Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[CCWoody]

the facts of the Gospel aren't hard to explain to a Roman Catholic, either. That isn't the problem, is it? Thank God Woody's salvation isn't at stake in this (the_doc to the contrary, notwithstanding). ~ Dan

I am an Amillennialist because I finally got the facts of the gospels straight. I found it impossible to square what the gospels plainly reveals with what the Premillennialists tell me is going to happen. For example, I could not make Matthew 13:36 fit Premillennialism, despite the assurance by Premillennialists that it fits. I found that they were not being honest with the passage. This is just one of many things I noticed.

Of course, I'm not an Arminian for the same reason. I found that they were not being honest with what the gospels teach. For example, they tell me that people will go to hell because they don't believe, but there is a very interesting encounter with Christ that says that it is much more than a matter of belief. But, that is another thread.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

You might try this little program I use called Text Pad. You can put together templates of HTML that you can steal from other Freepers and simply plug your text into them. Plus, when you save and your computer dies, you don't lose your work because the program doesn't tie up the file you have on your drive.

http://www.textpad.com/

[the_doc]

Do you mean that he cannot deceive the Gentile nations as a block?

Yes. This was the bottom-line point of the posts which OrthodoxPresbyterian offered several weeks ago. It's a pretty important point. Overall numbers aside, the missionary should expect success.

[BibChr]

Nonsense.

If you mangled and abused the soteriological and Christological passages as you do God's prophetic Word, you'd be a universalist, a unitarian — or anything else you want. Amillennialism both dovetails with Roman Catholicism AND warrants their criticism that every reader becomes a little Pope. That's all you are, randomly applying the grammatico-historical approach here, and imposing baseless spiritualizing metaphors there, guided only by your prejudices and tradition.

You are a Christian in spite of your mangling of God's prophetic Word.

Dan

[CCWoody]

The first wall to fall was when I figured out that we are in the age of the kingdom of God right now. Once I figured out that, all the parables fell neatly into place. This is far simpler than you make it out. dispensationalism is wacky complicated with its segretationism.

[nobdysfool]

Again, you fail to take into account the possibility that Satan might have already been loosed to create this havoc! I certainly hold that as a possibility! It fits perfectly into Amillennial theology!

In order for that to be true, you must demonstrate that Satan was bound for a period of time between the First Advent and the present day, and demonstrate that he has been loosed from his prison within recent subjective time. I don't believe you can convincingly do so.

In other words, you have only demonstrated that it might be true that Satan is not currently bound. You have yet to demonstrate that Satan has not yet been bound.

I believe that the context of the passage in Revelation argues for Satan being bound at a future time (from our perspective, the same as from John's perspective), because of the details of events around that passage, and from, once again, simple observation. I do not believe you can show any evidence for Satan being bound in any meaningful way in the last 2000 years. The detail given as to his binding, being cast in the Bottomless Pit, sealed so that he may not escape for 1000 years, all are too graphic for it to be taken as an allegory, symbolism, or only "spiritual". Words mean things, Jean.

Now, I have presented a Biblical argument as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.

Without going into a long list of quotes, there is evidence in scripture that some, if not most of the angels who originally sinned with Lucifer, are currently bound awaiting judgment. There is reference to the 4 angels bound at the Euphrates River, and it is understood that they are fallen angels. I'm not absolutely sure whether demons are fallen angels or the spirits of the offspring between men and angels, or some other sort of spiritual being...demons have been, and are still wreaking havoc and oppressing and sometimes possessing people to this day, no doubt about it. We have authority over them through the Blood of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit, so our activities against them impose restrictions on their activities. With apologies to our RC lurkers, we have been given authority by Jesus to bind and loose, not only demons but also angelic beings, within the Will of God.

My point is, 2 Peter 2:4 has at least partially already been fulfilled. The judgment is still future, but they have already been bound with chains of darkness. Revelation 20: 1-3 is a separate event, and in the context of the whole section of the book, is not something that has yet happened. The detail of his binding and banishment to the Pit, sealed away for a specific period of time is too graphic and specific to be equated with 2 Peter 2:4. They are two separate things. What you're trying to do is say that since 2 Peter 2:4 is partially fulfilled, that Revelation 20:1-3 must also be partially fulfilled. You cannot make that connection with any accuracy, because there is nothing that really connects the two events other than the mention of a chain.

The context of Peter's letter indicates that he is referring to events in the far past, and then works his way to the present time, with the mention of the Flood, then Sodom and Gommorah, etc. The events in Revelation are to show "what must happen hereafter", meaning future, from John's perspective, and I believe, from ours as well. To connect separate passages of scripture on the basis of similar language is not enough. Context and subject matter must also be taken into account.

My expectations are not the basis I use to understand scripture. Your indication that I interpret scripture according to my expectations is inaccurate, and designed to put me on the defensive, because I have poked a hole in your argument, a hole which you hope no one else will see. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I have yet to see an overwhelmingly convincing argument or proof for the Amil position. There are too many things about it which just don't line up.

[BibChr]

Yeah, a lot of people find the Bible hard. I imagine it's tempting just to squish over all the details and edges, and force it all into a big, pastel, washy water color painting. When there are no controlling facts, it's a lot easier. The cult I was saved out of did that.

And I've heard all sorts of stories about why folks left Protestantism for Roman Catholicism, all sad. I tend to stick to the facts of the text, as noted above, again and again.

Dan

[CCWoody]

Jean and I must have really irritated you yesterday. Your posting is getting more and more colorful.

BTW, besides figuring out that we are right now in the age of the kingdom of God, I also figured out that the first resurrection in Rev 20 could not possibly be the resurrection of the dead. When the Lord finally gave me ears to hear, all of this stuff became absurdly simple to figure out.

[BibChr]

With what your tradition drives you to do to God's Word, I can't pretend to be surprised that you should try to find something other than my words to you. But as for my thinking, it's really all there, just exactly what I say, no more, no less.

Responsible Bible reading is not for the lazy. It's a pity; so many "Reformed" folks are so sharp in so many ways. But they leave the heavy lifting to the Dispensationalists when it comes to the faithful reading of Biblical prophecy.

Dan

[CCWoody]

I do not believe you can show any evidence for Satan being bound in any meaningful way in the last 2000 years. ~ nobdysfool

If you let the below quote speak for itself, you will discover two interesting things:

1. The kingdom of God has come unto us.

2. Jesus has bound the strong man Satan and plundered his house.




Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

And how about this verse which flatly declares that the working of Satan is even right now currently bound by Him; that is, unless He has been taken out of the way:



• 2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Woody.

[CCWoody]

With what your tradition drives you to do to God's Word... ~ Dan

Were I to adhere to tradition, I'd be a dispensationalist. I live in a sea of them and happen to be the only Reformed Amill in the entire church. Having also never ever read any commentaries by Reformed Amills, I'm at a bit of a loss as to where I could have found this traditionalist influence. To my knowledge I have only embraced 2 Primitive Baptists who claim to be Calvinists, but aren't, and have never shaken the hand of a single Calvinist in my entire life.

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

Could that Temple be built BEFORE the return of Christ..Could it be the nation of Israel is yet deceived and wants to return to the law?

[the_doc]

One of the strangest blunders by the really hardcore dispensationalists involves their so-called Kingdom Postponement theory. Although I think that this is a bad theory, I am not merely appalled that they hold to this theory. I am specifically appalled that they try to argue it from Luke 19:11.

I first encountered this in a Sunday School class at the dispensational church I mentioned in my previous e-mail. The fellow leading the discussion read Luke 19:11 and said “See? That proves that the premillennial position is right! The verse is telling us that the Kingdom has been postponed! The amills are making the same mistake the Lord’s disciples made when they assumed that the Lord’s kingdom was coming soon!”

(I later discovered that this completely maniacal way of reading Luke 19:11 is in many of the standard books “proving” dispensationalism.)

***

In that particular Sunday School session, I politely stopped the teacher and said “Wait a minute. Just because the Lord was not intending to go on at that time to accomplish His Own death and resurrection doesn’t mean that the premills are correct about their larger Kingdom Postponement theory.”

I told them that I thought that they had stepped into a trap of the sort which Christians should easily avoid. I told them that we needed to go on and look more closely at the parable which the Lord gave His disciples to straighten out their confusion.

I pointed out that in v.12, the Lord said “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.”

I pointed out that this idea of receiving a kingdom in a far country actually fits the amillennial interpretation. According to Acts 2, the Lord was enthroned--i.e., RECEIVED FOR HIMSELF A KINGDOM--in HEAVEN. That fits the “far country” idea inasmuch as HEAVEN is a FAR COUNTRY from which He is scheduled to RETURN.

(Furthermore, there is no hint whatsoever of the premillennial emphasis concerning the “future kingdom.” The verse is talking to us about the Lord’s PRESENT status as the KING of a KINGDOM. There is no postponement of the sort which the dispies argue.)

I continued reading the text to our Sunday School class: “And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.”

I stopped at this point and said that it sounds to me like the Lord is warning us that there will be foolish professing Christians who will think that they can accept Jesus as Saviour but scoff at His Lordship—which, of course, is the position of the mainstream dispies! (Christ is not condoning this attitude on the part of the dispies. Rather, He is condemning it.)

I continued reading: “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.”

I stopped again and said “Hey, look at this! Upon His return, this Lord Who is already King, Who has been enthroned since He went to heaven, will immediately gather His subjects in one gathering and JUDGE them.”

Hmmmm.... Sounds like the amillennial position to me! In fact, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the premillennial position. Unfortunately, the eyes of the rest of the Sunday School participants were strangely glazed over.

I kept reading the “judgment” section of the parable, eventually getting to the verse which says “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

I concluded my comments by saying that the dispensational preachers who teach a “carnal Christian theory” which entails “accepting Jesus as Saviour but not as Lord” are going to have to watch their converts suffer damnation. (And in some cases, the dispensational preachers are going to be damned with them.)

***

Historical premills do not make the completely idiotic mistake which so many dispensationalists make in regard to Luke 19. But I maintain that the parable is opposing all forms of premillennialism--since the parable definitely seems to be telling us that the Lord received his Throne in heaven and that the next time He appears on earth will be Judgment Day.

(I believe historic premillennialism is just a transitional step in the overall downhill slide into the really nasty deception of dispensationalism.)

[RnMomof7]

not to beat a dead horse,

Can a dead horse be beaten back to life?

[RnMomof7]

Thanks. It wasn't really that hard, was it? But then again, the facts of the Gospel aren't hard to explain to a Roman Catholic, either. That isn't the problem, is it? Thank God Woody's salvation isn't at stake in this (the_doc to the contrary, notwithstanding).

Even a broken clock is right twice a day ...Do you accept the Trinity..first taught by ther "Catholic church"?

[RnMomof7]

I have had that happen...I always consider it a work of God..:>)

[CCWoody]

Yep! That is just one of the many parables that caused me to reconsider Premillennialism. It is plainly obvious from v27 that when the Lord returns He will slay His enemies who did not want His reign. And He said this as He was going to Jerusalem:

• Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

[the_doc]

I have had that happen...I always consider it a work of God..

Actually, I laughed about it. (I was aware that jude24 already has plenty of info.)

[BibChr]

Not because. And brace for this: if anyone showed me that the Bible did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, as it assuredly does not teach amillennialism, I would reject the doctrine. I believe it because the Bible teaches it.

Dan

[the_doc]

I meant to include you in my #713.