Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[Starwind]

p>Aren't you forgetting a resurrection or two? Premil teaching actually specifies three resurrections, possibly even four.

This is likely an unsatisfying answer, but I don't pretend to ascribe to (or even know precisely what) the premil or even the amil position is. I'm simply arguing my own literal interpretation of scripture, which I gather on this thread tends to lump me with the premil camp. The question also presumes a consistent position for all premils (not likely), and again, I only know my own position.

This post #2431 was an attempt to fit John 5:24-29 to Rev 20, so I didn't attempt to see where "additional" resurrections fall. And we don't when the rapture happens, other than it is not later than Christ's return in Rev 19.

Second, the resurrection of OT believing Israel seven years later at the end of the great tribulation.

I've said before I have no position on the OT land promises or Israel v Church arguments.

Third, those who have come to faith during the great tribulation, both Jew and Gentile believers, still have bodies that will die

I didn't fit this in the post because it doesn't bear (I thought) on John 5:24-29. But I have argued these are the souls John sees of Rev 20:4. In my table I labeled it "Judges on thrones and Tribulation Saints reign" in 1st column, 2nd row.

Rev. 7:9 describes these as a great multitude which no man could number. They will need to be raised immortal at some point.

In my pre-wrath rapture viewpoint, this great multitude are the raptured saints.

Fourth, the resurrection of unbelieving dead at the great white throne judgment.

I did also cover this in my table labeled "'dead' are judged on works" in 1st column, 12th row and I duscussed the 'rest of the dead' when I alluded to "All the unsaved who remain in tombs will come forth in a single hour in physcial resurrection, but at the white throne."

[gdebrae]

In my pre-wrath rapture viewpoint, this great multitude are the raptured saints.

I'm a bit confused by your answer. You seem to suggest that in Rev. 7:9-17 there are two different groups mentioned.

According to the passage, however, the vast multitude which cannot be numbered are those that have come out of the great tribulation. Vss 13,14 one of elders asks - who are these in the white robes? and he answers that they have come out of the great tribulation. They are before the throne of God. vs 16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more..." and vs 17 "...and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes." It also seems that they will no longer be touched by sin or death.

Perhaps you can clarify that for me.

[gdebrae]

Applying 2 Peter 3:8 to John 2:19 in which "Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" would imply 3 thousand years from His death he'll return. He was crucified around 30 AD, so some (not I) expect His return in 2030 AD when the start of the 'third day' begins (and they compute the tribulation to begin in 2023) and 1000 human years later it would end. This application of 2 Pet 3:8 argues for a literal 1000 years, but also implies we can compute and know the date of Christ's return, which only the Father knows, so I discount this viewpoint.

It also doesn't work because in John 2:19-22 it is very clear that Jesus is talking about his own resurrection. Vs. 22 confirms that.

[Starwind]

You seem to suggest that in Rev. 7:9-17 there are two different groups mentioned.

I certainly did not intend to imply two groups, sorry.

For now, Rev 7:9-17 is one group a great multitude which no one could count,...who come out of the (30) great tribulation...and (42) God will wipe every tear from their eyes." These are the raptured saints, in my pre-wrath rapture viewpoint.

[Starwind]

It also doesn't work because in John 2:19-22 it is very clear that Jesus is talking about his own resurrection. Vs. 22 confirms that.

Agreed. Certainly does not fit in my "literal" view.

I was attempting to explain to RnMomof7 only the "3 days is as 1000 years" aspect, and that some (with whom I disagree for the reasons we both cite) attempt to apply this to predict the millennium. They make a analogy or metaphor between Christ's physical body and His Kingdom...and the analogy breaks down badly, but even if you agreed with it - it argued for a literal 1000 year millennium. That was all.

[gdebrae]

For now, Rev 7:9-17 is one group a great multitude which no one could count,...who come out of the (30) great tribulation...and (42) God will wipe every tear from their eyes." These are the raptured saints, in my pre-wrath rapture viewpoint.

Is this the same group mentioned in I Thess 4?

[CCWoody]

12 gauge with slugs? Using dogs? {:>O

Naw! 270 with a hot handload. But, if I really want to go wild, and I might just do this in January, I'll take my muzzleloader and a .44 mag and go sit in the tree where I have missed my only shot in my life (15 yds 3 years ago with my muzzleloader). It has a wheat field at 50yds, a good view out to 100yds, and a great place to ambush 'em at 15yds.

Woody.

[Starwind]

For now, Rev 7:9-17 is one group a great multitude which no one could count,...who come out of the (30) great tribulation...and (42) God will wipe every tear from their eyes." These are the raptured saints, in my pre-wrath rapture viewpoint.

Is this the same group mentioned in I Thess 4?

In my pre-wrath rapture view, yes. The great multitude of Rev 7:9-17 were raptured as per 1 Thes 4:16,17 and 1Cor 15:52.

The problem with my pre-wrath view is it doesn't coincide with the 'last trumpet' of 1 Cor 15:52. Other rapture viewpoints have other problems. - still working on all this :-)

But I don't think that bears on my views of a literal thousand year millennium or Satan being unbound now.

[DouglasKC]

Why are you so defensive? My link took people to the whole thread wherein you made all of your responses to Ethan. Anyone who is interested will read the whole thread, and in the process, read your replies.
You act as if I didn't tell everyone that you are entitled to believe in a different god than the One most of us are talking about.
You deny that the Holy Spirit is God. Most of us don't.
Therefore, it is not attacking or demonizing you to say that you do believe in a different god than the One most of us are talking about here.

I'm sure that in your own way you meant this to be edifying. God bless you.

[CCWoody]

These verses state the "gospel of the kingdom," which is the gospel addressed to Israel. This isn't the gospel we are saved by today. Christ said the kingdom is "at hand." He didn't say it was here, or that it would even arrive the next day or week. The Greek word interpreted as "at hand" is defined as "to make near," "approach," "be at hand," and other similar terms to describe something that is going to happen or about to appear. "At hand" is now approximately 2000 years. And it's going to be at least 7 more years to get here. ~ gracebeliever

Well, at least you guys are consistent. 1000 years absolutely must mean exactly 1000 years, but "at hand" has been 2000 + 7 + who knows how many years in the making. And an hour is really 8,760,000 hours for the separation of resurrections of the just and the unjust. One really wonders just exactly what rules you guys use to determine how to tell time.

Of course, you are wrong and the Lord warned me about people like you who preach a false gospel in Luke 17:21. Tell, me, is it required that you are born again in this multi-salvation gospel you are preaching or is that requirement only for the Jews.

Hey, RnMom, please notice who has turned their eschatology into their gospel. I may have driven you nuts with it, but I'm not the one who maintains that the "kingdom of God" is the Jews gospel and that it is also the millennial kingdom which Jesus preached the Jews needed to wait a few thousands years for. Some glad tiding!

Woody.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

Well, everyone, but the dispensationalists. They have their own gospel.

"Therefore let it be known to you that THE salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!" (I wonder why Paul didn't say a salvation of God since he must have meant a different one that what the Jews rejected.) Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received ALL who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him. (Shouldn't Paul have preached some other gospel to the Gentiles.)

[CCWoody]

(Notice that this is characteristic of dispensationalists. They don't seem to think that God could get the gospel right the first time.) ~ Jerry_M

Actually, what bothers me the most about dispensationalists is that that they have turned the gospel into multiple wives for God.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

Do I need to point out the obvious, that Jesus was referring to one aspect of the Kingdom of God, that of releasing people from bondage. But that is not the whole Kingdom of God, is it? So wouldn't it be innaccurate to cite this verse to prove the Kingdom of God has already come? ~ nobdysfool

I'm still waiting for you to cite me a single verse which says that you have only half a kingdom of God.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

Woody.

Context, people, context!

[drstevej]

***Actually, what bothers me the most about dispensationalists is that that they have turned the gospel into multiple wives for God.***

If Israel is the adulterous wife of God (Hosea), how can she be a a FUTURE spotless bride awaiting her Groom (Ephesians 5)?

[RnMomof7]

Well, because "as a thousand years is like a day to God" is a thousand years for us humans and a day for God, so that is consistent with what the Rev 20 text says.

BUT if this is a direct revelation from God it is HE saying a thousand years, not John..so what is a thousand years to God? Are you absolutely positive ?

I don't single out Rev 20 for literal interpretation. I try (albeit not always well) to interpret all of Revelation and all scripture literally, unless scripture informs me otherwise (because it is a parable for example).

But you do single it out..inspite of the fact that it is surrounded by strongly symbolic literature you point to this and say this is literal...so will Jesus return with a sword in His mouth..will Mary be in the heavens like the Catholics picture her? Could the thousand years be literal years to God? 1000,000 years?

[RnMomof7]

I don't know positively if the "rapture" qualifies exactly as a "resurrection".

If the raptured are coming back in new bodies I do not know how you can not count it as a resurrection..

[RnMomof7]

I have never considered it from your viewpoint..I have always looked at myself as both (a bit simplistic I know) But I was the filthy adultress before He selected me and made me clean and new and a suitable bride..

If anyman be in Christ He is a new creation...

[drstevej]

These are corporate images not individual images. The wife in the OT is the Nation. The Bride in the NT is a group of people.

****But I was the filthy adultress before He selected me and made me clean and new and a suitable bride...***

An adultress is one who is unfaithful to her spouse (GOD). A bride awaits marriage to a future spouse (Christ). The former implies there is a bona fide marriage that is being abused. The later assumes that the marriage is yet future.

Can you understand my point?

[RnMomof7]

Sounds a bit like Joseph Smith.:>) Each god gets his own bride

[CCWoody]

If Israel is the adulterous wife of God (Hosea), how can she be a a FUTURE spotless bride awaiting her Groom (Ephesians 5)? ~ drstevej

If Woody was formerly an enemy of God, filthy and dirty, how can I be part of a spotless Bride awaiting her Groom?

Woody.

[drstevej]

Not really.

LDS see these wives as physical unions. The Bible uses these images to describe a spiritual relationship.

My point to CCW is that his charge that the dispensationalists teach God has multiple wives is not a charge that is escaped in equating Israel and the Church. Covenant theology could be accused of God having a wife and yet awaiting a future marriage to the same wife.

Both the accusation and counter-accusation ammount to very little. It is, IMO, playing to one's own grandstand.