Well it does appear that he has one "hung up" and is working hard on it. :)
Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
In the meantime, see my #537. And see if you can anticipate what I am going to say to rdb3 to clinch the amillennial argument.
Point #2 in the article for this thread deals with the above. When he is bound, he will be truly bound.
Since 2 Co 4:4 demonstrates he is not presently, bound, then it is future....as maintained by Rev 19 & 20 it comes AFTER the final battle.
Why would we? Seems like a cruel joke on the world to bottle up Satan for 1000 years,only to have him unleashed again.Really,what's the point?
It isn't based on human logic, is it?
It's based purely on scripture. Can you imagine any reason at all (no matter how unlikely to you) why God would want to have a 1000 year reign on earth and then the release and final destruction of Satan?
Are you playing my straight man here, and trying to get me in trouble? :)
BigMack
You then see this as a matter of the elect vs . the non elect...as demonstrated by the words of Jesus in the gospels
It flatly overrules your (mis)understanding of Satan's binding.
(Psalm 2:4)
But the exegetical argument based on the Greek word ethnos is actually what I am specifically talking about.
More later. (I'm kind of busy now.)
So, if I got what you're saying correctly, Satan's on a pretty long leash, that he still can deceive people, even nations, but no longer all the nations?
Hmmm...
I'll think about that during my drive.
Well it does appear that he has one "hung up" and is working hard on it. :)
That's a better way to think about the idea. And it exactly fits the amillennial claim concerning the larger passage. And it fits the other New Testament passages which already teach that Satan is already bound that he might deceive the nations-as-Gentiles no more.
No.
Now, the assembly in the desert is called ekklesia in the Acts passage. How long have you studied NT Greek? For me, it's nearing 30 years. Luke uses the word ekklesia MORE TIMES to describe a SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY than he does Israel.
That makes it statistically likelier that the church is a SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY than it is Israel.
In point of fact, as I demonstrated above, Paul always and everywhere distinguishes between the church of Christ and Israel.
A Reformed approach to exegesis demands a distinction between the church of Christ and the nation of Israel.
Dan
Words mean things. In this particular case, the action and descriptive words used to detail the binding of Satan point to the idea that he is prevented (by removal from the playing field, as it were) from any activity against those still on the playing field. Sort of like being put in the penalty box, as is done in Hockey.
When you have that many descriptive words about what is being done to Satan as there are in this passage, a reasonable conclusion would be that Satan is no longer able, after those things are done, to do what he had been able to do up until that time. That would be a total binding. That is not really an assumption, for the language logically leads to that conclusion, by any reasonable standard.
"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 "
See above. He simply is assuming his argument. His argument is that Satan's binding is complete and he 'proves' this by showing that certain words might indicate a total binding. Unfortunately for you, he does not make a case. He simply assumes that ~his~ conclusion must be the only conclusion without ever making the case. He simply declares that this binding is complete.
See above. It seems that when it suits your purpose, words mean very precise things, and can be used to draw very precise conclusions - when it suits your purpose, or agrees with your theology- but when it seems to run counter to your theology, then suddenly a series of precise words aren't enough to establish a conclusion without other validation. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either words mean things, precise things, or they don't. Revelation indicates that Satan will be bound, not just from deceiving the Gentiles, but from all activity. That is what the sense and thrust of that passage is, not mere "curtailment" or "restraint", but complete and utter cessation of activity by means of being removed, bound, and sealed away in a place from which he cannot escape, and from which he cannot act. To say otherwise is to deny the clear meaning of the words and their cumulative effect, both in what they describe, and what they accomplish.
That makes it statistically likelier that the church is a SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY than it is Israel."
I think your simply wrong on this one, Dan.
I did an investigation of all the uses of ekklesia in Acts. (The Gospel of Luke contains no uses of ekklesia.)
Luke uses ekklesia 24 times in all of Acts.
Of those 24 times, only 3 times is ekklesia used for a 'Lawful' assembly, or as you call it, a "SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY".
All the remaining uses of the term ekklesia are references to a specific congregation or to the church invisible.
Therefore, according to ~your~ 'statistical' argument, it is 7 times more likely that Luke is using ekklesia as a reference to the body of believers in Acts 7 than it would be for Luke to use ekklesia as a reference to a 'secular political assembly'.
We needn't 'flip a coin' about it, though. The context of Acts 19 makes it certain that ekklesia is a legal assembly for this passage actually declares that the gathering of individuals was a ennomos ekklesia or "lawful" assembly. No such wording is found in Acts 7 which would indicate that ekklesia is a reference to a 'lawful assembly'.
Furthermore, if we go to Matthew 18, we see Christ himself giving instruction for the Disciples on how to handle matters of church discipline.
Matt 18
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church [ekklesia]: but if he neglect to hear the church [ekklesia], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Interesting that Christ directs the apostles to utilize the church in matters of discipline ~supposedly~ before the Church even came into existance!?!
Jean
Isaiah always mixes time elements, hence the mixture of the first and second advent in Isaiah 61:2, where the Lord stops reading at the point of 'the day of vengeance'(Lk.4)
Now, looking at the entire passage, even though the New Heavens and Earth are mentioned, what is also mentioned is sin and death .
But there will no longer be an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days , thus, the passage is discussing life extending, but physical death still existing (someone who dies at 100 will be considered a 'child', but if you commit a sin at 100 you will die young and accursed)
You are making the same mistake the Jews did, only they rejected the first advent with the suffering Messiah for a glorious one, while you (by selective reading and proof-texting) are rejecting the Second Advent.
Thus, in Isaiah 65:18 the switch is back to the Millennial reign since both sin and death are brought up, and death is the last enemy that is removed (1Cor.15:26)
In comparing scriptures with scriptures you have to compare all the relevent scriptures, not just isolate one or two and think you have given an answer.
Finally, how do you Amillennialist view the New Heaveans and Earth?
You must view it as some Premillennialists do, that normal physical life will continue since there is house building and farming in Isa.65.
In that case, the only difference is the actual Millennial reign, but Ezek. 44-48 is very clear that a real temple will be built while in the New Heavens and Earth there will be no temple (Rev.21:22)
You are like a little child with these silly questions.
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.