How does Eschatology effect attitude? (for men)

[rwb]

While that is obviously true, thus I do understand that, the point I was trying to make is this, though. First there is no deception taking place. But not because satan was not already devising a plan, but that the opportunity wasn't there yet, not until he encountered Eve, recorded in Genesis 3. In a similar way, when satan is bound a thousand years, it's not that he isn't already devising a plan how to deceive the nations again, it's that the opportunity is not there yet, not until he is loosed first.

David, the only reason Satan was able to hold the nations in bondage to fear of death before he was bound, is because the Gospel was not preached unto the Gentile nations until after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection from the dead. Prior to the first advent of Christ only the nation of Israel knew of a Savior who would come to redeem them from sin and defeat death. Every Jew of old who believed the prophets when they told of the Savior to come were redeemed by grace through faith, believing in the Messiah who would come, they had no fear of dying. After the cross we have the added benefit through the power of the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin. The Old Covenant nation had the Mosaic Law to convict them of sin. Through the Gospel and power of the Spirit we have been delivered from death when we believe. There is no more fear of death for those who have been eternally saved by Christ.

If Satan had not been bound by the crucifixion and resurrection, why are great multitudes being saved? According to you that could not happen until Satan is bound in the future and deception has been completely removed from the earth.

When Satan is loosed after time, likened to a thousand years are finished, the only ones left alive on this earth during Satan's little season that he is still able to deceive are Gog & Magog (antichrist & antichristians). There will still be some faithful saints (Church) that Satan hopes to destroy, but Satan cannot deceive them. Before Satan can utterly destroy the last of the faithful Church on earth, the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and fire will come down from God out of heaven to destroy whatever/whoever is still alive on this earth at the coming of Christ.

Since Satan's binding through the work of Christ, the message goes out to all the nations of the earth, and whosoever believes the Gospel by grace through faith has no more fear of death because they know they possess eternal life through Him.

Amils' interpretation of his thousand year binding contradicts this---that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled. You argue that satan doesn't operate alone. But that is already plainly obvious since satan is only one being and that he can't be in more than one place at a time, therefore, he has to operate through others in order to affect as many people as he does. But every time, though?

Actually there is not contradiction through the doctrine of Amill. The contradiction comes for those who say Satan must be bound so there will be no more deception on this earth. And that Satan must be bound before the nations of the world can be saved?

What about when satan initially fell and convinced billions of angels to follow him? He didn't do that through the beast and false prophet, he did that all by himself. The point being, if Premil is correct that the thousand years are after the 2nd coming, which means the beast and fp would already be in the LOF when satan is loosed, satan doesn't need the beast and fp to deceive the ones meant in Revelation 20:8 anymore than he needed them when he deceived billions of angels to follow him when he initially fell.

When did Satan initially fall and convince billions of angels to follow him? God said the serpent (Satan) was more subtil (cunning (usually in a bad sense):—crafty) than any beast of the field. This explains why Christ calls Pharisee's who profess to be of Abraham's seed 'of the devil', who from the beginning was a liar and murderer.

Genesis 3:1 (KJV) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

John 8:44 (KJV) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Satan was not once good and then fell and became evil. He has always been evil from the beginning.

 

[DavidPT]

Actually there is not contradiction through the doctrine of Amill. The contradiction comes for those who say Satan must be bound so there will be no more deception on this earth. And that Satan must be bound before the nations of the world can be saved?

IMO, it boils down to what 'no more' means. I take it to mean something like this. Once he graduates in his senior year he will be in high school no more. How can that instead mean what Amils take 'no more' to mean in Revelation 20:3? 'No more' means what it means, as in no longer doing what one was previously doing. What was satan doing before he is bound? Deceiving the nations. What should it mean when he is bound if the text is telling us so that he should deceive the nations no more? That he is still deceiving the nations? Or that he is no longer deceiving the nations?

Here's an idea, Roger. Can you provide a real world analogy like I did, that expresses what you take 'no more' to mean in Revelation 20:3?

 

[rwb]

IMO, it boils down to what 'no more' means. I take it to mean something like this. Once he graduates in his senior year he will be in high school no more. How can that instead mean what Amils take 'no more' to mean in Revelation 20:3? 'No more' means what it means, as in no longer doing what one was previously doing. What was satan doing before he is bound? Deceiving the nations. What should it mean when he is bound if the text is telling us so that he should deceive the nations no more? That he is still deceiving the nations? Or that he is no longer deceiving the nations?

Here's an idea, Roger. Can you provide a real world analogy like I did, that expresses what you take 'no more' to mean in Revelation 20:3?

The activities of Satan do not change before or after his binding. It isn't Satan who is changed by his binding. It is those who hear the Gospel in the power of the Spirit from the nations who are changed from darkness and death to light and eternal life. It is the Gospel proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit that prevents Satan from binding people from the nations who hear the message of Christ and believe in bondage to the fear of death. Until the Gospel in the power of the Spirit was sent to people in all the nations of the earth, Gentiles had no knowledge of The Savior! That is what binds Satan, the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit is more powerful than Satan's deception for Gentiles who hear and by grace through faith believe.

 

[rwb]

Here's an idea, Roger. Can you provide a real world analogy like I did, that expresses what you take 'no more' to mean in Revelation 20:3?

No more means the Gentile nations in the earth will not be deceived by Satan! That doesn't mean that every Gentile in every nation will not be deceived. Nor does it mean that all deception upon the earth will have ended when Satan is bound by Christ.

I'll expand on your analogy. When one graduates from high school it's true they will have no more high school. That does not mean they will have no more school at all. There is always college or trade school to consider that some high school graduates will go to.

In the same way when Satan is bound there will be no more deception in the nations, that does not mean there will be no more deception for every person in the nations. It means there will be no more deception for those in the nations who hear the Gospel in the power of the Spirit, repent and turn to Christ by grace through faith for eternal life.

 

[keras]

In the same way when Satan is bound there will be no more deception in the nations, that does not mean there will be no more deception for every person in the nations. It means there will be no more deception for those in the nations who hear the Gospel in the power of the Spirit, repent and turn to Christ by grace through faith for eternal life.

Nations, simply means the peoples.
When Satan is chained into the Pit, Revelation 20:1-3, he will be unable to deceive anyone, no longer as 1 Peter 5:8-9 tells us, as he can do now.
You are wrong, because it is not until Satan is released again, for a short while, Revelation 20:7-8, that he is again able to deceive anyone.

In the Millennium, people will make mistakes and if they fail to go annually to Jerusalem, the Lord will punish by withholding rain. Zechariah 14:16-21
The more I see of how AMill believers confuse and misapply the Prophesies, the further the AMill theory goes into the rubbish bin.

 

[All Glory To God]

I don't, and I am Amillennial. I believe that antichrist is the title given to whosoever is not for Christ is against Christ. That is what antichrist is defined as. And John tells us there are many antichrists. I believe it's possible to hold to the main tenants of any doctrinal position without embracing the whole. We see this from just about all who post in these forums whether professing to Amill, Premill, Postmill, or Preterisim.

Well the people who designed Amillennialism taught that the Pope was the anti-christ. So a literal anti-christ.

 

[rwb]

Well the people who designed Amillennialism taught that the Pope was the anti-christ. So a literal anti-christ.

Really? Who might those people be?

 

[DavidPT]

Satan was not once good and then fell and became evil. He has always been evil from the beginning.

IOW, you are proposing that God made him that way from the get go. I do not agree with that, especially if something such as the following is meaning this same satan.

Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God ; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee .
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

 

[Hank77]

If we have not been living in the Day of the Lord since Pentecost, why does James say in Acts 2 that Pentecost is fulfillment of the words of the prophet Joel 2 of what shall come to pass in the last days?

Peter?

 

[rwb]

Peter?

I did unintentionally err in citing James as the author of Acts, I meant to say Luke. It's been corrected. But I have no idea of what you mean? Peter???

 

[DavidPT]

I did unintentionally err in citing James as the author of Acts, I meant to say Luke. It's been corrected. But I have no idea of what you mean? Peter???

Maybe because it was Peter who said those things, not James. You indicated James said those things in Acts 2. Obviously, a typo on your part.

 

[Hank77]

I did unintentionally err in citing James as the author of Acts, I meant to say Luke. It's been corrected. But I have no idea of what you mean? Peter???

I understood you to be saying James rather than Peter had literally said those words.

 

[rwb]

I understood you to be saying James rather than Peter had literally said those words.

I may have very well applied a quote from Scripture to the wrong author, it wouldn't be the first time. But I believe Acts was written by Luke.

Luke 1:3 (KJV) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Acts 1:1 (KJV) The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

 

[Hank77]

I may have very well applied a quote from Scripture to the wrong author, it wouldn't be the first time. But I believe Acts was written by Luke.

Luke 1:3 (KJV) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Acts 1:1 (KJV) The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Yes, Acts it was written by Luke. But the scripture you quoted by spoken by Peter. Luke wrote about what Peter said.

 

[rwb]

Yes, Acts it was written by Luke. But the scripture you quoted by spoken by Peter. Luke wrote about what Peter said.

Okay, I missed your point...not the first time I've done that posting in the forum. Sorry if I was confusing, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Hank77]

Okay, I missed your point...not the first time I've done that posting in the forum. Sorry if I was confusing, thanks for pointing it out.

No worries, I've done it myself.

 

[All Glory To God]

Really? Who might those people be?

The Protestant reformers.

One only needs to read through the Protestant confessions and it's right there, that the pope is the anti-Christ. So a literal anti-Christ.

 

[Douggg]

One only needs to read through the Protestant confessions and it's right there, that the pope is the anti-Christ. So a literal anti-Christ.

The reformers were earnest, but wrong in their eschatology with their view that the pope is the Antichrist.

 

[rwb]

The Protestant reformers.

One only needs to read through the Protestant confessions and it's right there, that the pope is the anti-Christ. So a literal anti-Christ.

Okay. I was hoping to get a name. I'm not sure what you refer to as the Protestant Confessions? It's really not important as far as my belief is concerned. Because I don't believe the Bible foretells of A or The specific Anti-Christ, thou I realize many people read this into the Bible. I find Scripture warning believers to be aware of many anti-christs or people under the influence of Satan coming against Christ and Christians. And I don't believe I must embrace every doctrine from Protestant Reformers of old to believe an Amillennial position on biblical eschatology is correct.

 

[Timtofly]

Joel's prophecy of the Day of the Lord coming, according to James in Acts was fulfilled at Pentecost. After telling us the miracle seen at Pentecost is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel then says this Day of the Lord coming shall come to pass in the last days. This proves that not only have we been living in the Day of the Lord since Pentecost, but we have also been living in the last days according to James in the book of Acts.

Where is your biblical reference to prove we have been living in the last 2 days of Adam's 6,000 years of punishment?

Where is your reference that claims we are living in the Day of the Lord? Just saying the book of Acts, is close. Am I supposed to read all the chapters to find your point?

How has this been fulfilled:

"For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,"

Are they still under the power of Daniel's image of human government?

The return was according to you over 490 years before the Cross. So explain when God shows up and declares to all nations:

"Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord."

How can you claim the Lord as having restored Israel as a nation among all nations in the first century?

Has it not been 1992 years since the Cross? Is that one day or two days? Do you have a verse that declares 2,000 years is as a day? Do you have a verse that even declares indefinite time is as a day?