Question for Amillennialists

[Spiritual Jew]

Ah so when you demand scriptural evidence from others it’s ok, but when I demand it of you, it’s arbitrary. Got it.

Do you always demand that for one scripture passage to be related to another they have to contain the exact same wording?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Premil makes more sense than this, and that is saying something.

It truly doesn't. It does not address the actual text itself. Nothing in what he wrote even begins to explain why it talks about the thousand years in terms of having a beginning and an ending. Nothing in what he wrote even begins to explain how "a little season" of time could possibly occur after a supposedly non-existent period of time with no beginning or ending. The text itself very clearly refers to the end of the thousand years and to a short time period following it, but his view does not address that whatsoever.

He had to come up with some way to either make the thousand years a short period of time (nonsensical) or make it not a real period of time at all (even more nonsensical). That's the only way he can support his view that everything written in the book would happen shortly after it was written. If the thousand years is literal or represents a long period of time, then that blows up his entire interpretation of the book. And he knows that. So, he came up with this alternative interpretation of Revelation 20 to support his overall understanding of the book. Of course, the problem is that his interpretation of Revelation 20 makes no sense at all.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I know we agree that the strong man was bound so that his house could be plundered and that his works and power over death were annulled. Those are very clear things taught in the gospels and epistles.

Satan prowling and looking to devour does mean something- it means persecution. Satan hindering the gospel, blinding unbelievers, deceiving as an angel of light, throwing saints in prison and even killing them was a very real reality to the saints of the first century. And thus Peter exhorted them to flee and pray for their brothers and sisters suffering around the world.

What is not taught in the gospels, book of acts, nor epistles is that satan would be locked in the abyss for a long period of time and then would be released to war against the church. that does not come from any plain teachings of the epistles nor gospels.

You are taking his binding very literally the way Premils do, so you conclude that if he is active at all then he cannot be bound. But, it isn't about him being completely incapacitated, it's about him being restrained and kept from having the same kind of power that he had in Old Testament times when he held the power of death and was able to keep a vast majority of the world as slaves to the fear of death. And passages like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8 and Acts 26:14-18 make it clear that he has not had the same amount of power to the same extent in New Testament times as he did in Old Testament times.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Right, it would be an argument from silence if I was attempting to debate premil, who doesn’t use gospel and epistolic support in order to interpret revelation 20. An argument from silence could be worthless in this case.

Amils , on the other hand, claim to use scripture to interpret scripture, and therefore claim to interpret revelation 20 based on gospel and epistolic passages. So I’m asking amil to provide what gospel or epistolic passages claim Satan was to bound and locked in the abyss for a long period of time and then to be released to war against the church. An argument from silence would not be worthless in this case, since they claim to use the gospels and epistles to interpret the symbolic vision revelation 20. So your response to me is Irrelevant, as I’m mostly discussing this with Amils.

Thanks for the clarification. It is much appreciated.

 

[claninja]

You didn't respond to ANY of mine.

You started to splinter into many different points instead of just addressing with a simple yes or no as whether peters exhortation in 1 Peter 5:9 could possibly apply to the saints being warred against in revelation 20.

Why should I respond to the 15 different points you bring, if you won’t respond how our discussion originally started?

Why does it talk about the thousand years ending if it's not talking about an actual period of time (not necessarily a literal thousand years, but a period of time with a beginning and ending)?

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

How does your view line up with the part I bolded here? How can a non-existent time period be followed by "a little season" of time? That makes no sense whatsoever. Please address that.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

This verse also indicates that something happens after the thousand years ends. How can anything happen after a non-existent time period? How can a non-existent time period expire/end? How can Satan be loosed when a non-existent time period ends? Do you have any answers to these questions at all? Just saying it's all a parable, etc. does not answer these questions.

Ok, so just point to where gospels and epistles teach that Satan is locked In the abyss for a long period of time and released to war against the church.

You are doing nothing to explain the wording of the text. It explicitly indicates that the thousand years ends and then AFTER THAT Satan is loosed for "a little season" of time at the end of which fire comes down from heaven to destroy Satan's followers. What you're saying here does not address that at all.

Right, I’m not really interested in picking apart the entire text. I’m interested in why the gospels and epistles are completely void of mentioning Satan locked in the abyss for a long period of time and then released to war against the church, but instead mention Satan warring against the church as a present reality

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You started to splinter into many different points instead of just addressing with a simple yes or no as whether peters exhortation in 1 Peter 5:9 could possibly apply to the saints being warred against in revelation 20.

I never even claimed that 1 Peter 5:9 applied to that, so that isn't even a valid question to ask me. I claimed that 1 Peter 5:9 relates to his binding, not his loosing. And I claimed that because it speaks of the authority NT believers have had over Satan that OT believers did not have because NT believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. I believe he must flee from us when we resist him because he knows he is no match for the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

Why should I respond to the 15 different points you bring, if you won’t respond how our discussion originally started?

I believe I did.

Ok, so just point to where gospels and epistles teach that Satan is locked In the abyss for a long period of time and released to war against the church.

I have done that, but not to your satisfaction. Oh well. So be it. You require text that matches Revelation 20 explicitly word for word as if nothing can ever be implied and as if no scriptures can ever be related unless they match each other word for word. I don't understand that kind of perspective, but I know I can't force you to change your approach to interpreting scripture.

Right, I’m not really interested in picking apart the entire text. I’m interested in why the gospels and epistles are completely void of mentioning Satan locked in the abyss for a long period of time and then released to war against the church, but instead mention Satan warring against the church as a present reality

If I held a view as nonsensical as yours, I would try to avoid "picking apart the entire text" as well. You won't acknowledge it, but your view makes no sense of the references to the thousand years coming to an end and being followed by "a little season" of time. Why would it refer to the thousand years as ending if it's not referring to an actual period of time with a beginning and ending? Are you able to answer that question in any way, shape or form? So far, I don't believe you have.

 

[DavidPT]

David, do you ever remember anything I tell you? We have been over this before multiple times.

I'm sure you understand that the New Testament was not originally written in English, but rather was originally written in Greek. The Greek word translated as "short" in Revelation 12:12 (oligos - Strong's G3641) is a different Greek word than the one translated as "little" in Revelation 20:3 (mikros - Strong's G3398). The Greek word "oligos" can mean "relatively, but not literally few" or "a limited number or size".

It is used in this verse:

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few (oligos) are chosen.

In this verse Jesus was talking about those who are called to salvation. Many, or a multitude, are called to salvation but relatively few are chosen. Is that talking about literally few people being saved? No, right? It's only "few" in relation to the "many" who are called. In Revelation 7:9 John describes the number of saved people that he saw as "a multitude". So, this is a term that is used relatively.

So, in Revelation 12:12 it's not talking about a literally short amount of time that Satan has to take out his wrath on "the remnant of" the woman's "seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 12:17). It's taking about the relatively short or limited amount of time that he has to do that before time runs out and he is cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:10). The time period coincides with the time following Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven. They were cast out of heaven long ago already! Before that happened Satan was able to accuse believers in heaven, but after that no one can make any charge/accusation against God's elect (Romans 8:33).

In contrast to that, the Greek word "mikros", translated as "little" or "short" in Revelation 20:3 to described the time/season he has after being loosed, refers to a literal small number or amount. A literal small amount of time in this case. So, you need to make use of Hebrew and Greek resources in order to find out the real meaning of words in cases like this or else you end up just assuming the words always mean the same thing just because they are the same in English.

Also, you seem to think that it says Satan is bound from having great wrath and taking out his wrath on believers. Where does it say that? Nowhere. So, why act as if it does?

Eric, let's see if we can somewhat get on the same page here at least.

I have zero problem accepting that the short time per Revelation 12:12, that it involves a cpl thousand years. That's not the issue. What I have a problem with, this same 2000 years or so, it is also when satan is bound in the pit. Which is then nonsensical to me, the fact Revelation 12:12 records the following---Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath. As if it makes sense that he is going to be filled with great wrath while he is depicted bound and locked up in the pit.

satan being full of great wrath only makes sense to me if he is not in the pit at the time. And if Revelation 12:12 began 2000 years ago, where I tend to agree that it likely did, this leaves no era of time for satan to be bound since verse 12 fits a satan that is not in the pit, not a satan that is in the pit.

No matter how you look at it, or at least how I look at it, your interpretation of the thousand years is never going to fit Revelation 12:12. To try and show why, consider the following scenarios.

A) Revelation 12:12 began 2000 years ago. Therefore, satan can't be bound during the past 2000 years since it is not reasonable that he would be exercising great wrath while depicted bound in the pit. That only makes sense if he is not in the pit, him coming down to the earth having great wrath for 2000 years.

B) Revelation 12:12 is not meaning 2000 years ago, it is meaning the final days of this age and that it involves years, such as 3.5 years, not centuries, such as 20 of them. Even though B) is obviously not your position, it still couldn't support Amil even if it was your position. And the reason why is because this would mean that the thousand years are meaning while satan still has access to heaven since that is what precedes Revelation 12:12.

How you see it making sense that while he is depicted bound in the pit, that this fits with him having great wrath, makes zero sense to me. Those things are not compatible. I can't speak for you of course, but when I read Revelation 20:1-3, nothing recorded in those verses are giving me the impression that satan is being wrathful while in that condition, that he is exercising great wrath while depicted bound in the pit.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Ah so when you demand scriptural evidence from others it’s ok, but when I demand it of you, it’s arbitrary. Got it.

But, I take it since you had to preface with this statement, you have zero, nada, and zilch when it comes to providing gospel or epistolic that demonstrates that the apostles believed Satan would be locked up in the abyss for a long time and then released for a short time to war against the church. Everything you provided in your copied and pasted response provides absolutely zero evidence that the authors of the gospels and epistles believed Satan would be released in the future war against the church.

But it is good to note that you still retain your premil hermeneutics of interpreting parts of revelation 20 without any gospel or epistolic evidence.

Why can you not even address the various evidence in Scripture I presented? Because it exposes your illusion that the millennium is imaginary. You have nothing to bring to the table apart from explaining actual real prophecies of events and achievements away. This is what Full Preterism does!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Eric, let's see if we can somewhat get on the same page here at least.

I have zero problem accepting that the short time per Revelation 12:12, that it involves a cpl thousand years. That's not the issue.

Okay, I must have misunderstood what you were saying then. I certainly wasn't intentionally misrepresenting what you said. I think I started thinking that you were comparing the "short time" of Revelation 12:12 with the "little season" of Revelation 20 and got off track. But, after re-reading your post I can see that's not what you were doing.

What I have a problem with, this same 2000 years or so, it is also when satan is bound in the pit. Which is then nonsensical to me, the fact Revelation 12:12 records the following---Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath. As if it makes sense that he is going to be filled with great wrath while he is depicted bound and locked up in the pit.

As long as you insist on seeing his binding as being a case of him being completely incapacitated, it will continue to be a struggle for us to get on the same page and understand each other. And that is because I don't look at his binding that way. From my perspective it actually makes a lot of sense to me that him being bound (restrained) and coming to the realization that his time is limited before he meets his ultimate destiny, as recorded in Revelation 20:10, would make him very angry.

satan being full of great wrath only makes sense to me if he is not in the pit at the time.

Why? Where does it say he is bound from being full of great wrath?

And if Revelation 12:12 began 2000 years ago, where I tend to agree that it likely did, this leaves no era of time for satan to be bound since verse 12 fits a satan that is not in the pit, not a satan that is in the pit.

For some reason you have decided that it says something about Satan being bound from having great wrath and persecuting people, but it doesn't say that. You assume that because of your belief that his binding results in him being completely incapacitated in every way.

No matter how you look at it, or at least how I look at it, your interpretation of the thousand years is never going to fit Revelation 12:12.

I'm glad you clarified that it's only not possible based on how you look at it because we look at all of this very differently. Also, I don't ever believe something that I have no explanation for and that I can't back up.

To try and show why, consider the following scenarios.

A) Revelation 12:12 began 2000 years ago. Therefore, satan can't be bound during the past 2000 years since it is not reasonable that he would be exercising great wrath while depicted bound in the pit. That only makes sense if he is not in the pit, him coming down to the earth having great wrath for 2000 years.

Again, this is the conclusion that someone would draw based only on the assumption that Satan being bound results in him being completely incapacitated. That is not how I understand his binding, so Revelation 12:12 beginning around 2,000 years ago is not a problem for my view since I don't view his binding as a case of him being completely incapacitated. It only creates a problem from your perspective, which, frankly, doesn't matter to me.

B) Revelation 12:12 is not meaning 2000 years ago, it is meaning the final days of this age and that it involves years, such as 3.5 years, not centuries, such as 20 of them. Even though B) is obviously not your position, it still couldn't support Amil even if it was your position. And the reason why is because this would mean that the thousand years are meaning while satan still has access to heaven since that is what precedes Revelation 12:12.

I'm not sure why you would include a scenario that doesn't reflect what I believe, but okay. Whatever. Since this scenario doesn't apply to what I believe, I really couldn't care less if this scenario could support Amil or not.

How you see it making sense that while he is depicted bound in the pit, that this fits with him having great wrath, makes zero sense to me.

You repeat yourself over and over again for some reason. You've already made this point at least 3 or 4 times in this post. I'll just ask again, where does it say he is bound from having great wrath?

Those things are not compatible.

That is true only if him being bound results in him being completely incapacitated. But, I don't believe that. Obviously, the main difference in our views is in our understanding of what him being bound entails in terms of what he is able to do after being bound. You see it as him basically having his hands and feet cuffed (if he, a spirit being, actually had hands and feet), but I see it as him figuratively being put on a long chain that limits/restrains what he can do.

but when I read Revelation 20:1-3, nothing recorded in those verses are giving me the impression that satan is being wrathful while in that condition, that he is exercising great wrath while depicted bound in the pit.

There is also nothing there to indicate that he can't have great wrath while being bound in the pit. This is why our understanding of Revelation 20 can't be limited to only Revelation 20 itself. Our understanding of Revelation 20 should line up with all scripture and not contradict any scripture. Obviously, as an Amil, I believe your interpretation of Revelation 20 does contradict other scripture and you should already know by now which scriptures I believe the Premil view contradicts.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why can you not even address the various evidence in Scripture I presented? Because it exposes your illusion that the millennium is imaginary. You have nothing to bring to the table apart from explaining actual real prophecies of events and achievements. This is what Full Preterism does!

His entire argument is that we can't provide other scripture which has the same wording as Revelation 20 does in relation to Satan's binding. So, because of that, he concludes that scriptures like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8 and Acts 26:14-18 can't relate to Satan's binding since they don't explicitly mention his binding. I find that to be a very weak argument.

He seems to look at things similarly to Premils in that he doesn't seem to see any significant difference in Satan's influence and activities in OT times compared to NT times.

 

[sovereigngrace]

His entire argument is that we can't provide other scripture which has the same wording as Revelation 20 does in relation to Satan's binding. So, because of that, he concludes that scriptures like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8 and Acts 26:14-18 can't relate to Satan's binding since they don't explicitly mention his binding. I find that to be a very weak argument.

He seems to look at things similarly to Premils in that he doesn't seem to see any significant difference in Satan's influence and activities in OT times compared to NT times.

It is far worst than Premil. He denies Jesus literal physical future second coming. That is heretical. What is more, he questions Amils on the issue of corroboration whilst advocating the error that the millennium is an illusion. It is ridiculous. It is a waste of time trying to refute those who promote the Jesuit Scott Hahn's theology. They are just here to filibuster.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It is far worst than Premil. He denies Jesus literal physical future second coming. That is heretical.

I was not aware that he denied that. Yes, that is certainly far worse. Of course. I was just making an observation of how his view of Satan is similar to Premils and certainly not intending to say that his view, overall, is no different than Premils in terms of how bad and off base it is.

What is more, he questions Amils on the issue of corroboration whilst advocating the error that the millennium is an illusion. It is ridiculous.

Yes, his interpretation of Revelation 20 is absolutely ludicrous. I'm not even sure why I'm even arguing with him about it because that can imply that I'm considering it a credible argument in the same way I would consider Premil to have a credible argument. Credible, but wrong. I don't find his view of the thousand years to be credible at all because it just completely ignores the fact that it explicitly states that the thousand years has a beginning and eventually comes to an end and is followed by "a little season" of time. How can that equate to being just a general parable that has nothing to say about the timing of anything? It really is ridiculous.

It is a waste of time trying to refute those who promote the Jesuit Scott Hahn's theology. They are just here to filibuster.

Yeah, I always say that it's a waste of time to refute things that only one person or very few people believe. I do that sometimes, but I always end up wondering why I did. What is the point of doing that? It's not because of a concern of them leading others to believe the way they do, so it really is a waste of time.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe you are misinterpreting 1 Corinthians 15:24. You are interpreting it as if it's talking about literally all rule, authority and power being put down, but that isn't what it is talking about. That is talking about Jesus putting down (destroying) all of the rule, authority and power of His enemies. It doesn't say that even Jesus or the disciples won't have any rule or power at that point. Of course He will and of course they will for eternity.

Surely, you understand that someone can be in power, but still have to answer to someone above them? That will be the case at that point. Jesus will still have authority and power, but will be subject unto the Father. Similarly, believers that are referenced in Jesus's parable will have authority, but will be subject to Jesus and to the Father.

Eric, it's entirely possible that I have somewhat been misunderstanding 1 Corinthians 15:24 since what you submitted makes good sense to me and that I have no problem admitting that. But even if you are correct about that verse and that I'm not, there are still some other things to factor in.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


The question is, pertaining to the parable I submitted from Luke 19, this authority that Jesus rewards His faithful servants with when He returns, should we assume, regardless what this authority might actually look like, that He is giving it to them forever, thus they utilize this authority throughout all eternity, or should we assume He is giving them this authority until 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled?

No matter how you look at it, He gives them this authority before the GWTJ is past, based on the fact what Luke 19:27 records.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


Obviously, and even you couldn't possibly disagree, regardless what verse 27 actually looks like when it is being fulfilled, it is meaning before or maybe even during the GWTJ, certainly not after that judgment. This at least tells us, regardless that this a parable, as of verse 27, the end meant in 1 Corinthians 15:24 has not arrived yet since it would be ludicrous to apply Luke 19:27 after 1 Corinthians 15:24 has been fulfilled rather than before it has been fulfilled.

If one argues, that since this is a parable this means none of this actually involves literal events, such as Christ giving anyone authority when He returns, regardless what that might actually look like, is that same one also going to argue, where someone, Christ in this case, actually literally leaves the planet, goes somewhere else for awhile, heaven in this case, then returns to the earth some centuries later, that that doesn't actually involve literal events, either?

After all, it makes zero sense to take the latter to involve literal events, but these other things, such as rewarding faithful servants with authority over things when He returns, that none of that should be taken in a literal sense where He actually does something like that when He returns. Sounds like cherry picking to me.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Eric, it's entirely possible that I have somewhat been misunderstanding 1 Corinthians 15:24 since what you submitted makes good sense to me and that I have no problem admitting that. But even if you are correct about that verse and that I'm not, there are still some other things to factor in.

Of course there is. There's always other things to factor in and there always will be for you. But, I respect that you at least acknowledge that it's possible that you "have somewhat been misunderstanding 1 Corinthians 15:24".

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The question is, pertaining to the parable I submitted from Luke 19, this authority that Jesus rewards His faithful servants with when He returns, should we assume, regardless what this authority might actually look like, that He is giving it to them forever, thus they utilize this authority throughout all eternity, or should we assume He is giving them this authority until 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled?

That they will utilize it throughout all eternity. Why not? Why would we think that Jesus will give out temporal rewards at His second coming? I don't believe that makes any sense and I don't believe there is any scripture to support that idea.

No matter how you look at it, He gives them this authority before the GWTJ is past, based on the fact what Luke 19:27 records.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

I don't see this as having any bearing on whether Amil or Premil is true. There is no indication that they actually use that authority before the GWTJ is past.

Obviously, and even you couldn't possibly disagree, regardless what verse 27 actually looks like when it is being fulfilled, it is meaning before or maybe even during the GWTJ, certainly not after that judgment.

So what? I'm not seeing your point so far.

This at least tells us, regardless that this a parable, as of verse 27, the end meant in 1 Corinthians 15:24 has not arrived yet since it would be ludicrous to apply Luke 19:27 after 1 Corinthians 15:24 has been fulfilled rather than before it has been fulfilled.

It's very difficult to understand what you're trying to say here.

One thing that has to be determined is whether or not 1 Cor 15:24 is talking about the physical destruction of His enemies and putting an end to their physical dominion, authority and power in particular or talking about them being cast into the lake of fire? I believe it is talking about their physical destruction because in 1 Corinthians 15:26 Paul indicates that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Well, death is not the last enemy to be cast into the lake of fire. It is cast into the lake of fire before those whose names are not written in the book of life (Rev 20:14-15). So, 1 Cor 15:24-26 has to be talking about the end of physical death which occurs just before the GWTJ takes place.

Then there's the question of what Luke 19:27 is referring to. The physical destruction of His enemies or them being cast into the lake of fire? I lean towards the latter because it comes across as depicting things that happen at the judgment rather than before that. So, I would see Luke 19:27 as being the same as Matthew 25:41 except that it's depicted in a parable rather than indicating what will literally happen like Matthew 25:41 does.

So, do you agree with what I said here? If so, does that change anything in terms of the point you're trying to make here? If so, what does it change? If not, why not? Regardless of your answer to these questions, can you please try to clarify the point that you were attempting to make here?

If one argues, that since this is a parable this means none of this actually involves literal events, such as Christ giving anyone authority when He returns, regardless what that might actually look like, is that same one also going to argue, where someone, Christ in this case, actually literally leaves the planet, goes somewhere else for awhile, heaven in this case, then returns to the earth some centuries later, that that doesn't actually involve literal events, either?

Well, I'm not arguing that, so we don't need to spend time talking about this scenario.

After all, it makes zero sense to take the latter to involve literal events, but these other things, such as rewarding faithful servants with authority over things when He returns,that none of that should be taken in a literal sense where He actually does something like that when He returns. Sounds like cherry picking to me.

Who is doing that, though? Not me. So, what are you talking about? Or are you just trying to confuse me? Of course not, but you have confused me, anyway.

 

[claninja]

Why can you not even address the various evidence in Scripture I presented? Because it exposes your illusion that the millennium is imaginary. You have nothing to bring to the table apart from explaining actual real prophecies of events and achievements. This is what Full Preterism does!

Why would I address your post, which is mostly about nothing related to my point, when I already agree that the strong man was bound so his could be plundered, and that Satan’s works and power over death were annulled, and that the angels that sinned were locked in chains in Tartarus UNTIL THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT (notice it doesn’t say until they are released for a little season).

I only wish to know what evidence from the gospels, book of acts, and epistles you use to support your interpretation that Satan is locked in the abyss for a long time period of time followed by by his release from the pit to war against the saints in the future?

SG you are able to provide plenty of great evidence from the gospels and epistles about your other points, but when it comes to this, all of the sudden you must deflect and call it some arbitrary request and falsely label me as full preterist…….why is it so difficult for you to provide evidence for your position on this point?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Why would I address your post, which is mostly about nothing related to my point, when I already agree that the strong man was bound so his could be plundered, and that Satan’s works and power over death were annulled, and that the angels that sinned were locked in chains in Tartarus UNTIL THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT (notice it doesn’t say until they are released for a little season).

I only wish to know what evidence from the gospels, book of acts, and epistles you use to support your interpretation that Satan is locked in the abyss for a long time period of time followed by by his release from the pit to war against the saints in the future?

SG you are able to provide plenty of great evidence from the gospels and epistles about your other points, but when it comes to this, all of the sudden you must deflect and call it some arbitrary request and falsely label me as full preterist…….why is it so difficult for you to provide evidence for your position on this point?

I did. You ignored it. I am not wasting my timing trying to force you to accept what the Bible says. You fictionalize God's truth by denying a biblical time-period, which is dangerous. You are in no place to lecture anyone about anything when you deny what the Book says. Men either see it or not. That is not my place, that is for the indwelling Holy Spirit within believers.

You are derailing this thread. It is a Premil/Amil discussion. It has nothing to do with Full Preterism. I reject that heresy as all orthodox and fundamentalist Christians do. I am done discussing this with you.

 

[claninja]

Do you always demand that for one scripture passage to be related to another they have to contain the exact same wording?

Last time I checked, no.

so can can you provide any passages from the gospels, epistles, or book of acts, that are necessarily not word for word, but at least related to the apostles teaching that Satan is bound for a time and then Released to war against the saints?

I mean, I know you don’t always use scripture to interpret scripture when it goes against your eschatological view. revelation 18:24 with Matthew 23:35 is a prime example. So i guess i shouldn’t be so surprised that you can use scripture from the gospels and epistles that is pretty much almost “word for word similar” to interpret passages like revelation 20s “first resurrection”, “kingdom of priests”, “never face the 2nd death” when it fits your position, but then all of the sudden don’t for Satan being locked away for a long time then released to war against the saints.

 

[claninja]

You are taking his binding very literally the way Premils do, so you conclude that if he is active at all then he cannot be bound. But, it isn't about him being completely incapacitated, it's about him being restrained and kept from having the same kind of power that he had in Old Testament times when he held the power of death and was able to keep a vast majority of the world as slaves to the fear of death. And passages like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8 and Acts 26:14-18 make it clear that he has not had the same amount of power to the same extent in New Testament times as he did in Old Testament times.

I don’t believe the binding is with a literal chain.

I believe the 1,000 years is symbolic for the work of Christ, his fulfillment of the Davidic monarchy, and the realized promises to the saints through his ministry, death, resurrection.

Satan being then bound = removed from his heavenly position to accuse the saints, and his works and power over death thus annulled.

Upon the fulfillment of the first resurrection or Christs resurrection, Satan then wars against the saints, as described in the epistles: hindering the gospel, deceiving, killing, throwing saints in prison, blinding, working through the sons of disobedience, and leading many astray.

BUT ultimately the coming of the Lord was at hand, and would be in a little while without delay, and Satan would be. Quickly crushed.

The purpose of calling it Satan’s “little season” when juxtaposed to the 1,000 years was for the purpose of hope, as is common in Jewish/Christian apocalyptic literature.



“At this time, the time of the incarnation of the Lord, the devil was bound and was not able to resist the marks of the Savior's deity. And, therefore, when they sensed that they were spiritually bound, the wicked demons cried out, 'What have you to do with us, O Son of the living God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?' And the Lord also made clear their bondage when he said, 'Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.' Since, therefore, as it was indicated, we understand the incarnation of the Lord and his sojourn upon earth to be called 'one day' and a 'thousand years' without distinction in the holy Scriptures, such a number is used figuratively.” - Oecumenius

 

[claninja]

I did. You ignored it. I am not wasting my timing trying to force you to accept what the Bible says. You fictionalize God's truth by denying a biblical time-period, which is dangerous. You are in no place to lecture anyone about anything when you deny what the Book says. Men either see it or not. That is not my place, that is for the indwelling Holy Spirit within believers.

You are derailing this thread. It is a Premil/Amil discussion. It has nothing to do with Full Preterism. I reject that heresy as all orthodox and fundamentalist Christians do. I am done discussing this with you.

Nah, you really didn’t though. You provided every other proof text from the gospels and epistles, except one that claims Satan is bound for a long period of time then released to war against the saints.

And now since you can’t provide it, you deflect and resort to false claims of me being full preterist. Lol classic SG.

My posts are directly related to the OP, which is about the activities of Satan. I suggest you back and reread the OP.

 

[DavidPT]

but then all of the sudden don’t for Satan being locked away for a long time then released to war against the saints.

Even per the book of Revelelation it apparently can't be shown prior to ch 20, anything having to do with satan being locked up a real long time. Everything prior to ch 20, in regards to satan, appears to involve warring with saints. Something you would think he wouldn't be doing if he is supposed to be in the pit at the time.

If Revelation 20 is undeniably showing that satan is not battling any saints until the thousand years have expired, why then are some of these Amils around here having satan in constant battle with the saints throughout the thousand years? Clearly, these past 2000 years, satan has been battling saints, and that some of these Amils around here insist these same 2000 years are meaning the same era of time satan is in the pit.

Maybe some of you can say there is no logic to Premil and feel that's a reasonable conclusion to come to, but how can some of you say, meaning Amils in this case, that there is any logic to Amil if Amil has satan battling with saints throughout the thousand years when Revlation 20 doesn't have him battling with saints again until the thousand years have expired? The keyword being 'again'.

Meaning he was initially doing this, then he stops doing this during the thousand years, then he resumes doing this after the thousand years have expired. The way some Amils interpret Revelation 20 though, there appears to be no difference between when he is bound and when he is loosed. When he is bound he can still deceive. When he is bound he can still make war with the church, the exact same things he can do when he is not bound.