Is the Devil bound right now...?
- Thread starter Bowman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Rev 20:7-9
Satan was bound more than one way.
1. You say he was bound at the cross, I'm in limited agreement, we have a slightly different time line.
2. In Rev 20, he was only "bound", in the sense that he could not surround Jerusalem and the camp of the saints.
He was free to deceive everybody on earth, except that he could not destroy Israel until they were restored to Jerusalem.
Then he surrounds restored Jerusalem to kill Israel.
This dragon Rev 20:2 is identified in Rev 12 as having 7 heads and 10 horns, just like the beast of Rev 17.
The heads are 7 hills, etc.
Notice that in Rev 12 how the dragon sends a flood (of people) after the woman, this would be the "chain", but he is "limited" in his chase after the woman, Israel.
Rome the sea beast (civil Rome) came out of the abyss (became a nation again,1929), and reunited with the earth beast again (religious Rome, Caesar worship, man is God).
He (BoR) will soon deceive Magog into surrounding Jerusalem, (Kings of the East, Iran and it's allies)
We are at the very end of the mill.
L
Linda70
Guest
The following is from "Amillennialism: A False View of Prophecy, Refuted by the Word of God," by the late T.P. Simmons, The Baptist Challenge, January 1984
Due to the length of this article by the late T. P. Simmons, I'm dividing it up in two parts/posts.
Post-millennialism is dead. Solomon said: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." (Proverbs 13:12a) Post-millennialism has sickened and expired.
Why Post-Millennialism Died. Post-millennialism believed, for the most part, that the preaching of the gospel would accomplish the conversion of the overwhelming mass of the people of the earth in this age and thus usher in that reign of righteousness alluded to in Revelation 20. Writing in 1883, in An American Commentary on the New Testament, Justin A. Smith said: "It has been said that in twenty-five years more, if the present rate of progress continues, India will be as thoroughly Christian as Great Britain is today; there will be thirty millions of Christians in China, and Japan will be as fully Christianized as America is today. The old heathen systems, they tell us, are honey-combed through and through by Christian influence. It looks as if the day, may come soon, when these systems, struck by vigorous blows, will fall in tremendous collapse. Meantime, every 'weapon formed against' Christianity, breaks in the hand that holds it." That was written seventy-one years ago, and we are farther from post-millennial expectations now than we were at the time it was written. The author of the quoted words did not anticipate the hold that evolution would get on the religious world and the consequent rise of modernism and neo-orthodoxy. Nor did he foresee the rise of those anti-christian philosophies that brought on both world wars and have now culminated in godless communism, which has engulfed more than half of the inhabitants of the world and has turned the world into an armed camp. In the light of the past fifty years it is not hard to understand why post-millennialism died.
Amillennialism Has Come in the Place of Post-millennialism. There has come in the place of post-millennialism a worse scourge. The time was when it was rare to find a post-millennialist among the rank and file of Baptist preachers, but now we have many amillennialists among them. Thus amillennialism has taken over the defunct stock of post-millennialism. This stock has been carefully sorted. Outdated items have been discarded. The remaining items have been renovated. The premises have been painted and made more attractive. New personnel have been employed. An ambitious sales program has been put on. The result is that business is much improved.
The Source of Amillennialism. It is not that amillennialism is really new. No; in essence it is older than post-millennialism. But before the death of post-millennialism it had been largely dormant for two hundred years. Post-millennialism had so many able advocates (such as Broadus, Carroll, Boycee, Pendleton and Mullins) that amillennialism was smothered. But with the passing of post-millennialism, it was rejuvenated. It received a shot-in-the-arm.
Amillenniallism had its source in the "philosophy and vain deceit," against which Paul warned the Colossians (Colossians 2:8). Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, set out to blend Hebrew and Greek thought. By the allegorical method he did away everything in the Old Testament that was not in harmony with the philosophy of Plato. In doing this, Philo was simply applying to the Old Testament the principle that the Greeks had employed for centuries in the interpretation of Homer. This allegorizing method of interpretation of Scripture was established in the great center of learning at Alexandria. Here it was passed on to Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius and Origen. It was Origen that did more than any other to popularize this method.
The Early Church Was Premillennial. Premillennialism was the original faith of Christendom. Charles Feinberg, in Premillennialism or Amillennialism, says: "Every book that we have read and studied on the question of the millennium, whether it was favorable or unfavorable to the doctrine, or whether it gave full force and value to the testimony or tried to dissipate its implications, admitted freely that the entire Church of the first three centuries was premillennial, almost to a man." This is admitted by Harnack, Mosheim, Geisler, Chillingworth, Stackhouse, Bishop Newton, Bishop Russell, Gibbon and even by Daniel Whitby. Not only was Montanus a premillennialist, but so also were Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Papias, and Irenaeus [church leaders in the first centuries].
Why the Early Church Was Premillennial. The early church was premillennial because early Christians believed in a characteristically literal interpretation of the Word of God. The departure from the truth of premillennialism on the part of the Catholic church, which is so well inscribed on the pages of history, came as a result of the adoption of the allegorizing or spiritualizing method of interpreting the Scripture already referred to. Because of Origen's influence in this respect, Milner, the great English historian, said: "No man, not altogether unsound and hypocritical, ever injured the Church more than Origen did." Other so-called "church fathers" [leaders in the churches in the first centuries] took up this method. From them it passed on to scholastic theologians and was carried over by some Protestant dogmatists.
Amillennialism and Modernism. Just as the modernist has allegorized the first chapters of Genesis, so the amillennialist has allegorized Scriptures that refer to the regathering and conversion of the Jews and the personal reign of Christ on the earth. Moreover amillennialism is like modernism again in that it undertakes to say in a ruthless and arbitrary way what can be true and what can't be true. It arbitrarily decides that God is through with the Jews as a nation. It decides that the sacrificial system of the Jews could not in anywise be restored without abrogating the new covenant. It decides that Christ and the glorified saints could not rule on this earth over men [who will be] in natural bodies. It makes these decisions, not on the basis of a careful examination of all the Scriptures, but presumptively; and then proceeds to twist the Scripture wherever necessary in order to make it agree. It is no wonder that the modernistic Southern Baptist Theological Seminary [the largest and oldest Southern Baptist seminary in America] is a hotbed of amillennialism [along with all other seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention]. Modernism and amillennialism are Siamese twins.
The Meaning of the Term "Amillennialism." Amillennialism means "non-millennialism." It would have suited amillennialists much better if the Bible had said nothing about the binding of Satan and the reign of Christ and the saints for one thousand years.
In fact it would have suited them if the book of Revelation had never been written. The only use they make of the last nineteen chapters [of Revelation] is to try to explain them away. If they were honest and thought they could get by with it, they would take the position of Dionysius and the Alogi in denying the canonicity of the book of Revelation [saying, in other words, that Revelation doesn't belong in the Bible]. It is a thorn in their sides. But the book of Revelation is with us to stay and amillennialists must make some disposition of the prophecy contained in the book. Thus we have non-millennialists telling us about the millennium. That is like having an atheist write on the attributes of God.
Amillennialism Denies God's Word Concerning Christ's Throne. Amillennialism says that Christ is now on His throne, the throne of David, which was promised to Him (Luke 1:32). But the Bible says that Christ is now on the Father's throne and that He will ascend His own throne when He comes in glory (Revelation 3:21; Matthew 25:31).
Denies God's Word Concerning the Binding of Satan. God's Word pictures in Revelation 20 the complete restraint of Satan during the millennium, but amillennialists say the restraint is only partial. That is just a plain, outright, blatant denial of the Word of God. Amillennialists need to be stripped of their pious and hypocritical pretenses and made to stand with all other deniers of the Word of God.
Denies God's Word about the Kingdom of the Beast. No doubt A. Pieters represents the consensus of opinion among amillennialists when he says: "The Battle of Armageddon, in the nineteenth chapter (of Revelation) means the victory of Christianity over Roman paganism, in the first three centuries of our era." But the Bible describes the pagan Roman Empire when it says "and one is," that is, one of the seven kings or kingdoms. Then it is said of the beast "he is the eighth" (See Revelation 17:10-11). By no sort of mental gymnastics can any honest man make out to himself that the empire of the beast was pagan Rome. Pagan Rome was in existence when John wrote; and he plainly says after it another was to come; and that the beast was to come still later. The one that was to come in John's day is plainly Papal Rome. And the empire of the beast is still to come. John plainly said in his day that the beast "is not" (Revelation 17:8).
Continued...
Due to the length of this article by the late T. P. Simmons, I'm dividing it up in two parts/posts.
Post-millennialism is dead. Solomon said: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." (Proverbs 13:12a) Post-millennialism has sickened and expired.
Why Post-Millennialism Died. Post-millennialism believed, for the most part, that the preaching of the gospel would accomplish the conversion of the overwhelming mass of the people of the earth in this age and thus usher in that reign of righteousness alluded to in Revelation 20. Writing in 1883, in An American Commentary on the New Testament, Justin A. Smith said: "It has been said that in twenty-five years more, if the present rate of progress continues, India will be as thoroughly Christian as Great Britain is today; there will be thirty millions of Christians in China, and Japan will be as fully Christianized as America is today. The old heathen systems, they tell us, are honey-combed through and through by Christian influence. It looks as if the day, may come soon, when these systems, struck by vigorous blows, will fall in tremendous collapse. Meantime, every 'weapon formed against' Christianity, breaks in the hand that holds it." That was written seventy-one years ago, and we are farther from post-millennial expectations now than we were at the time it was written. The author of the quoted words did not anticipate the hold that evolution would get on the religious world and the consequent rise of modernism and neo-orthodoxy. Nor did he foresee the rise of those anti-christian philosophies that brought on both world wars and have now culminated in godless communism, which has engulfed more than half of the inhabitants of the world and has turned the world into an armed camp. In the light of the past fifty years it is not hard to understand why post-millennialism died.
Amillennialism Has Come in the Place of Post-millennialism. There has come in the place of post-millennialism a worse scourge. The time was when it was rare to find a post-millennialist among the rank and file of Baptist preachers, but now we have many amillennialists among them. Thus amillennialism has taken over the defunct stock of post-millennialism. This stock has been carefully sorted. Outdated items have been discarded. The remaining items have been renovated. The premises have been painted and made more attractive. New personnel have been employed. An ambitious sales program has been put on. The result is that business is much improved.
The Source of Amillennialism. It is not that amillennialism is really new. No; in essence it is older than post-millennialism. But before the death of post-millennialism it had been largely dormant for two hundred years. Post-millennialism had so many able advocates (such as Broadus, Carroll, Boycee, Pendleton and Mullins) that amillennialism was smothered. But with the passing of post-millennialism, it was rejuvenated. It received a shot-in-the-arm.
Amillenniallism had its source in the "philosophy and vain deceit," against which Paul warned the Colossians (Colossians 2:8). Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, set out to blend Hebrew and Greek thought. By the allegorical method he did away everything in the Old Testament that was not in harmony with the philosophy of Plato. In doing this, Philo was simply applying to the Old Testament the principle that the Greeks had employed for centuries in the interpretation of Homer. This allegorizing method of interpretation of Scripture was established in the great center of learning at Alexandria. Here it was passed on to Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius and Origen. It was Origen that did more than any other to popularize this method.
The Early Church Was Premillennial. Premillennialism was the original faith of Christendom. Charles Feinberg, in Premillennialism or Amillennialism, says: "Every book that we have read and studied on the question of the millennium, whether it was favorable or unfavorable to the doctrine, or whether it gave full force and value to the testimony or tried to dissipate its implications, admitted freely that the entire Church of the first three centuries was premillennial, almost to a man." This is admitted by Harnack, Mosheim, Geisler, Chillingworth, Stackhouse, Bishop Newton, Bishop Russell, Gibbon and even by Daniel Whitby. Not only was Montanus a premillennialist, but so also were Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Papias, and Irenaeus [church leaders in the first centuries].
Why the Early Church Was Premillennial. The early church was premillennial because early Christians believed in a characteristically literal interpretation of the Word of God. The departure from the truth of premillennialism on the part of the Catholic church, which is so well inscribed on the pages of history, came as a result of the adoption of the allegorizing or spiritualizing method of interpreting the Scripture already referred to. Because of Origen's influence in this respect, Milner, the great English historian, said: "No man, not altogether unsound and hypocritical, ever injured the Church more than Origen did." Other so-called "church fathers" [leaders in the churches in the first centuries] took up this method. From them it passed on to scholastic theologians and was carried over by some Protestant dogmatists.
Amillennialism and Modernism. Just as the modernist has allegorized the first chapters of Genesis, so the amillennialist has allegorized Scriptures that refer to the regathering and conversion of the Jews and the personal reign of Christ on the earth. Moreover amillennialism is like modernism again in that it undertakes to say in a ruthless and arbitrary way what can be true and what can't be true. It arbitrarily decides that God is through with the Jews as a nation. It decides that the sacrificial system of the Jews could not in anywise be restored without abrogating the new covenant. It decides that Christ and the glorified saints could not rule on this earth over men [who will be] in natural bodies. It makes these decisions, not on the basis of a careful examination of all the Scriptures, but presumptively; and then proceeds to twist the Scripture wherever necessary in order to make it agree. It is no wonder that the modernistic Southern Baptist Theological Seminary [the largest and oldest Southern Baptist seminary in America] is a hotbed of amillennialism [along with all other seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention]. Modernism and amillennialism are Siamese twins.
The Meaning of the Term "Amillennialism." Amillennialism means "non-millennialism." It would have suited amillennialists much better if the Bible had said nothing about the binding of Satan and the reign of Christ and the saints for one thousand years.
In fact it would have suited them if the book of Revelation had never been written. The only use they make of the last nineteen chapters [of Revelation] is to try to explain them away. If they were honest and thought they could get by with it, they would take the position of Dionysius and the Alogi in denying the canonicity of the book of Revelation [saying, in other words, that Revelation doesn't belong in the Bible]. It is a thorn in their sides. But the book of Revelation is with us to stay and amillennialists must make some disposition of the prophecy contained in the book. Thus we have non-millennialists telling us about the millennium. That is like having an atheist write on the attributes of God.
Amillennialism Denies God's Word Concerning Christ's Throne. Amillennialism says that Christ is now on His throne, the throne of David, which was promised to Him (Luke 1:32). But the Bible says that Christ is now on the Father's throne and that He will ascend His own throne when He comes in glory (Revelation 3:21; Matthew 25:31).
Denies God's Word Concerning the Binding of Satan. God's Word pictures in Revelation 20 the complete restraint of Satan during the millennium, but amillennialists say the restraint is only partial. That is just a plain, outright, blatant denial of the Word of God. Amillennialists need to be stripped of their pious and hypocritical pretenses and made to stand with all other deniers of the Word of God.
Denies God's Word about the Kingdom of the Beast. No doubt A. Pieters represents the consensus of opinion among amillennialists when he says: "The Battle of Armageddon, in the nineteenth chapter (of Revelation) means the victory of Christianity over Roman paganism, in the first three centuries of our era." But the Bible describes the pagan Roman Empire when it says "and one is," that is, one of the seven kings or kingdoms. Then it is said of the beast "he is the eighth" (See Revelation 17:10-11). By no sort of mental gymnastics can any honest man make out to himself that the empire of the beast was pagan Rome. Pagan Rome was in existence when John wrote; and he plainly says after it another was to come; and that the beast was to come still later. The one that was to come in John's day is plainly Papal Rome. And the empire of the beast is still to come. John plainly said in his day that the beast "is not" (Revelation 17:8).
Continued...
L
Linda70
Guest
Continued from my previous post (#2504). The following is from "Amillennialism: A False View of Prophecy, Refuted by the Word of God," by the late T.P. Simmons, The Baptist Challenge, January 1984.
Denies the Teaching of God's Word That the Beast Is a Man. The Bible teaches unmistakably that the beast is a man by declaring his number is "the number of a man" (Re 13:18) and by revealing that he will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20) where he is still found at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:10). Only a man who is more interested in maintaining his own notion than in accepting the Word of God would ever dream that the Bible here has reference to anything other than a man. But amillennialism says the beast only represents a system or abstract conception. Thus again it flatly denies the Word of God.
Must Distinguish between Beast and Man of Sin. Since amillennialists do not believe that the second coming of Christ is pictured in Revelation 19, saying that the destruction of the beast portrayed therein is but the triumph of Christianity over Roman paganism, they are logically forced to deny that the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 is the same as the beast of Revelation; because the man of sin is to be destroyed with the brightness of Christ's coming. Yet nothing is plainer than that the man of sin and the beast are identical.
Rejects God's Place for the Second Coming of Christ. Amillennialism rejects God's place for the second coming of Christ and then substitutes its own. This is typical of amillennialism as a whole. It says that we have not the second coming of Christ in Revelation 19, where that coming is plainly pictured to all except those who have blinded their eyes by becoming victims of the "philosophy and vain deceit;" (Colossians 2:8) and then places the second coming in the latter part of Revelation 20, where God makes no mention of it. God has plainly indicated that Revelation 19 sets forth the second coming of Christ by revealing in Zechariah 14:1-4 that at the time when Christ takes vengeance against all nations in the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:13-16; 19:17-21), "his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives." How pitiable it is when one amillennialist says of Zechariah 14:4 "Someone's feet are to 'stand upon the mount of Olives;' but it is not certain who the person is."
Nullifies the Imminency of Christ's Coming. New Testament Christians were commanded to "watch" and Christ's coming was revealed as always impending. After revealing the millennium John represents Jesus as saying again: "Surely I come quickly" (Revelation 21:20), which means suddenly rather than soon. This represents the coming of Jesus as the next thing in the prophetic program. This is what the Bible always means by "at hand" or "draweth nigh". But amillennialism, by representing the thousand years of Revelation 20 as being before Christ's coming and as having extended now for much more than one thousand years, takes all the meaning out of such representations as noted. I doubt that any amillennialist can say that he is expecting Christ at any moment. One amillennialist says that the loosing of Satan (Revelation 20:7), which he puts, of course, before the second advent, will be the revival of paganism; and he says that there will emerge "some kind of collectivism whose paganism embodied in some kind of world state of government will vent its wrath against the saints to stamp out the remembrance of them and historic Christianity in the earth." Certainly then he cannot believe that Christ's coming is imminent [could happen at any moment].
Flagrantly Contradicts God's Word by Teaching a General Resurrection. As plainly as language can express it God's Word describes a resurrection in which only the righteous take part. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23; Revelation 20:5-6). Then it tells of another resurrection in which only the wicked have part (Revelation 20:11,15). But amillennialists think they know more than the inspired writers did about this matter, so they put the two together. The Word of God is not final to amillennialists. Their pet theory is final, so they presumptively rearranged God's Word to suit that.
Accuses God of Repenting. God says He does not repent of His gifts and calling (Romans 11:29), but amillennialism says that He does. They admit that God once called national Israel and bestowed national blessings upon them, but they say that these have now been forfeited forever. Thus, according to amillennialism, there is no such thing as the immutability [unchanging nature] of God.
Accuses Jesus and the Prophets of Falsifying. Amillennialists say that when Jesus comes again He will not reestablish the Jewish nation at earthly Jerusalem. Jesus and the prophets said that He would. In Matthew 19:28 Jesus said: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Now let not any amillennialist expose his ignorance by saying that the "regeneration" here is the triumph of Christianity over paganism in the first three centuries or at any other time.
The apostles have not yet sat on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Moreover the "regeneration" is represented as coinciding in time with the sitting of Christ on the throne of His Glory, and this is to be when he returns (Matthew 25:31). This regeneration connects with the "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21) and with Isaiah 65:17-25, where the prophet describes a state of affairs in Jerusalem that could exist only in earthly Jerusalem. It is a state that will involve death, sinners, building houses, planting, laboring, and prayer. The reader perhaps is beginning to feel that I have no patience with amillennialism or time for it. That is exactly right. I regard it as being wholly and absolutely false and as just another system of deception that has emerged from the bottomless pit to be used of the devil in blighting the lives of individuals and disturbing the peace of churches. I am truly sorry for those who have been duped by it. I urge them to repent and return to their first love. ("Amillennialism: A False View of Prophecy, Refuted by the Word of God," by the late T.P. Simmons, The Baptist Challenge, January 1984).
Denies the Teaching of God's Word That the Beast Is a Man. The Bible teaches unmistakably that the beast is a man by declaring his number is "the number of a man" (Re 13:18) and by revealing that he will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20) where he is still found at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:10). Only a man who is more interested in maintaining his own notion than in accepting the Word of God would ever dream that the Bible here has reference to anything other than a man. But amillennialism says the beast only represents a system or abstract conception. Thus again it flatly denies the Word of God.
Must Distinguish between Beast and Man of Sin. Since amillennialists do not believe that the second coming of Christ is pictured in Revelation 19, saying that the destruction of the beast portrayed therein is but the triumph of Christianity over Roman paganism, they are logically forced to deny that the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 is the same as the beast of Revelation; because the man of sin is to be destroyed with the brightness of Christ's coming. Yet nothing is plainer than that the man of sin and the beast are identical.
Rejects God's Place for the Second Coming of Christ. Amillennialism rejects God's place for the second coming of Christ and then substitutes its own. This is typical of amillennialism as a whole. It says that we have not the second coming of Christ in Revelation 19, where that coming is plainly pictured to all except those who have blinded their eyes by becoming victims of the "philosophy and vain deceit;" (Colossians 2:8) and then places the second coming in the latter part of Revelation 20, where God makes no mention of it. God has plainly indicated that Revelation 19 sets forth the second coming of Christ by revealing in Zechariah 14:1-4 that at the time when Christ takes vengeance against all nations in the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:13-16; 19:17-21), "his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives." How pitiable it is when one amillennialist says of Zechariah 14:4 "Someone's feet are to 'stand upon the mount of Olives;' but it is not certain who the person is."
Nullifies the Imminency of Christ's Coming. New Testament Christians were commanded to "watch" and Christ's coming was revealed as always impending. After revealing the millennium John represents Jesus as saying again: "Surely I come quickly" (Revelation 21:20), which means suddenly rather than soon. This represents the coming of Jesus as the next thing in the prophetic program. This is what the Bible always means by "at hand" or "draweth nigh". But amillennialism, by representing the thousand years of Revelation 20 as being before Christ's coming and as having extended now for much more than one thousand years, takes all the meaning out of such representations as noted. I doubt that any amillennialist can say that he is expecting Christ at any moment. One amillennialist says that the loosing of Satan (Revelation 20:7), which he puts, of course, before the second advent, will be the revival of paganism; and he says that there will emerge "some kind of collectivism whose paganism embodied in some kind of world state of government will vent its wrath against the saints to stamp out the remembrance of them and historic Christianity in the earth." Certainly then he cannot believe that Christ's coming is imminent [could happen at any moment].
Flagrantly Contradicts God's Word by Teaching a General Resurrection. As plainly as language can express it God's Word describes a resurrection in which only the righteous take part. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23; Revelation 20:5-6). Then it tells of another resurrection in which only the wicked have part (Revelation 20:11,15). But amillennialists think they know more than the inspired writers did about this matter, so they put the two together. The Word of God is not final to amillennialists. Their pet theory is final, so they presumptively rearranged God's Word to suit that.
Accuses God of Repenting. God says He does not repent of His gifts and calling (Romans 11:29), but amillennialism says that He does. They admit that God once called national Israel and bestowed national blessings upon them, but they say that these have now been forfeited forever. Thus, according to amillennialism, there is no such thing as the immutability [unchanging nature] of God.
Accuses Jesus and the Prophets of Falsifying. Amillennialists say that when Jesus comes again He will not reestablish the Jewish nation at earthly Jerusalem. Jesus and the prophets said that He would. In Matthew 19:28 Jesus said: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Now let not any amillennialist expose his ignorance by saying that the "regeneration" here is the triumph of Christianity over paganism in the first three centuries or at any other time.
The apostles have not yet sat on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Moreover the "regeneration" is represented as coinciding in time with the sitting of Christ on the throne of His Glory, and this is to be when he returns (Matthew 25:31). This regeneration connects with the "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21) and with Isaiah 65:17-25, where the prophet describes a state of affairs in Jerusalem that could exist only in earthly Jerusalem. It is a state that will involve death, sinners, building houses, planting, laboring, and prayer. The reader perhaps is beginning to feel that I have no patience with amillennialism or time for it. That is exactly right. I regard it as being wholly and absolutely false and as just another system of deception that has emerged from the bottomless pit to be used of the devil in blighting the lives of individuals and disturbing the peace of churches. I am truly sorry for those who have been duped by it. I urge them to repent and return to their first love. ("Amillennialism: A False View of Prophecy, Refuted by the Word of God," by the late T.P. Simmons, The Baptist Challenge, January 1984).
Sister Linda70,
If you could please tell me in your own words, what is your explanation of 1 Cor 15:23-24.
How many resurrections are there?
Brother John
Your interpretation is hypocritical.
You say that Satan is bound for a literal length of time.....then you turn around and say that Satan is unbound for a symbolic length of time.
L
Linda70
Guest
1 Corinthians 15:23: Jesus Christ was the first to be raised from the dead to die no more (to immortality) No other man had been raised from the dead to immortality up to that point in time. Christ is the firstfruits from the dead. Those who die in Christ (saved) during the dispensation of the Church, will be resurrected (raised to immortality) when Christ returns FOR His Church at the time of the Rapture (catching up of all Church age saints)...."the dead in Christ shall rise first (1 Thess. 4:16).
1 Corinthians 15:24: This verse states that Christ’s reign as mediator in heaven is to last until every enemy that shall be destroyed is dead. Then Christ delivers up his kingdom to his Father. “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand [that is, in the kingly position], until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This will be the fulfillment of Psalms 110:1.
The Bible says there are TWO resurrections, not one general resurrection.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
First Resurrection:
All saved people will be a part of the resurrection of life (the first resurrection). Those who take part in the first resurrection (saved people) are not all raised up at the same time.
1. Christ is the firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:23).
2. The "dead in Christ" (members of the Church who have died) will be raised up (resurrected) at the time of the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 1 Corinthians 15:52). Those Christians who are living on earth at the time of the rapture will also "be changed" and receive new bodies (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).. Then all the saved will be "caught up" (raptured) together.
3. Old Testament believers will be raised up after the seven year tribulation period (Daniel 12:1-2). Believers who die during the tribulation will also be raised up at this time (Revelation 20:4).
Second Resurrection:
1. All of the unsaved people will be part of the resurrection of damnation (or judgment).
2. Those who take part in the second resurrection will all be raised at the same time. They will be raised to stand before the Great White Throne and before the Holy God who sits upon it.
3. This will include all the unsaved who have ever lived, from Cain (1 John 3:12) to the last group of rebels in Revelation 20:7-9. These people will be given a resurrection body that will be perfectly designed for hell so that they will be able to suffer the torments of the lake of fire forever (to suffer and to burn but to never be consumed in the burning).
The Great White Throne judgment of the unsaved takes place AFTER the 1,000 year reign of Christ, the final battle of Gog and Magog and AFTER Satan is cast alive into the eternal lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The length of time that Satan is unbound at the end of the 1000 year reign of Jesus is not symbolic. It is for a 'little while'. That is similar to something happening 'soon' in the bible. In both instances the time period is literal and it will happen. I have not said anything about how long Satan will be set loose but only have stated what is written in the bible. I don't know how long a 'little while' is but I am reasonably certain that it is shorter than a 'great while'. Satan will be set free to deceive the nations once again and it will happen 'soon' after the 1000 years is complete.
Hi Sister Linda70,
1. The first resurrection was Jesus, we agree on that.
2. The second resurrection is at His coming,
You say that the Bible only teaches 2 resurrections, I agree.
This very plain, how can you add more resurrections than what it says in 1 Cor 15:23-24?
I think you have at least 3,4?
Thank you for explaining your understanding to me, it's good to talk.
Brother John
You have just admitted that 'a little while' represents an unknown duration of time.
This is commonly referred to as symbolic.
Thus, what is to stop the 1K years from also representing a longer unknown time duration?
Nothing...
L
Linda70
Guest
The first resurrection is at His coming (part 1). The first resurrection is the resurrection to eternal life....for the saved. As I stated, not all the saved will be resurrected at once. 1 Corinthians 15 is not speaking of the second resurrection or the Great White Throne judgment. The apostle Paul is not writing to the lost, but to the saved, who will be resurrected to immortal/eternal life.
The second resurrection is to damnation and only the lost are resurrected. Who is resurrected in Revelation 20? Who is judged at the Great White Throne judgment? How do you interpret Revelation 20:4-5?
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
The first resurrection is in three parts....1. Christ the firstfruits, 2. then the dead in Christ shall rise first (at the time of the "catching up" of all the Church age saints) at His coming.....3. then those who are resurrected at the end of the tribulation period (Revelation 20:4-5) . As a book has chapters, the first resurrection has three parts...and the three parts make up ONE first resurrection.
The second resurrection is defined in Revelation 20:11-15....it is only for the lost. I am not adding resurrections, you are.
If it is symbolic what would be the purpose to state that the period of time is 1000 years verses saying that is simply a long period of time? Regardless, it still refers to time and that is not symbolic.
Last edited:
I agree that there are only 2 resurrections.
But you are saying that there more than 2.
1. Jesus
At least 1900 yrs between
2. Rapture
3. End of the 7 yrs
4. the unsaved
4 resurrections right?
The passage in 1 Cor 15:23-28 is not symbolic, and it doesn't pass the test for being symbolic.
The extra resurrections must be added to satisfy the requirements for a linear Revelation.
Since you have no clue as to how long your 'little time' is....then it has to be symbolic, as it represents a period of time!
So simple...
L
Linda70
Guest
Nice twist Mr. Bowman.
Revelation 20 is at the END of the book of Revelation....and the book of Revelation is the LAST book of the Bible and from chapter 4 through chapter 22, everything written in Revelation was future, not past or present. To bring chapter 20 back to the cross and state that Satan was bound in the abyss at that time is the most skewed up method of interpreting Bible prophecy I have ever heard of. The book of Revelation can be summarized in chapter 1, verse 19:
Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
things which thou hast seen - chapter 1
things which are - chapters 2-3
things which shall be hereafter - chapters 4-22