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
In order for that to be true, you must demonstrate that Satan was bound for a period of time between the First Advent and the present day, and demonstrate that he has been loosed from his prison within recent subjective time. I don't believe you can convincingly do so.
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.
I believe that the context of the passage in Revelation argues for Satan being bound at a future time (from our perspective, the same as from John's perspective), because of the details of events around that passage, and from, once again, simple observation. I do not believe you can show any evidence for Satan being bound in any meaningful way in the last 2000 years. The detail given as to his binding, being cast in the Bottomless Pit, sealed so that he may not escape for 1000 years, all are too graphic for it to be taken as an allegory, symbolism, or only "spiritual". Words mean things, Jean.
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.
Without going into a long list of quotes, there is evidence in scripture that some, if not most of the angels who originally sinned with Lucifer, are currently bound awaiting judgment. There is reference to the 4 angels bound at the Euphrates River, and it is understood that they are fallen angels. I'm not absolutely sure whether demons are fallen angels or the spirits of the offspring between men and angels, or some other sort of spiritual being...demons have been, and are still wreaking havoc and oppressing and sometimes possessing people to this day, no doubt about it. We have authority over them through the Blood of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit, so our activities against them impose restrictions on their activities. With apologies to our RC lurkers, we have been given authority by Jesus to bind and loose, not only demons but also angelic beings, within the Will of God.
My point is, 2 Peter 2:4 has at least partially already been fulfilled. The judgment is still future, but they have already been bound with chains of darkness. Revelation 20: 1-3 is a separate event, and in the context of the whole section of the book, is not something that has yet happened. The detail of his binding and banishment to the Pit, sealed away for a specific period of time is too graphic and specific to be equated with 2 Peter 2:4. They are two separate things. What you're trying to do is say that since 2 Peter 2:4 is partially fulfilled, that Revelation 20:1-3 must also be partially fulfilled. You cannot make that connection with any accuracy, because there is nothing that really connects the two events other than the mention of a chain.
The context of Peter's letter indicates that he is referring to events in the far past, and then works his way to the present time, with the mention of the Flood, then Sodom and Gommorah, etc. The events in Revelation are to show "what must happen hereafter", meaning future, from John's perspective, and I believe, from ours as well. To connect separate passages of scripture on the basis of similar language is not enough. Context and subject matter must also be taken into account.
My expectations are not the basis I use to understand scripture. Your indication that I interpret scripture according to my expectations is inaccurate, and designed to put me on the defensive, because I have poked a hole in your argument, a hole which you hope no one else will see. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I have yet to see an overwhelmingly convincing argument or proof for the Amil position. There are too many things about it which just don't line up.