If there is to be no millineum.......

[Guest]

Allyn wrote

"Crusader, hve you stopped beating your wife? A simple answer please. No long response, just yes or no.




_________________
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands



Crusader responded

Allyn if you cant win a debate fairly dont stoop to lying..lying on top of slander is a serious sin.Something you should confess because the Lord will hold you accountible. It also is a serious character issue. Are you even born again or are you some rouge forum junkie who just loves to attack beleivers. I dont know but Jesus loves you and died for your sins. You can put your faith in Him and get saved and He will change your life and come to live inside of you. Then you wont feel the need to say such things and you can be a blessing to others...not to mention you can go to heaven and live forever in His presence.

Maranatha

[Guest]

So Sean is Satan completely bound ? A yes or no will suffice? Not a long exhaustive explanation, a Yes or No....please...!

Maranatha

Crusader

Your answer is to read what you wrote to Allyn.

Honestly Crusader I don't know what to say to you. You already know how I interpret Revelation 20, so why do you try to trap me with the wording completely bound? Not wanting any explaination, just a yes or no. This is a "straw man" argument. It is what is used when the real argument can't be touched. Is it all those things you accuse Allyn of? If not they why did you get offended at what Allyn said. He saw right through your trap, he did so by laying out the same trap for you. You then saw through his trap and were greatly offended that someone would try to trap you. Yet that is what you tried to do to me. You are standing in condemnation of your own actions when you blame others for doing the same thing you did.

[Guest]

Thanks again for your repsonses folks.

I won't pretend that I've got an answer to the amill/pp understanding of Galatians 3 but I'm looking into it. Give me some time on that one por favor.

However, it seems to me that you guys face real problems trouble when it comes to the apostles' and Jesus' words in Acts 1. It looks to me as though you guys are being forced (by your amill framework) to import ideas into the text to try and make out like the apostles were wrong in their thinking concerning the Kingdom. But this is not borne out by the text itself IMO. Remember, Jesus had spent 40-odd days talking about "things pertaining to the Kingdom" (Acts 1:3). It would seem strange if after having sat under such teaching from the Master Teacher specifically concerning the Kingdom - that the apostles would still have an understanding of the Kingdom which was no more enlightened than their unbelieving Jewish brethren. And if this were the case, Jesus needed only to say so. But He didn't. If He didn't say that they were wrong, what right do we have to say so?

Also, this idea that Jesus was radically altering reforming the Jews' concept of the Kingdom during His three years' ministry. On the contrary, His many Kingdom teachings and parables were aimed at showing the interim period between His first coming and His second coming. Luke 19:11-27 is a classic example of this. Hence, on the day of Penetecost, Peter quoted Psalm 110 to show that Jesus was going to return at which point He would come with His war clothes: "the LORD said to my Lord, sit at My right hand till I make your enemies Your footstool." Peter's point was that Jesus had ascended to heaven in fulfulment of prophecy and this same Jesus was going to return to earth to reign and rule over it - in fulfilment of prophecy. The nobleman had (and still has) gone to a far country to receive a kingdom and He will be returning. In the meantime, His slaves are to 'do business' for Him (make disciples, live holy and pleasing unto Him, persevere unto the end) until He returns.

Ely

[Guest]

Remember, Jesus had spent 40-odd days talking about "things pertaining to the Kingdom" (Acts 1:3). It would seem strange if after having sat under such teaching from the Master Teacher specifically concerning the Kingdom - that the apostles would still have an understanding of the Kingdom which was no more enlightened than their unbelieving Jewish brethren. And if this were the case, Jesus needed only to say so. But He didn't. If He didn't say that they were wrong, what right do we have to say so?

Very good point Ely but how does this necessarily validate a milleneum kingdom as opposed to the eternal New Jerusalem. Once the understanding of the apostles was opened then how do we know they were'nt referring to the eternal kingdom of God coming down to earth called New Jerusalem? When Christ returns it means all enemies have been put under his feet yet with a milleneum that's not really true for at the end there shall be a massive uprising after he has been ruling with a rod of iron for a thousand years?
The historical view of Revelation allows for all possibilities. It does'nt need a rebuilt temple , it allows for either a milleneum or not and it recognizes that the biggest threat to Christ is Islam which may be the beast reemerging from the pit and it allows for Mohammed to be the false prophet from the desert. And it allows for the restoration of Israel even without a rebult temple.
The RCC may have been the beast during the middle ages but now it seems like a paper tiger to me not very beastlike.

[Guest]

Sean, this really is classic of Crusader to not understand the meaning of my question to him. He should have see right into what I was asking (especially since this is the oldest of entrapment questions) but he did not understand even this. Oh well, it goes to prove that Crusader maybe just can't understand the fundmentals of eschatology put forth from the Bible. He's not alone however and our work is cut out for us.

[Guest]

Some blamed the Jewish people for offending God with their less-than-holy lifestyles. If the people would "get right with God" by following the Law (as they interpreted it), God would act. These were the Pharisees.

Some believed that God would not act until the Jews rose up in armed rebellion against the Romans. If they began the revolution, God would send a messiah to lead them to victory. These were the Zealots.

Some decided to cooperate and collude with the Romans. They had a modicum of power and priviledge under the Romans and wanted to protect it. These were the Sadducees.

Some decided to escape the whole mess by forming communities out in the wilderness, where they would wait for God to return. These were the Essenes.

There was one other sect of Jews --- those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that John the Baptizer and He had introduced the Kingdom to the people, and that the King had died and been raised again to life. These were the Nazarenes.

[Guest]

Allyn,
With all due respect. Your question to Crusader was not along the same lines as the one he posed to you.
On one hand the Lord said the Devil would be (or is) bound. Granted, he did not say "completely", but he said that he would be thrown into a bottomless pit and be chained and sealed up. Though the word "completely" is not there, I can't imagine a more complete binding desribed.
However, to my knowledge, Crusader never was a wifebeater and (needless to say) never said he would stop beating his wife, which he didn't do anyhow.
I am having trouble understanding (as well as Crusader I guess) why you think that your question mirrored his.
I'm not trying to be a smart alec here, I just want to understand where you are coming from.

One more question about this though..........
Luke 13
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

If this is now the Kingdom, where exactly is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob since Jesus said we would see this in this Kingdom?

[_Steve]

Allyn's question was the mirror of Crusader's in that it posed a dichotomy that cannot be reasonably answered with a simple "yes" or "no," but, at the same time, insisted that only a simple "yes" or "no" would be accepted in response.

To ask, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and then to say, "Just give me a simple yes or no," is to exclude additional valid responses, such as "I have never begun beating my wife, thus I have never ceased doing so." It is unfair to say, "Your only options are 'yes' or 'no'...you cannot give any other explanation."

The reason that Crusader's question cannot be responsibly answered with a simple "yes" or "no," is that its wording is ambiguous. What do you mean "completely" bound? In fact, what does "bound" even mean, in this context? It is obvious that, while the amillennialists here fully understand, not only their own positions, but also Crusader's, yet Crusader does not understand theirs (this is not for lack of anyone having taken the pains to explain the position to him). He does not have a clue what amillennialists mean by saying Satan has been "bound." Nor does he wish to know. To him, the whole thing is just silly, and his mission is to show that this is so.

Crusader has no idea how to conduct a debate so as to get at the truth of the proposition under discussion, nor does he appear to have any interest in doing so. He wants to win his point, whether it is a correct point or not. This is not how one who loves the truth and wants to consider all valid alternatives to his own view conducts a dialog.

In my experience, one seldom finds among dispensationalists this concern to understand the views of an opponent in a debate. Crusader and Aarondisney have been more or less typical representatives of the dispensational mindset in this forum (though I will grant that Aaron has shown more humility than has Crusader). Such dispensationalists regard their views as orthodox for the simple reason that they are the only views that they have ever really understood, and they respect the names of men who have taught them.

They have learned to read their Bibles through the grid of their received interpretation, so that they have come to believe that their doctrines are those of the apostles themselves—even when others can show them that the apostles taught no such doctrines.

After years of such indoctrination, when they, for the first time, hear a very different viewpoint, and it is strange to their ears. Since they believe that their views define very orthodoxy, they jump to the conclusion that the new view is rank heresy (even if the whole church taught it for eighteen centuries) and that those who now teach it must be agents of Satan, having some sinister agenda.

It is clear that there is no reason for them to seek to understand the view that now seems to be attacking all that they equate with Christianity. It is clearly of the devil and must be stopped. If it can't be refuted, it must be ridiculed. It is best debunked by asking challenging questions that the dispensationalist believes to be rhetorical and unanswerable. When the opponent actually provides a reasoned answer to each question, the dispensationalists need not go to the trouble of actually considering, or even listening to the answer. It is clearly false, so why even examine it?

Crusader and Aaron have not raised any new challenges in the past several weeks which had not already been thoroughly answered in earlier threads. In re-raising the same points, they demonstrate that the answers given earlier did not register with them. When challenges are put to their views, they usually ignore the challenges and repeat one or more of their points that has been previously answered—as if it had not been.

Anyone who has been following these discussions with these two men has had occasion to observe what I am here describing. Now I would like to pose a new question:

Why continue wrangling with these two brothers? When you find that your opponent has little concern for truth, why waste words?

This forum began, a couple of years ago, as a dialog of reasoned, scriptural discussion. Originally, people posted honest questions and received honest, humble and considerate answers from others. Many people commented on the Christ-like and the irenic tone of our discussions, because they were 1) biblical, 2) reasonable, and 3) respectful—devoid of name-calling and wrangling.

There were early-on a few people who wanted to pick a fight over issues like feminism or Calvinism, but they were generally answered calmly and charitably. They, like Crusader and Aaron, never answered questions put back to them, nor acknowledged the answers given to their points. They just wanted to inject hostility, and no one here cared to participate in their spirit. Eventually, not finding anyone here who wanted to hate them back, these people took their hostility elsewhere (to other forums, I have to assume).

Crusader, from his early appearances here (and Aaron, to a lesser extent) has served to infect this forum with a feisty and divisive spirit. He resorts to name-calling, ridiculing, refusal to answer calm challenges to his position. Not all who disagree with him (including myself) have resisted taking the bait, and so there has been heat generated from both sides. Is this what the participants at this forum actually desire?

While I am pleased to allow anyone who disagrees with any of my views to participate fully in the discussions (and some have done so in the same charitable spirit as has mostly characterized this forum in the past), yet I am not pleased to see the tone of the forum dragged down by mere hecklers, who will not hear correction, nor provide reasoned evidences that their positions are correct, but who, apparently, "are wiser in their own conceit than seven who can render a reason" (Prov.26:16).

Perhaps I am alone in this concern.

[Guest]

Steve,

I can't agree more about what you wrote and I'd like to see the tone of the forum steer back to the irenic spirit you are describing.

I don't bother trying to dialogue with Crusader for the very reasons you list and I'd like to see him become a little more humble, honest, and unifying in his approach. I don't find anything useful in his posts other than the rebuttals from others that contain some very good information. Unfortunately, a divisive spirit can quickly become contagious and it's very easy for some of us to also succumb to the temptation to resort to uncharitable comments when someone is seems to be courting them.

However, I do want to say that I believe Aaron has at least shown a desire for a change of heart (see page 6 of the 70 weeks thread) and that step should be commended.

[Guest]

Steve,

I agree with Christopher. It has pained me to read through these threads and watch the debates become heated and mean spirited.

I enjoy it and grow when I read of disagreements on views which are done in an honest and *humble* spirit using scripture to debate, and I have often seen that happen on this forum. I very much hope that can continue!

In Christ,

Mike