Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[drstevej]

How come you posted #666? Let the amils have that one. :-)

[Jean Chauvin]

You have yet to demonstrate just why it is that Satan's binding must ~necessarily~ be complete.

The best you have done is, and I quote:

"It ~could just as easily mean~ what I believe it means, that at a not-too-distant future time, Satan will be bound and moved out of the way completely, in order that he not deceive the gentiles "

Again, you are not giving me the rationale as to why Satan's binding in Rev 20 MUST NECESSARILY be complete and total.

You are continuing to assume your argument!

So far, you have told me it is a "reasonable conclusion".

So far, you have told me "It could just as easily mean what I believe it means".

But you have yet to show me why it must necessarily be so.

Until then you have not disproved the amillenial position on Satan's binding.

You have only demonstrated that the amillennial positon on Satan's binding has not lived up to ~Your~ expectations (to quote you, "It could just as easily mean what ~I~ believe it means")

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

I noticed that one for the first time myself.

I always believe you've got to give credit (gdebrae) where credit (gdebrae) is due!

Subliminal Man

[xzins]

Hey, I thought all amill numbers were symbolic, so I didn't let it bother me.

[nobdysfool]

But you have yet to show me why it must necessarily be so.

The same can be said of you. I have spent enough time reasoning it out, and detailing why what you say is a forced interpretation that has no more impetus than what I've said. Your interpretation must necessarily be so ONLY in order to harmonize with your chosen belief vis-a-vis the Millenium. I have demonstrated that your belief is not necessarily the correct or only way to interpret that passage. In fact I believe it to be the wrong way to intepet that passage, because it fails to take into account what can plainly be seen by anyone who will open their eyes and honestly see what is happening today in the world (the gentile nations). Basic observation disproves your interpretation. No equivocation on that, no "could be", no "might be". It is plain as day.

[Starwind]

I'm just trying to help move things along a little bit for Starwind.

Thanks for the help. In my previous post here I asked the following, to which you've not yet confirmed my points of understanding, nor yet completed your explanation by corresponding the two resurrections to John 5:25-28. I really would appreciate your follow up.

Here's my previous post for your convenience:

the_doc: The so-called second resurrection is found in the parentheses in v.5 ("lived not again until...")

So, if I follow correctly, implicitly then the dead at the white throne judgement are the 2nd "resurrection". Right?

Rev 20:11-14
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And so upon the 2nd "resurrection" these souls are immediately judged to condemnation, the 2nd death (according to works, not according to justification in Christ). Right?

Since they were already dead spiritually and physically, and condemned (thus not spiritually resurrected), their resurrection was only physical for the purposes of judgement and condemnation. Right?

But your answer didn't include corresponding these two resurrections to John 5:25-28. Could you do that please?

[RnMomof7]

How a citizen of the heavenly Kingdom may look..

[RnMomof7]

I notice that you "literally" have the mark of the beast.

Ohhhhhh no and he has to preach Sunday:>))

[RnMomof7]

Do not know perhaps before Christ come to judge the world..But I will tell you this..IF you agree with dec you had best check your get into heaven admission card

[Jean Chauvin]

"The same can be said of you. I have spent enough time reasoning it out, and detailing why what you say is a forced interpretation that has no more impetus than what I've said...I have demonstrated that your belief is not necessarily the correct or only way to interpret that passage."

I can accept that. But the interesting thing (and my point, btw) is that some here say that amillennialism is false because Satan cannot possibly be bound.

The typical 'argument' the PreMil gives here is that the amils are nuts if they think that Satan is bound and the proof of the correctness of PreMil theology is the fact that, due to the present spiritual condition of mankind, it is not possible to consider that Satan might be bound at the current time. That has been xzins point in this whole thread.

While it might be a "reasonable conclusion" that Rev 20:1-3 tells us Satan is completely bound, or that ~you~ believe this passage tells us Satan is completeley bound, you have demonstrated that this is not necessarily so.

"In fact I believe it to be the wrong way to intepet that passage, because it fails to take into account what can plainly be seen by anyone who will open their eyes and honestly see what is happening today in the world (the gentile nations)."

Again, you fail to take into account the possibility that Satan might have already been loosed to create this havoc! I certainly hold that as a possibility! It fits perfectly into Amillennial theology!

"Basic observation disproves your interpretation. No equivocation on that, no "could be", no "might be". It is plain as day."

Again, because it is certainly possible that Satan could already have been loosed from his prison, you have demonstrated why it is, not only a good idea, but a Biblical Requirement to interpret "general revelation" through the specticles of Scirpture!

I was taught that in my Basic Christian Doctrine class at the Reformed college I attended.

Your reasoning has demonstrated why it is imperative that we observe "general revelation" through the spectacles of Scirpture. For if you do that, then (assuming your argument that todays world is evidence that Satan is not currently bound) you will see that Scripture has given you an explanation for that already -Satan will be released from his prison to do the very thing (again, assuming his binding meets ~your~ expectations) you claim he is doing at the present (Rev 20:7).

In other words, you have only demonstrated that it might be true that Satan is not currently bound. You have yet to demonstrate that Satan has not yet been bound.

Those are two completely different concepts!

So, we have here the fact that:

Your admitted inability to prove that Satan's binding in Rev 20 must necessarily be complete/total.

Because you cannot prove that Satan's binding per Rev 20 must necessarily be complete/total, you decalre that the amillennial position on Satan's binding per Rev 20 does not live up to ~your~ expectations.

You claim that it is ~obvious~ that Satan is not bound all the while failing to take into account the fact that, according to amillennial theology, it is very likely that this could be a sign that Satan has been loosed from his prison and is deceiving the Gentiles once more! (Rev 20:7).

I'd like to see you present a Biblical case as to why Satan's binding per Rev 20 must necessarily be understood as being complete/total.

So far, I have shown you a passage which declares the "casting down" and "chaining" of Satan's minions. Using your argument, we must conclude that Jesus was lying. For your argument tells us that these words of "casting down" and "chaining" must be taken into account and they tell us that these Demons have been bound completely/totally. However, we know that Biblically, Demons have wreaked great havoc on this world ever since the fall! -without ceasing!

Now, I have presented a Biblical argument as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.

So, I'd like you to take me to task biblically and not by your experience or according to ~your~ expectations.

Jean

[xzins]

Rn, it is a remarkable thing that you do not know when that Temple spoken of by Ezekiel is to occur.

There are 2 possibilities.

Ezekiel was right or Ezekiel was wrong. If Ezekiel was wrong, then he is a false prophet and all his words should be striken from the Old Testament. He was not wrong. If Ezekiel is right then we must make effort to understand this temple of which he speaks. Ezekiel was right, therefore, we must understand.

Since Ezekiel is right, then the temple must be either an ACTUAL Earthly Temple, or a Figurative Earthly Temple, or a Spiritual Temple existing someplace in the realm of the Holy.

It behooves you to find out. Since you have decided what kind of sacrifices can NOT be there, then the only way it can be an Earthly Temple for you is if there's another way to explain those sacrifices. That is the only way for you to conclude that it is an earthly temple.

The details of the text will decide if Ezekiel saw something that was earthly, figurative, or spiritual. As with all bible study, the details of the text should rule over any preconceived doctrines that we have.

I encourage you in your searching of the bible. I commend you for admitting that you don't know WHEN/WHERE Ezekiel's temple is to be present.

It was very honest of you.

[Jean Chauvin]

not to beat a dead horse, but I found an Associated Press article you might find interesting.

From a new Yahoo news article:

"...Putin has shrugged off criticism from liberals, who voiced fears that the return of the Communist symbols could herald the comeback of the Soviet-style authoritarian regime. He countered that the use of Soviet-era symbols should help mend deep rifts in society by acknowledging the achievements of the Soviet past that older generations cherish.

Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a Soviet-era dissident who heads the Moscow Helsinki Group, a leading human rights organization, said that Putin has turned to old symbols in a bid to strengthen his support base.

"No one is left out: Communists get their anthem, the conservatives have a double-headed eagle and democrats [that isn't a reference to the DNC, x] their tricolor flag," she said. "It makes one wonder what kind of national ideology such a state has.""

Imagine that -"liberals...voiced fears...[of] the comeback of the Soviet-style authoritarian regime.

Now why would 'liberals', who you define as 'socialists' "fear" a return of authoritarian Soviet style government? I thought that is what 'liberals' favor?

And why would 'conservatives' be in favor of a using a 'Red Star'? I thought good 'conservatives' like Ronald Reagan hated what the 'Red Star' stood for?

I'm so terribly confused! < /sarcasm >

Jean

[BibChr]

Thanks. It wasn't really that hard, was it? But then again, the facts of the Gospel aren't hard to explain to a Roman Catholic, either. That isn't the problem, is it? Thank God Woody's salvation isn't at stake in this (the_doc to the contrary, notwithstanding).

Dan

[BibChr]

1. I only have what I read to go on; judging-by-fruits has some Biblical basis.

2. Thanks, I do appreciate that acknowledgment.

Dan

[jude24]

If you doubt my sincerity, feel free to ask any of the usual suspects on the board, on either side. They'll all vouch as to that.

The more I considered your points, the more I think you are right. I will still say that I do not think you can equate ethnic Israel with Spiritual Israel (Romans 9 makes that abundantly clear), and many of the promises are fulfilled in the person of Christ.

[BibChr]

In that post, I didn't have sincerity in mind. Just the way you appeared to brush by some substantive considerations with a cliched response.

Some of these are points of non-dispute, I think. I know of no one who doesn't acknowledge that "the elect remnant" is a subset of physical Israel. But that is a far shot from saying, "Therefore, all the 'cursing' prophecies are literal and for the nation of Israel, and all the 'blessing' prophecies are spiritual and for the church," as amills must — if they even allow themselves to come THAT close to the actual details (i.e. words — hello, plenary VERBAL inspiration) of prophecies.

Dan

[the_doc]

You got it correct in #660, as far as I can tell.

I would say that the so-called "first resurrection" found in Revelation 20:4, 5b, and 6 is the regeneration phenomenon mentioned in John 5:25. The idea of "lived not again until the thousand years were over," presented in Rev. 20:5a, is the so-called "second resurrection" and corresponds to the episode described in John 5:28-29.

[the_doc]

I spent about an hour last night typing up a post.

Just seconds before I hit the "post" button, my PC locked up, and I lost the entire essay.

[CCWoody]

Even when I was a Premillennialist, I never believed that the mark of the beast was a physical mark on the forehead and arm. If you were familiar with the culture of the day, you would understand that bowing with your hand to your forehead was a sign of respect.

[drstevej]

losing that much work is frustrating... perhaps it was Satan telling you he is not bound.