Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[xzins]

An Analysis of the Amillennial Interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3.

1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
3 and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time (Revelation 20:1-3).

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.

DEFINITION OF AMILLENNIALISM

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

THE AMILLENNIAL APPROACH TO INTERPRETING REVELATION

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.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW OF REVELATION 20:1-3

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,

Having bound Satan, our Lord ushered in the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20. This millennium commenced at the first advent and will end at the second coming, being replaced by the eternal state.¹⁰

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,

Is there any indication in the New Testament that Satan was bound at the time of the first coming of Christ? Indeed there is. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus replied, "How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" (Mt. 12:29). ¹¹

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

AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION OF REVELATION 20:1-3

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,

To the average person the effort to move the millennium to a place before the Second Coming of Christ is demanding the human mind to accede to something that does not appear on the face of the text. But even more than that, the effort to make seven divisions cover the same period of time (between the first and second comings) will meet with all sorts of confusion to establish its validity. At best this is a shaky foundation upon which to establish a firm doctrine of the millennium. ²⁶

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

CONCLUSION

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.

---

Footnotes

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.

5. Hoekena, pp. 156-57.

6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940).

7. Hoekema, p. 160.

8. Hendriksen, p. 221.

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.

11. Hoekema, p. 162.

12. Hoekema, pp. 162-63.

13. Hoekema, p. 163.

14. Hoekema, pp. 163-64.

15. Hoekema, p. 161.

16. Cox, p. 57.

17. Hoekema, p. 161.

18. Hoekema, p. 162.

19. Hoekema, p. 156.

20. Hoekema, p. 160.

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.

24. Hoekema, p. 159.

25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193.

26. Hoyt, p. 194.

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.

30. Cox, p. 57.

31. Grudem, p. 1118.

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.

---

Back to Top

[RnMomof7]

Mat 13:5   Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
  
  Mat 13:6   And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
  
  Mat 13:7   And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
  
  Mat 13:8   But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
  
  Mat 13:9   Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
  
  Mat 13:10   And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
  
  Mat 13:11   He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
  
  Mat 13:12   For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
  
  Mat 13:13   Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
  
  Mat 13:14   And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
  
  Mat 13:15   For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

[RnMomof7]

Precisely the question I asked! This has to happen, or has already happened, at some point in time, else why is it in the Bible?

It was a prophecy to the nation of Israel that they ignored as one commentator put it

Ezekiel received this vision from the Lord for the exiles who would return to the land. It was to be their marching orders since it concerned:

(1) How to construct the temple
(2) How to set up their government
(3) The regulations for choosing priests
(4) How they should divide up the land

If they had made this prophecy from the Lord a high priority then the Lord would have honored His role by inhabiting the temple and blessing them

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Yeah it was my fault, I'm sorry.

BigMack

[Matchett-PI]

Your bitterness is showing. How many times have you posted that in your attempt to silence those you disagree with?

What would you say if I went into my personal PC archives and posted all the hateful stuff you've written against many of us and our churches? Have we re-posted your emotional diatribes in bitterness? No.

But I will re-post your hateful words against others when you start your attacks again.

There's a lot more where this came from, too:

Polycarp to Rnmomof7:"I think you lost your salvation when you walked away from Christ and His [Catholic] Church."

"Besides the obvious: debate over an article written by this bigot, [the_doc] with a demonic hatred for the Truth of the Real Presence, is...pointless."

745 posted on 10/4/02 8:45 PM Eastern by Polycarp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/761987/posts?page=745#745

[Corin Stormhands]

You actually insinuated that your family had been threatened in an e-mail (from RnMomof7).

Rn is right. This was a long time ago. But since you continue to insist on distorting the facts, let's review (amazed was I that I could even find it!)

Here's the thread: Genesis Chapter 3 posted by Revelation 911.

My first post #4: Rev said: "the_doc" - will be making the initial comment and establishing premise - ping for your interest

I wrote: With all due respect Rev, I don't care what they have to say.

I just responded to a very nasty personal attack via freepmail (and no I won't post it). It wasn't just directed to me, but it included my family.

If they want to prove their doctrine to me, they'll have to quote to me the scripture that says "beat the crap out of anyone who doesn't buy what you're selling."

My mistake of course, was the "beat the crap out of" remark. It was not a "quote" but a statement as to the tone of the Calvinists. It was mistaken as my reporting a threat. I never used the word threat.

Fifty-four minutes later, after one of the Catholics had pinged JR and the Mod and told me to report it, I said in Post #11:

There was no physical threat. It was just words. I am not afraid. Merely nauseuous.

And in Post #12

Now I see that you perhaps picked up on the "beat the crap out of" remark. That was a figure of speech, not a reference to something anyone actually said.

Post #38: THIS WAS NOT A PHYSICAL THREAT!

Post #40 I can take whatever they hurl (speaking of hurling...) But leave my family out of it.

There's more but Post #200 sums it up:

To be honest folks. The comment wasn't all that bad. It hit a nerve and I posted a knee-jerk reaction. You can see above that I tried to put the fire out, but somehow as much as I've learned about this debate process, I still never seem to be able to produce the magic words need to put an issue to rest. If you guys know me at all, you know I wear my emotions on my sleeve. You should also know that I will violently defend my family against any charge. If you so much as tell me you don't like the color of my wife's hair or the way my kids dress I will be right in your face. Any other given day from any other given source it might be just a nuisance. I over-reacted to a snide comment. I've said that more than once. What is most amazing is that this issue could've been settled at 10:32 a.m. EST yesterday in Posts #11 & 12, when I said it wasn't a threat (for the first time). I've apologized folks. Whether or not you choose to accept that is between you and God.

__________________

I was surprised to be able to find the thread. Of course now, I've bookmarked it. I'm not afraid of the history. And doc's already admitted that he threatened me.

Go read the thread. Who was the hunter and who was the hunted? It's pretty clear. Some things never change.

Old Matty-pie is even back there talking about me. Ironically, at one point Dr. Eckleburg (we've had words too) was defending me. Wrigley accepted it and even Rn, the subject of the intial post was okay with letting it drop until she got marching orders from the Gestapo.

Y'all just need to get over it. Ward is a waste of your time.

Several of you have told me to just leave. HERE'S A CLUE: DON'T PING ME BACK!

[Polycarp]

To paraphrase my NC peers here, "Gee, that ain't bigotry, its just spreading the Gospel."

[Polycarp]

Polycarp to Rnmomof7:"I think you lost your salvation when you walked away from Christ and His [Catholic] Church."

I should have never said this. Sorry Terry. I know you love Christ and have a personal relationship with him.

"Besides the obvious: debate over an article written by this bigot, [the_doc] with a demonic hatred for the Truth of the Real Presence, is...pointless."

I am not able to retract this one.

[Corin Stormhands]

Now, you are just trying to re-ignite an old controversy.

You mean like you did a while back when you said I reminded you of Ward Smythe?

[nobdysfool]

what cryteria do we have to be able to tell the difference between which verses are "absolute principle" and which verses are "transitional statements"?

Oh, come on! Are you being deliberately obtuse? Context! You can't cherry-pick verses and come up with sound doctrine! In order to understand scripture, you must first understand the context. Especially with Paul's writings, they are letters, and he introduces a thought, expands on it, answers objections to it, then restates the original thought with the expanded meaning. He may touch on other doctrines along the way, but his statements on those other doctrines do not cover the whole doctrine, only a point or two of it. That is why you can't build sound doctrine from only one or two scriptures if there are many others which also deal with the same thing.

Another thing which seems to have escaped most peoples' ability to understand scripture is the fact that Jewish theologians and religious thinkers used a form of referencing that could be called "abbreviated referencing", wherein they quote a verse or two of scripture, and it is to be understood by their hearers that they are referring to the whole section of scripture of which they have only quoted a verse or two. Jesus did this exact thing while on the cross, when he cried out "My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" That is the opening verse to Psalm 22. Jesus was not crying out in anguish over being "abandoned" by God as some have tried to say, He was calling attenion to the fact that scripture was being fulfilled right in front of those who witnessed His crucifixion. That whole Psalm is prophecy of Jesus' death on the cross, and what would happen during the time He was on the cross. Paul made use of this method too. He quoted a lot of OT scripture in his letters. When you understand what he was referring to when he did so, you will have a better understanding of Paul's doctrines, and how he arrived at them.

We do this even in modern day life. We call someone a "Judas", or a "Benedict Arnold". We sometimes quote only half of an old saying, knowing that it is understood that we mean the whole saying. "A bird in the hand..." "a stitch in time..." "What goes around...." I'll bet you can finish each one of those. I employed "abreviated referencing" and you understood what I meant, whereas if you didn't, you'd wonder what I meant by what I said, and might come up with all kinds of nutty interpretations.

In the passage in question, Paul is using an analogy to reinforce what he is saying. It is known (or should be) that all who are in Adam die, because we all know the story of Adam's fall and sin, and it's judgment and curse which fell upon all mankind. Paul contrasts that with the idea that in Christ, all are made alive. His point is, that we are in Christ the same way we were formerly in Adam. It's an important concept to grasp, because it explains how God sees us, and how we stand before Him. Paul used a parallelism to illustrate a truth, the same as Jesus did in His parables.

[Matchett-PI]

M-PI: "Polycarp to Rnmomof7:"I think you lost your salvation when you walked away from Christ and His [Catholic] Church."

Polycarp to Rnmomof7: "I should have never said this. Sorry Terry. I know you love Christ and have a personal relationship with him."

Polycarp to rnmomof7: "Besides the obvious: debate over an article written by this bigot, [the_doc] with a demonic hatred for the Truth of the Real Presence, is...pointless."

Polycarp: "I am not able to retract this one."

So what else is new? LOL

[nobdysfool]

If they had made this prophecy from the Lord a high priority then the Lord would have honored His role by inhabiting the temple and blessing them

Oh, so we should just write a big "Nevermind" over those chapters in Ezekiel? In effect, you've set aside a chunk of scripture as being irrelevant. Curious....

[CCWoody]

So, I go home for lunch today, and I can see that the 4 year old is bouncing off my wife's last nerve. So, we end up at Chick-fil-A so he can run and we can have bite in peace. I sit next to her so I can get close. I am told not to touch her. Finally unwinding after the little munchkin has been playing for a while she leans her head on my shoulder.

Now, I'll give you just one guess as to how I know that the very worst thing to say at this point is "I guess I can touch you now."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[nobdysfool]

Why don't you all just drop it or take it somewhere else? What does all this have to do with the subject of this thread? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! Give it a rest!

[the_doc]

My mistake of course, was the "beat the crap out of" remark. It was not a "quote" but a statement as to the tone of the Calvinists. It was mistaken as my reporting a threat. I never used the word threat.

Since Corin Stormhands doesn't want to be pinged, I'll post this to you.

The incident in question was not the first time we caught Ward/Corin using quotation marks to insinuate that someone said something which he simply didn't say. (RnMomof7 definitely hadn't threatened him in her e-mail. She had just gotten him very mad.)

The point is that Ward's phony quote was manifestly calculated to mislead lurkers and specifically to smear Calvinists--all the while preserving plausible deniability if he ever got caught in the lie.

What he didn't reckon on was that others with a desire to destroy FR's Calvinists would insist that he press for the FR death penalty against the person making the alleged threat. (He also didn't reckon on the fact that FR's Calvinists would immediately realize what he was doing. We'd seen it before.)

[the_doc]

Oh, it has everything to do with the thread. It goes to the issue of which side is honest.

[xzins]

So, then, you believe that the Lord used Ezekiel to utter a prophecy that did not come to pass.

I know you believe that God knows the future. Therefore, you know that God would have known that that prophecy would not come to pass.

But He didn't hint anyplace that he was having Ezekiel prophesy something that God knew would not take place.

Have I explained this the way you would explain it?

You've got to recognize, Rn, that I see a real problem with that. As I see it, there's no way to tell what is a false prophecy anymore.

[xzins]

Polycarp to Rnmomof7:"I think you lost your salvation when you walked away from Christ and His [Catholic] Church." "Besides the obvious: debate over an article written by this bigot, [the_doc] with a demonic hatred for the Truth of the Real Presence, is...pointless."

The first is not hate: that is what catholics believe about those that leave their church.

The 2nd is not hate: it's his opinion for a letter about which the_doc just apologized.

[xzins]

It is a remembrance NOW. We are looking back at the most loving act in all of history: the Son's love on the cross.

That is also what they'll look back at during ALL of eternity.

They even look back at it throughout eternity in the new heavens and the new earth. It is the Lamb of God who is with us throughout eternity.

The LAMB means we are looking back at WHAT throughout eternity?

[Corin Stormhands]

The incident in question was not the first time we caught Ward/Corin using quotation marks to insinuate that someone said something which he simply didn't say.

Liar. Prove it or shut up. You tried this charge way back when. It didn't stick then and it won't stick now.

Fact is, until I got a little better at HTML, I'd use quotes instead of italics or underline for emphasis...much like~~~Jean does now~~~

You can fault me for poor editing. That's about it.

[xzins]

You are so full of it. The remark you "quoted" was Corin explaining that you had threatened him. You just did admit that. Didn't you? You did insinuate that Corin better be warned because he had no idea what you were prepared to do. Given the wacked out emails you sent me, I fully understand anyone wondering what the fruitcake meant by that. Corin was worried and so was I.