The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

Matthew 21
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I totally agree with that. The Lutheran Church I was raised up in probably believed that because we were never told a thing about Israel still having promises still to be fulfilled to them as a nation and as a people. I was probably, by default, a Replacement Theologian, which is why I don't think it's an insulting term. I would wear it proudly if that's what I still believed. But I don't. And I certainly don't have contempt for those who do.

 

[Truth7t7]

I stand by the quotes I gave you. You just ignored them, and double down.



You read me wrong. I said that *Jesus and Paul* taught the restoration of the nation Israel. At some point between them and the Church Fathers, belief in the restoration of Israel "waned." I wasn't identifying *any* Church Father that believed in the restoration of Israel. In fact, that is the entire reason that Premil fell out, as well, because the Kingdom of God, in the OT Prophets, was tied to the restoration of Israel. If the Jews had failed under the Law, and prospects of their eventual restoration was grim, there was no need for a future Kingdom of God.

No place in scripture did Jesus or Paul teach of a restored "National Israel" as you falsely believe and teach, just the opposite

Matthew 21:43KJV
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[WPM]

I'm going to ignore your quotes if you continually ignore mine. I gave you a direct quote of Irenaeus indicating he believed the binding of Satan was an event to take place at the 2nd Coming, the principle of the binding of the strong man notwithstanding.

You constantly use the principle of the binding of the strong man as evidence that Irenaeus referred to the Cross, and not to the 2nd Coming. But the clear evidence is that the binding of the strong man is a principle that he applied to the Cross, whereas the binding of Satan is an event to take place in the latter days when Antichrist is defeated at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

You *completely ignore this!* So why should I bother listening to your rants when you fail to even acknowledge the arguments I bring?

This is totally wrong. I ignored nothing. You have yet to highlight where the second coming is actually mentioned in his quote. I wonder why??? It is simply not there. If it was, you would quickly (and without complaint) highlight it. All we get is avoidance of the obvious. This sums up your position. You impose upon history and the writings of the ECFs what suits your theology, not what they actually said. I mentioned three points in my last post that forbid your analyze and you sidestepped everyone of them. You have to! That is your form! Your claims are a misrepresentation of Irenaeus. I suspect you know it. That is so because the other quotes reinforce my thesis. You carefully sidestep them as well. That is how you engage! The reader can easily see that.

It is the historic data (facts) that is against your faulty bias Premil claims. You seem to like arguing for arguments sake. You are clearly out of your depth on this subject.

For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head,—which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: “You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

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

The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. The work of Christ is seen here by Irenaeus as causing a serious impairment of the devil’s strength, movement and ability. He is a crippled foe. He is impaired in his strategies. Satan had to be defeated for man to receive new life. The writer here shows this victory as a past event. He supports his contention by employing Genesis 3:15, which predicted the injuring of Satan at the cross: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

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

The bruising of Satan’s head by Christ broke the unchallenged sway of the devil over the nations. Jesus destroyed the incredible lordship that Satan had on the human race and plundered his house of countless souls. Since the cross, numerous Gentiles have been set free from their blindness and bondage. They have been delivered into the kingdom of God. In doing this, Christ destroyed the claims, authority and ownership that Satan had over the nations. Jesus made a way of escape for the Gentiles out of the kingdom of Satan. The power and influence Satan once had over the Gentiles was assaulted through the earthly ministry of Christ. This curtailed the devil, allowing the free-flow of the Gospel across the world. Christ battered Satan’s house, damaged his authority, limiting the scale of his influence. He indeed destroyed the overwhelming claims and ownership that Satan had over the Gentile people.

This shows that Satan’s ability to function has been impaired. He was injured at the cross, his head is now bruised. His movement is curtailed. He is incapacitated. His power and that of his deluded minions is restricted through the preaching of the Gospel and the advance of the kingdom of God. Satan’s power and his movement has been restrained, albeit not completely.

 

[WPM]

Brother, I was raised in an Amil Lutheran Church, and spent the 1st 19 years of my life there, being confirmed as a Lutheran. Nobody even talked about the Millennium because obviously we didn't believe it was anything more than a symbol. I didn't have a clue whether it symbolized the present age or the eternal age!

So no, I never had any debates. But I certainly don't think Premils are clueless about how the word "thousand" can be used as a saying, or figuratively! ;)

How many Premils have used the saying, "I've heard that a thousand times?" But as a metaphor, maybe you have a point. It doesn't seem to come natural to think of a "thousand" as a metaphorical period of time.

A thousand years is used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government. Hitler boasted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand-Year Reich) to describe the rule, power and vision of the Fascist kingdom. It wasn’t that Hitler limited his wicked dream to that period, but that it symbolically represented a long period of unparalleled supremacy.

Churchill also infamously said of the victory of the war, “if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940).

 

[covenantee]

I totally agree with that. The Lutheran Church I was raised up in probably believed that because we were never told a thing about Israel still having promises still to be fulfilled to them as a nation and as a people. I was probably, by default, a Replacement Theologian, which is why I don't think it's an insulting term. I would wear it proudly if that's what I still believed. But I don't. And I certainly don't have contempt for those who do.

Only one nation qualifies. I was waiting for you to identify it.

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The Church.

They were already the fulfillment. Chosen, royal, holy, peculiar (purchased), called out of darkness into light.

No waiting.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Only one nation qualifies. I was waiting for you to identify it.

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The Church.

They were already the fulfillment. Chosen, royal, holy, peculiar (purchased), called out of darkness into light.

No waiting.

Yes, I know. That's what I call RT, which is the belief that there is only one nation, the international Church. That means "nation" must be used metaphorically in order for this to be true.

Incidentally, I take 1 Peter 2.9 differently. I see Peter talking to believing Jews, and making reference to their original calling to be a nation of God.

Obviously, Peter knew they weren't going to have a godly nation anytime soon, since Jesus said the Jews were to be scattered. So I believe he was just asking faithful Jews to hold on to the faith until that day comes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

A thousand years is used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government. Hitler boasted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand-Year Reich) to describe the rule, power and vision of the Fascist kingdom. It wasn’t that Hitler limited his wicked dream to that period, but that it symbolically represented a long period of unparalleled supremacy.

Churchill also infamously said of the victory of the war, “if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940).

I have no problem with that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is totally wrong. I ignored nothing. You have yet to highlight where the second coming is actually mentioned in his quote.

I answered this very question before, and I feel no need to help your bad memory. It is self-evident in the quote that Irenaeus is speaking of the latter days, when Antichrist reigns and is defeated, just prior to the binding of Satan.

...until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head,—which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: “You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

So there it is, the 2nd Coming:
that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man...

And you say it isn't there? Take off your sunglasses, PM!

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

Again, I've answered this several times. I wonder if you even read or understand my arguments? Once again, yes the principle of the "binding of the strong man" applied, according to Irenaeus, to the Cross, where death was defeated and where Jesus won a legal battle against the Devil.

My point I am continually having to make is that the "binding of the strong man" is a principle that can be applied in any number of situations, such as with demon exorcism, the work on the Cross, and at the defeat of Antichrist. By contrast, the "binding of Satan" is an *event!* It didn't take place at the Cross, and it doesn't take place with demon exorcism. Rather, it takes place when the *kingdom of Satan* is defeated at the destruction of Antichrist's kingdom.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me. It's just apparent to me that Irenaeus assumes this distinction, that the principle of Satan's binding applied to the Cross whereas the *event* of the binding of Satan, as mentioned in Rev 20, takes place only at the 2nd Coming. And I say that because Irenaeus is clearing referring to Rev 20, having mentioned the dragon and the serpent.

This shows that Satan’s ability to function has been impaired. He was injured at the cross, his head is now bruised. His movement is curtailed. He is incapacitated. His power and that of his deluded minions is restricted through the preaching of the Gospel and the advance of the kingdom of God. Satan’s power and his movement has been restrained, albeit not completely.

I disagree. I think the crushing of Satan's head is an event that will take place at the destruction of Antichrist's kingdom. Satan was legally defeated by taking away his right to condemn the saints to death. We now have legal access to the resurrection. But Satan remains free and on a rampage as much as he ever was. He just can't condemn us to Hell anymore, and he can't stop God's word from doing whatever God wants to do.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No place in scripture did Jesus or Paul teach of a restored "National Israel" as you falsely believe and teach, just the opposite

Matthew 21:43KJV
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I've showed others where both Jesus and Paul declared faith in the future restoration of national Israel. I agree with your quote, as well. Israel has been *temporarily* replaced, until the time of their restoration.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I know. That's what I call RT, which is the belief that there is only one nation, the international Church. That means "nation" must be used metaphorically in order for this to be true.

Incidentally, I take 1 Peter 2.9 differently. I see Peter talking to believing Jews, and making reference to their original calling to be a nation of God.

Obviously, Peter knew they weren't going to have a godly nation anytime soon, since Jesus said the Jews were to be scattered. So I believe he was just asking faithful Jews to hold on to the faith until that day comes.

Your fight is with Scripture (once again). God's people are described as a singular nation called out from amongst the nations (plural). The objective unindoctrinated Bible student will see that the people of God have been united as one into a trans-national spiritual nation. Race doesn't matter any more under the new covenant. It is all about grace. Your troubling Replacement Theology is seen to be in conflict with the thrust of the NT teaching. It produces ethnic apartheid.

Hosea 1:10-11 declares, “the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”

True Israel is predicted here to grow to a mighty number (as the “sand of the sea”). How would this happen? They would be joined by countless foreigners who were outside of God’s special covenant of grace with Israel in salvation. This is speaking of the Gentiles. The reading confirms: “in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” What a transformation! What a turn around. The sons of the living God – true Israel – would now include Jew and Gentiles alike. This occurred with the earthly ministry of Christ. He was indeed the “one head” that was anticipated that all sinners would give their allegiance to. Through the cross, there is no separation between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. In fact it has been totally demolished because of Calvary.

Hosea 2:23 states: “And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.”

The Israel of God is expressly not restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above. The early disciples were faithful Israel functioned in the covenant promises pertaining to Israel, including extending out the salvation to the nations. The Abrahamic promises, and many other Old Testament prophecies were realized in the advance of the new covenant congregation of God (ekklesia).

Those who were aliens to God’s grace and heathen by nature have been assimilated into God’s Israel and become “the children of the living God.” There is no higher designation that man could possess. The personal titles that are used show us that we are looking at a spiritually regenerated people from through the Gentiles. We who were enemies of God (“not my people”) are now the people of God.

This same truth is taken up by Peter in 1 Peter 2:9-10. Whilst addressing the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, he declares, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Here, Peter confirms the significant participation of Gentile believers in God’s elect covenant community. Where natural Israel failed in their vocation, true Israel accomplishes it as a multinational spiritual force. He takes promises, which were clearly addressed to Old Testament Israel (in Exodus 19:5-6 and Deuteronomy 14:2), and applies them directly and unambiguously to the Church of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. God’s people are shown to be a holy people, because God is holy. In presenting this, Peter ratifies the continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament.

Let us remind ourselves of the Old Testament text in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” Deuteronomy 14:2 connects: “for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.”

Far from restricting the “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” description to the nation of Israel, Peter expands it out to embrace the many Gentile believers in this new covenant period. Not even the most blinkered Dispy could surely dispute this. The New Testament trans-national congregation today fulfils the priestly commission that Old Testament Israel failed to accomplish.

To support his reasoning, he also employs Hosea 1:10 which predicted that enlightening of the Gentiles, and their integration into the people of God. This is demonstrated in verse 10, where he testifies that the mainly Gentile Church who were once “not a people, but are now the people of God” had now been integrated into the Israel of God. He reinforces this point, telling us that they “which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter describes the Church as “a chosen generation” (or a chosen race), “a royal priesthood” and “an holy nation.” He related this to all believers, irrespective of natural race. This shows us the spiritual nature of the Israeli designation in the New Testament. We can find that holy nation predicted in Isaiah 55:5 says, “Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.”

Both Paul and Peter allude to the Old Testament prophecies in Hosea that predict a people that were separated from God (the Gentiles) would become the people of God. They demonstrate, with legal acumen, that many of the great promises that rested upon Old Testament Israel are now exclusively realized in the spiritual entity of the non-ethnic assembly of God.

This people that Paul is referring to here, who are divinely called, which God said, “were not my people” and which are now loved “which was not beloved” are the elect Gentiles. Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:21, in Romans 10:19-21, supports this gracious fulfilment, saying, “Moses saith, I will provoke you (natural Israel) to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation (the mainly Gentile New Testament Church) I will anger you.”

He continues, supporting his line of reasoning, this time referring to Isaiah 65, saying, “Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me (the Gentiles). But to [natural] Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

This “foolish” nation that has graciously found God, without first seeking Him, is the Gentile believers in this New Testament period. Those of all kindred’s, tongues and tribes, have come to God through Christ in true repentance. That elect people are not a physical earthly nation but a spiritual nation that has been wonderfully saved through the faithful preaching of the Gospel.

 

[WPM]

I answered this very question before, and I feel no need to help your bad memory. It is self-evident in the quote that Irenaeus is speaking of the latter days, when Antichrist reigns and is defeated, just prior to the binding of Satan.



So there it is, the 2nd Coming:
that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man...

And you say it isn't there? Take off your sunglasses, PM!

I will take this as an admission that you have nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. That sums up your whole opposition on this thread. Where is the silver bullet? Nowhere! It does not exist. As the reader can see:

· Your fight is with Irenaeus.
· Your fight is with the facts.
· Your fight is with history.

You arbitrarily deem who antichrist is and when the lasts days are in Irenaeus' mind without ever doing any historic research in order to make it agree with your faulty position. This is common amongst Premil quasi -historians. They present fake news to support their bias. 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.

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 confirms:

1. 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.

Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 33:

4. 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.

Antichrist was ongoing since the First Advent

Irenaeus applies antichrist broadly (like Amils) to that spirit operating amongst all evil. In particular, he applies it to Marcion in his writings. Antichrist was an ongoing reality to Irenaeus. He applies his influence to Marcion back in his day.

5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, "O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? " And again does He say to them: "These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations." Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again." The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name," - foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist."

6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another; for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do, ] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gath ered together all things in Himself. But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, I know. That's what I call RT, which is the belief that there is only one nation, the international Church. That means "nation" must be used metaphorically in order for this to be true.

Incidentally, I take 1 Peter 2.9 differently. I see Peter talking to believing Jews, and making reference to their original calling to be a nation of God.

Obviously, Peter knew they weren't going to have a godly nation anytime soon, since Jesus said the Jews were to be scattered. So I believe he was just asking faithful Jews to hold on to the faith until that day comes.

No. You are espousing RB (Replacement Biology), which is the racialized belief that there is only one nation, that of ethnic Israel.

The Church is the precise antithesis of this, for it is a nation (1 Peter 2:9) of nations:

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Not only is it a spiritual nation, but it is also in the above respect a far more literal nation than that espoused by RB'ers, for it literally encompasses all nations.

Peter's audience was Christian Israelites, and Israel was, as is the Church, also a multi-ethnic nation, from the time of its birth and throughout its entire history. (Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22)

 

[WPM]

Again, I've answered this several times. I wonder if you even read or understand my arguments? Once again, yes the principle of the "binding of the strong man" applied, according to Irenaeus, to the Cross, where death was defeated and where Jesus won a legal battle against the Devil.

My point I am continually having to make is that the "binding of the strong man" is a principle that can be applied in any number of situations, such as with demon exorcism, the work on the Cross, and at the defeat of Antichrist. By contrast, the "binding of Satan" is an *event!* It didn't take place at the Cross, and it doesn't take place with demon exorcism. Rather, it takes place when the *kingdom of Satan* is defeated at the destruction of Antichrist's kingdom.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me. It's just apparent to me that Irenaeus assumes this distinction, that the principle of Satan's binding applied to the Cross whereas the *event* of the binding of Satan, as mentioned in Rev 20, takes place only at the 2nd Coming. And I say that because Irenaeus is clearing referring to Rev 20, having mentioned the dragon and the serpent.

I disagree. I think the crushing of Satan's head is an event that will take place at the destruction of Antichrist's kingdom. Satan was legally defeated by taking away his right to condemn the saints to death. We now have legal access to the resurrection. But Satan remains free and on a rampage as much as he ever was. He just can't condemn us to Hell anymore, and he can't stop God's word from doing whatever God wants to do.

Where in any of the writings of the ECFs do they teach 2 bindings? Nowhere! You are inventing that to suit your argument. That is what you do. You cannot even quote one reference to the binding of Satan at the second coming, because you do not have it. When i have showed you multiple quotes from Irenaeus teaching that the binding of Satan occurred 2000 years ago and the final destruction of him at the second coming - in clear and indisputable terms you either rubbish it or invent 2 bindings. You do with history what do you do with scripture, you are seeing double. Premillennialist have two resurrection days, two judgment days, two last days periods, two new heavens and new earths. It is ridiculous. Your whole philosophy seems to be: don't let the facts get in the way of my paradigm.

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.

 

[Timtofly]

Suppose we were required to take these references to “a thousand generations” literally, then, it would indicate an actual earthly time period of around 40,000 years – 40 years multiplied by 1000. However, it is NOT in the slightest suggesting a thousand literal generations. It is simply telling us that the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed is true, boundless and eternal. Significantly, our last references closes with the truth that this glorious Divine pact is “an everlasting covenant.” Psalm 105:8 supports, saying, “He hath remembered his covenant for ever.”

Psalms 111:10 supports this supposition, saying, “he hath commanded his covenant for ever.”

Does Christ only own the cattle on one thousand hills or does he own them all? Of course there is no way that this passage suggests that Christ only owns the cattle on one thousand hills. Rather, He owns every beast on every hill, thus revealing His omnipotence. The statement reference the “thousand hills” is preceded y the introductory comment: “For every beast of the forest is mine.” This is simply presented in such a way as to express the unfathomable authority and power of the living God. It beautifully correlates with the truth expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:28, which states, “the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.”

The term “a thousand” is thus used to in some way express the nature and awesome power of Almighty God. The phrase is used to portray the Sovereignty of God and His supreme kingship over all creation. We must clearly acknowledge that the figure ‘a thousand’ is consistently and symbolically employed, throughout the Word of God, to denote an unfathomable amount or a vast period.

A generation is not every 40 years.

Abraham was near 100 when he had Isaac. Is a generation every 100 years?

 

[WPM]

No. You are espousing RB (Replacement Biology), which is the racialized belief that there is only one nation, that of ethnic Israel.

LOL. Brilliant! I need to use that one!

 

[covenantee]

LOL. Brilliant! I need to use that one!

Any time, bro.

 

[Truth7t7]

I've showed others where both Jesus and Paul declared faith in the future restoration of national Israel. I agree with your quote, as well. Israel has been *temporarily* replaced, until the time of their restoration.

You will closely note, your response is void of scriptural truth and full of Randy's Zionist hopes and dreams

 

[Randy Kluth]

God's people are described as a singular nation called out from amongst the nations (plural). The objective unindoctrinated Bible student will see that the people of God have been united as one into a trans-national spiritual nation. Race doesn't matter any more under the new covenant. It is all about grace. Your troubling Replacement Theology is seen to be in conflict with the thrust of the NT teaching. It produces ethnic apartheid.

lol! God produced apartheid everybody! He created many nations and many tongues! ;)
The problem with that is, God made use of nations and ethnicities/races. They represent diversity. So you must be anti-diverse, and thus a bigot?

So much for the rhetoric, which you seem to love...

I've answered this so many times I can't count. It is the qualifications for Salvation that renders ethnic and national differences of no consequence. But these differences matter to God. He mentions them in the book of Revelation, which you should be careful not to omit from recognition!

Hosea 1:10-11 declares, “the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”

True Israel is predicted here to grow to a mighty number (as the “sand of the sea”). How would this happen? They would be joined by countless foreigners who were outside of God’s special covenant of grace with Israel in salvation. This is speaking of the Gentiles.

No it isn't. Read the passage, and take it at face value. It is speaking about the "children of Judah and the children of Israel!" That is not the international Church. The multitudes of Israelites were depicted as numberless so as to trust God for multiplication, rather than trying to obtain it apart from God.

The reading confirms: “in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” What a transformation! What a turn around. The sons of the living God – true Israel – would now include Jew and Gentiles alike.

No, this was speaking of the Jewish People, who were temporarily discarded as if they no longer belonged to God's family. You try to keep them without a family. But God accepts them once again.

Since you and I see the Scriptures very differently, there is no sense in debating it. Your mind is made up. I would keep an open mind myself except that what you are actually doing is changing the meaning of words like "children of Israel." You turn that into "the international Church." You render "nation" into "many nations." Sorry, I'm not buying.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No. You are espousing RB (Replacement Biology), which is the racialized belief that there is only one nation, that of ethnic Israel.

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what RT is! I'm not an advocate of RT. I used to be, unconsciously, but no longer am. So yes, I do know the difference.

I do *not* believe in only one nation, namely that of Israel! I believe God promised Abraham a "multitude of nations," which includes, of course, Israel.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where in any of the writings of the ECFs do they teach 2 bindings?

It is in the very quote we keep quoting from Irenaeus! He 1st talks about the "binding of the strong man," which in the Scriptures is different than the event later known as "the binding of Satan." One is a principle by which a demon must be bound by a stronger man so that people can be liberated from him. Jesus liberated all believers from Satan's condemnation when he forgave our sins and rose from the dead.

But this was not the *event* known as the "binding of Satan," which we read takes place at the 2nd Coming. And that's why Irenaeus places this event, ie the "binding of Satan," at the 2nd Coming, where Antichrist is destroyed.

So in the quotation Irenaeus first deals with the binding of the strong man principle by which Christ liberated us from death, which was at his 1st Coming. But then he advances to the event called the "binding of Satan," which he places at a completely different time, namely at the defeat of Satan and his Kingdom, when Antichrist is defeated.

I'm surprised that you can't see this? It's right there in the quotation! One deals with deliverance from death and the other deals with the imprisonment of Satan at the end of the age. Satan's "binding," as applied by Irenaeus at Jesus' 1st Coming, is clearly *not* the same event as the "binding of Satan" at the end of the age. But he uses the principle of the "binding of the strong man" to show that Christ had power over the devils to deliver us from death and to deliver people from demon possession.

I'm not going to deal with 50 different passages in each post. You skip over things you apparently don't understand, and you need to understand the argument before filibustering with unnecessary quotations.