Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Binding of Satan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Binding of Satan

    A common position among preterists, at least on here, is that Satan is currently bound and unable to act. As best as I can tell, this position seems to come from Revelation 20:1-3.

    Here are some problems I have with this view:

    1) Revelation is a highly symbolic book with probably almost as many interpretations as there are sandwich combinations at Subway. The idea that Satan is bound means that you have the proper interpretation of Revelation as a whole, and of that particular symbolism. How sure can you be that that verse means that Satan is literally bound right now?

    2) A bound Satan would imply that James 4:7 (resist the devil and he will flee from you) is outdated. Now, that's plausible because James was probably the first book written in the New Testament and Revelation was certainly written after James. But are we sure enough that we are willing to set aside that particular verse? If so, it would have great practical implications. I personally believe in an active spiritual world, with forces for good and evil out there. We shouldn't be willing to dismiss this unless we are very sure. In other words, this is not simply an academic, hypothetical debate over the meaning of the text; it matters in the real world.

    3) Colossians 2:14-15 already says that the devil has lost and been defeated with the resurrection of Jesus. But as we see from James, that didn't mean Satan was unable to do anything diabolical after the resurrection. This suggests to me that we need to not take statements about the defeat of the devil *too* literally prior to Jesus's second coming. It could be that Revelation means that the devil's doom is a sure thing at this point in time.

    4) Even if the devil is literally bound, Revelation 20 says that he will be released again for a short time. Proponents of the "devil is bound" idea don't seem to emphasize this part. It would be prudent to warn people of this possibility so believers are not caught off guard.
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 07-29-2018, 08:02 PM.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    This is one of the big reasons I reject Preterism. I've yet to see an explanation of all of the relevant facts that is convincing. I've had face to face encounters with the demonic, and my study of Islam has led me to the conclusion that it is Satanic. By that I mean I believe it was directly inspired by Satan rather than just some lesser demon.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      This is one of the big reasons I reject Preterism. I've yet to see an explanation of all of the relevant facts that is convincing. I've had face to face encounters with the demonic, and my study of Islam has led me to the conclusion that it is Satanic. By that I mean I believe it was directly inspired by Satan rather than just some lesser demon.
      I don't see how this requires rejecting preterism as preterism doesn't require interpreting that one verse that way.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        THE purpose of Christ's coming was: “to destroy the works of the devil” -1 John 3:8 says, and Paul adds to disarm: “the rulers and authorities” -Col 2:15, and the author of Hebrews says it was to: “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil -Heb 2:14. We see that the result of this victory is that he is now seated on his rightful throne at the right hand of the Father. The whole world (universe?) has been set free, humanity has been delivered “from the power of darkness and transferred … into the kingdom of his beloved Son” -Col 1:13. This has already been done and is a settled reality.

        However, when we look at our present situation, it's pretty clear that the earth continues to be in bondage to the powers of evil. I have heard this referred to as the “already-not yet” eschatology of the N.T. Already the Kingdom has come, but it is not yet fully manifested.

        I have used a common analogy of this tension in teaching a Spiritual Warfare World view of Scripture this month in my Sunday School class...it's the distinction between D-day and V-day in World War II. Historians generally agree that, for all intends and purposes, World War II was decided in the Battle of Normandy (referred to as “D-day”) that began on June 6th, 1944. The Allied forces dealt a fatal blow to Germany when they successfully established the beachhead at Normandy, and that rendered Germany's defeat as inevitable. But it took another year for Germany to surrender (referred to as V-Day). Between D-Day and V-Day, the victory the allied forces had already in principle won was not yet manifested as an actual fact.

        I think this analogy captures the dynamic of the N.T. well. D-Day for the Kingdom took place when Jesus finished his work by dying on the cross and rising from the dead. At this time the devil was dealt a fatal blow and he was, at least in principle, defeated. Yet, Christ’s victory over the Powers will not be fully manifested until V-Day, when Christ returns and fully establishes God’s Kingdom.

        The author of Hebrews points to the “already-not yet” tension when he says that God made humans “for a little while lower than the angels” and that in Christ he has “crowned them with glory and honor, subjecting all things under their feet.” Our position as rulers of creation has in principle been restored in Christ. But the author immediately goes on to add: "As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them, but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." -Heb 2:7-9.

        So, we see that our position in the Kingdom as "rulers" under God's authority has "already" been restored because of what Jesus accomplished. Our "D-Day" has been fought and won. But the truth of this is "not yet" manifested as in actuality.
        Last edited by Littlejoe; 07-29-2018, 08:26 PM.
        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          I don't see how this requires rejecting preterism as preterism doesn't require interpreting that one verse that way.
          I said it is one of the reasons I do so. It's also the only interpretation I've seen Preterists use. It may not be required for a Preterist, but it seems to be the logical conclusion of Preterism*. If a system logically leads to a false conclusion I'm not going to accept said system.

          *All Preterists I've seen say we are in the Millenium, but that begins with Satan being bound, and ends with him being released. If we are in the Millenium, then logically he must be bound.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            I said it is one of the reasons I do so. It's also the only interpretation I've seen Preterists use. It may not be required for a Preterist, but it seems to be the logical conclusion of Preterism*. If a system logically leads to a false conclusion I'm not going to accept said system.

            *All Preterists I've seen say we are in the Millenium, but that begins with Satan being bound, and ends with him being released. If we are in the Millenium, then logically he must be bound.
            Satan is bound as he's never been. Christ's death, burial and resurrection, DID defeat Satan, and gave Christians authority that men here on earth did not have before. In the Gospels and Acts, it's evident that demons/Satan, could not stand up in the face of the authority and power the Apostles operated in Jesus. But there was that incident where the some Jewish guys, sons of Sceva, was doing exorcisms in the "name of Jesus whom Paul preaches." They were successful on a few but one particularly powerful one said, "Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?" And he jumped on them and beat them and stripped them from their clothes.

            Jesus Death and Resurrection, restored the earth back to it's rightful owners and bound Satan from operating in the power and ease at which he had previously operated. The thing that hasn't happened is a total defeat. Whether Revelation with it's apocalyptic style and it's penchant for hyperbole, means total binding, or partial binding is IMO open to interpretation. I believe we as Christians in the "Lords Army" are not doing our job in pushing back the darkness. We seem to be squandering the beach-head that Christ established on his "D-Day". He bought us the victory, but we've been more like the French and have gone to a "well, this trouble, or evil act against me is God's will so I have to accept it and pray through to acceptance." Jesus didn't say pray about the mountain and our attitude toward the mountain would change us to acceptance of the mountain in the way...He said in Matt21:21-22: "21 And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

            No acceptance of the mountain, but command that it move. This isn't of course carte blanche, (not that I think you think that) but to operated in the authority of Christ to do the work of the Kingdom. (Not have your wishes granted by a genie )
            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • #7
              The binding of Satan does not necessarily entail the binding of all demons (I don't see how it does at all).

              And yes, in the end Satan will be unbound for a time. I don't know of anyone trying to hide that.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                Satan is bound as he's never been. Christ's death, burial and resurrection, DID defeat Satan, and gave Christians authority that men here on earth did not have before. In the Gospels and Acts, it's evident that demons/Satan, could not stand up in the face of the authority and power the Apostles operated in Jesus. But there was that incident where the some Jewish guys, sons of Sceva, was doing exorcisms in the "name of Jesus whom Paul preaches." They were successful on a few but one particularly powerful one said, "Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?" And he jumped on them and beat them and stripped them from their clothes.
                Unless Revelation is achronological on top of being symbolic, then this doesn't explain what the binding is. It happens at the beginning of the Millenium, after the Tribulation. Acts is supposed to be written before Revelation as well IIRC.

                Oh, and it doesn't seem to be different from before Jesus' resurrection when He sent out the disciples. Given the significance given to the binding of Satan in Revelation, I would expect at minimum a significant difference in spiritual warfare.

                Jesus Death and Resurrection, restored the earth back to it's rightful owners and bound Satan from operating in the power and ease at which he had previously operated. The thing that hasn't happened is a total defeat. Whether Revelation with it's apocalyptic style and it's penchant for hyperbole, means total binding, or partial binding is IMO open to interpretation. I believe we as Christians in the "Lords Army" are not doing our job in pushing back the darkness. We seem to be squandering the beach-head that Christ established on his "D-Day". He bought us the victory, but we've been more like the French and have gone to a "well, this trouble, or evil act against me is God's will so I have to accept it and pray through to acceptance." Jesus didn't say pray about the mountain and our attitude toward the mountain would change us to acceptance of the mountain in the way...He said in Matt21:21-22: "21 And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

                No acceptance of the mountain, but command that it move. This isn't of course carte blanche, (not that I think you think that) but to operated in the authority of Christ to do the work of the Kingdom. (Not have your wishes granted by a genie )
                The wording in Revelation seems to be about as explicit as you can get for a total binding*. It doesn't seem to make much sense to bind only Satan, and not other demonic forces. The False Prophet and Beast are said to already be in the lake of fire, so they are taken care of that way.

                *Chains, a pit, and the pit itself being sealed up. That's pretty extensive binding.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  I said it is one of the reasons I do so. It's also the only interpretation I've seen Preterists use. It may not be required for a Preterist, but it seems to be the logical conclusion of Preterism*. If a system logically leads to a false conclusion I'm not going to accept said system.

                  *All Preterists I've seen say we are in the Millenium, but that begins with Satan being bound, and ends with him being released. If we are in the Millenium, then logically he must be bound.
                  How is it the only logically possible conclusion? You've brought in the assumption that the suggested definition of the millennium as defined by Satan's binding (and that we are in it) are correct. LJ and I above provided a plausible alternative interpretation that is consistent with preterism (or any other system).
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    How is it the only logically possible conclusion? You've brought in the assumption that the suggested definition of the millennium as defined by Satan's binding (and that we are in it) are correct. LJ and I above provided a plausible alternative interpretation that is consistent with preterism (or any other system).
                    It's not an "assumption" about the Millenium starting with Satan being bound, it's what the text explicitly says.

                    Source: Revelation 20

                    1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

                    4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

                    The Judgment of Satan
                    7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    If Satan is bound, then logically we are in the Millennium now. It works the other way too, if it's the Millennium now, then Satan is bound. That's the logical conclusion considering what the Millennium is. As Revelation shows the Millennium and Satan's binding are intrinsically linked.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Unless Revelation is achronological on top of being symbolic, then this doesn't explain what the binding is. It happens at the beginning of the Millenium, after the Tribulation. Acts is supposed to be written before Revelation as well IIRC.
                      Yes, I agree you are correct about the timing. Depends on the dating of both books (obviously). Acts could not have been written before the early to mid 60's since it ends with Paul still in Prison. Coincidentally, the early dating for Revelation, held to by Preterists (and which is obviously in dispute by most Futurists who date it in the A.D. 90's) ranges from A.D. 51 to ~A.D. 68. So, it's conceivable that they were written at the same time (though certainly not proven).

                      Oh, and it doesn't seem to be different from before Jesus' resurrection when He sent out the disciples. Given the significance given to the binding of Satan in Revelation, I would expect at minimum a significant difference in spiritual warfare.
                      I disagree with you here. Comparing the spiritual warfare of 70+ disciples to the estimated 2.2 billion Christians is IMO significant! Looking at the Gospels, we see that Israel during this time was massively oppressed and possessed of demonic activity. Jesus cast out many, many demons and healed many people "...oppressed by the devil" as Peter said to Cornelius in Acts. I don't think we see near as much demonic activity now as they did then...IMO that is. In the Partial Preterist view (PP) From the time of A.D. 70 and the nail in the coffin of the Old Covenant with the destruction of the Temple, we see that Jerusalem becomes inhabited with a majority Christian population...and coincidentally, flourishing under Muslim rule after 637, is relatively peaceful until 1 thousand years later in 1071 when again ironically it's set ablaze by Christians during the Crusades. I think most PP's would agree that Revelation is mostly about the end of the O.T. and the end of Jerusalem as the "seat of God" with the Jewish people in charge of it...so to speak.

                      The wording in Revelation seems to be about as explicit as you can get for a total binding*. It doesn't seem to make much sense to bind only Satan, and not other demonic forces. The False Prophet and Beast are said to already be in the lake of fire, so they are taken care of that way.

                      *Chains, a pit, and the pit itself being sealed up. That's pretty extensive binding.
                      OBP's point that Satan being bound does not necessarily entail all the demons that were under him are bound is something that cannot be summarily dismissed. I'm not sure why you think it makes no sense to imprison the leader and not the followers. I would submit that we aren't privy to that information, so your reasoning, though sound, is not the only reasoning that is sound. Think about Germany, every single Nazi was not imprisoned or executed. Many of the soldiers were allowed to return home to their families, only the ringleaders were punished. At best I think both sides have a legitimate argument based on their view, but it's an argument from silence.

                      James says: "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." -James 1:13-15
                      In this passage, James points to the fact that neither God nor the devil are necessarily the source of the temptation or the evil that follows. IOW, man himself is quite capable of evil even if Satan were bound.

                      Do you agree or disagree that Jesus defeated Satan at the cross/resurrection? (I say yes he did!) How about conquered him? (Again I say yes he did!) But, did not bind him? (once more I say, yes he did)
                      Jesus said that he did in Matt 12:22-29 (as well as Mk 3 and Luke 11) in talking about casting out demons, that if he "...cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come..." He goes on to say: " 29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." Then in 31 he says that Therefore I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people..." It seems logical to me that Christ says the He came and bound the strong man (Satan) in order to destroy his kingdom and his works and to establish the Kingdom of God.
                      Last edited by Littlejoe; 07-31-2018, 03:21 PM.
                      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                        Yes, I agree you are correct about the timing. Depends on the dating of both books (obviously). Acts could not have been written before the early to mid 60's since it ends with Paul still in Prison. Coincidentally, the early dating for Revelation, held to by Preterists (and which is obviously in dispute by most Futurists who date it in the A.D. 90's) ranges from A.D. 51 to ~A.D. 68. So, it's conceivable that they were written at the same time (though certainly not proven).
                        Even if the works were written in the same time frame, the events they speak of aren't. 70 A.D. would or after would be when the binding spoken of takes place under a Preterist scenario. I think there would be a rather significant difference between what we see in Acts, and what we see after 70ish A.D

                        I disagree with you here. Comparing the spiritual warfare of 70+ disciples to the estimated 2.2 billion Christians is IMO significant! Looking at the Gospels, we see that Israel during this time was massively oppressed and possessed of demonic activity. Jesus cast out many, many demons and healed many people "...oppressed by the devil" as Peter said to Cornelius in Acts. I don't think we see near as much demonic activity now as they did then...IMO that is. In the Partial Preterist view (PP) From the time of A.D. 70 and the nail in the coffin of the Old Covenant with the destruction of the Temple, we see that Jerusalem becomes inhabited with a majority Christian population...and coincidentally, flourishing under Muslim rule after 637, is relatively peaceful until 1 thousand years later in 1071 when again ironically it's set ablaze by Christians during the Crusades. I think most PP's would agree that Revelation is mostly about the end of the O.T. and the end of Jerusalem as the "seat of God" with the Jewish people in charge of it...so to speak.
                        Many of the 2.2 billion don't even seem to know there is spiritual warfare is going on. Some just don't seem to think it could happen to them, and others, like my uncle, think that demons just don't exist. Of those that do know about it many don't know what to do with anything more obviously demonic.

                        Satan doesn't usually come with horns and a pitchfork, but masquerading as an angel of light.

                        OBP's point that Satan being bound does not necessarily entail all the demons that were under him are bound is something that cannot be summarily dismissed. I'm not sure why you think it makes no sense to imprison the leader and not the followers. I would submit that we aren't privy to that information, so your reasoning, though sound, is not the only reasoning that is sound. Think about Germany, every single Nazi was not imprisoned or executed. Many of the soldiers were allowed to return home to their families, only the ringleaders were punished. At best I think both sides have a legitimate argument based on their view, but it's an argument from silence.
                        I don't think the comparison is valid when human wars are so different. In more recent history people mostly keep to themselves unless they are in a war. When the war is over they just want to go back to the lives they had before. With the demons it is different. They know they have lost, but each and every one of them is out to do as much harm as they can. Even one "lesser" demon has massive power. They are also under no illusion that if they just behave they will be spared. They have no incentive to "live and let live".

                        James says: "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." -James 1:13-15
                        In this passage, James points to the fact that neither God nor the devil are necessarily the source of the temptation or the evil that follows. IOW, man himself is quite capable of evil even if Satan were bound.
                        I agree that mankind can be bad enough on its own. Much of what I've seen and learned about doesn't seem to fit with just mankind's own inherent tendency to sin. There is far more going on out there.

                        Do you agree or disagree that Jesus defeated Satan at the cross/resurrection? (I say yes he did!) How about conquered him? (Again I say yes he did!) But, did not bind him? (once more I say, yes he did)
                        Jesus said that he did in Matt 12:22-29 (as well as Mk 3 and Luke 11) in talking about casting out demons, that if he "...cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come..." He goes on to say: " 29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." Then in 31 he says that Therefore I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people..." It seems logical to me that Christ says the He came and bound the strong man (Satan) in order to destroy his kingdom and his works and to establish the Kingdom of God.
                        I would say yes to the first two, but only in a sense. The "war" might be over, but there are many battles still being wages in the process of cleaning up. The battles seem to be just as fierce regardless of location or time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          Even if the works were written in the same time frame, the events they speak of aren't. 70 A.D. would or after would be when the binding spoken of takes place under a Preterist scenario. I think there would be a rather significant difference between what we see in Acts, and what we see after 70ish A.D
                          Why do you say the events they speak of are not the same time frame? OP's would say that's not entirely correct. Revelation would be a much broader picture though. For instance, there are OP's that see Revelation 11 to be recounting the ministry of Christ, his death, burial and resurrection and the ascension seen in Acts 1:6-9 and Revelation 12 as the birth of the Church. Christ ascends to heaven in 11 and in 12 we see that his arrival in heaven results in Satan being banished from heaven and thrown down to earth.

                          Many of the 2.2 billion don't even seem to know there is spiritual warfare is going on. Some just don't seem to think it could happen to them, and others, like my uncle, think that demons just don't exist. Of those that do know about it many don't know what to do with anything more obviously demonic.
                          Well that's true of many, but many is by no means all, and the ones who do recognize it are much more than the 70 disciples sent out by Christ wouldn't you agree? I have read where the spiritual warfare view is widely held in many African and Asian churches. But, their culture already inclines them that way. (Also, my denomination holds that view as well but many do indeed lack knowledge on the subject.)

                          Satan doesn't usually come with horns and a pitchfork, but masquerading as an angel of light.
                          Well, he certainly can and does come masquerading as an angel of light, but I'm not sure you can say that he "usually" does.

                          I don't think the comparison is valid when human wars are so different. In more recent history people mostly keep to themselves unless they are in a war. When the war is over they just want to go back to the lives they had before. With the demons it is different. They know they have lost, but each and every one of them is out to do as much harm as they can. Even one "lesser" demon has massive power. They are also under no illusion that if they just behave they will be spared. They have no incentive to "live and let live".
                          Fair enough, but you haven't given a Biblical reason to believe that all of the demonic horde is bound like Satan is.

                          It's simply one of the "plausible" explanations, not that it's necessarily so and I'm not married to it.

                          I agree that mankind can be bad enough on its own. Much of what I've seen and learned about doesn't seem to fit with just mankind's own inherent tendency to sin. There is far more going on out there.
                          No it surely not, and it's why I'm teaching a series on it! Certainly there's more going on, never said otherwise. Just pointing to the fact that it's not "just" demonic activity either.

                          I would say yes to the first two, but only in a sense. The "war" might be over, but there are many battles still being wages in the process of cleaning up. The battles seem to be just as fierce regardless of location or time.
                          Ok, but Christ says that he went into the strong man's (Satan's) house, and bound him so as to plunder his goods (people under his power). It's how he established God's Kingdom. Which he clearly says has come upon them in verse 28. -Matt 12:28

                          I agree the battles are still raging, again, never said otherwise, but I think they are less frequent and less fierce "as a whole" than they were.
                          Last edited by Littlejoe; 08-02-2018, 03:12 PM.
                          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            Why do you say the events they speak of are not the same time frame? OP's would say that's not entirely correct. Revelation would be a much broader picture though. For instance, there are OP's that see Revelation 11 to be recounting the ministry of Christ, his death, burial and resurrection and the ascension seen in Acts 1:6-9 and Revelation 12 as the birth of the Church. Christ ascends to heaven in 11 and in 12 we see that his arrival in heaven results in Satan being banished from heaven and thrown down to earth.
                            Revelation 20 is at the end of the 7 year Tribulation, and marks the beginning of the Millenium alongside "the first resurrection" in which those who were "beheaded in the name of Christ" were supposed to be brought back to reign alongside Him for 1,000 years. Like I said earlier, unless Revelation is achronological as well as heavily symbolic you are talking about different periods of time.

                            Well that's true of many, but many is by no means all, and the ones who do recognize it are much more than the 70 disciples sent out by Christ wouldn't you agree? I have read where the spiritual warfare view is widely held in many African and Asian churches. But, their culture already inclines them that way. (Also, my denomination holds that view as well but many do indeed lack knowledge on the subject.)
                            How many of those who do are casting out demons like the disciples did? Even when Jesus cast them out all they ever seemed to do was move elsewhere, like when they went into the herd of pigs.

                            Well, he certainly can and does come masquerading as an angel of light, but I'm not sure you can say that he "usually" does.
                            Jibreel in Islam, and Moroni in Mormonism are two prominent examples I can think of that fit with this. I remember reading about a lot more, but can't remember the details on what work(s) it(they) were from. Deception is one of the primary tools of Satan, and being seen as something good works in his favor.

                            Fair enough, but you haven't given a Biblical reason to believe that all of the demonic horde is bound like Satan is.

                            It's simply one of the "plausible" explanations, not that it's necessarily so and I'm not married to it.
                            I gave a logical one based on what the Bible does teach about the subject. It's also partly based on personal experience with the demonic. Locking up Satan without locking up the "lesser" demons won't do much good. That kind of thing only works when you have a group that will be unwilling/unable to fight without their leader. Demons are not like that, they will steal, kill, and destroy for the sake of it.

                            No it surely not, and it's why I'm teaching a series on it! Certainly there's more going on, never said otherwise. Just pointing to the fact that it's not "just" demonic activity either.
                            I've never said it was "just" demonic activity either.

                            Ok, but Christ says that he went into the strong man's (Satan's) house, and bound him so as to plunder his goods (people under his power). It's how he established God's Kingdom. Which he clearly says has come upon them in verse 28. -Matt 12:28
                            I can only see this as accurate in a much looser sense than Revelation 20 speaks of. Especially since Jesus later speaks how Satan wants to sift Peter like wheat, and is going to be allowed to do so.

                            I agree the battles are still raging, again, never said otherwise, but I think they are less frequent and less fierce "as a whole" than they were.
                            I really don't see that. If anything things seem to be as bad as ever. Although, given what I've heard from others it is getting worse lately. Many who experience such things are either won't to bring it up because they are afraid they will seem crazy, or are so traumatized they would prefer to try and lock it out of their memories.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              I really don't see that. If anything things seem to be as bad as ever. Although, given what I've heard from others it is getting worse lately. Many who experience such things are either won't to bring it up because they are afraid they will seem crazy, or are so traumatized they would prefer to try and lock it out of their memories.
                              I disagree with this one point. The gospel has been preached worldwide which it hadn't been in past centuries.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seanD, 03-26-2020, 12:05 PM
                              44 responses
                              4,935 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post eschaton  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 07-29-2018, 07:36 PM
                              73 responses
                              13,109 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post eschaton  
                              Started by hamster, 07-05-2015, 01:07 PM
                              116 responses
                              31,418 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post ReformedApologist  
                              Working...
                              X