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

[Seven_0]

Second Birth
Second Death
Second Resurrection
Second Man

Anybody put two and two together?

[drstevej]

Thanks for the kind words and a truly blessed Christmas to you, your family andd your congregation.

[the_doc]

Ah, but Revelation 20 is also explained in context. That (Biblical) context includes John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3.

As I pointed out in #2374, your "natural reading" forces completely unnatural readings for John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3.

xzins, hermeneutics is a matter of interpretive reasonableness. But you are not at all reasonable. It is not reasonable to presuppose at all costs--as you certainly do!--that Revelation 20 is to be read in a literalistic way. Gosh, you won't even honestly consider the possibility that the correct reading of Revelation 20 is the non-materialistic one. Under the circumstances of what I have shown you, that's not reasonable behavior on your part. You are being maniacal and calling it wonderfully spiritual.

(Besides, you have offered completely ridiculous, dishonest arguments against the amills' explanation of the nature of the binding of Satan.)

My bottom-line point is that your approach is spiritually cavalier. You HAVE to let John 5:5:25-29 instruct you concerning Revelation 20. But you IGNORE it.

You also HAVE to heed the gospel texts which BLUNTLY teach that Satan is bound by the universal free offer of the gospel. But you mock the amills. Well, you are actually mocking Jesus Christ.

You are so proud of your literalistic hermeneutic that you even offer the lame argument that the later revelation surely interprets the earlier revelation. That is hermeneutically preposterous--i.e., completely unreasonable.

The correct rule is that the clear interprets the obscure.

And inasmuch as you can't prove that Revelation 20 is supposed to be interpreted literalistically, you can't offer the argument that Revelation 20 is the clear text and that John 5:25-29 is the obscure one.

Ah, but I can argue that John 5:25-29 is the clear text. It is completely straightforward. Furthermore, I can harmonize John 5:25-29 with Revelation 20. But you can't.

2 Peter 3 is even more emphatic. My natural interpretation of 2 Peter 3 perfectly agrees with my interpretation of Revelation 20. You can't honestly make such a claim.

Premillennialism is clearly preposterous as an interpretation of Scripture.

[xzins]

Gosh, you won't even honestly consider the possibility that the correct reading of Revelation 20 is the non-materialistic one. Under the circumstances of what I have shown you, that's not reasonable behavior on your part. You are being maniacal and calling it wonderfully spiritual.

Doc, you don't understand. I DO UNDERSTAND what your amillennialism is saying. I have read it. If I had a quiz on the subject of amillennilism, I'd score fairly well.

I wish to be extremely fair.

That is why I said the other day that I consider it a POSSIBILITY. Amill is a possibility.

But it is, IMHO, not PROBABLE. I don't think it crosses that threshhold to become a "most likely" interpretation.

It certainly is not a CERTAIN interpretation. The resurrection of Christ is a certain doctrine. The Trinity is a certain doctrine. Amillennialism is NOT.

I simply disagree with you. Politely.

[the_doc]

You don't fool me.

[the_doc]

Let me clarify my previous post.

You have offered nothing but patently dishonest arguments on this thread.

Your "politeness" is therefore a fraud.

[lockeliberty]

Watch out for professor xzins! 8<)

You don't need to tell me.

I failed his Arminianism 101 class. {:?O

[xzins]

Locke, I remember you being one of the polite but vocal students in the class. Always disagreeing with the prof!

:>)

[xzins]

I'm not trying to fool you. I'm not trying to not fool you. I'm not trying anything in the area at all. I'm just responding to articles/posts according to the way I believe the bible.

It's not personal, doc. It's just business.

[the_doc]

Oh, but it is personal.

I am forced to respond to your claim that it's nothing personal by pointing out that you have been dishonest over and over and over on these threads.

For instance, you have been uncannily slow to notice what we are presenting as arguments. You have repeatedly mocked the amills on this thread when you definitely didn't know whereof you spoke.

Furthermore, the positive "arguments" which you have offered have been completely lame. You have repeatedly offered your literalistic presuppositions concerning the interpretation of Revelation as though your presupposition is an argument.

That is flagrantly dishonest.

You have committed the spiritual crime of eisegesis in numerous other ways on these millennial threads. The interpretations which you have offered for clear passages such as John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3 have been idiotic. You have read an additional thousand years into those verses when any honest interpreter will confess that they clearly don't fit. You are just reading an extra thousand years into those passages so as to preserve the literalistic interpretation of Revelation 20 which you can't even prove in the first place.

Your presuppositions are stubborn and therefore idolatrous.

You have even fabricated and applied a specious rule of hermeneutics to the effect that revelatory material penned later surely interprets revelatory material penned earlier.

Again, you are just trying to prop up your manifestly false presupposition.

Your exegesis in Revelation 20 itself has also been crushed by guys like Jean Chauvin and gdebrae. They have proved over and over that you violate your own vaunted literal hermeneutic over and over when it's necessary to cover up the blunders in your position.

And you have ignored the hermeneutically important rule that the clear passages interpret the obscure ones--and not the other way around. You have done this by smugly defining Revelation 20 as the clear one--since you have foolishly presupposed that it is to be read literally--in obvious defiance of the sanctified common sense which truly spiritual people do have.

And you have argued text after text with the amills--only to be crushed every time by cogent arguments which you had never anticipated. And in your stubbornness, you have conceded NOTHING.

We amills have occasionally been blunt in our confrontations of you and the poor, confused Eves whom you have managed to recruit. You have responded to serious, substantive confrontations by repeatedly leveling purely ad hominem attacks against us--pretending that you are the noble one.

Now that you are trying to cast yourself as polite, as reasonable, I will call that a fraud.

I will not post to you anymore on this thread. I will merely warn you that God has suffered you to be fooled. I say that you were ordained for the Satanic deception which I have elucidated for lurkers in this post.

1 Corinthians 11:19

[the_doc]

Having said what I was forced to say in #2390, let me now politely agree that it is just business, to use your phrase. But I submit that it's a spiritual business which I take a lot more seriously than some of you fellows do.

That's why you find my uncompromising approach distasteful. (It's also the instrumental reason why you can't win this argument.)

Proverbs 23:23

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You said in the above post you were not going to post to xzins anymore on this thread, now all the lurkers know that your word means nothing.

And for the rest of you guys following this false teacher around, really can't you find somebody besides this moron?

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Oh yeah, reach down and grab a handfull, and tell this moron to kiss your ass.

BigMack

[DouglasKC]

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus says NOW is the time AND the time is coming when the dead shall hear his voice and live. Did any dead people hear his voice and live while he was on earth? (The NOW). How about "Lazarus come forth"? And "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." So that takes care of the "now". Revelation 20 explains the future.

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Now Jesus changes his language. Now it's just not "the dead", it's ALL that are in the graves that shall hear is voice. And it's not "now" but it's in the future.

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The question becomes who are the "life" and "damnation" groups?

Number one is who they are not:

Joh 5:24 I can guarantee this truth: Those who listen to what I say and believe in the one who sent me will have eternal life. They won't be judged because they have already passed from death to life.(GW)

This corresponds to those in the first resurrection:

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

These are the dead and alive in Christ who are "caught up" with Christ at his return. They aren't subject to the judgement of the second death. They already have eternal life and have been living and reigning with Christ. The great white throne judgement isn't about them.

So it's not them. It must be:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:15 Those whose names were not found in the Book of Life were thrown into the fiery lake.

Notice that some are in the book of life, and some aren't. There is obviously some type of criteria in this endtime resurrection. Whether this is one resurrection (of those in the book of life) and another (of those not) is debatable. The language of Christ seems to indicate that they are two separate events.

So to sum up: In John 5:24 Jesus says that those who believed in him will already have eternal life, they won't be judged. He then starts talking about the judgement of the dead. He tells us that now he's going to raise people from the grave (and he did) and that it's also going to be done in the future. He then says all dead people are going to be called from the grave in the future. Some will have life, and some death. This exactly parallels Revelation 20 which isn't surprising since Revelation 20 was revealed to John by...Christ. :-)

[xzins]

Actually, I don't believe that anyone has crushed anyone's arguments on these threads. I certainly don't think that Rev 20 has been set aside by anyone. And it shouldn't be. It is the interpretive tool God gave to understand other prophetic passages.

So far as your not posting to me. I will let you out of that one. It's the heat of battle and you're wounded because you can see your arguments weren't all that persuasive. You even have to look back to your premill days and see that you hastily jettisoned a correct view far too quickly.

Finally, this is Free Republic. We say pointed things here. Don't confuse your own sarcasm and venom with truth; attack posts are all over FR and you aren't the best at it, nor are you even in the top 10.

Why? It's hard to take your hard words seriously when they sound more like they originate in some kind of problem. It generally evokes sympathy in me anymore. I wish I could help you.

[fortheDeclaration]

Because the Book of Revelations is a mighty strange book containing LOTS of things even premills don't interpret literally. Hi, doc. There is no figure in the Revelation that isn't explained as a figure in context, either immediate or biblical. We don't need to create them unless they're demonstrated to be such.

Amen!

Moreover, Rev.20 is not one of those chapters, but is very clear, too clear for the Amill's.

[fortheDeclaration]

Calvinism does not believe you need the Cross to be saved, but are saved without the Cross before you believe. This does not sound like Christianity to me.

If you are regenerated before you believe, then it is election, not faith which is the basis for your salvation.

Non-Calvinists believe in order to be born again, Calvinists are 'born again' in order to believe.

Election, not the Cross, is the basis of the salvation of the Calvinist, since they are saved before they believe anything!

[fortheDeclaration]

It must be loving. It must reflect Christ's love for believers who all follow him. I see no other way.

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

I wholeheartely agree with you. I would commend you, personally, for the fruit of the Spirit which you bear; love, patience, and kindness. You set an example for all of us, myself included.

Amen! And I would commend you Starwind for your very thoughtful, patient, and intellegent posts.

[drstevej]

PREVIOUS POST (drsj responds to ftD question)
ftD: Are you regenerated before you believe or not? ***

drsj: I affirm the logical not temporal precedence of regeneration to faith. KEY POINT, pay attention. They are simultaneous.

-=-=
ftD, looks like you didn't pay attention. You still repeat the following error... "Election, not the Cross, is the basis of the salvation of the Calvinist, since they are saved before they believe anything!"

} LOGICAL not TEMPORAL order.
} Regeneration and faith are SIMULTANEOUS.