You are totally avoiding my response again, as is David. Premils have to in order for their Premillennialism to survive. So, start by dealing with the facts, not what you wrongly imagine Amils to believe.
You are totally avoiding David's points. Totally avoiding them. You simply don't answer his points. You don't answer anyone's points when it does not suit you. The finger you are pointing has three pointing back at you. I gave you an example of how to answer someone's points, using the same scriptures he used, without starting at a completely different place with a premise that is based on a ethereal "beast system" that scripture does not talk about - unless it does not exist and will exist when it ascends out of the pit.
You will quickly see that Premil conflicts with countless Scripture as enjoys no corroboration in Scripture.
If you will start with the facts you will quickly see that Amill conflicts with countless scripture and enjoys no corroboration in scripture.
So my point with parroting you is: When you make statements like the above which are based upon your own opinions only, you're not stating facts. Anyone can do the same. What you said above is an opinion, not based on facts - and you've never produced any scripture which beyond the shadow of any doubt
supports your opinion.
Thank you for finally addressing my response to your opinions.
The problem is, you are trying to understand, interpret and rebut the Amil position with a hyper-literalist Premil understanding of the dragon, chain, prison, seal and thousand years. This does not make sense and totally negates your whole argument every time.
What you say above is laughable. It suggests that the people you debate with have no intelligence, and cannot understand that the serpent and the dragon are symbols for the adversary of God and His Son, and we cannot understand that "dragon, chain, pit and seal" is symbolic of what is real and of what will actually take place.
I could say, "The truth is, it's
you who cannot distinguish between what is literal and what is symbolic, having your understanding influenced by false notions regarding (what is in fact) the all-encompassing Kingdom of Christ, which your understanding limits to what your mind can understand after beginning with your starting-premise."
Why do Pre-mills always have to waste time addressing absolutely nonsensical statements like the one you made above?
So let;s stick to scripture and not argue about who can and who cannot rightly distinguish between what is literal and what is symbolic (like adults), shall we?
Let us establish an important fact, Revelation 20 does not directly say that Satan is “bound.” It is actually the “dragon” in this symbolic depiction which represents Satan that is “bound.” After all, Satan is not a literal “dragon.” The “dragon” is simply a symbol relating to Satan.
You are again implying in the above statement that Pre-mills are too dumb to understand that the serpent and the dragon are Biblical symbols for the adversary. Your ability to debate with an adult to adult tone is beginning to come into question, by your own choice of silly statements.
So let us establish another important fact: What you say above does not prove or support in any way, shape or form,
from scripture, what you say below:
The dragon being bound up in chains and imprisoned symbolizes Satan’s inability to deceive the Gentiles “nations” since the 1st Advent.
That's your opinion which is based neither on scripture nor on fact.
So, it doesn’t say that Satan would be sealed in a “prison” in the illustration, but rather the “dragon” would be sealed in a “prison.”
.. and your statements are growing more and more bizarre...
Yes, yes, the text states that the dragon (which symbolizes Satan)...
OK wait, let's make this clear to you, since you think you are of superior intelligence and you keep implying that the Pre-mills are too dumb to be able to distinguish between what is symbolic and what is real and literal:
Revelation 12:19
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent,
called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Invisible spirits are not held in a physical prison with literal chains.
Do you really expect a reasonable debate with intelligent people when you insist on implying that the person who you are debating with is so unintelligent that he does not know that it's not a physical prison with literal chains?
How can you expect
anyone to take you seriously?
As every intelligent, reasonable person who reads the text can see, what the text
IS talking about
in a symbolic way is the fact that spirits and beings
CAN be
bound by God (in respect of their activity) and held in a "prison" (albeit not a
physical prison) where they are
UNABLE to escape, as Peter and Jude have both said (1 Peter 3:19; Jude 1:6):
You really
cannot expect anyone to regard you as an adult debater if you are going to imply with such ridiculous statements that the person you are talking to is too dumb to see it.
We are looking at figurative language explaining the restraint Satan and his minions have been under since the First Advent.
Again, that's merely your opinion, which is not based on fact or on scriptural support - and you offer
no scripture to support your view - all you do is offer what A-mills believe,
without supplying
scripture to support what you are saying:
Amil believes that the kingdom of God is in conflict with Satan but that the chains upon him, the beast and the fallen angels are spiritual preventing them from thwarting the great commission to the nations (Gentiles). He cannot stop their enlightening. The chains restrict his previous global influence.
Again, stating what A-mills believe, devoid of scriptural support or even attempting to offer scriptural support. The truth is, Satan has
never had an unrestricted "global influence" (as you call it) - in one fowl swoop, you are implying (almost demanding of God) that there were no sons of Seth, there was never a Noah, or an Abraham, or a Moses, or a Joshua, nor any of the prophets of God (nor even a John the Baptist).
It's absolute nonsense - and you offer
no scriptural support for such sweeping statements - but you keep on implying that Pre-mills are too unintelligent to know that the serpent and dragon are symbols of Satan and that chains are symbols representing God's binding of the ability of this spirit being to go about doing what he does to influence the nations.
I truly suggest you attempt to create better posts with less insulting implications regarding the intelligence of the people you debate, and stop assuming you know better than they how to distinguish between the symbolic and the literal or real. Also,
offer scripture to at least attempt to support your assertions.
He was basically unchallenged outside of Israel.
That's only an opinion. There's no scripture offered by you to support it. There was a challenge before Israel. There were the sons of Seth, then there was Noah, and then there was Abraham - and even during the days of Israel, scores of Gentiles turned to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob over time and became converted. Even in the nations God limited or permitted the ability of pagan kings (such as the king of Babylon).
Your assertion that Satan was "basically unchallenged outside of Israel" is patently false in the face of scripture, and is merely your opinion.
The “binding” mentioned in Revelation 20 is speaking metaphorically of Satan's authority over the Gentile nations ..
The binding mentioned in Revelation 20 is over all nations (including Israel) - not just the Gentile nations, as you imply. In the promises of God to the Son of Man and in the prophets, Christ was to rule over
all nations with a rod of iron.
.. which was dealt a decisive blow through the resurrection of Christ.
That's merely your opinion, yet again, without you offering any scriptural support (yet again).
According to the scripture, what was dealt a decisive blow
was Satan's ability to accuse the brethren before God - and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb. He was therefore and then cast out of heaven (which was absolutely legal) and his activity was limited to earth -
and the scripture states that he then, after making war against the woman who had given birth to the messiah, went to make war against
the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. This
Biblical fact is confirmed
by the apostles who repeatedly warn
the churches they established regarding Satan and how they should guard themselves against his wiles and how they should protect themselves against him. David has already provided you with the list (which you refuse to believe). Does the fact that you refuse to believe what the apostles taught the Christians in the churches they established not show that you prefer your own opinion above scripture?
So once again, what you say is merely your opinion, which is not based on historical facts nor on scripture - and you offer
no scripture in support of all these assertions you make - but you repeatedly imply that Pre-mills are too dumb to understand these things aright.
- Firstly, the binding of Satan is spiritual. Satan is not human and physical. He is a spirit. A spirit cannot be held by physical restraints.
No one
except you is talking about
physical restraints when you speak about Satan being bound. Why are you so convinced that we Pre-mills are so dumb that we don't know that it's not a
physical restraint?
God is Almighty- He can
bind any spirit He chooses to
and put them in a spiritual prison (see Peter and Jude) - and to
those spirits their
spiritual "chains" (whatever they consist of) and their
spiritual "prison" is exactly the same to them
(in that it has the same effect) as the chains and prison of a human bound in a dungeon.
The fact that the Revelation is not telling us
exactly what it looks like but
is using symbolic language does not make it any less real.
So, we all get it,
without any scriptural support or offering any scriptural support, you think when God gives to Jesus a Revelation to give to his churches via His apostle John, and sends it by an angel and
signifies it (ie symbolic language), that
you may decide when God does not mean what is revealed and only deals in half-measures or partial measures - so that according to you, without providing any scriptural support, Satan is
bound in chains (sort of, partially) and locked in the "pit" (whatever it symbolizes) but only sort of - partially.
OK well,
you may not believe what the symbolism which God chose implies, and you might decide for yourself when something
is partial and not complete - but the rest of us will take
the symbolism to mean what
the symbolism implies.
And since you choose to repeatedly imply in your debate that
the reason Pre-mills take
the symbolism to mean what the symbolism implies, is because we Pre-mills are too unintelligent to be able to distinguish between what is symbolic and what is literal or real or actual", then so be it.
What is more, he is not in a physical prison or is he restrained by metal chains.
Oh for goodness sake..
No scripture, no intelligent reasons given for stating that the symbolism does not "fully" mean what the symbolism implies, just more bizarre statements. I really don't know why I'm wasting my time with this..
- Secondly, the binding does not suggest our enemy must be motionless or does it describe inactivity. Prisoners have movement in a prison albeit in a limited capacity, under strict rules and within controlled confines.
- Thirdly, Revelation 20 does not suggest that the devil is unable to inflict harm on anyone while bound. Everyone knows that a prisoner can perpetrate all types of crimes within the prison precincts.
Once again, 100% opinion, zero% scriptural support added - just an assertion:
"The symbolism in Revelation 20
does not imply what the text says - it's limited. God is not saying He was to bind Satan, lock Him in the "pit", and completely inhibit him from deceiving the nations".
Opinion, opinion and more opinion. Zero scripture offered. Then you also ignore or work your way around the teaching of
the apostles which state (not merely imply, but state) the contrary.
Once again, because the chains and prison are figurative? Hello!!! We are looking at the most symbolic setting in Scripture. Your literalist mindset is forcing you to miss the import. It is causing you to ignore the apocalyptic genre.
And once again you have absolutely failed to back your assertion up with scripture - all you ever do is repeat the same assertions which are based on your
opinions which are - how shall we put it - "highly debatable". But then, all you do in response is to imply (by what you say) that Pre-millenniiasts do not accept your assertions because we are too unintelligent to be able to distinguish between
the symbolism and
what the symbolism implies - which, according to you and with
zero scriptural support being offered, you can explain.
I'm not going to respond to all the rest. It's more of the same, and even more of the same. Unfortunately I don't have 24 hours to work on one post.
If only you would:
A. Back up the assertions you make with scripture; and
B. Stop assuming that because Pre-millennialists disagree with you it's because you're more intelligent than us and we are simply too dumb to be able to correctly distinguish between the symbolic and the literal or to know what it is that the symbolism implies,
then it would be easier to respond to your posts. But everything I've already responded to is merely opinion upon opinion upon opinion without offering scripture to supported all the assertions made - and repeatedly implying that Pre-millerd are less intelligent than you.