Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
And you are wrong in saying Calvin does not think Satan is bound. That excerpt in no way implies that Calvin believes we can be vanquished.
That makes no sense to me. Either there is complete peace, or there is a lack of peace that is being replaced by peace.
Let's look at the physics of your balloon analogy: it is displacing the air outside of the balloon with the air inside of the balloon. So too, the increase of peace is displacing the lack of peace.
Peace! :o)
No. What I am saying is that a lot of questions weren't even asked until the second or third century, let alone was the orthodox answer determined. When the very basics of Christianity are revolutionary - that Jesus is the Messiah, God Incarnate Risen from the Dead. These were where the Ante-Nicene fathers spent their time. Thus, these facts are about the only things that were clear-cut in the Ante-Nicene era. Justin Martyr et al. are better described as apologists, and not theologians, because they were more focused on defending the nascent faith rather than systematizing it.
"The devil reigns in the world, because the world is nothing else than darkness"
That doesn't sound like he's bound except maybe to this world where he was sentenced when he fell.
I don't think I said we could be vanquished as far as salvation is concerned, but like Calvin, I think we can be vanquished from the battle by being compromised by sin or defeat. That's why the writer of Hebrews says "laying aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets us, let's run the race..."
Can you get the one that drops the gospel tracts?
I have lost the analogy entirely (and my initial grasp was tenuous at best.)
Well, we're either vanquished or we're not vanquished. It's one or the other.
The real difference IMO is that the Calvinist knows even the actions of Satan are part of God's plan for His creation which will ultimately lead to His triumph and our joy.
The Arminian somehow believes that Satan is autonomous and thus we are under a real and present danger of succumbing to him.
Scripture encourages us to presevere for the very reason that we cannot fail because our victory has been secured by Christ Himself.
The earliest eschatological position of the church appears to have been "Historical Premillennialism" for the first three centuries. It is of historical significance that many of the very early church fathers did not have all their duck lined up on theology. This was easily to forgive since their primary focus was one of evangelism. However for the first three centuries, while they did offer valuable insight, their theology was often muddled.
Augustine came along in the 350AD and wrote the comprehensive systematic theology of the church which the church readily adopted. Augustine not only taught a Reformed view of scripture but he taught an Amillennialist eschatoloty. This became the official position of the church until the 1800s.
Dispensational Premillennialism which you are pushing and what is being preached here was considered heresy by the very early church fathers and the church up until 1830. It was not considered part of the "early traditions" as you would have many believe. It was pushed by Darby and then by Scofield.
For a brief summary of these positions please see ESCHATOLOGY, END TIMES, AND MILLENNIALISM: COMPETING THEORIES
Perhaps nervous is not a good word. How about Christ seemed a little fearful?
"The Arminian somehow believes that Satan is autonomous and thus we are under a real and present danger of succumbing to him."
I don't know much about this, what I do know is that we can't be vanquished (separated) from the love of God but we can be vanquished from the field of battle which is a sanctification and conforming problem, not a salvation (in a regeneration sense) problem.
How can you win something when we are both agreed?
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -- Galatians 2:20-21"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I really like that verse. "Do not frustrate the grace of God." Persevere. Have courage. Be bold in His name.
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33
Christ was not worried about Satan, not ever. Still it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and Christ did exactly that. So must we.
In any case, there is some evidence that historical premillennialism was the position of the early church. However, there is strong evidence that there was a belief in the rule of the Son of David from Jerusalem for a thousand years. There is strong evidence that they distinguished between the Edenic and post-Edenic periods; that they distinguished the ante-diluvian from the post-deluvian; that they distinguished the Noahic from the Abramhamic; the Abrahamic from the Mosaic. Finally, we are certain they distinguished the Law from the age of Grace.
Seeing these things, we can only ask the nature of the historic premillennialism that they considered. They did not have a fancy term like "dispensationalism" as a form on which to hang some of their contemplation. That was probably good because sometimes we find ourselves adhering to labels and not to bible.
I understand that allegorism became the standard doctrine of the church after 350 or so. That makes sense to me in light of the very nature of historic premillennialism. Time MUST pass for perspective and insight to be gained.
So, I see a natural inclination of historic premillennialism to phase into either a "stages of development" schemata or an allegorical schemata or (to give chevy and TC their due) some kind of "historical reinterpretive" overview.
But, as blue-duncan would say, "eschatology is simply a discussion of probabilities." That's the most profound (and unifying) summary I've heard on the subject in years.
I agree that the Holy Spirit is our inerrant guide.
Or, could we say, your balloon went flat? lol
Don't confuse isolated statements by a subset of church fathers as being "the position" of the early church. For that we must look to the creeds and a broader selection of writings.
Also be careful not to read modern Roman Catholic views (e.g., Mariology) back into the early fathers like Augustine.
***This excerpt from the commentary post should at least cause you to question your "triumphalism". Satan is not bound now according to the writer , but is a real and potent enemy now. You make fun of those who take him seriously, "binding" him as you say, but at least they have not sold him short during these times he is prowling around seeking those whom he may devour. I assume their "binding" is from the same understanding that you have that Christ defeated the enemy and they are standing on that victory and reminding the enemy of it.***
Triumphalism!!!
Why, you say that as if it is a bad thing. Look, I'm sure that it is some kind of in vogue thing to be a true blue Christian, but I can hardly be in a bad mood when....
#1. The battle belongs to the Lord.
#2. The war has already been fought and won.
I'm amused at those who "bind" Satan for a few reasons:
#1. If they don't believe that Satan is bound in this age, what do they think they accomplish by "binding" someone whom the Lord had ordained to not be bound.
#2. They spend so much time in prayer to the Lord talking to Satan. Not much of a quality prayer life.
#3. If the Lord has ordained that Satan have some influence then what do they think they will accomplish by trying to "bind" up what the Lord has ordained to be.
The funny part is that their binding cannot be that "Christ defeated the enemy and they are standing on that victory and reminding the enemy of it." They are trying to prevent Satan from having some ability. I've listened plenty of times. They are actually in fear of some Satanic "influence" or "stronghold" and so they are "binding" Satan so they can go and win a victory.
My prayer and worship life does not revolve around Satan. I don't feel the need to remind Satan that he has lost. My time is spent praising Jesus for what he did. It is far richer and more satisfying than trying to rub Satan's nose.
Meanwhile, I'm looking over the battlefield. Jesus has won, Satan is defeated. And there are a whole horde of Christians thinking they have to go win some battle. Perhaps, instead of taking Satan "serious" these Christians should get their eyes off of him and get them on Christ. Satan won't seem so scary after that.
Furthermore, Satan may roar and seek whom he may devour, but that doesn't mean that Satan may have them. Perhaps the lion roars in frustration because he is bound from devouring the saints.
On a parting note, I'm not sure if you think I'm suppose to quake in fear that you are citing Calvin's commentaries. Do you even know what Calvin's Eschatology was? Here is a hint: he wasn't a premill Dipsy running around "binding" up Satan thinking he needed to engage in epic battles against the forces of darkness.
Oh, and Paul wasn't a premill Dipsy either. He believed like me that the saints were already in victory, reigning over the earth with Christ:
Eph 2:5-6 GB
(5) Euen when we were dead by sinnes, hath quickened vs together in Christ, by whose grace ye are saued,
(6) And hath raysed vs vp together, and made vs sit together in the heauenly places in Christ Iesus,
From where I sit with Jesus, there sure are a lot of Christians chasing ghosts and shadows instead of ruling and reigning with Christ. Oh, well, as Dr. Eckleburg has noted, it gives them something to do.
I'll be sure to be careful. :>)
That's right, brother, Frumanchu. Our historic creeds, which we confess, state that we believe that Christ will come to judge, not set up a nifty little kingdom and restore animal sacrifice. Boy will there sure be some disappointed Premills, who are getting ready to rule and reign, only to find out that they missed out on the Millennial kingdom of Christ.
***Well, the scripture says of the increase of peace there will be no end. So, if there is total peace, how can it increase?
And it isn't whether or not I say so; it's what the scripture itself says.***
Well, I'm not asserting that there is total peace now, whatever that means. I'm asserting exactly what the Bible states in that Christ rules and reigns in the midst of his enemies. He will do so until the last enemy is put under his feet, which is death. (Psalms, 2, 110, 1 Co 15) Since I still observe that there is death, it is quite obvious that Christ's reign and subjection of his enemies is not yet complete, even if the full Preterist has some kind of wild and zany explaination of how death is some kind of metaphorical representation of something else.
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.