Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
"The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:1-3 that even though Satan is bound with a great chain, shut, sealed, and locked in an abyss (depthless, i.e. (specially) (infernal) "abyss":--deep, (bottomless) pit.) so he could not deceive the nations any longer, that crafty old dragon outwitted God's angel and can still be "on the playing field" but deceiving only gentiles, but even so his binding is not necessarily total."
Amillennialists are not alone in understanding that the chain and abyss is figurative and symbolic. Many Premillennialists also understand this to be so.
But, in order to play "gotcha", you must show us ~why~ this must ~NECESSARILY~ be understood ~only~ literally.
Furthermore, Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6.
It seems to me, then, that the problem you are having is that Amillennialists understanding of Satan's binding does not live up to ~YOUR~ expectations.
No where in Rev 20:1-3 do we read that Satan is bound completely and totally. It just ain't there.
Furthermore, the biblical understanding of "binding" never demands the idea of a total and complete inability to do anything.
Rev 20:1-3 declares to us that Satan's binding is such ~ONLY~ that he is unable to deceive the gentiles.
You will have to show us that this inability of Satan to decieve the gentiles necessarily requires us to understand he is completely unable to do anything whatsoever.
So, in summary, you must show us that:
Until you show us why these things must ~NECESSARILY~ be understood as you do, your complaint is no more than a complaint our understanding of Satan's binding does not live up to ~YOUR~ expectations.
"Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."
"The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:4 that the "beheaded souls" are not "physically dead" but rather they must be the "alive in the body" type of souls, who though slain for their testimony in Rev 6:9 and refused to worship the beast or take his mark they were still victorious (and alive in the body) souls in heaven in Rev 15:1-2 and were not killed physically. And so because they were never physically dead, they did not live again, they just continued their existing physical life spans for a thousand years with Christ, but came to life spiritually instead because (I guess) their testimony and rejecting the beast just wasn't good enough."
Actually, we believe the "beheaded souls" are indeed physically dead.
I've made declared this to you many times. In my post #1927 I made the statement:
"Look at the distinction that John himself makes:A) and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
and
B) and which had not worshipped the beast...
In group A) John tells us that he saw "souls" that were "beheaded". John doesn't tell us that these were "physically dead" in those direct words, but we can safely presume (according to premillennilism's "literal hermeneutic") that these people are physically dead."
It is the people who John identifies who had "not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands."
You know this very well. So, it is a little disengenuous for you to claim that Amillennialists "forces the interpretation on Rev 20:4 that the "beheaded souls" are not "physically dead" but rather they must be the "alive in the body" type of souls..."
No, we make a distinction between "souls that were beheaded" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". It is the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive.
You have attempted to show that those who did not worship the beast must necessarily be considered a reference to some of the "souls" John saw. But you failed miserably and you were wise to drop that argument in your post #2227.
"Rev 20: 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds."
"The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:5 and 12-13 that 'the rest of the dead' are the gentile nations (see first forced interpretation) deceived by Satan whose limited binding now has no effect over the gentiles, which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), but were never physically dead, just spiritually dead (because it's biblical, and I guess because they also have incredibly long life spans so they never physically die because they were not resurrected), but they are punished to remain spiritually dead forever. In fact, no physically dead people are mentioned anywhere in Rev 20 (not even the dead given up by the sea)."
Your first point should be addressed by gdebrae since it is he who made the point. It is certainly not a forced interpretation as one notes in vs 1-3 we have a reference to Satan being unable to decieve the gentiles any longer. Therefore, in context, it certainly is reasonable to conclude that John is describing the effects of Satan's binding of the gentiles. Therefore, what follows is a discription of the "dead" gentiles.
You then go on to make the comment regarding the "dead" standing before the Great White Throne: "which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), "
Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ doesn't tell us they were "alive in their bodies".
Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ tells us (quite literally) that the "~DEAD~" were standing before God and the Great White Throne.
It appears that it is ~YOU~ that is attempting to force the idea that these folks are "alive in their body".
The text manifestly does ~NOT~ say they were "alive in their body". That is ~YOUR~ ASSUMPTION The text says they were "dead"!
The rest of your points are several "straw man" arguments of things we never actually said. Perhaps out of frustration in your inability to show our interpretations are ~necessarily~ wrong you need to revert to the straw man fallacy. The critical reader, however, will note that you are simply grasping for straws here.
"The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on all six identical "thousand years" that they are not an actual real 1000 years, but rather a metaphor of an era or 'vast' time, and scripture must be diligently searched to find other scriptural definitions of "thousand years" because the usage in Rev 20 can only be symbolic. Gosh, even more symbolism is found in the thousand years of Rev 20:5a being a different thousand years than that of Rev 20:6b (yes! metaphors within metaphors!) because the tense of the verbs in the sentences change."
First of all, you will have to show us that the "1000" years must necessarily be understood as a literal time frame. You attempt to "prove" this by saying that the "1000" years is mentioned 6 times. How on earth does the fact that "1000 years" is mentioned SIX times mean that we are NECESSARILY REQUIRED to understand this as a literal time frame???
Why is that necessary to conclude? Why must we understand that BECAUSE "1000 years" is mentioned SIX times that it logically necessitates a literal understanding????
Why is that ~NECESSARY~???
And, quite frankly, I cannot help the fact that you cannot see or understand that verse 6 tells one must have already been a part of those who have already been a part of the "lived and reigned for a thousand years" in vs 4 must in order to take part of the "1000 years" in vs 6 which is mentioned in the future. Forced understanding? Hardly. I'm rather suprised that someone who proudly trumpets his literal understanding of Scriptures sarcasticly chides those who look carefully at the words and grammar used in Rev 20.
It's also interesting to note that, in your failure to prove us wrong, you resort to mocking innuendo in an attempt to "prove" your point, LOL!
Jean
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ward corrected his statement within 55 minutes of making it. He proceeded to correct it and then posted it in full, making a complete apology.
But the blood-thirsty coven of calvinists couldn't let it go.
And once again it all comes back to "it's all Ward's fault."
How pathetic of all of you.
Nope. I mean exactly what I wrote above.
as for not prayin for my pop - I frankly dont want your kind of prayers nor those of OP or the_doc or any other abusive personality who cant see past personal hatred of me to pray for the salvation of a family member of my own.
Marvelous Christian fruit you have there matchett
....and again, nice thread hijack -LOL I frankly dont CARE if you or the doc or OP think I lie - You matter not one iota, bit, or smithereen - what matters is that I requested prayer - you and OP saw it as an opportunity to spew yet again at an Arminian with whom theyve had words with previously.
center square on my prayer chain, you are, right next to that demon who drowned her kids.
Xzins to the_doc: "Ward never lied. I was there. I remember. And your reputation is not one which inspires others to believe.."
the_doc: "Ward NEVER apologized for LYING."
Who to believe? Who to believe???
Unfortunately for you, xzins, your reputation for honesty preceeds you. LOL
You can believe the email I copied to you, can't you.
YOU KNOW YOU CAN!!!!
And before Ward left, WARD posted the email in question.
Why should I give a rip what a psychopath like you thinks?
Here's a clue: I don't.
No I don't. You invited examples of your forced interpretation. You explain your interpretation. If you think Satan is already bound, and the beheaded didn't really loose their heads, then you explain the metaphor that Christ is teaching us in this revelation to John. What is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan? Explain that.
we make a distinction between "souls that were beheaded" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". It is the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive.
So how do the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive go on to live with Christ a thousand years? How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?
Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ doesn't tell us they were "alive in their bodies". Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ tells us (quite literally) that the "~DEAD~" were standing before God and the Great White Throne. It appears that it is ~YOU~ that is attempting to force the idea that these folks are "alive in their body".
It is the Amillennialist statements forcing the interpretation that the 'dead' of Rev 20:12 are alive in their bodies, their statements, not Rev 20:12. The Amillennialist statements force the interpretation. Not I, nor Rev 20: Here is your personal post from #1958:
Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?
First of all, you will have to show us that the "1000" years must necessarily be understood as a literal time frame
No I don't. Rev 20 by default states exactly a thousand years in plain simple literal words. You insist on the symbolism. Why is it we must understand that because "thousand years" is mentioned 6 times they must be symbolic? Why must it be symbolic? Why can't a thousand years be a thousand years, as Rev 20 literally states it?. You invited examples of where Amil views forced an interpretation. You explain your interpretation. Rev 20 no where states the thousand years are symbolic. Your forced interpretation does. Your forced interpretation stated that the thousand years is symbolic, a metaphor, and further a metaphor of two different thousand years in Rev 20:5a and 6b. This is your forced interpretation. Here are your statements again from your post #1404:
Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).
No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.
And you never did explain how if no one is ever physically dead, no one ever physically died, then how did all these 'not resurrected again' 'physically alive' people live for a thousand years? How did they live through two different thousand years?
And you never did explain how the dead given up by sea, were physically alive. How does that happen?
I'll bet you've even "spewed those sort of hateful words" to your family members and the others you told me about that you hold responsible for your unhappiness, too, haven't you.
You must be a joy to live with. I'll bet if those you've accused behind their backs to me and others were here, they could reeeeeeally tell us some stories!
No doubt if they did, you would call them liars, too.
So, although you apologized for a misstatement, we insisted that you apologize for something more profound.
The insinuation is I have done so with you. Im sorry, but I dont recall calling you a liar - If I did please show me where
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.