The Apostle Paul vs Popular Eschatalogical Doctrines/Positions

[DavidPT]

Not so! Only if you're a bias Premillennialist. You fail to see that Isaiah 2:4 is talking about the spiritual conditions that exist on the mountain of the Lord, where the redeemed reside and where the kingdom of God manifests itself and Matthew 24:6 is talking about the wickedness of this world. This reminds us of that Premillennialists have a habit of literalizing the spiritual passages and spiritualizing the literal passages.

Nation not lifting sword against nation involves more than just one nation. Which specific nations not nation, do you propose is no longer doing this?

 

[Jamdoc]

If you would simply take your Premillennial glasses off for a moment you might actually understand what the Scriptures are saying here.Rev 20 is not talking about the individual deception but the collective blindness that darkened the Gentiles before Christ. Before the cross the Gentiles were ignorant unto the truth. They were deceived. They were spiritual blind walking in darkness. Through the cross-work Satan cannot blind people to the truth anymore.

With the global spread of Gospel truth, the Gentiles have been given the opportunity to enter into a covenant relationship on equal terms as Israelites had under in the old covenant. Satan cannot stop Gentiles coming to Christ. He doesn’t have that power any more.

The only power Satan possesses is the ability to tell a lie and people believe that. His blanket deception over all nations has gone.

What is Jesus interceding for us before the throne of God the Father, if nobody can accuse us?
That is what Romans 8:34 says, that Jesus makes intercession for us.

and on the extension of that....
your position would also mean nobody's accusing those outside of Christ either.

 

[sovereigngrace]

End of the Millennial Kingdom, when Satan gets released a,d then fire comes from heaven and destroys all of the people surrounding the camps of the saints.
That's the only time within Revelation where there's a catastrophic jump from this earth to a new heavens and new earth.
Everywhere else.. its a transfer of power from the kingdoms of this world to the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.
A transfer of power that does not mention anything about remaking creation in the process. Just a transfer of power that as far as we know, takes place on this earth we currently live on.

But this is Revelation.
not Paul.

Really? Who taught you that? The Bible shows the resurrection/judgment of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked to occur on “the last (or final) day” of “the last days” when Jesus comes. Martha had a full awareness of that truth in the New Testament, when speaking of her brother Lazarus to Christ, in John 11:23-24, “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

Christ did not rebuke this understanding of the last day. In fact, Christ taught in complete agreement in John 6:39.

Jesus said in John 6:39: “all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

Resurrection day is the last day. It is the final day of history.

Jesus said in John 6:40: “every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus said in John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus said in John 6:54: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood (speaking spiritually and figuratively), hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Premils are unable to take Scripture after Scripture literally (and at face value) because it interferes with their mistaken opinion. They must therefore dismiss the "last day" being the "last day" because they have to squeeze thousands of additional days after history's last day. This is blatantly unbiblical. Amils are happy to let the Bible speak for itself.

Whilst, we are plainly in the last days there is an actual day coming which will conclude this scene of time and will see the final operation of God’s judgment upon sin, Satan and the wicked. That individual day is frequently known as “the last day.”

Moreover, this concluding last day is not just a day of resurrection and judgment for the righteous but also for the wicked. This is confirmed by Christ in John 12:48, when He said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

Here the wicked are judged on the same day that the righteous are judged, namely, the “last day” of the “last days.” Judgment day is therefore the last day. The term “the last day” is quoted different times in the New Testament without any form (or undoubted requirement) of qualification or any hint that there are two separate last days, as the Premillennialist would try and argue. When Christ or any other person referred to that final day in the New Testament it was always constantly in the context of its all-consummating nature, each time referring to the matter of the resurrection/judgment of both the wicked and the righteous. The references expressly refer to the last day of this age (the Gospel age) – the day that ushers in the new heaven and the new earth. There are absolutely no grounds for believing that the last day refers to a future millennium, and therefore lasts for a literal 1,000 years. Such a suggestion only emanates out of the Premillennialist camp in order to support their flawed view of Revelation 20.

Significantly, in all the above references, the wording in the original for “last day” is always identical – eschatee heemara. The Greek word eschatee used here comes from the root word eschatos, from where we get our word English eschatology, and simply means end, last, farthest or final. Eschatology is therefore the study of, or teaching on, end times or final or last things. It covers the period of redemptive history.

We can therefore safely assume from its meaning that the last day alluded to in these references relates to the end or final day of this age, the day when all the purposes of God for man in this life are finally concluded and judged. It is the last or final day when the old heavens and the old earth will finally pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth. It is an all-consummating day in which every man will give finally give account for his life.

Nowhere in any of Christ’s statements on the resurrection, the judgment, the last day, and the does He make any allowance for, or the slightest allusion to, a 1000 years gap separating His dealings with, and His judgment of, the sheep and the goats.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Nation not lifting sword against nation involves more than just one nation. Which specific nations not nation, do you propose is no longer doing this?

Isaiah receives a symbolic vision 500 yrs before Christ of an approaching new order of peace. Isaiah described the blessing that this new order would bring and the scale of its influence. Interestingly (and graciously for us) it was a new arrangement that would embrace “all nation.” Gentiles would be brought unto an equal footing with Jews in regard to the Gospel opportunity.

The redeemed of all nations that come into the kingdom of God no longer “lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." They have experienced true peace and have been reconciled unto a holy God. As a consequence, their weapons of war have been made redundant; they now operate with the tools of peace. Former enemies are miraculously reconciled “in Christ” through the blood of Jesus. The prince of peace has affected a supernatural change by way of conversion. Out goes the old and in comes the new. What was once used to destroy others has been supernaturally changed to bless others. Ancient enemies are unified within God’s great spiritual kingdom. They enter into heaven's peace.

Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 fit perfectly with the Amillennial concept of the kingdom but totally contradicts the Premillennial idea. Firstly, there are no wicked in our kingdom and there are no physical wars involved or allowed in our kingdom. It is a spiritual kingdom that is inhabited solely by God’s people and who eternally enters into the peace of God. Secondly, Amils believe Jesus ushered "the last days" 2000 years ago through the earthly ministry of Christ and will continue until "the last day" when Jesus comes. Premils invent another last days that suits their theology after the last day is finished.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The same way you duck around the fact that your interpretation doesn't line up with reality.

So, you are admitting to ducking around this issue then?

Do you want to seriously claim that nations don't practice war against each other?

If you want to profess that we currently live in Isaiah 2, while NATO and Russia are currently squaring off with each other?

You can't just throw the word "spiritual" around and expect that to be your defense
you can't just lay into doxology and expect that to be your defense

The disconnect with reality just does not work.

Why do you act as if the entire Bible is all meant to be interpreted literally? Do you think there is any non-literal text in scripture? I don't understand people like you at all. Why can't you acknowledge that the last days lead up to the second coming of Christ as Peter makes abundantly clear in 2 Peter 3:3-4? We should interpret Isaiah 2 accordingly, but you have no interest in doing that because you'd rather stubbornly cling to your hyper-literal method of interpreting scripture.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Romans 8:34 has Christ actively interceding for us.
Interceding against WHAT then if no accusations are taking place?

It doesn't say He's interceding for us against Satan's accusations. He intercedes for us every time we sin because He died for our sins and His blood covers our sins and makes us innocent.

So, I guess your answer to Paul's question in Romans 8:33 "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" is Satan? What about his question in verse 34 where he asked "Who is he that condemneth?". Is your answer to that question Satan as well? How about his question in verse 35 where he asked "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?". Is your answer to that question Satan as well? The answer to all of those questions is no one. It's frankly disturbing to see a Christian who is not be able to discern that.

That is also a tension, and I can't firmly place myself within a Calvinist or Arminian camp. To be honest, I'm not sure Paul could either. Paul wrote Romans 9, which is one of the strongest arguments for Calvinism, but Paul also wrote Romans 10, which is one of the strongest arguments for Free Will and agency in our salvation.

But what Paul taught in 2 Corinthians 4:4 was that the god of this world, so.. active, currently deceiving Satan, has blinded (that is, past tense, it already happened) them.
This is not some neutral stance where they get introduced to the Gospel, reject it, and then Satan blinds them, because that also doesn't work, I rejected the Gospel the first time I heard it (although to be fair, I don't think it was really the Gospel but more of a Catholic works based salvation "gospel"), and many others reject it multiple times and some eventually come to faith, some do not, Paul persecuted Christians, oh he knew their beliefs, so he'd heard the Gospel, but he actively persecuted against it, so he rejected it, until the encounter on the road to Damascus. So rejecting the gospel does not lead to being blinded by Satan.. you were already blinded before you believed.

That's where the idea of Satan currently being bound falls flat in Paul's teachings. That Satan has already blinded people to the Gospel, and here that tension comes in, where is it a choice of the person to believe when they hear, or God granting repentance to them to be able to believe. Again I can't place myself firmly in either camp, and it's the writings of Paul that actually make it hardest to decide one way or the other.

I have no reason to take your opinion on this seriously since you can't even make up your mind about whether or not these people who Satan has blinded ever chose for themselves to accept or reject Christ in the first place. Once you get that figured out then we can discuss this some more.

Because the Amillennial doctrine that I'm arguing that Paul is against, is Satan being bound and not deceiving the nations. Paul teaches a dangerous Satan, Amillennialism teaches a toothless Satan (just watch sg whenever he goes into his doxology as defense posture).

1 Thessalonians 4 is irrelevant to that doctrine.

No, it is not irrelevant. Paul taught that all believers will be changed and put on immortality when Christ returns and all unbelievers will be killed. What mortals does that leave to populate the earth for a thousand years? None. So, that has to be taken into account when determining what Paul believed about Satan's standing.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you were arguing with someone who disagrees that Jesus is God, for example, you would have us believe that you would be making arguments against what they believe without it involving you trying to force them to agree with your understanding of why Jesus is God? Sometimes trying to force someone to do something is not always a bad thing. But I don't know if I would use the term 'forcing' to describe that to begin with. Maybe persuade.

You just don't get it. If I was debating someone who disagrees that Jesus is God, I would address what they do believe and tell them why what they currently believe is wrong instead of only telling them that Jesus is God is correct without even mentioning what they believe and explaining why it's wrong.

But when Premils argue against Amil they don't even address what we believe and our understanding of Satan's binding and explain why they think what we believe is wrong. They only bring up Satan's binding according to their understanding of it and say nothing at all about why exactly our understanding can't be true. How does that make any sense?

In our example, I could tell someone that Jesus is God until I'm blue in the face, but is that enough? Shouldn't I also tell them why their belief about Jesus (that He's not God) and their understanding of who He was (whatever that might be) is wrong?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

As I keep saying, and what many Premils miss, binding in Scripture did not denote immobility. Many Premils quote 1 Peter 5:8, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” yet, they fail to complete the teaching of the passage or grasp the power the believer posses. The very next verse (1 Peter 5:9 affirms, “whom resist stedfast in the faith.” We are part of a spiritual resistance movement against him.

Why do Premils never quote this whole passage when challenging Amillennialists who are highlighting the sovereign power and strength of Jesus.

This is a great point that Premils should not ignore. They focus on Satan going around like a roaring lion and ignore that we are able to resist him. And, as James said in James 4:7, if we resist him he has to flee from us. Was this how things were in Old Testament times? No. This was something that came about in New Testament times because of the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit. We can resist the devil through the power of the Spirit of Christ in us and Satan has to flee because he knows he is no match for the Holy Spirit.

While Satan resists the Church throughout the nations, the Church throughout the nations now resists Satan. Everything the devil says, we resist; everything the devil does, we resist. Through the work of the Cross and in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Church clearly possesses the power and capability to curtail and damage the devil’s strong power and influence, or why would God in any way instruct His people to “resist stedfast” that great foe

In fact, James 4:7 tells us what happens when you do resist, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” This is a well-tested principle that the saints of old have proved down through the years. You resist, he must flee. When the devil plants a temptation, a doubt or a fear, you simply have to resist it, whereupon Satan must get his boots on and run. This word “flee” in the original is the Greek word pheugo. It means to escape, flee away or vanish. It gives the idea of a worried foe frantically trying to get away from his captor. Now think about it. When you resist, he must disappear. The conflict today for the Church is not an earthly battle to possess an earthly territory but a spiritual battle to posses spiritual territory.

Exactly. It seems that Premils completely ignore this. They don't acknowledge the huge difference between what Satan was able to do in Old Testament times compared to New Testament times. They think nothing changed for him after Christ's death and resurrection and the subsequent preaching of the gospel of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit throughout the world and it's sad that they don't recognize what His death and resurrection and the preaching of His gospel has accomplished.

Scripture says that Jesus came to take away the power of death from Satan and to destroy his works (Heb 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8). Has He failed to do that? No! God forbid. There were relatively few people saved in Old Testament times, but many millions in New Testament times. How can people not recognize the difference that Christ and His gospel have made in the world and the affect it has had on Satan?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

To add to all of that though you might or might not fully agree with me, as to that passage in particular, most ignore the fact as to what verse 3 states and it's relevance to what is then stated in the next verse---But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


When these ppl, or anyone for that matter, are initially born they have no belief or disbelief about anything one way or the other yet. How do they eventually end up believing not to begin with if it has zero to do with the god of this world blinding their mind? That's like asking which comes first? The chicken or the egg? If they already believed not before the god of this world blinded their minds, as SJ seems to believe, what caused them to believe not to begin with? When the Jews that already believed in the God of Abraham, but chose to disbelieve in the Son of God, how did they manage to do that without the god of this world blinding their mind?

Maybe it's just me but I don't see it making much sense that one first believes not then the god of this world comes to blind their mind.

You don't realize what you're saying here. If these people only reject Christ because Satan blinded them and they never had any opportunity to accept him before that then wouldn't they have a legitimate excuse on judgment day for having rejected Christ? They could just say "Satan blinded us so that we couldn't accept the gospel, so how can it be held against us that we didn't believe in Christ?". Don't you believe that everyone makes a choice to believe or not? Do you really believe that Satan can just blind people before they ever make a choice to accept or reject the gospel?

How can it be their fault for rejecting him if they were blinded and never had an opportunity to accept it? I gave the example of 2 Thess 2:8-12 where it talks about people who have already rejected the gospel falling for signs and wonders "after the working of Satan". So, they have already chosen to reject the gospel, but then Satan leads them further into spiritual darkness with lying signs and wonders. Then it talks about God sending them a delusion and giving them over to their wickedness.

But, how did they reject the gospel in the first place? Because Satan blinded them and made them do it? No. That was their choice. And Satan took advantage of that and led them further into darkness. That's what I'm saying 2 Cor 4:4 is about as well. But, you want to say that Satan is able to blind some people in the first place so that they never even have the opportunity to choose between accepting or rejecting the gospel? Is that what Paul was teaching there? I don't believe so. That gives Satan too much credit. He can't just force people to be blind to the gospel without them having any choice in the matter. If he had that kind of power then he would do that to everyone.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Nation not lifting sword against nation involves more than just one nation. Which specific nations not nation, do you propose is no longer doing this?

Why do you ask someone who doesn't interpret the passage the way you do (in a very literal way) a question that only can apply to someone who interprets the passage the way you do?

Imagine me asking you what nation not lifting up sword against nation means in a figurative or spiritual sense. Would it make sense for me to ask you that when that isn't how you interpret the passage?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What is Jesus interceding for us before the throne of God the Father, if nobody can accuse us?
That is what Romans 8:34 says, that Jesus makes intercession for us.

and on the extension of that....
your position would also mean nobody's accusing those outside of Christ either.

This particular discussion relates back to the timing of Satan being cast out of heaven. So, in terms of him accusing people, it never says he accused unbelievers in heaven, it only indicates that he accused believers. So, your last comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

 

[DavidPT]

This is a great point that Premils should not ignore. They focus on Satan going around like a roaring lion and ignore that we are able to resist him.

The reason we focus on that is because that depicts a loose satan not a bound one, which then makes nonsense of being able to resist him. Why would anyone need to resist someone already bound? Plus, I think I started a thread sometime back where it involved the imagery has to at least make logical sense. If, in Revelation 20 the imagery is depicting a satan bound in a pit then the pit sealed, unless satan is a being like God, he can't then be depicted as being in more than one place at a time. Only God is able to do that, and I'm certain you don't disagree.

Why then, via your interpretation do you have satan being depicted as doing things only God can, such as being in more than one place at a time? Being locked up in a pit and roaming around outside the pit at the same time, that depicts a form of omnipresence. I reject that because satan doesn't have that ability, and that the Bible isn't going to be using imagery that gives us the false impression that he does have that ability.

Amils argue that he is only bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. Anything else doesn't count. That kind of logic would be like someone being locked up in jail for driving drunk so that they can no longer drive drunk. As if that is the only thing this incarceration prevents this person from doing while locked up. Maybe this person cheats on their spouse? But that is not why this person is locked up though, yet, obviously it also prevents this person from cheating on their spouse while locked up.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The reason we focus on that is because that depicts a loose satan not a bound one, which then makes nonsense of being able to resist him.

That is how you understand it because of your literal interpretation of his binding, but there are other ways for someone or something to be bound than literally and physically in the sense of being completely incapacitated.

Why would anyone need to resist someone already bound?

You're not getting it. The reason we can resist him is because he is bound. You need to think about how things were in Old Testament times compared to New Testament times. Premils never do that. In Old Testament times, was it true that someone could resist the devil and he would flee from them? No, it was not. The reason that all we need to do is resist him and he must flee from us is because of the present of the Holy Spirit within us. That was not the case for Old Testament saints. So, you are thinking of things in a carnal way instead of a spiritual way and that's why you don't understand what it means for Satan to be bound.

Plus, I think I started a thread sometime back where it involved the imagery has to at least make logical sense.

Human logic has nothing to do with this. Human wisdom and logic is foolishness to God (1 Cor 3:19). Scripture is inspired by God, not man. It is written according to His wisdom and logic, not man's. That's what you need to understand. It requires spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit to understand scripture (1 Cor 2:9-16), but you think it's no different than reading a news article. This is especially true regarding a book like Revelation.

If, in Revelation 20 the imagery is depicting a satan bound in a pit then the pit sealed, unless satan is a being like God, he can't then be depicted as being in more than one place at a time. Only God is able to do that, and I'm certain you don't disagree.

Why then, via your interpretation do you have satan being depicted as doing things only God can, such as being in more than one place at a time? Being locked up in a pit and roaming around outside the pit at the same time, that depicts a form of omnipresence. I reject that because satan doesn't have that ability, and that the Bible isn't going to be using imagery that gives us the false impression that he does have that ability.

I have no idea of what in the world you are trying to say here. When did I ever even remotely suggest that I believe Satan is omnipresent? You need to be way more specific here about what you're talking about because right now I have no idea.

Amils argue that he is only bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. Anything else doesn't count.

What are you even saying here? Can you please be far more specific so I can see what you're talking about? You are just making vague comments with no explanation for why you're making them.

That kind of logic would be like someone being locked up in jail for driving drunk so that they can no longer drive drunk. As if that is the only thing this incarceration prevents this person from doing while locked up. Maybe this person cheats on their spouse? But that is not why this person is locked up though, yet, obviously it also prevents this person from cheating on their spouse while locked up.

I have no idea of what your point is here. Please try again.

 

[Jamdoc]

So, you are admitting to ducking around this issue then?

Why do you act as if the entire Bible is all meant to be interpreted literally? Do you think there is any non-literal text in scripture? I don't understand people like you at all. Why can't you acknowledge that the last days lead up to the second coming of Christ as Peter makes abundantly clear in 2 Peter 3:3-4? We should interpret Isaiah 2 accordingly, but you have no interest in doing that because you'd rather stubbornly cling to your hyper-literal method of interpreting scripture.

If the Last days are interpreted as a 2000 year long period, doesn't it make sense that not everything referring to "the last days" is talking about happening simultaneously?
IE Matthew 24, and Ezekiel 38 are not happening at the same time as Isaiah 2.
Especially when they contradict each other if they were happening at the same time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If the Last days are interpreted as a 2000 year long period, doesn't it make sense that not everything referring to "the last days" is talking about happening simultaneously?

Of course.

IE Matthew 24, and Ezekiel 38 are not happening at the same time as Isaiah 2.
Especially when they contradict each other if they were happening at the same time.

That is beside the point I was making about Isaiah 2. My point is that the last days lead up to the return of Christ, as Peter indicates in 2 Peter 3:3-4. That means, whatever Isaiah 2 is referring to, it has to occur before the return of Christ because the last day of the last days will occur on the day Christ returns. But, you have Isaiah 2 somehow being about a time period after the return of Christ.

 

[Jamdoc]

It doesn't say He's interceding for us against Satan's accusations. He intercedes for us every time we sin because He died for our sins and His blood covers our sins and makes us innocent.

So, I guess your answer to Paul's question in Romans 8:33 "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" is Satan? What about his question in verse 34 where he asked "Who is he that condemneth?". Is your answer to that question Satan as well? How about his question in verse 35 where he asked "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?". Is your answer to that question Satan as well? The answer to all of those questions is no one. It's frankly disturbing to see a Christian who is not be able to discern that.

I have no reason to take your opinion on this seriously since you can't even make up your mind about whether or not these people who Satan has blinded ever chose for themselves to accept or reject Christ in the first place. Once you get that figured out then we can discuss this some more.

If you're a Calvanist you'd probably believe in irresistible grace, in that case, explain people who reject on first hearing and then later accept after hearing it again? I absolutely cannot do irresistible grace, because people do reject then later come to faith, and I don't believe in Limited atonement, because John said Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, not a limited group of people. As I said, Paul wrote Roman's 10, and he was quoting Joel 2 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

No, it is not irrelevant. Paul taught that all believers will be changed and put on immortality when Christ returns and all unbelievers will be killed. What mortals does that leave to populate the earth for a thousand years? None. So, that has to be taken into account when determining what Paul believed about Satan's standing.

It's irrelevant to the particular doctrine I'm talking about which is the binding of Satan.
Paul died before Revelation was written, he didn't have a stance on a Millennium that was not even revealed in his time.
But he did have a stance on whether Satan was currently bound and unable to deceive the nations.
That is what I present.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you're a Calvanist you'd probably believe in irresistible grace, in that case, explain people who reject on first hearing and then later accept after hearing it again?

Are you sure you're reading my posts carefully? I'm speaking against the Calvinist way of looking at things. Only a Calvinist could think that some people could be blinded before even having any opportunity of deciding for themselves if they believe in Christ or not.

I absolutely cannot do irresistible grace, because people do reject then later come to faith, and I don't believe in Limited atonement, because John said Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, not a limited group of people. As I said, Paul wrote Roman's 10, and he was quoting Joel 2 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Good. Then there's at least something we agree on.

It's irrelevant to the particular doctrine I'm talking about which is the binding of Satan.
Paul died before Revelation was written, he didn't have a stance on a Millennium that was not even revealed in his time.
But he did have a stance on whether Satan was currently bound and unable to deceive the nations.
That is what I present.

But you're talking about something that relates to the amillennialist understanding of Satan's binding, so why can't I talk about things relating to amillennialism to support my understanding of his binding? By showing what Paul taught about what will happen at the return of Christ, I can show that the timing of Satan's binding cannot be after the return of Christ. No wonder you don't want me to talk about that.

Anyway, you are only assuming that Paul agreed with your understanding of Satan's binding. But, I believe he agreed with mine. I suppose we can't prove it definitively either way with just Paul's letters alone. All we can do is prove that he said things that, at least on the surface, seem to agree with each of our interpretations of Satan's binding.

This is Jesus speaking to Paul in this passage (so, even though Paul didn't write this, we can safely assume that Paul believed what Jesus taught him here):

Acts 26:14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Notice that Jesus told Paul (named Saul at the time) that He was send him to the Gentiles "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God". This lines up with the Amil understanding of the binding of Satan. It is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, that binds Satan and allows people to be set free from Satan's grasp and turn to God instead.

There is some debate over who wrote the book of Hebrews, but I'm convinced that it was Paul. So, I believe he wrote this:

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

Amils believe that the binding of Satan relates to Christ's death and resurrection, as well as the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit, taking the power of death away from Satan so that "those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" can be set free and have the hope of eternal life instead of fearing death and having no hope of anything after death. Most people in Old Testament times had no hope of anything after death because Christ had not yet taken the power of death away from Satan. But once He died and rose again it changed everything as it relates to Satan and to the world.

 

[DavidPT]

That is beside the point I was making about Isaiah 2.

Both Ezekiel 38-39 and Isaiah 2 involve the last days. Last days have to have a last day eventually otherwise this would mean they continue forever, and that there is no such thing as the last days of forever nor the last day of forever. I'm not telling you anything you would not already know, though.

Isaiah 2 involves them learning war no more. Ezekiel 38-39 involves men of war until God executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude, which then leads to some of the following.

Ezekiel 39:9 And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years:

In my mind this is what leads to them learning war no more. I then see Isaiah 2:4 meaning after God executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude. There is no way I can accept that Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled since there is not one person on the planet past or present that can prove it has already been fulfilled. That means the last days span some of this age and some of the next age because what is recorded in Isaiah 2:4 has to follow the fulfillment of God executing His judgment on Gog and his multitude, and that Isaiah 2:4 is still involving the last days.

The way some try and get around this, Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled thousands and thousands of years ago, thus not even relevant here. If that's true, when did the last day happen because last days have to have a last day eventually? It therefore seems ludicrous to insist Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled.

Another way some try and get around these things, Isaiah 2:4 is meaning in a spiritual sense or whatever sense, thus isn't literally meaning nations no more warring with nations. That way it can be true when Matthew 24:7 is true because Matthew 24:7 is meaning in the literal sense and that Isaiah 2:4 isn't. That way if Ezekiel 38-39 does indeed involve the last days of this age, Isaiah 2:4 doesn't have to mean after God executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude, it can parallel it instead since it is not involving in a literal sense to begin with.

Ezekiel 39:20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

I just don't see it myself, that what I have underlined in Isaiah 2:4 that this is already true before what I have underlined in Ezekiel 39:20 is no longer true.

 

[Jamdoc]

Are you sure you're reading my posts carefully? I'm speaking against the Calvinist way of looking at things. Only a Calvinist could think that some people could be blinded before even having any opportunity of deciding for themselves if they believe in Christ or not.

No? Everyone's blinded to begin with. People aren't rejecting and then blinded as response, people are blind and then they can be illuminated by the Gospel if God reaches out to them. There is a sovereign act of God involved, where God draws them to Him first. John 6:44... before you say it "last day" is something you take hyperliterally, and I am more prone to take it as a figure of speech "the day" and "the hour" kind of are common figures of expression and not to be taken literally.

But there is tension, because Paul does talk about election, as in God chooses. But Paul also says that it's an open invitation. About the best reconciliation I have is that God chooses who He foreknew would choose Him. It's something that's difficult to wrap one's head around.

But you're talking about something that relates to the amillennialist understanding of Satan's binding, so why can't I talk about things relating to amillennialism to support my understanding of his binding? By showing what Paul taught about what will happen at the return of Christ, I can show that the timing of Satan's binding cannot be after the return of Christ. No wonder you don't want me to talk about that.

Anyway, you are only assuming that Paul agreed with your understanding of Satan's binding. But, I believe he agreed with mine. I suppose we can't prove it definitively either way with just Paul's letters alone. All we can do is prove that he said things that, at least on the surface, seem to agree with each of our interpretations of Satan's binding.

This is Jesus speaking to Paul in this passage (so, even though Paul didn't write this, we can safely assume that Paul believed what Jesus taught him here):

Acts 26:14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Notice that Jesus told Paul (named Saul at the time) that He was send him to the Gentiles "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God". This lines up with the Amil understanding of the binding of Satan. It is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, that binds Satan and allows people to be set free from Satan's grasp and turn to God instead.

There is some debate over who wrote the book of Hebrews, but I'm convinced that it was Paul. So, I believe he wrote this:

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

Amils believe that the binding of Satan relates to Christ's death and resurrection, as well as the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit, taking the power of death away from Satan so that "those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" can be set free and have the hope of eternal life instead of fearing death and having no hope of anything after death. Most people in Old Testament times had no hope of anything after death because Christ had not yet taken the power of death away from Satan. But once He died and rose again it changed everything as it relates to Satan and to the world.

I lean towards Paul writing Hebrews but He didn't sign it so it's impossible to prove.
But regardless the understanding I have of Amillennial binding of Satan is that Satan is unable to prevent the spread of the Gospel.
Why I present 2 Corinthians 4:4, is because Paul teaches that Satan can actually prevent reception of the Gospel, that is, prevent the spread of the Gospel.. and that it takes an act of God, to lift that blindness so they can receive and believe.
again it's a tension between God's sovereignty/election and Man's free will/agency/responsibility.
I don't have a full answer between these things because the bible teaches both, Paul himself teaches both.

I don't know how anyone becomes a full 5 point Calvanist without ignoring parts of the bible.. and I don't know how someone goes full Arminian without ignoring parts of the bible.
Romans 9 is one of the most gut wrenching sections through all of scripture. The idea that some people.. were created just to be tortured forever.
Just so that we who get mercy, can know that they exist, and feel blessed that at least it wasn't us that's in that position.

 

[sovereigngrace]

No? Everyone's blinded to begin with. People aren't rejecting and then blinded as response, people are blind and then they can be illuminated by the Gospel if God reaches out to them. There is a sovereign act of God involved, where God draws them to Him first. John 6:44... before you say it "last day" is something you take hyperliterally, and I am more prone to take it as a figure of speech "the day" and "the hour" kind of are common figures of expression and not to be taken literally.

But there is tension, because Paul does talk about election, as in God chooses. But Paul also says that it's an open invitation. About the best reconciliation I have is that God chooses who He foreknew would choose Him. It's something that's difficult to wrap one's head around.



I lean towards Paul writing Hebrews but He didn't sign it so it's impossible to prove.
But regardless the understanding I have of Amillennial binding of Satan is that Satan is unable to prevent the spread of the Gospel.
Why I present 2 Corinthians 4:4, is because Paul teaches that Satan can actually prevent reception of the Gospel, that is, prevent the spread of the Gospel.. and that it takes an act of God, to lift that blindness so they can receive and believe.
again it's a tension between God's sovereignty/election and Man's free will/agency/responsibility.
I don't have a full answer between these things because the bible teaches both, Paul himself teaches both.

I don't know how anyone becomes a full 5 point Calvanist without ignoring parts of the bible.. and I don't know how someone goes full Arminian without ignoring parts of the bible.
Romans 9 is one of the most gut wrenching sections through all of scripture. The idea that some people.. were created just to be tortured forever.
Just so that we who get mercy, can know that they exist, and feel blessed that at least it wasn't us that's in that position.

Revelation 20 is not talking about the devil deceiving an individual. It is talking about him deceiving the Gentile people (the ethnos). Revelation 20:2-6: "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations (ethnos Strong’s 1484) no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season ... 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."

With the global expanse of the great commission the Gentiles now are without excuse. The ignorance is gone. The veil is lifted. Satan had power and influence over the nations before the cross. The Gentiles were deceived. The Gentiles were in darkness. But since the First Advent the devil has been bound, curtailed, and limited in his power and influence, and is unable to curtail the enlightening of the Gentiles as a whole.

Jesus said, in Luke 24:46-47, “thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations (ethnos), beginning at Jerusalem.”

Contrary to what Premils argue, Christ’s resurrection was the first. Obviously, the believer’s physical resurrection can’t be the first resurrection – Christ’s has already preceded it. The resurrection of the just is still to occur. Moreover, the resurrection is here identified with the enlightenment of the Gentiles thus removing their long-held deception. This agrees with a current fulfilment of Revelation 20.

For thousands of years before the cross Israel was the sole national custodian of the Gospel. However, the earthly ministry of Christ marked the turning point for this state of affairs. In fact, the resurrection was the pivotal event that opened the way for the global un-blinding of the Gentiles. This climactic event secured salvation for the “whosoever believeth” of all tribes, colours and nationalities – none excluded. Without Christ’s victory over sin, death and the grave the Gentiles would have remained in their darkened state. The Jewish rituals would have been restricted to a physical brick building in Jerusalem city, where Gentiles where kept on the outside.

It is a fact, the Gentile nations sat in darkness for 4,000 apart from one notable exception – the city of Ninevah. The veil of darkness covered every Gentile nation. Calvary saw the boundaries of the Gospel witness enlarged to embrace a global harvest field. The kingdom of God was preached in power and authority to the heathen “and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). Luke identifies the sufferings of Christ followed by his “rise from the dead the third day” as the catalyse for the Gentiles receiving the Gospel. Luke confirms that this occurred for the purpose “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” including Israel. The suffix attached to the end of this statement proves this, by saying, “beginning at Jerusalem.”

Paul received his great commission to go onto the Gentiles with the Gospel during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. The Lord said unto him in Acts 26:16-18, “rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles (ethnos), unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

Paul’s commission was to preach the Word to the blind ignorant darkened deceived Gentiles. God promised him that through this Gospel Gentiles would receive Christ and be turned from darkness to light, blindness to sight and deception to knowledge.

The (ethnos Strong’s 1484) or nations will witness the global spread of the Gospel, up until a time of severe curtailment of the preaching of the Word and gross debauchery in society prior to Christ's Coming. This is where the Holy Spirit (the restrainer) is drawn back from the midst of them.

Scripture often makes broad general sweeping statements. When Scripture tells us that the Gentiles would no longer be deceived it does not mean every single one of them, or even most of them, would be saved, just that the ignorance would be finally lifted from the darkened Gentiles.

Acts 26:23 declares, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos)."

The first resurrection opened up the Gospel to the nations!

We should note in this passage, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ. It is only through this powerful event that the deception that smothered the Gentiles was lifted. Moreover, the binding of Satan is expressly connected to the enlightenment of the Gentiles (or) ethnos. The Amil understanding of "the first resurrection" can only be understood “in Christ.” The spiritual resurrection that a sinner realizes upon conversion is only realized in "the first resurrection" of Christ. Our second physical resurrection is also procured through the victory of "the first resurrection" of Christ. A Christian is raised from the grave of his sin in this life solely on the grounds of Christ’s first resurrection.

The general broad deception that engulfed the Gentiles in ignorance and darkness is lifted. They now can receive if they believe. That does not suggest the majority will.