Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
|
1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
One distinctive of amillennial theology is the belief that Satan is bound during this present age. This belief stems from an interpretation that sees the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 as being fulfilled today. The purpose of this work is examine the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 and address the question, "Is Satan bound today?" In doing this, our evaluation will include the following: 1) a brief definition of amillennialism; 2) a look at the amillennial approach to interpreting Revelation; 3) an explanation and analysis of the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3; and 4) some concluding thoughts.
Amillennialism is the view that there will be no future reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years.1 Instead, the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned six times in Revelation 20 is being fulfilled during the present age. According to amillennialists, the "thousand years" is not a literal thousand years but is figurative for "a very long period of indeterminate length." 2 Thus the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 describes the conditions of the present age between the two comings of Christ. During this period Satan is bound (Rev. 20:1-3) and Christ's Kingdom is being fulfilled (Rev. 20:4-6).3
Before looking specifically at how amillennialists interpret Revelation 20:1-3, it is important to understand how they approach the Book of Revelation. Amillennialists base their interpretation of the Book of Revelation on a system of interpretation known as progressive parallelism. This interpretive system does not view the events of Revelation from a chronological or sequential perspective but, instead, sees the book as describing the church age from several parallel perspectives that run concurrently. 4 Anthony Hoekema, an amillennialist, describes progressive parallelism in the following manner:
According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of his second.5 Following the work of William Hendriksen,6 Hoekema believes there are seven sections of Revelation that describe the present age. These seven sections give a portrait of conditions on heaven and earth during this period between the two comings of Christ. These seven sections which run parallel to each other are chapters 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-19 and 20-22. What is significant for our purposes is that amillennialists see Revelation 20:1 as taking the reader back to the beginning of the present age. As Hoekema states, "Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era."7 Amillennialists, thus, do not see a chronological connection between the events of Revelation 19:11-21 that describe the second coming of Christ, and the millennial reign discussed in Revelation 20:1-6. As Hendriksen says, "Rev. 19:19ff. carried us to the very end of history, to the day of final judgment. With Rev. 20 we return to the beginning of our present dispensation."8 The amillennial view sees chapter nineteen as taking the reader up to the second coming, but the beginning of chapter twenty takes him back once again to the beginning of the present age. In other words, the events of Revelation 20:1-6 do not follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21.
With the principle of progressive parallelism as his base, the amillennialist holds that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 took place at Christ's first coming.9 This binding ushered in the millennial kingdom. As William Cox says,
Thus the present age is the millennium and one characteristic of this millennial period is that Satan is now bound. This binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, according to the amillennialist, finds support in the Gospels, particularly Jesus' binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:29. As Hoekema states,
Hoekema also points out that the word used by Matthew (delta epsilon omega) to describe the binding of the strong man is the same word used in Revelation 20 to describe the binding of Satan.12 In addition to Matthew 12:29, amillennialists believe they have confirming exegetical support from Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32. In Luke 10, when the seventy disciples returned from their mission they said to Jesus, "'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.'" And He said to them, 'I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning'" (Luke 10:17-18). According to Hoekema, "Jesus saw in the works his disciples were doing an indication that Satan's kingdom had just been dealt a crushing blow-that, in fact, a certain binding of Satan, a certain restriction of his power, had just taken place."13
John 12:31-32, another supporting text used by amillennialists states: "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." Hoekema points out that the verb translated "cast out" (epsilon kappa beta alpha lambda lambda omega) is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3 when it says an angel "threw [ballo] him into the abyss." 14
What is the significance of this binding of Satan according the amillennial position? This binding has special reference to Satan's ability to deceive the nations during the present age. Because Satan is now bound, he is no longer able to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ. Before Christ's first coming, all the nations of the world, except Israel, were under the deception of Satan. Except for the occasional person, family or city that came into contact with God's people or His special revelation, Gentiles, as a whole, were shut out from salvation.15 With the coming of Christ, however, Jesus bound Satan, and in so doing, removed his ability to deceive the nations. This binding, though, did not mean a total removal of Satan's activity, for Satan is still active and able to do harm. As Cox says, "Satan now lives on probation until the second coming."16 But while he is bound, Satan is no longer able to prevent the spread of the Gospel nor is he able to destroy the Church. Also, according to amillennialists, the "abyss" to which Satan is assigned is not a place of final punishment but a figurative description of the way Satan's activities are being curbed during this age.17
Hoekema summarizes the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 by saying,
"We conclude, then, that the binding of Satan during the Gospel age means that, first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church."18
Though amillennial scholars have clearly and logically laid out their case for the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3, there are serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties with their interpretation of this text.
1) The approach to interpreting Revelation known as "progressive parallelism is highly suspect The first difficulty to be examined is hermeneutical and deals with the amillennial approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation. In order for the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 to be correct, the interpretive approach to Revelation known as "progressive parallelism" must also be accurate. Yet this approach which sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is largely unproven and appears arbitrary. As Hoekema admits, the approach of progressive parallelism, "is not without its difficulties."19
The claim that Revelation 20:1 "takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era,"20 does not seem warranted from the text. There certainly are no indicators within the text that the events of Revelation 20:1 take the reader back to the beginning of the present age. Nor are there textual indicators that the events of Revelation 20 should be separated chronologically from the events of Revelation 19:11-21. In fact, the opposite is the case. The events of Revelation 20 seem to follow naturally the events described in Revelation 19:11-21. If one did not have a theological presupposition that the millennium must be fulfilled in the present age, what indicators within the text would indicate that 20:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of the church era? A normal reading indicates that Christ appears from heaven (19:11-19), He destroys his enemies including the beast and the false prophet (19:20-21) and then He deals with Satan by binding him and casting him into the abyss (20:1-3). As Ladd says, "There is absolutely no hint of any recapitulation in chapter 20."21
That John uses the formula "and I saw" (kappa alpha iota epsilon iota delta omicron nu) at the beginning of Revelation 20:1 also gives reason to believe that what he is describing is taking place in a chronological manner.22 Within Revelation 19-22, this expression is used eight times (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1). When John uses "and I saw," he seems to be describing events in that are happening in a chronological progression. Commenting on these eight uses of "and I saw" in this section, Thomas states,
The case favoring chronological sequence in the fulfillment of these scenes is very strong. Progression from Christ's return to the invitation to the birds of prey and from that invitation to the defeat of the beast is obvious. So is the progression from the binding of Satan to the Millennium and final defeat of Satan and from the final defeat to the new heaven and new earth with all this entails. The interpretation allowing for chronological arrangement of these eight scenes is one-sidedly strong. 23
A natural reading of the text indicates that the events of Revelation 20 follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21. It is also significant that Hoekema, himself, admits that a chronological reading of Revelation would naturally lead one to the conclusion that the millennium follows the second coming when he says, "If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as describing what follows chronologically after what is described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ.24
Herman Hoyt, when commenting on this statement by Hoekema, rightly stated, "This appears to be a fatal admission."25 And it is. Hoekema admits that a normal reading of Revelation 19 and 20 would not lead one to the amillennial position. In a sense, the amillennialist is asking the reader to disregard the plain meaning of the text for an assumption that has no exegetical warrant. As Hoyt says,
The hermeneutical foundation of amillennialism is, indeed, a shaky one. The seriousness of this must not be underestimated. For if the amillennialist is wrong on his approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation, his attempt at placing Satan's binding during the present age has suffered a major if not fatal blow. 2) The amillennial view does not adequately do justice to the language of Revelation 20:1-3 According to the amillennial view, Satan is unable to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ, but he is still active and able to do harm in this age. His activities, then, have not ceased but are limited.27 This, however, does not do justice to what is described in Revelation 20:1-3. According to the text, Satan is "bound" with a "great chain" (vv.1-2) and thrown into the "abyss" that is "shut" and "sealed" for a thousand years (v. 3). This abyss acts as a "prison" (v. 7) until the thousand years are completed. The acts of binding, throwing, shutting and sealing indicate that Satan's activities are completely finished. As Mounce states:
The elaborate measures taken to insure his [Satan's] custody are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth (rather than a curbing of his activities)."28
Berkouwer, who himself is an amillennialist, admits that the standard amillennial explanation of this text does not do justice to what is described:
Those who interpret the millennium as already realized in the history of the church try to locate this binding in history. Naturally, such an effort is forced to relativize the dimensions of this binding, for it is impossible to find evidence for a radical elimination of Satan's power in that "realized millennium." . . . The necessary relativizing of John's description of Satan's bondage (remember that Revelation 20 speaks of a shut and sealed pit) is then explained by the claim that, although Satan is said to deceive the nations no more (vs. 3), this does not exclude satanic activity in Christendom or individual persons. I think it is pertinent to ask whether this sort of interpretation really does justice to the radical proportions of the binding of Satan-that he will not be freed from imprisonment for a thousand years. 29
The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 is set forth in strong terms that tell of the complete cessation of his activities. The amillennial view that Satan's binding is just a restriction or a "probation," as Cox has stated,30 does not hold up under exegetical scrutiny.
3) The amillennial view conflicts with the New Testament's depiction of Satan's activities in the present age The view that Satan is bound during this age contradicts multiple New Testament passages which show that Satan is presently active and involved in deception. He is "the god of this world [who] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4). He is our adversary who "prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). In the church age he was able to fill the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3) and "thwart" the work of God's ministers (1 Thess. 2:18). He is one for whom we must protect ourselves from by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-19). Satan's influence in this age is so great that John declared "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). These passages do not depict a being who has been bound and shut up in a pit. As Grudem has rightly commented, "the theme of Satan's continual activity on earth throughout the church age, makes it extremely difficult to think that Satan has been thrown into the bottomless pit."31
What then of the amillennial argument that Matthew 12:29 teaches that Jesus bound Satan at His first coming? The answer is that this verse does not teach that Satan was bound at that time. What Jesus stated in Matthew 12:29 is that in order for kingdom conditions to exist on the earth, Satan must first be bound. He did not say that Satan was bound yet. As Toussaint says:
By this statement He [Jesus] previews John the Apostle's discussion in Revelation 20. Jesus does not say He has bound Satan or is even in the process of doing so. He simply sets the principle before the Pharisees. His works testify to His ability to bind Satan, and therefore they attest His power to establish the kingdom.32 Jesus' casting out of demons (Matt. 12:22-29) was evidence that He was the Messiah of Israel who could bring in the kingdom. His mastery over demons showed that He had the authority to bind Satan. But as the multiple New Testament texts have already affirmed, this binding did not take place at Christ's first coming. It will, though, at His second. What Jesus presented as principle in Matthew 12:29 will come to fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3. Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32 certainly tell of Christ's victory over Satan but these passages do not teach that Satan is bound during this age. No Christian denies that the work of Christ, especially his death on the cross, brought a crushing defeat to Satan, but the final outworking of that defeat awaits the second coming. That is why Paul could tell the believers at Rome that "the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Romans 16:20). For the one contemplating the validity of amillennialism the question must be asked, Does the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 accurately describe Satan's condition today? An analysis of multiple scriptural texts along with the present world situation strongly indicates that the answer is No. 4) Satan's deceiving activities continue throughout most of the Book of Revelation According to amillennialists, Satan was bound at the beginning of the Church age and he no longer has the ability to deceive the nations during the present age. But within the main sections of Revelation itself, Satan is pictured as having an ongoing deceptive influence on the nations. If Satan is bound during this age and Revelation describes conditions during this present age, we should expect to see a cessation of his deceptive activities throughout the book. But the opposite is the case. Satan's deception is very strong throughout Revelation. Revelation 12:9, for instance, states that "Satan. . . deceives the whole world." This verse presents Satan as a present deceiver of the world, not one who is bound.33
Satan's deception is also evident in the authority he gives to the first beast (Rev. 13:2) and the second beast who "deceives those who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 13:14). Satan is certainly the energizer of political Babylon of whom it is said, "all the nations were deceived by your sorcery" (Revelation 18:23).
Satan's ability to deceive the nations throughout the Book of Revelation shows that he was not bound at the beginning of the present age. Grudem's note on the mentioned passages is well taken, "it seems more appropriate to say that Satan is now still deceiving the nations, but at the beginning of the millennium this deceptive influence will be removed."34
The amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 that Satan is bound during this age is not convincing and fails in several ways. Hermeneutically it fails in that its approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation is based on the flawed system of progressive parallelism. This system forces unnatural breaks in the text that a normal reading of Revelation does not allow. This is especially true with the awkward break between the millennial events of Revelation 20 and the account of the second coming in Revelation 19:11-21. Exegetically, the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 does not do justice to the language of the text. The binding described in this passage clearly depicts a complete cessation of Satan's activities-not just a limitation as amillennialists believe. Theologically, the view that Satan is bound today simply does not fit with the multiple New Testament texts that teach otherwise. Nor can the amillennial view be reconciled with the passages within Revelation itself that show Satan as carrying on deceptive activity. To answer the question posed in the title of this work, "Is Satan bound today?" The answer from the biblical evidence is clearly, No.
1. The prefix "a-" means "no." Amillennialism, therefore, means "no millennium." 2. Anthony Hoekema, "Amillennialism," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1977), p. 161. 3. Among amillennial lists there are differences of opinion as to exactly what Christ's millennial reign specifically is. Augustine, Allis and Berkhof believed the millennial reign of Christ refers to the Church on earth. On the other hand, Warfield taught that Christ's kingdom involves deceased saints who are reigning with Christ from heaven. 4. This approach to Revelation can be traced to the African Donatist, Tyconius, a late fourth-century interpreter. Millennium based on a recapitulation method of interpretation. Using this principle Tyconius saw Revelation as containing several different visions that repeated basic themes throughout the book. Tyconius also interpreted the thousand years of Revelation 20:1-6 in nonliteral terms and understood the millennial period as referring to the present age. This recapitulation method was adopted by Augustine and has carried on through many Roman Catholic and Protestant interpreters. See Alan Johnson, "Reve lation,"Expositor's Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), v. 12, pp. 578-79. 6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940). 9. Hendriksen defines what the amillennialist means by "first coming." "When we say 'the first coming' we have reference to all the events associated with it, from the incarnation to the coronation. We may say, therefore, that the binding of satan [sic], according to all these passages, begins with that first coming" Hendriksen, p.226. 10. William E. Cos, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), p. 58. 21. George Eldon Ladd, "An Historical Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 190. 22. Harold W. Hoehner says, "Though these words are not as forceful a chronological order as 'after these things I saw' ( (meta tauta eidon; 4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1) or 'after these things I heard' ( meta tauta ekousa, 19:1), they do show chronological progression." Harold W. Hoehner, "Evidence from Revelation 20," A case For Premillennialism: A New Consensus, Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 247-48. 23. Robert. L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), pp. 247-48. 25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193. 27. As Cox says, "Satan's binding refers (in figurative language) to the limiting of his power." Cox, p. 59. 28. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerchnans, 1977), p. 353. Grudem also adds, "More than a mere binding or restriction of activity is in view here. The imagery of throwing Satan into a pit and shutting it and sealing it over him gives a picture of total removal from influence on the earth." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology 29. G.C.Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 305. 32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1981), p. 305. 33. The argument that the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12:9 is the same event as the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 breaks down for two reasons. First, in Revelation 12:9 Satan was thrown from heaven to the earth. But in Revelation 20:1-3 he is taken from the earth to the abyss. Second, in Revelation 12:9 Satan's activities, including his deception of the nations, continue, while in Revelation 20:1-3 his activities are completely stopped as he is shut up and sealed in the abyss. 34. Grudem, p. 1118.
|
You just won't see it, will you? It serves the Amil purpose to use the terms interchangeably, so you won't concede that maybe, just maybe, there is a difference, and that difference could be important.
Lazarus was resurrected. Jesus was resurrected. When the physical body dies, in order to revive it, it must be resurrected. But, you and I were dead spiritually due to sin, and we were regenerated (literally born again) by the power of God. Our spirits were re-created, not resurrected! Can't you see the distinction? Or don't you want to?
You are asserting that we "force" our interpretations on Rev 20:1-3 by claiming that Satan's binding is not total.
If you are to "prove" rather than merely assert that we are "forcing" our interpretation on this passage, then you must show us that Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete.
If you cannot show us that Satan's binding is total/complete, then you cannot say that we are "forcing" our interpretation on that passage.
Either Satan's binding is complete/total or it is not. If our interpretation that Satan's binding is not complete/total is "forced", then you must show us why. You must show us that Satan's binding is necessarily to be understood as complete/total.
You can't. So your accusation that our interpretation is "forced" is merely an assertion. The way you are using this assertion (as your argument) is the logical fallacy of "Begging the Question".
If you cannot prove that the only and necessary understanding of Rev 20:1-3 is of a complete/total binding, then our interpretation is ~NOT~ "forced".
Likewise with the "1000 years". You are asserting that our symbolic understanding of "1000" years is forced. In order to prove your case, you simply must show us that the "1000 years" must ~necessarily~ be understood as only a literal "1000 years".
If you cannot show us why the "1000 years" is necessarily to be understood as only a literal "1000 years", then you cannot show we our "forcing" our interpretation onto that text.
For example, many of the premil's here continue to assert that the Greek "zao" in Rev 20:4 is to be understood as "lived again". I, as well as others, have charged that this is forcing something into the text that is not there.
When I make this assertion, I back it up with a reason why this is so.
I go on to make the case that "zao" does ~not~ mean "lived again". I go on to show that "zao" in every other instance of it's use in Scripture is properly understood simply as "life"/"lived". I, with the assistance of gdebrae, have shown that every single instance that "zao" is translated as "lived again" in the NT, that it can be accurately translated as simply "lived" and the passage would make perfect sense.
In other words, when I make the assertion that "again" is forced into Rev 20:4, I back it up as to why this cannot be the case.
You are simply making an assertion. That is not an argument.
In order for you to demonstrate how it is that we are "forcing" our interpretation on the text in question, you ~NEED~ to show us why our interpretation is forced.
Now, you have asserted that we "force" our understanding of Satan's binding on the Rev 20:1-3. In order for you to have a case, you must show just why it is necessary to understand that Satan's binding can only be understood as complete/total.
If you cannot show why Satan's binding must be necessarily understood as complete/total, then we are not forcing our interpretation on that passage.
If it is not necessary to understand Satan's binding as complete/total, then it is not forcing it to understand Satan's binding as partail (as to what the text specifically declares his binding to be).
Likewise with your assertion that we are "forcing" our interpretation of a "1000 years" as symbolic on to Rev 20:4-6.
In order for you to have a case, you must show just why it is necessary to understand that "1000 years" can only be understood as a literal "1000 years".
If you cannot show why this must be so, then we are not forcing our interpration on the passage in question. If it is not necessary to understand the "1000 years" as a literal "1000 years", then it is not "forcing" it to understand the "1000 years" as symbolic.
"Your forced interpretation claimed they never died, nor were resurrected, but lived with Christ a thousand years. So, if John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying, how does your answer explain:
"How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?"
Intersting. You put in quotes an assertion by you and want me to explain it. I never said, inferred or implied that "non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years".
Since this is your assertion and not mine, I need not explain it. You seem to be attributing this quote to me as if it is a position of which I hold. I do not. Therefore, since this is not a position which I hold, I need not explain it.
"How do their physical bodies never die throughout the thousand years?"
I'm assuming this was also intended to be in quotes as your quotation mark was only at the beginning of "How do their non-resurrected physical bodies...".
Again, we have here an assertion by yourself which the casual reader might infer that I had claimed or I had posted. "If their physical bodies never die and John 11 obviously doesn't address physical bodies never dying, then you explain your forced interpretation as to how they never die physically."
Here we have a question based on the quotations above which you have implied as either my quotes or representative of my position. They are not. Therefore, since your question above is based on a false premise, I need not answer it.
"You've not explained why the thousand years must be symbolic and why there must two different symbolic thousand years periods."
Again, if you cannot show that it is necessary to understand the "1000 years" as literal, then it is most reasonable to understand the "1000 years" as symbolic.
"You've not explained how the dead given up by the sea weren't physically dead at the white throne."
Here you go again. I never declared that the "dead given up by the see weren't physically dead at white throne".
Since this is not representative of my position, I need not explain it.
"You've not explained how any one not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods."
Here you go again. I have never asserted that anyone who was "not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods."
Since that is not representative of anything I have said, implied or inferred, it is not representative of my position. Therefore, I do not need to explain it.
"You've not explained 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?"
Yes, I said that these "souls that were beheaded" were physically dead. It seems to me a strictly literal interpretation of this phrase would be inclusive of only "beheaded" martyrs and not representative of any other martyr. Many premil's understand this "beheaded" group to be representative of people martyred in other ways.
That the amil understanding is that these "beheaded" souls represent all who have physically died in the Lord is no more "forced" than many premil's who understand the "beheaded" group represents martyrs in general.
"You've not explained how Satan is bound now."
The "how" is irrelevant as to the "why" or "when". It is not important that I know the actual measn God has used to bind Satan. It is important that I know he has claimed to already have done so: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2, Jude 6.
"You've not explained how his binding is only partial, why simultaneously stating Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6."
Yes, I have. You must have missed it.
In Rev 20:4 Satan is said to be bound only such that he cannot deceive the gentiles. This does not ~necessarily~ mean that his binding is total/complete. That is just conjecture on your part.
"Now you explain your interpretations."
Again, the issue is not the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's particular view or interpretation. The issue at hand is whether a particular interpretation is "forced". Therefore, we need not explain our interpretations, many of which you falsely attributed to us as "straw man" arguments. We only need to see whether or not they are "forced". That is the issue at hand.
I suggest you make a better attempt to stay on topic. You have already attempted to divert attention from the topic of a previous discussion by arguing on Greek punctuation.
That discussion was regarding the "souls" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". You failed miserably in your attempt to attribute those "which had not worshipped the beast" to a group of the "souls". So you, wisely, dropped that issue. But then took up the cause of the topic of the Greek punctation.
The problem was that the issue was whether or not the "souls" included those "which had not worshipped the beast" and ~not~ about the Greek punctuation. When you lost that argument you attempted to shift the focus without dealing with what really was the issue.
I see you are attempting to do that here, as well.
Furthermore, please refrain from the "straw man" tactics. If you want us to explain certain views, then don't "make them up" and attribute them to us.
That's simply does not make for good discussion.
Jean
As did the reputations of Rahab, Zacchaeus, Mary Magdalene, The Apostle Paul and countless others.
You see the difference is that we Arminians understand that it is not about how bad we all are (because we are), but it is about how good God is.
Give it a rest M.
If you read the full verse, you'll see that Paul is making a comparison, and stating a generality. We are either "in Adam" or "In Christ". The whole human race is in one of those two conditions, no exceptions. In Adam, all die, due to the wages of sin. In Christ, we have passed from death into life. Paul wasn't really trying to make a statement about whether or not even the raptured people must experience death, he was making a comparison between Adam and Christ. Not ever verse in the Bible states an absolute principle...sometimes the verse just is a transitional statement on the way to another point of truth.
Of course, she can't, but that isn't the issue in her mind. She's only out to attack people.
If she's was honest she'd explain why it's ok for her to regularly accuse me of lying.
Why is that all you focus on, then! What a RIOT you emotional basket cases are!! LOL
John 11:25,26 explicitly references the term "resurrection" with regeneration!
Jesus says, "I am the resurrection"! He then goes on to explain what he literally means the use of the term "resurrection"! He explains what ~is~ regenration!
Furthermore, the apostle Paul uses terminology one would associate with "resurrection"!
In Col 2:12 Paul tells us, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
Paul directly, explicitly and definately links our regeneration with Christ's "resurrection from the dead" in the very same text!!!
Paul tells us we were "buried" in baptism! Paul tells us we "are risen" ~WITH~ Christ!
Present tense! "are risent".
Paul's use of the Greek word "Egeiro" in describing our current status of being "risen" is the exact same word Paul uses to describe Christ's resurrection from the dead!
We most cerainly ~are~ risen/resurrected/raised up/quickened from our spiritual death!
This I know for the Bible tells me so!
Believest thou this?
Jean
praying for your wife...may God give wisdom to the doctors and comfort to both of you
You ~continuously~ lie and misrepresent people!
Take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck from another's.
You are the ~last~ person on this forum who should be accusing someone of lying and misrepresenting the truth!
You still have yet to apologize for explicitly claiming that amil's believe there is death in the New Heveans and the New Earth.
You also lied when you accused me of making a parallel between resurrection and crucifixion! I most certainly did not!
Yet, when you were confronted with this, you REFUSED to apologize!
You lying hypocrite!
Jean
....a. Did the OT scripture indicate that the sacrifices were efficacious? NO, they didn't. God would say to those who ritualistically engaged in them, "I hate, I despise your feasts." He would say that he didn't require the blood of a bull but that instead he wanted them to "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with their God."
2. After the Apostle Paul became a Christian did he ever go to the temple and engage in the worship found in the temple? YES, he did. In fact that's where he was the day he was taken prisoner by the Romans. He had gone there for a purification rite that involved sacrifice. Apparently, as a Jew, Paul had the right to continue in the temple worship. In his mind, he looked BACWARD to the cross of Christ.
3. In the millennial age, are Jewish believers going to SUPPLANT Jesus' eternal REAL sacrifice. NO. They will simply be doing what Paul already exampled. They will be using the sacrifice as a way of LOOKING BACKWARD at what Christ had done.
....a. If the OT never indicated that sacrifices were efficacious, how can one say that THIS OT passage indicates that the sacrifices in the millenial reign are efficacious. It will be the Jewish memorial way of looking BACKWARD at the Sacrifice of Christ.
....b. We use the COMMUNION SERVICE as a memorial to LOOK BACKWARD at the sacrifice of Christ.
That's what I get for jumping into the discussion without reading the background. I assumed that xzins had "admitted dishonesty," from what M-PI had said.
I'm still not sure who's telling the truth, but that is your issue, not mine.
"Me"?? You're the one who must provide the quote where I said you called me a liar. Once again your perceptions have proved to be faulty. I hope it's not deliberate. Here is my post again:
Rev.911 (writing what you no doubt perceive as loving words) to Matchett-PI: "center square on my prayer chain, you are, right next to that demon who drowned her kids."
M-PI: 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."
2596 posted on 12/17/2002 12:07 PM EST by Matchett-PI
There is no reference to myself in that post at all.
So, are you going to say you'd never call anyone else a liar (other than the ones I referenced above)?
By the way --- do you think anyone is wondering why you were so anxious to change the subject of my post to me, personally? LOL
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.