating and why. This gives us a broader and better feel than just reading one writer in isolation to the others. It also gives us a real sense of the early development of each respective tributary of the overall doctrine. To isolate one text and then impose a private meaning on that is fool-hearty. Sadly, this is what Premils do with Rev 20. So, this fits in with the Millennialists approach to interpretation.

To support your claim, you cherry pick one quote from this ancient father and then apply a meaning to that quote that isn't in the text and that contradicts all his other quotes. That is not good, wise or compelling research. Let us remind the reader of what Irenaeus believed and taught on this issue.

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)
​

 

[WPM]

Again, I challenged you with Irenaeus' quote, which showed he believed that the binding of Satan (Rev 20) takes place at the 2nd Coming. Your response? It's a minor point in light of many other statements Irenaeus made.

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.

​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for your apology. I accept it.

Thank you. I have no wish to revisit "personal issues." I've said before that I appreciate your knowledge of the Church Fathers. I've said my bit on your 25 points. If I can't see any recognition of my challenge on the 1st couple of points, I see no value in continuing.

How does that one quote from Irenaeus cover all 25 points?

It doesn't. However, if that one quote is not recognized for what it is, what value would there be in responding to the other points? Any quotes I may bring to bear might be treated in the same way. I would be wasting a lot of time.

What you call "the strong man story" is actually the story of Satan being bound by Jesus 2000 years ago. This is in the sacred text and is also an historic reality in Irenaeus' teaching.

Nobody is questioning whether the story of the "Strong Man" is a sacred text. I stand by my statement that it is an application of principle by which the Stronger may take action against the Weaker.

It is not the presentation of the actual event of binding Satan for a thousand years, as we read in Rev 20. At that time, the Antichrist is defeated, and Christ Returns, just as Irenaeus suggested.

Satan is bound in a prison at the 2nd Coming--not at the Cross. He was "bound" at the Cross only in the sense that Christ was the Stronger, and as such, rendered Satan paralyzed and incapable of stopping him from rising from the dead and from granting all believers the same ability.

Until you actually recognize the arguments I'm making I'm not interested in being sucked into your propaganda machine. Show yourself humble and objective, and we can have a "friendly" conversation. I'll bring as many quotations of the Church Fathers as I can find.

The presentation of the "Strong Man" story by Irenaeus does not compare to Irenaeus' presentation of Satan being bound at Christ's 2nd Coming. Until you recognize this, we are at an impasse.

 

[WPM]

It doesn't. However, if that one quote is not recognized for what it is, what value would there be in responding to the other points? Any quotes I may bring to bear might be treated in the same way. I would be wasting a lot of time.



Nobody is questioning whether the story of the "Strong Man" is a sacred text. I stand by my statement that it is an application of principle by which the Stronger may take action against the Weaker.

It is not the presentation of the actual event of binding Satan for a thousand years, as we read in Rev 20. At that time, the Antichrist is defeated, and Christ Returns, just as Irenaeus suggested.

Satan is bound in a prison at the 2nd Coming--not at the Cross. He was "bound" at the Cross only in the sense that Christ was the Stronger, and as such, rendered Satan paralyzed and incapable of stopping him from rising from the dead and from granting all believers the same ability.

Until you actually recognize the arguments I'm making I'm not interested in being sucked into your propaganda machine. Show yourself humble and objective, and we can have a "friendly" conversation. I'll bring as many quotations of the Church Fathers as I can find.

The presentation of the "Strong Man" story by Irenaeus does not compare to Irenaeus' presentation of Satan being bound at Christ's 2nd Coming. Until you recognize this, we are at an impasse.

Unfortunately, you are forcing your modern Premil thinking on this ancient Chiliast. That is not a smart thing to do. The 2 views were completely diverse. The fact that he did not describe the imprisonment of Satan in the abyss at the second coming or his subsequent release after 1000 years is more problematic for you than for me. After all, it is you that is trying to claim Irenaeus as a modern-day Premillennialist. The text that you pick out in isolation to support your claims doesn't actually mention the second coming. What is more, it talks about the people of God exercising power over Satan after he has been bound. That has been occurring since the First Advent.

The quotes I have been presenting are just from early Chiliasts. I have not even begun to present all the Amil big-hitters. But what I have proved is that the early Chiliasts saw the future earth after the second coming as a perfect pristine unspoiled arrangement that was liberated from all the bondage of corruption. That meant they saw no sin or sinners, no decay or disease, no dying or crying, no devil or his demons on it. That runs consistent throughout their teaching. That is why they saw Christ reigning now over His enemies and not in the future as modern Premil claim. They believed His enemies would be totally and utterly destroyed at His coming, thus allowing no room for sin and sinners, mortals and mortality, on the future earth.

The 25 questions that I present highlight the broad support for my thesis. Whatever angle you look at, it says the same thing. Even if you were able to prove that Irenaeus believed in the binding of Satan at the second coming, which you have not done, you still have the major challenge to prove that Satan be released at the end of the millennial earth. For that, you have absolutely nothing. That is the elephant in the room. That is the issue that you need to address.

I recognize that it is hard for you to divorce yourself from your own modern beliefs. But to effectively understand these early writers you're going to have to. That is what I did in order to try and ascertain where they were actually coming from.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

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." (Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 8).

This shows that the Strong Man story is a matter of principle, and not necessarily a specific event. It can be applied to the deliverance of demoniacs, to the release of men from the bondage of sin at the Cross, or to the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. The principle is that *Christ is stronger than Satan.* It is a principle, and not necessarily an event. That is where we differ.

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."

The "Last Days" are not always a technical term indicating the Eschaton or related events. It is applied, in general, to the final issues regarding the nation Israel. As such, Israel's demise in the days of Christ were part of the Last Days of Israel's history. Until they come to grips with Christ, as a nation, there will be no restoration.

But "Last Days" can also refer to eschatological events, such as we use the term today. However, in the time of the writing of the NT Scriptures, there was little focus on the ages of NT history. Everything was being viewed as a summary of OT events concerning the nation Israel.

The Church Fathers might use the term "Last Days" in the biblical sense of the end of OT history and the final NT outreach to the world before world judgment. But Irenaeus may also use the term "Latter Days" in an eschatological sense, depicting the defeat of Antichrist in the endtimes.

And that is what he did. He did not apply the Strong Man argument to only one event, nor did he confine the "Last Days" to the 1st Coming of Christ. Clearly, he applied it to the defeat of Antichrist at the 2nd Coming of Christ as well.

Premillennialism does not deny that Satan was defeated at the Cross. Shame on you for implying that!

We just wouldn't see that the event depicting the binding of Satan in prison for a thousand years, as Rev 20 suggests, took place at the Cross. Clearly, Satan was defeated, legally, at the Cross, and men were delivered, by faith in Christ, from death. We wouldn't at all diminish the act of the "Stronger Man" at the Cross, who atoned for our sins and delivered us from eternal death!

In view of the fact you continue to argue the same thing we have nothing further to discuss. You do not recognize that Christ's victory at the Cross, as the "Strong Man," does not indicate Satan's binding in a prison for a thousand years, as Rev 20 indicates.

Irenaeus clearly placed this event at the 2nd Coming, after the defeat of Antichrist. Your failure to recognize that, and your insistence on confusing that event with the "Strong Man" references is an unconvincing argument for me.

 

[WPM]

x

You need to sort out your HTML.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Unfortunately, you are forcing your modern Premil thinking on this ancient Chiliast. That is not a smart thing to do. The 2 views were completely diverse. The fact that he did not describe the imprisonment of Satan in the abyss at the second coming or his subsequent release after 1000 years is more problematic for you than for me. After all, it is you that is trying to claim Irenaeus as a modern-day Premillennialist.

I don't categorize Irenaeus as an "Amillennialist," no! ;) Irenaeus was a Premillennialist in the modern sense that he believed in a literal Millennium, the Age of Messianic Rule, and the final salvation of "National Israel." He believed that Satan would literally be bound just before this Kingdom Age.

I do concede that Irenaeus held to Replacement Theology, and would've defined the "Salvation of National Israel" as the final salvation of the Church. This is a significant difference from Dispensationalism today, but it wouldn't place him in the category of Amillennialism!

The text that you pick out in isolation to support your claims doesn't ugly mention the second coming. What is more, it talks about the people of God exercising power over Satan after he has been banned. That has been occurring since the First Advent.

I agree that Irenaeus combines the "Strong Man" argument, as connected to Christ's 1st Coming, with his statement about Satan being bound at the 2nd Advent. But I disagree--Irenaeus plainly was speaking of Satan being bound at the 2nd Advent--he was merely defeated, legally, at the 1st Advent. People were redeemed at the 1st Advent, and this has been taking place throughout history.

But it appears to me that Irenaeus literally believed in Satan's binding in preparation for Christ's Millennial Kingdom. And for him, this took place, specifically, at the defeat of Antichrist, which is in the endtimes (not at Christ's 1st Advent).

The quotes i have been presenting are just from early Chiliasts. I have not even began to present all the Amil big-hitters. But what I have proved is that the early Chiliasts saw the future earth after the second coming as a perfect pristine unspoiled arrangement that was liberated from all the bondage of corruption. That meant they saw no sin or sinners, no decay or disease, no dying or crying, no devil or his demons. That runs consistent throughout their teaching. That is why they saw Christ reigning now over His enemies and not in the future as modern Premil claim. They believed His enemies would be totally and utterly destroyed at His coming, thus allowing no room for sin and sinners, mortals and mortality, on the future earth.

We would agree, to some extent, that the heavenly Kingdom does impact our world today, and that Christian Salvation takes place today. Christianity has power over Satan to perform its NT functions. But Satan also runs amok, being allowed to oppose us and persecute us. The Kingdom Age follows this age of Christianity suffering and testimony.

I'm aware that Amillennialism came to rule the day in the age of the Church Fathers. But I do not agree that they ruled earlier in their history, as historian Eusebius indicated. Other Amillennialists have admitted the same. Philip Schaff has also said as much, whatever his position was--he wasn't Premill.

What I don't find among any of the Amills is your belief that the early Premills were actually Amills! That is a contradiction in terms, and I just can't go there. I know you're arguing that the Chiliasts shared some views with later Amills, but that doesn't remotely suggest that Chiliasts can be called "Amills!" Nor does it suggest that Modern Premills are the heirs of Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry and Apollinaris.

The differences between Modern Premills and ancient Chiliasts were not, I think, as significant as you make it. For one thing, you seem to limit Chiliast beliefs to exclude its later period, to exclude Lactantius, for example.

Though Lactantius did quote the Sybil prophetesses, and failed to quote a lot of Scripture, he was highly admired, and did recognize the Scriptures as the true source of his faith. And any argument from silence does not render illogical any sense that he got his Millennial beliefs from earlier Premills.

Obtaining clear Millennial beliefs from the Chiliasts may be an exercise in futility. The Scriptures do not place a premium on speculating about future events. So their speculations about the character of the Millennial Age does not define them as "Amillennial!" It just finds them to be Premillennial with the liberty to speculate about future events.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You need to sort out your HTML.

I do? Why is that?
Oops! Okay, I found that and corrected it. Thank you!

 

[WPM]

I don't categorize Irenaeus as an "Amillennialist," no! ;) Irenaeus was a Premillennialist in the modern sense that he believed in a literal Millennium, the Age of Messianic Rule, and the final salvation of "National Israel." He believed that Satan would literally be bound just before this Kingdom Age.

OK, let us cut to the chase. You keep making claims like this yet you are unable to provide us with hard evidence. Until you do, we can dismiss these as your partial debatable personal opinions.

1. When and where does Irenaeus place "the Age of Messianic Rule" in a future millennium?
2. When and where does Irenaeus place "the final salvation of 'National Israel' in a future millennium?

I do concede that Irenaeus held to Replacement Theology, and would've defined the "Salvation of National Israel" as the final salvation of the Church. This is a significant difference from Dispensationalism today, but it wouldn't place him in the category of Amillennialism!

This just completely contradicts your opening statement. The reality is, he believed the Abrahamic covenant being fulfilled in the Church of Jesus Christ inn our day. He did not teach any restoration of ethnic Israel to the former theocratic position or did he teach that they would take their ancient boundaries. To claim this you need to present hard evidence. You are yet to do that. If it was there you would quickly present it.

I agree that Irenaeus combines the "Strong Man" argument, as connected to Christ's 1st Coming, with his statement about Satan being bound at the 2nd Advent. But I disagree--Irenaeus plainly was speaking of Satan being bound at the 2nd Advent--he was merely defeated, legally, at the 1st Advent. People were redeemed at the 1st Advent, and this has been taking place throughout history.

But it appears to me that Irenaeus literally believed in Satan's binding in preparation for Christ's Millennial Kingdom. And for him, this took place, specifically, at the defeat of Antichrist, which is in the endtimes (not at Christ's 1st Advent).

The truth is, Irenaeus agreed with Amils (ancient and modern): the last days ran from the First the Second Advents and antichrist was an ongoing reality during this period. Please read the evidence below.

The last days were ongoing since the First Advent

Irenaeus actually believed that the last days were ongoing since the First Advent. Evidence of this can be found throughout his writings. For example: Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 22:1 confirms:

Now in the last days, when the fullness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands.

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 IV, Chapter 33:4).

But whence could the prophets have had power to predict the advent of the King, and to preach beforehand that liberty which was bestowed by Him, and previously to announce all things which were done by Christ, His words, His works, and His sufferings, and to predict the new covenant, if they had received prophetical inspiration from another God [than He who is revealed in the Gospel], they being ignorant, as ye allege, of the ineffable Father, of His kingdom, and His dispensations, which the Son of God fulfilled when He came upon earth in these last times? (Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XXXIV 3).

[T]he Lord came in the last times of the world to endure suffering, for this end, that He might indicate the passion which occurred to the last of the Aeons, and might by His own end announce the cessation of that disturbance which had risen among the Aeons (Against Heresies Book I.8.2).

[T]he Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world] (Against Heresies Book I.10.3).

He, appearing in these last times, the chief cornerstone, has gathered into one, and united those that were far off and those that were near; that is, the circumcision and the uncircumcision (Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 5:3).

He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father (Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 11:5).

[God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy; wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ (Book III, Chapter XVII:1).

[T]he last times are [come upon us], evil is spread abroad among men (Book IV, Preface, 4).

For not alone upon Abraham's account did He say these things, but also that He might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son Himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passable, and spake with the human race (Book IV, Chapter 7:2).

[T]he Word, who also redeems and vivifies us in the last times, is shown as hanging on the tree, and they will not believe on Him (Book IV, Chapter 10:2).

Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God (Book IV, Chapter 20:4).

Wherefore also Paul, since he was the apostle of the Gentiles, says, "I laboured more than they all." For the instruction of the former, [viz., the Jews, ] was an easy task, because they could allege proofs from the Scriptures, and because they, who were in the habit of hearing Moses and the prophets, did also readily receive the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the life of God,-Him who, by the spreading forth of hands, did destroy Amalek, and vivify man from the wound of the serpent, by means of faith which was [exercised] towards Him. As I have pointed out in the preceding book, the apostle did, in the first place, instruct the Gentiles to depart from the superstition of idols, and to worship one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Framer of the whole creation; and that His Son was His Word, by whom He founded all things; and that He, in the last times, was made a man among men; that He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary (Book IV, Chapter 24:1).

"Christ is the chief corner-stone" sustaining all things … and He gathered into the one faith of Abraham those who, from either covenant, are eligible for God's building. But this faith which is in uncircumcision, as connecting the end with the beginning, has been made [both] the first and the last. For, as I have shown, it existed in Abraham antecedently to circumcision, as it also did in the rest of the righteous who pleased God: and in these last times, it again sprang up among mankind through the coming of the Lord. But circumcision and the law of works occupied the intervening period (Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 25:1).

[T]he scarlet token which was [fastened] on him, that is, the passion of the Just One, which was prefigured from the beginning in Abel, and described by the prophets, but perfected in the last times in the Son of God (Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 25:2).​

This position on the last days period is in keeping with classic Amil over the centuries and demolishes your false claims.

 

[WPM]

I do? Why is that?
Oops! Okay, I found that and corrected it. Thank you!

Still not fixed. Check Post 29.

 

[WPM]

We would agree, to some extent, that the heavenly Kingdom does impact our world today, and that Christian Salvation takes place today. Christianity has power over Satan to perform its NT functions. But Satan also runs amok, being allowed to oppose us and persecute us. The Kingdom Age follows this age of Christianity suffering and testimony.

I'm aware that Amillennialism came to rule the day in the age of the Church Fathers. But I do not agree that they ruled earlier in their history, as historian Eusebius indicated. Other Amillennialists have admitted the same. Philip Schaff has also said as much, whatever his position was--he wasn't Premill.

What I don't find among any of the Amills is your belief that the early Premills were actually Amills! That is a contradiction in terms, and I just can't go there. I know you're arguing that the Chiliasts shared some views with later Amills, but that doesn't remotely suggest that Chiliasts can be called "Amills!" Nor does it suggest that Modern Premills are the heirs of Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry and Apollinaris.

The differences between Modern Premills and ancient Chiliasts were not, I think, as significant as you make it. For one thing, you seem to limit Chiliast beliefs to exclude its later period, to exclude Lactantius, for example.

Though Lactantius did quote the Sybil prophetesses, and failed to quote a lot of Scripture, he was highly admired, and did recognize the Scriptures as the true source of his faith. And any argument from silence does not render illogical any sense that he got his Millennial beliefs from earlier Premills.

Obtaining clear Millennial beliefs from the Chiliasts may be an exercise in futility. The Scriptures do not place a premium on speculating about future events. So their speculations about the character of the Millennial Age does not define them as "Amillennial!" It just finds them to be Premillennial with the liberty to speculate about future events.

I have presented questions like these contained in the Op for around 14 years on different forms, testing my thesis. No Premillennialist has yet been able to come up with hard evidence to prove their thesis. You are the same. I deliberately measured my questions in regard to AD 240 and AD 270 to facilitate Lactantius who depended upon the Sybil prophetesses for his position. I'm sure you would agree, this is a sandy foundation to derive the orthodox origins of your theology from and a dubious source for modern Premil.

I am still waiting on you presenting hard quotes to support your claims above.

 

[WPM]

This shows that the Strong Man story is a matter of principle, and not necessarily a specific event. It can be applied to the deliverance of demoniacs, to the release of men from the bondage of sin at the Cross, or to the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. The principle is that *Christ is stronger than Satan.* It is a principle, and not necessarily an event. That is where we differ.



The "Last Days" are not always a technical term indicating the Eschaton or related events. It is applied, in general, to the final issues regarding the nation Israel. As such, Israel's demise in the days of Christ were part of the Last Days of Israel's history. Until they come to grips with Christ, as a nation, there will be no restoration.

But "Last Days" can also refer to eschatological events, such as we use the term today. However, in the time of the writing of the NT Scriptures, there was little focus on the ages of NT history. Everything was being viewed as a summary of OT events concerning the nation Israel.

The Church Fathers might use the term "Last Days" in the biblical sense of the end of OT history and the final NT outreach to the world before world judgment. But Irenaeus may also use the term "Latter Days" in an eschatological sense, depicting the defeat of Antichrist in the endtimes.

And that is what he did. He did not apply the Strong Man argument to only one event, nor did he confine the "Last Days" to the 1st Coming of Christ. Clearly, he applied it to the defeat of Antichrist at the 2nd Coming of Christ as well.

Premillennialism does not deny that Satan was defeated at the Cross. Shame on you for implying that!

We just wouldn't see that the event depicting the binding of Satan in prison for a thousand years, as Rev 20 suggests, took place at the Cross. Clearly, Satan was defeated, legally, at the Cross, and men were delivered, by faith in Christ, from death. We wouldn't at all diminish the act of the "Stronger Man" at the Cross, who atoned for our sins and delivered us from eternal death!

In view of the fact you continue to argue the same thing we have nothing further to discuss. You do not recognize that Christ's victory at the Cross, as the "Strong Man," does not indicate Satan's binding in a prison for a thousand years, as Rev 20 indicates.

Irenaeus clearly placed this event at the 2nd Coming, after the defeat of Antichrist. Your failure to recognize that, and your insistence on confusing that event with the "Strong Man" references is an unconvincing argument for me.

Nowhere does Irenaeus mention the binding of Satan at the second coming. In fact, not one early writer that I can find (up until AD240) taught a further binding of Satan at the second coming. You are trying to foist that upon them without the slightest evidence (or justification) to do so. If it was there you would have highlighted it by now. You force your views on one thing that he writes in order to support your mistaken beliefs. Notably, this contradicts everything that he has said in his other teaching on this subject. What is more, it totally negates what he teaches in regard to the destruction of Satan at the second coming.

Satan is bound at the First Advent in the writings of all the earliest Chiliasts. You duck around that because it refutes your claims. What is more: it is not just that the ECFs believed Satan was bound at the First Advent, they believed the devil and his angels were destroyed at the second coming. So, there was no evil one to populate the age to come and no wicked to deceive. This too is akin to modern day Amil. Think about this: for 210 years after the death of Christ all the Fathers anticipated a perfect age to come free of the bondage of corruption and free of all rebellion in the visible and invisible realm.

It is certainly significant that there was a widespread acceptance among the early Chiliast writers that Satan was bound through the earthly ministry of Christ. But what runs hand-in-hand with that is the fate of Satan when Jesus comes. The most startling thing about the beliefs of the earliest Millennialists who spoke of this is that they believed Satan, his minions and all evil would finally be eliminated at the second coming. This is extremely surprising because it runs totally contrary to what is loudly taught today by all modern Premillennials, of all sections. An obvious and vital by-product of that is that it eliminates the whole idea of Satan’s little season 1,000 years after the coming of the Lord. This is undoubtedly a curious position, allowing for the actual detail of Revelation 20. This suggests that early apostate Judaism had a greater influence on the formulation of this early Chiliasts theory than Revelation 20. In fact, early Millennialists seem to have acquired many of their core early beliefs from Christ-rejecting Judaism.

Please read the evidence which totally refutes your opinions:

Irenaeus

Irenaeus believed that Satan will be destroyed at the Second Advent! You have been careful to duck around this in your posts. 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.

 

[WPM]

This shows that the Strong Man story is a matter of principle, and not necessarily a specific event. It can be applied to the deliverance of demoniacs, to the release of men from the bondage of sin at the Cross, or to the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. The principle is that *Christ is stronger than Satan.* It is a principle, and not necessarily an event. That is where we differ.



The "Last Days" are not always a technical term indicating the Eschaton or related events. It is applied, in general, to the final issues regarding the nation Israel. As such, Israel's demise in the days of Christ were part of the Last Days of Israel's history. Until they come to grips with Christ, as a nation, there will be no restoration.

But "Last Days" can also refer to eschatological events, such as we use the term today. However, in the time of the writing of the NT Scriptures, there was little focus on the ages of NT history. Everything was being viewed as a summary of OT events concerning the nation Israel.

The Church Fathers might use the term "Last Days" in the biblical sense of the end of OT history and the final NT outreach to the world before world judgment. But Irenaeus may also use the term "Latter Days" in an eschatological sense, depicting the defeat of Antichrist in the endtimes.

And that is what he did. He did not apply the Strong Man argument to only one event, nor did he confine the "Last Days" to the 1st Coming of Christ. Clearly, he applied it to the defeat of Antichrist at the 2nd Coming of Christ as well.

Premillennialism does not deny that Satan was defeated at the Cross. Shame on you for implying that!

We just wouldn't see that the event depicting the binding of Satan in prison for a thousand years, as Rev 20 suggests, took place at the Cross. Clearly, Satan was defeated, legally, at the Cross, and men were delivered, by faith in Christ, from death. We wouldn't at all diminish the act of the "Stronger Man" at the Cross, who atoned for our sins and delivered us from eternal death!

In view of the fact you continue to argue the same thing we have nothing further to discuss. You do not recognize that Christ's victory at the Cross, as the "Strong Man," does not indicate Satan's binding in a prison for a thousand years, as Rev 20 indicates.

Irenaeus clearly placed this event at the 2nd Coming, after the defeat of Antichrist. Your failure to recognize that, and your insistence on confusing that event with the "Strong Man" references is an unconvincing argument for me.

Justin Martyr

One of the leading early Chiliast proponents of this was Justin Martyr. He believed that Satan would be destroyed at our Lord’s return:

[T]he serpent that sinned from the beginning, and the angels like him, may be destroyed, and that death may be contemned, and for ever quit, at the second coming of the Christ Himself (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 45).​

This couldn’t be clearer! This ancient writer depicts the termination of all evil at the glorious return of Christ. Justin explains how Satan, his angels and death itself are destroyed at the second coming of Christ. This allows no room for the Premillennialism scheme where Satan is bound 1,000 years after the second coming and then released to gather Gog and Magog to fight Christ and the glorified saints. Not only is Satan and his minions and death destroyed at Christ’s coming, but, all the bondage of corruption is destroyed. He teaches that there shall be “freedom from suffering, from corruption, and from grief.” This, paradoxically, is one of the main dividing points between Amillennial/Postmillennial teaching and that of Premillennialism reference the appearing of our Lord.

He further states in another work:

For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils (1st Apology, Chapter LII).​

The second coming sees the elimination of every enemy of righteousness. The coming of Christ is climactic. In the eyes of most of the earliest Chiliast writers there was no allowance for sin and Satan, crying and dying, Satan and his minions on a future millennial earth. It is a new perfect porchway into the eternal realm.

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born (1st Apology of Justin, Chapter 28).​

According to Justin, the seeming delay in the return of Christ is for the special purpose of the salvation of souls. But when this occurs, he indicates the punishment of Satan, his devils, and the wicked occurs. The fate of all of these are carefully tied together. They are all punished at the same time. He states in the same book:

[Y]ou hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, perhaps for this reason, lest you be persecuted by the rulers, who, under the influence of the wicked and deceitful spirit, the serpent, will not cease putting to death and persecuting those who confess the name of Christ until He come again, and destroy them all, and render to each his deserts (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 39).​

Once again, the second coming is presented as the time when the devil and all evil come to an end. This is clear and repeated in the teaching of these early Chiliasts.

 

[Zao is life]

I really do appreciate that! I do try heart to remain civil. I've tried to keep the "extracurricular commentary" out of the discussions. Whatever side is speaking its mind, I find the comments thoughtful and useful. I don't have as much knowledge of the Church Fathers as some of them have, so I'm always keen to learn more in the way of summaries of "what exactly they believed." The only alternative is to read, laboriously, through all of their material. And it's difficult for me unless I have all of their works at home in book form. Reading off the internet is difficult for me.

But the Church Fathers had their own problems, and representing their beliefs isn't as important as Scriptures. As you say, when I bring up a valid quote from a Church Father that contradicts what is being said, I would expect an honest person to at least recognize the debate value. But that isn't being done. Instead, there is this "political bloc" of Amils who band together to insult anybody not up to their standards of "truth." At least it comes across to me as such.

So I think you're right. We should avoid the temptation to get pulled into this worthless presentation of "facts." They aren't facts at all, but only propaganda, completely uninterested in anything but the underlying agenda, which is to promote Amillennialism over every other competing position.

I find the Lord can correct any errors I may have better when I take my opponents seriously and consider whether some of their points have validity or not. But I've been utterly unable to engage any of them in a "friendly" way--it always turns to negative commentary. And that never helps me maintain a decent Christian witness.

It's exactly what happens to me too. I have to withdraw myself completely when a-mills do this, knowing that Jesus is not impressed with all the knowledge in the world, nor the understanding we or anyone else 'thinks' we have, if we are not producing the fruit of the Spirit.

Again, your experience has also been mine - word for word of what you describe above.

Anyway I just realized that I was just being foolish thinking it was a good idea to come here and read what are the opinions of amils about what the ECF believed. Quite clearly they are no less inclined to misinterpret what the ECF wrote than they are to misinterpret what the scriptures say, interpreting it all in such a way as to make sure that all the writings of scripture and of the ECF aligns with their "Holy Amillennial Faith", and flatly ignoring any statements that contradict their faith.

 

[Keraz]

Once again, the second coming is presented as the time when the devil and all evil come to an end. This is clear and repeated in the teaching of these early Chiliasts.

But the Bible says it differently. Revelation 20 tells us that Satan is chained up when Jesus Returns and will be unable to deceive anyone for the next thousand years. THEN he is released for a short time and after that; is annihilated, along with all those whose names are not found in the Book of Life.
So all the waffle and convoluted arguments of AMill, are just a load of tripe.
Chilliast would be a good name for a refrigeration engineer, but they are quite useless for the truth about Satans doings.

Any reliance on the ECF's, or other expounder of theories that conflict with scripture, should be avoided.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Chilliast would be a good name for a refrigeration engineer,

:cool: Word of wisdom there Keraz.