Crusader,
I am not sure if you know the difference between an assertion and an argument. All of the verses you cited (and all of the words and phrases in them) are quite familiar to me, and have been familiar to all literate Christian scholars and apologists for about 2000 years. They just failed to understand their meaning in the way you do.
This is quite all right with me. You are welcome to disagree with historic Christianity in any way that you think necessary. I also disagree with the fathers on some issues. Where I disagree with their interpretation, I am prepared to exegete actual passages to justify my taking a different approach from theirs, and to give actual reasons why I think my approach to be more true to the intended meaning of the passage.
However, I don't think any view I teach represents as great a departure from historic Christian doctrine (i.e. that which was espoused in the early fathers and through the whole of the church age) as does dispensationalism.
I am still interested in hearing your arguments in favor of your making such a radical departure from historic Christianity.
1948
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi
Thats rather odd,I was unaware the early Church or the early Church fathers thought that satan had been bound. I sure would like an explanation of why all the spiritual warfares going on if satans inoperative. Did he get probation or somehting? Does he get out for weekends I mean Paul and Peter sure thought he was active.
" For example, the idea that Satan is already “bound” is clearly contradicted by Peter’s statement: “the devil, as a roaring lion, wanders about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8 ). The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). One would have a difficult time convincing Peter and Paul that Satan was already bound by the power of the cross."
In reading Ephesians 6 I find it reading like a battlefield manual and Ive experienced the warfare as many here have and to think our enemy is bound is some real strange teaching. Do you really believe Steve that the early Church,Paul and Peter and the Church fathers thought satan was bound.
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. "
Crusader
" For example, the idea that Satan is already “bound” is clearly contradicted by Peter’s statement: “the devil, as a roaring lion, wanders about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8 ). The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). One would have a difficult time convincing Peter and Paul that Satan was already bound by the power of the cross."
In reading Ephesians 6 I find it reading like a battlefield manual and Ive experienced the warfare as many here have and to think our enemy is bound is some real strange teaching. Do you really believe Steve that the early Church,Paul and Peter and the Church fathers thought satan was bound.
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. "
Crusader
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Peace is a fruit of the Spirit..its good for the healing of many people and glorifes the living God when done in His name.
Hi Crusader,
You wrote:
"Thats rather odd,I was unaware the early Church or the early Church fathers thought that satan had been bound. I sure would like an explanation of why all the spiritual warfares going on if satans inoperative."
Would you, really? I thought you said you were not interested in looking into this (remember back when I suggested that my tapes would be a resource for you to gain some understanding of these concepts?). Now you "sure would like an explanation." This would then be a good time to listen to those lectures. There is an explanation there.
I knew, without your saying so, that you were "unaware" of the teaching of the early church. For the first three centuries, there were some church fathers who were premillennial and some who were amillennial. After the fourth century, premillennialism had essentially died out, and the view that Satan was bound at the cross became pretty much universal in the church until about the nineteenth century.
Though a few of the mainstream early church fathers (the premillennial ones) disagreed with the amillennial view of Satan's being bound, none of them believed in a pretribulational rapture. None believed in a literal interpretation of Revelation. None of them believed as you do about Israel and the church. They were "replacement theologians" from the very beginning.
The views you hold about such things first appeared in 1830. Most evangelical scholars renounced them as "liberalism" and "scripture twisting" when they appeared. Even the premillennial church fathers held more views in common with the amillennialists than they held in common with dispensationalism (your view).
Do I really believe that Peter and Paul were amillennial? Of course! Neither of them ever mentioned any belief in a future millennium (nor did Jesus, nor the epistles of James or John). Both Peter and Paul expected the new heavens and the new earth to come at the second coming (2 Pet.3:10-13/ Rom.8:19-23). This makes them amillennialists.
Your view places a thousand-year Judaic kingdom between the second coming and the creation of the new heavens and earth. This view is not known or mentioned by Jesus, nor in the preaching in Acts, nor in any of the epistles of the Bible—and the view is contradicted in the passages cited, just above. Not a very "scriptural" doctrine, it seems.
Biblical statements about Satan's present roaming and menacing the saints do not contradict the teaching that Satan was bound at the cross. That Satan was bound by Christ at His first coming is stated by Jesus Himself (Matt.12:29), and the epistles teach the same thing (Col.2:15/ Heb.2:14). Do you think Paul and the writer of Hebrews (and Jesus) contradict Peter's statement about Satan roaming about like a lion—or could all of the statements of scripture be correct? I believe the latter. Apparently, you believe only some of the scriptures, and not the others.
If the time ever comes that you endeavor to gain an understanding of Christian theology and to penetrate the iron curtain that surrounds the provincial theology enforced by your denomination, everything you asked in your last post will be adequately answered.
You wrote:
"Thats rather odd,I was unaware the early Church or the early Church fathers thought that satan had been bound. I sure would like an explanation of why all the spiritual warfares going on if satans inoperative."
Would you, really? I thought you said you were not interested in looking into this (remember back when I suggested that my tapes would be a resource for you to gain some understanding of these concepts?). Now you "sure would like an explanation." This would then be a good time to listen to those lectures. There is an explanation there.
I knew, without your saying so, that you were "unaware" of the teaching of the early church. For the first three centuries, there were some church fathers who were premillennial and some who were amillennial. After the fourth century, premillennialism had essentially died out, and the view that Satan was bound at the cross became pretty much universal in the church until about the nineteenth century.
Though a few of the mainstream early church fathers (the premillennial ones) disagreed with the amillennial view of Satan's being bound, none of them believed in a pretribulational rapture. None believed in a literal interpretation of Revelation. None of them believed as you do about Israel and the church. They were "replacement theologians" from the very beginning.
The views you hold about such things first appeared in 1830. Most evangelical scholars renounced them as "liberalism" and "scripture twisting" when they appeared. Even the premillennial church fathers held more views in common with the amillennialists than they held in common with dispensationalism (your view).
Do I really believe that Peter and Paul were amillennial? Of course! Neither of them ever mentioned any belief in a future millennium (nor did Jesus, nor the epistles of James or John). Both Peter and Paul expected the new heavens and the new earth to come at the second coming (2 Pet.3:10-13/ Rom.8:19-23). This makes them amillennialists.
Your view places a thousand-year Judaic kingdom between the second coming and the creation of the new heavens and earth. This view is not known or mentioned by Jesus, nor in the preaching in Acts, nor in any of the epistles of the Bible—and the view is contradicted in the passages cited, just above. Not a very "scriptural" doctrine, it seems.
Biblical statements about Satan's present roaming and menacing the saints do not contradict the teaching that Satan was bound at the cross. That Satan was bound by Christ at His first coming is stated by Jesus Himself (Matt.12:29), and the epistles teach the same thing (Col.2:15/ Heb.2:14). Do you think Paul and the writer of Hebrews (and Jesus) contradict Peter's statement about Satan roaming about like a lion—or could all of the statements of scripture be correct? I believe the latter. Apparently, you believe only some of the scriptures, and not the others.
If the time ever comes that you endeavor to gain an understanding of Christian theology and to penetrate the iron curtain that surrounds the provincial theology enforced by your denomination, everything you asked in your last post will be adequately answered.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi
Well if you beleive that satan is bound then thats quite a position,I wont even begin to elaborate on a rebuttal of such a ludicrous position. Its nice to at least have you go on record as adhering to such a tenant and I appreciate your honesty. The view is a major breech of basic of Christian Scripture and common sense. It only shows the depths that some will go to try to erase the future fulfillment of the Book of Revelation and the sheer desperation of people who are trying to shore up a failing theology which has us in a 1900 year seemingly endless unrealized millenium without a devil.
Crusader
Crusader
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Peace is a fruit of the Spirit..its good for the healing of many people and glorifes the living God when done in His name.
Re: Hi
Crusader,Crusader wrote:Well if you beleive that satan is bound then thats quite a position,I wont even begin to elaborate on a rebuttal of such a ludicrous position. Its nice to at least have you go on record as adhering to such a tenant and I appreciate your honesty. The view is a major breech of basic of Christian Scripture and common sense. It only shows the depths that some will go to try to erase the future fulfillment of the Book of Revelation and the sheer desperation of people who are trying to shore up a failing theology which has us in a 1900 year seemingly endless unrealized millenium without a devil.
Crusader
As an observer of the dialogue between you and Steve, as well as others who hold to the amillenialist view, I must say that you would be better off to remain silent than to respond as you just did. To call a position ludicrous and refusing to rebutt only weakens your position. When I read the posts of those on the amillenial side, they quote scripture and respond to your points. By attacking them but not responding one is left with the impression you are at a loss to respond otherwise.
Please believe me, I am not trying to put you down, or disparage dispensationalists. I would very much like to observe a fair debate where boths sides give their best arguments for their positions. To witness name-calling as a debate tactic really disappoints me.
May I encourage you to continue the debate, but to do so with scriptural arguments. If Steve's position is truly a "major breech of basic of Christian Scripture", and amillenialism is a "failing theology", please enlighten us!
Blessings!
Mike
Last edited by _MLewisS on Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
That's funny.Well if you beleive that satan is bound then thats quite a position...which has us in a 1900 year seemingly endless unrealized millenium without a devil.
I had a dog for 13 years that was chained outside our house. I never realized that meant he didn't exist!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Well if you beleive that satan is bound then thats quite a position,I wont even begin to elaborate on a rebuttal of such a ludicrous position. Its nice to at least have you go on record as adhering to such a tenant and I appreciate your honesty. The view is a major
He is bound in the sense he can't deceive the nations which is the reason he get's released, to "deceive the nations." Clearly he decieves individual people now. You know one of the things that bothered me about the dispensational millineum is that for a thousand years Jesus and the saints visibly rule from Jerusalem, and then Satan is unbound and can lead the multitudes in rebellion against the camp of the saints after they lived with Jesus visibly in their midst for a thousand years. Kinda makes me scratch my head.
He is bound in the sense he can't deceive the nations which is the reason he get's released, to "deceive the nations." Clearly he decieves individual people now. You know one of the things that bothered me about the dispensational millineum is that for a thousand years Jesus and the saints visibly rule from Jerusalem, and then Satan is unbound and can lead the multitudes in rebellion against the camp of the saints after they lived with Jesus visibly in their midst for a thousand years. Kinda makes me scratch my head.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Using Mattrose' analogy, I bet if I were to go within the radius of the chained dog I would get bit. This is how it works with a bound satan. If we choose to dabble in the realm of evil, evil becomes the victor.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi
Mdh ..you have my statement. Im sorry you find it lacking,its lacking because I just think itsnot worth considering such folly.You can go to the WWW and google up the many discussions around satan and is he bound or not. Frankly Ive read the Bible to long and been involved in too much spiritual warfare to hold to your view. Your view would be the same as asking a guy who just spent 2 years in Vietnam if the Viet Cong were real. It just leaves me speechless. The Scriptural arugements dont even need to be used ( and there are many) because its just off. I think it was C.S.Lewis who said the greatest thing the devil ever did was to convince the world he wasnt real.If Christians beleive hes bound then one of two things are at work..they arent reading the New Testament or they arent nor have ever been involved in combating the forces of darkenss in a real life situation. I have seen them manifest and believe me,they are real,and so is the war....I sleep in my armor.
Crusader
Crusader
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Peace is a fruit of the Spirit..its good for the healing of many people and glorifes the living God when done in His name.
Crusader,
You wrote:
"If Christians beleive hes bound then one of two things are at work..they arent reading the New Testament or they arent nor have ever been involved in combating the forces of darkenss in a real life situation."
No, these are not the only two options. I have both read the New Testament, and also battled the forces of darkness, including the casting of demons out of demonized people. There must be a third alternative, but you are not as interested in understanding it as you pretended to be in a previous post.
You wrote:
"Your view would be the same as asking a guy who just spent 2 years in Vietnam if the Viet Cong were real."
Really? What would you say would be the primary points of comparison between this question and my view? I see no similarity at all. Neither do you, since you really have no idea what my view might be. There have been ample clarifications given by various participants at this site, but you either have not read them, or have an extremely short memory (or there is a third possibility, which is too unflattering to mention).
You wrote:
"It just leaves me speechless."
Promises, promises!
You wrote:
"If Christians beleive hes bound then one of two things are at work..they arent reading the New Testament or they arent nor have ever been involved in combating the forces of darkenss in a real life situation."
No, these are not the only two options. I have both read the New Testament, and also battled the forces of darkness, including the casting of demons out of demonized people. There must be a third alternative, but you are not as interested in understanding it as you pretended to be in a previous post.
You wrote:
"Your view would be the same as asking a guy who just spent 2 years in Vietnam if the Viet Cong were real."
Really? What would you say would be the primary points of comparison between this question and my view? I see no similarity at all. Neither do you, since you really have no idea what my view might be. There have been ample clarifications given by various participants at this site, but you either have not read them, or have an extremely short memory (or there is a third possibility, which is too unflattering to mention).
You wrote:
"It just leaves me speechless."
Promises, promises!
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve