Replies

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!

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.

First off, sorry for the delay. I pretty much had absolutely no time from Wednesday until today to post anything much of substance.

But I feel a couple of things in your post need to be addressed.

"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."

As Woody has already pointed out, Jesus most certainly did bind Satan per Matt 12 and Mark 3. By definition this must be "meaningful".

"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."

Again, you are assuming your argument. Since, at best, you have shown that your belief that Satan's binding is complete/total is only, in your words, "a reasonable conclusion" or that my interpretation of Satan's binding in Rev 20 is (again, in your own words) not necessarily the correct or only way to interpret that passage.".

You then go on to explain how my interpretation does not live up to ~your~ understanding of Satan's binding.

You have yet to show me how a complete/total binding is the necessary and the ~only~ possible understanding of Rev 20:1-3.

You tell me that your interpretation is a "reasonalbe conclusion" (your words) and that my interpretation is "not necessarily the correct or only way to interpret that passage" (your words).

You then assume that Satan's binding is complete/total and attempt to show me how nothing in the past 2000 years shows that Satan has been bound according to that standard.

This actually is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

Also known as a circular argument, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy in which the premises in an argument for a proposition contain the proposition itself, and thus are equally doubtful. In essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, which is of course an unpersuasive proof, however logically valid. Further, as the phrase is used in philosophy today, a question-begging argument needn't go so far as to include its conclusion in its premises. Rather, the argument need only rest upon premises so contentious that no detractor of the conclusion would accept them anyway. For example, The Bible says God exists, and the Bible is always right, therefore God exists begs the question, for no atheist would accept that the Bible is always right. Though the argument is not circular, it is as good as circular, given the context of the dispute.
The name comes from old Greek ways of arguing - people were to prove or disprove a certain proposition (called 'the question' - which here means 'matter to be discussed'). To do so, they sometimes would state certain facts, which they asked their opponent to accept as a mutually agreed truth. If you're begging the question, then you are asking for the proposition itself to be such a 'mutually agreed truth' - and then you cannot be said to have proven it.
Note that there is an encroaching alternative use of the phrase as synonymous with "raises the question". For example, "The recent KKK march begs the question 'when does free speech go too far?'" The reader is counselled to avoid this usage, to avoid the wrath of pedants and philosophers.
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

In otherwords, you are attempting to show me how my understanding of Satan's binding is not possible in light of ~your~ understanding of Satan's binding.

I'm sorry, n, but that's not my problem. I don't interpret Satan's binding to be complete or total, therefore I have no need to demonstrate that my position satisfies ~your~ conclusion. And remember, your conclusion is, as you have already said, only a "reasonable conclusion". You have yet to show me how it is the necessary/only conclusion.

The fallacy of "Begging the Question" is particularly nasty as it is often quite subtle -as is the case here.

"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..."

Actually, 2 Peter 2 is pretty much all we need on the matter.

However, I find it curious that you claim that "some, if not most" of the angels "who originally sinned with Lucifer" are currently bound.

2 Peter 2: 4 gives absolutely no indication that only "some" or "most" of the angels "who sinned with Lucifer" are bound.

In fact, 2 Peter 2:4, when read literally is quite clear that ~ALL~ of the "angels that sinned" are "delivered unto chains of darkness";

2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Interesting, Peter declares that "the angels that sinned" were cast down to hell. He doesn't make the distinction you do that only "some" of the "angels that originally sinned with Lucifer" were the ones cast down. He says simply "the angels that sinned".

Isn't Lucifer ~also~ an "angel that sinned"?

If I am to read this literally, I would conclude that because Lucifer is also an "angel that sinned", then he was ~also~ cast down to hell and delivered into "chains" of darkness.

But we can't read this literally, now, can we! After all, Satan, according to Premillennialism is not yet bound! That would be a conflict with our precious theology of premillennialism!

No, we shouldn't allow the record of Scripture to correct our theology in this case, we should utilize our theology to correct the record of 2 Peter 2:4!

Selective use of the "literal hermeneutic" indeed!

"There is reference to the 4 angels bound at the Euphrates River, and it is understood that they are fallen angels..."

Actually, it is not "understood" that they are fallen angels. Many commentators make the claim that these are Angels of God. They most certainly are directly accomplishing God's purpose. Furthermore, nothing in the text indicates that these Angels are fallen angels. You might claim that because they are bound they ~must~ be fallen. But that would be another example of "Begging the Question". You are assuming that your interpretation of "bound" and imposing it on 2 Peter 2.

In fact, I have yet to find commentators that claim these are fallen angels. The referneces I looked at either make no claim one way or the other or they claim these are actually angels 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."

Again, see above. 2 Peter 2:4 tells us ~all~ the angels "that sinned" were bound. Satan is an angel that "sinned". Therefore, Satan must be bound!

"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. "

More "Begging the question". You are presuming that~all~ of Revelation is future and that ~all~ of Revelation is consistently chronological. You have yet to establish that fact.

"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."

"cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness" isn't "too graphic" to insist on a complete/total binding?

We can look at this two ways.

A) We can assume these angels which are bound are not inclusive of Satan.

If we assume this reading, we needn't make a direct connection with Rev 20:1-3. In other words, we needn't make the claim that this is the same event. We only need note that this is God "literally" telling us that all the angels which sinned (except Lucifer) have been cast down to hell and have been put into chains of darkness.

So then, if this is representative on only fallen angels with the exception of Lucifer, we can correctly conclude that this binding is not total/complete.

Therefore, we have biblical precedent for concluding that Satan's binding in Rev 20:1-3 -which uses extremely similar language- is not complete/total, but only limited to his ability to decieve the gentiles no more.

Or we can presume:

B) That ~ALL~ "angels that sinned" have been cast down to hell and thrown into chains of darkness. And, since Satan ~is~ an "angel that sinned", then Satan must also be cast down to hell and thrown into chains of darkness. Therefore, 2 Peter 2:4 is indeed speaking of the same binding as Rev 20:1-3 does.

"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."

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm focusing on the language used in 2 Peter 2:4 and the extremely similiar language used in Rev 20:1-3.

2 Peter 2:4 tells us at least ~all~ the angels "that sinned" have been "cast down" and "chained". Even if we "assume" this is not inclusive of Lucifer (but since Satan most definately ~is~ an "angel that sinned", this would not be a proper assumption), we must therefore conclude that this binding is ~not~ complete/total...because we know these fallen angels are active today.

Therefore, since this binding is not "complete/total", we needn't conclude that the binding of Satan in Rev 20:1-3, which utilizes extremely similar language, is not "complete/total".

Jean