Revelation 20

[steve]

If you insist upon seeing it that way, I am sure there is no one who can dissuade you—least of all me. Enjoy your beliefs, with my blessing!

[postpre]

Steve,

Whatever positions I embrace, I make sure they are well thought out and internally consistent. I do not believe that I am any more adamant in my opinions than you are. Part of the reason for my interaction on this forum (which I plan to continue, perhaps in a different manner) is that I agree with the assessment of "Dennis the millennialist." I think the majority of your arguments are a refutation against the traditional dispensational camp. However, I do not believe you can as easily refute the historical premillennnial (chiliam) position, which is the most ancient eschatological belief of the church fathers. I think you would do well to seek out interaction with folks who hold this position, as they do not succumb to the many errors of dispensationalism.

Brian

[Sean]

Jesus was contrasting his power with that of a demon. But, if it is Satan, does this passage then imply that his binding will ultimately be ineffective, and that he will come back more powerful (with many "devils" with him)?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that since a demon can come back that when Jesus cast them out He was also ineffective?

I don't think that was Jesus' emphasis at all in Matthew 12. The parallel passage in Luke makes it plain that Jesus was talking about casting a demon out of a particular individual.

Jesus was displaying the power of the Holy Spirit and it's effect on those oppressed by the devil. This same power is given to believers who can then drive demons away. Something that could not be done before with great success. This ability has moved with the gospel as it has been preached throughout the world, driving the power of the enemy back. The gospel has tranferred people out of the dominion of darkness and brought them into the kingdom of the Son. This is the sense that Satan is bound. His freedom is limited by the ever expanding kingdom.

Consider this passage:
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Whenever I encounter people who think its just plain silly to believe Satan is in any way hindered by what Jesus has done, I quote Hebrews 2:14-15. The word "destroy" in the english NKJV above is the greek word katargeō:

katargeō καταργέω

1. to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
a. to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
b.to deprive of force, influence, power

2. to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
a. to cease, to pass away, be done away
b. to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
c. to terminate all intercourse with one

Whatever positions I embrace, I make sure they are well thought out and internally consistent. I do not believe that I am any more adamant in my opinions than you are. Part of the reason for my interaction on this forum (which I plan to continue, perhaps in a different manner) is that I agree with the assessment of "Dennis the millennialist." I think the majority of your arguments are a refutation against the traditional dispensational camp. However, I do not believe you can as easily refute the historical premillennnial (chiliam) position, which is the most ancient eschatological belief of the church fathers. I think you would do well to seek out interaction with folks who hold this position, as they do not succumb to the many errors of dispensationalism.

Brian

I can certainly understand the concern, and I have respect for the historical premillennnial position. But as one who pretty much is in agreement with Steve's position on this issue, I would point out that there are several plain statements throughout the NT that state a singular event of a judgement coming/resurrection. One where all the dead are raised and all people are judged. From my position, I would have to "fudge" these passages to fit one (Rev 20). It seems most consistent to me to go the Amillennial route, rather than trying to read one's interpretation of Revelation 20 back into those passages and change their meaning.

[steve]

Brian wrote:

I think the majority of your arguments are a refutation against the traditional dispensational camp. However, I do not believe you can as easily refute the historical premillennnial (chiliam) position, which is the most ancient eschatological belief of the church fathers. I think you would do well to seek out interaction with folks who hold this position, as they do not succumb to the many errors of dispensationalism.

Just for the record, in my journey out of dispensationalism to amillennialism, I spent a year or two in the transitional position of historic premillennialism. I did not remain there for many of the reasons I have presented in this thread (which, in my judgment, have not been answered).