It seems to me we give Satan far more credit than he deserves. Perhaps I am naive but I hardly think about him at all. What have I to fear if I abide in Christ? I am my own worst enemy. James 1:14; "...but each one is tempted when , by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed." 2 Peter 2:18; "...by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people...."
Aren't we, by far, our own worst enemy? Mark 7: 21-23; "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean."
Do you think if Satan was blown to bits we would become sinless? Doesn't he just work on what's inside us when he has the opportunity? But "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you", Romans 8:9. Comforting thought!
1948
Amen, Amen, Amen, Homer!!!! Well put and my sentiments completely. I guess I am now one of your disciples. 
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
[quote=Homer]It seems to me we give Satan far more credit than he deserves.[/quote]
Agreed. Those who don't agree that Satan is bound often seem to assert, whether purposefully or not, that Satan is the source of all sin.
But it seems that Satan has little work to do with a person already focused and committed to rebellion against God.
If Satan would have a focal point to direct his work, I would think it is the Church and Scripture tells us that when we are in Christ, he doesn't stand a chance.
Sounds like he's on a short leash to me.
Agreed. Those who don't agree that Satan is bound often seem to assert, whether purposefully or not, that Satan is the source of all sin.
But it seems that Satan has little work to do with a person already focused and committed to rebellion against God.
If Satan would have a focal point to direct his work, I would think it is the Church and Scripture tells us that when we are in Christ, he doesn't stand a chance.
Sounds like he's on a short leash to me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi
Homer wrote
"It seems to me we give Satan far more credit than he deserves. Perhaps I am naive but I hardly think about him at all. What have I to fear if I abide in Christ?"
Crusader replies
Homer your right we have nothing to fear as born again believers. But for example, when witnessing we need to intercede in prayer for those we share the gospel with that the eyes of their heart would be responsive to the good news of Jesus Christ. If you dont believe that there is a war going on for their soul when your sharing you can be hampered in witnessing since you arent accurately discerning the situation. This is one example of satans war on unbelievers.
Luke 8:12
"12Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved"
Actually what we were discussing here is," Has the devil been bound"?
I believe that the answer is emphatically no. He still is active and is effectively running the domain of darkness. I believe that the majority of the New Testament references I have listed support this premiss. I think the reason that the preterists here believe this is so is because one, they think this is the millennium and they believe Revelation 20: 1-3 has already occured,which I contend is untrue.
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He 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. "
So he is either sealed and bound or hes not. If Revelation 20 has occured then the devil shouldnt be operating at all,not on time off for good behavior,with a home monitering device or even for a weekend. Bound and sealed is bound and sealed. Plus what sense would the next verse possibly mean then he must be released for a short time.Released from what if hes not bound. The dog on a chain arguement isnt valid and is a weak attempt at trying to use human logic to reduce the meaning of what bound and sealed really mean. As far as history, goes the anals of human history show more death and destruction unleashed upon the human race in modern times than anything man has known. The devil came to rob,kill and destroy and hes really working overtime now since he knows his days are numbered. The aids epidemic alone stands as a testimony to this.But like Homer said greater is He who is in you than He who is in the world.
Crusader
"It seems to me we give Satan far more credit than he deserves. Perhaps I am naive but I hardly think about him at all. What have I to fear if I abide in Christ?"
Crusader replies
Homer your right we have nothing to fear as born again believers. But for example, when witnessing we need to intercede in prayer for those we share the gospel with that the eyes of their heart would be responsive to the good news of Jesus Christ. If you dont believe that there is a war going on for their soul when your sharing you can be hampered in witnessing since you arent accurately discerning the situation. This is one example of satans war on unbelievers.
Luke 8:12
"12Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved"
Actually what we were discussing here is," Has the devil been bound"?
I believe that the answer is emphatically no. He still is active and is effectively running the domain of darkness. I believe that the majority of the New Testament references I have listed support this premiss. I think the reason that the preterists here believe this is so is because one, they think this is the millennium and they believe Revelation 20: 1-3 has already occured,which I contend is untrue.
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He 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. "
So he is either sealed and bound or hes not. If Revelation 20 has occured then the devil shouldnt be operating at all,not on time off for good behavior,with a home monitering device or even for a weekend. Bound and sealed is bound and sealed. Plus what sense would the next verse possibly mean then he must be released for a short time.Released from what if hes not bound. The dog on a chain arguement isnt valid and is a weak attempt at trying to use human logic to reduce the meaning of what bound and sealed really mean. As far as history, goes the anals of human history show more death and destruction unleashed upon the human race in modern times than anything man has known. The devil came to rob,kill and destroy and hes really working overtime now since he knows his days are numbered. The aids epidemic alone stands as a testimony to this.But like Homer said greater is He who is in you than He who is in the world.
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:
"The dog on a chain arguement isnt valid and is a weak attempt at trying to use human logic to reduce the meaning of what bound and sealed really mean."
If this illustration arises from "human logic," then from what specie of logic does your understanding of "binding" arise (dolphin logic, perhaps? Maybe we should be using chimpanzee logic?)?
Your statements about this make it clear that you are assuming what is not at all necessary (or even very reasonable) to assume—namely, that the visions that John saw on Patmos employed literal images to make their point, rather than symbolic ones.
I have never quite understood how any biblically-literate person could justify this assumption. The visions of the Old Testament (many of which closely resemble those in Revelation) certainly do not use literalism, but symbolism.
In Daniel two, four metals comprising a statue are symbolic for four empires, and a stone that grows into a mountain represents the kingdom of God. In Daniel seven, four beasts stand as symbols of the same four empires. The sea from which they arise is a symbol for the Gentile world. In Daniel eight, the second and third of those beasts are recast with different symbols: a ram and a he-goat. Does anyone pretend to take these visions "literally?"
The same is true of Ezekiel's vision of "the dry bones" or Zechariah's flying scroll, or the woman in a bushel basket, carried by two storks to Babylon, etc. These, and virtually all biblical visionary revelations, are given in symbolic, not literal, form. The same will be found to be true in Joseph's dreams, Pharaoh's dreams and Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Dan.4). The book of Revelation (which borrows symbolism from all of the above) is not materially different in nature.
In Revelation, the riders of four variously-colored horses are universally recognized as being symbolic of certain earthly developments that do not involve four literal horses at all. A lamb with seven eyes and seven horns is an unmistakable symbol of Christ. A dragon with seven heads and ten horns is a symbol for Satan. This dragon is symbolically said to be confined with a chain in a pit (which, we are told, is symbolic of his being restricted from deceiving the Gentile nations). The list of biblical symbols goes on and on, including non-literal references to wheat and chaff, to sheep and goats, to leaven and mustard seeds, etc.
One would be as wise to argue for taking the four beasts of Daniel literally as to suggest a literal interpretation of the binding of the dragon in Revelation.
When those objecting to the amillennial doctrine suggest that "if Satan is bound, he would not be able to...[fill in the blank]," they are pretending to know precisely the limits implied in the symbolism. I make no such guesses. The only explanation of the symbol of the bound dragon given in scripture states that he is restricted from some or all of his former privileges of deceiving the nations of the Gentiles. If it means more than this, we are not told. It is dangerous to guess—even more dangerous to think that such guesses possess any authority or determinative value in assessing doctrine.
On what authority can we pretend to know that the information communicated through these symbols precludes Peter's warning us to watch out for the devil, who roams about as a lion? If John's vision of Satan being bound is making an entirely different point than that which Peter is making, there is no significant overlap (and no possible contradiction) between the two images.
It seems clear that John's vision speaks of a cosmic reduction of the devil's liberty to deceive the "nations" (taken as a category, i.e., the Gentiles), apparently due to the fact that the Word of God has now been sent to these nations as never before. By contrast, Peter alludes to the individual Christian's encounter with the wiles and malice of Satan—which agrees with everything and contradicts nothing in scripture. Two separate concepts are in view in the two passages. There is nothing about one that comes into conflict with the other.
If anyone thinks (as some apparently do) that an amillennialist cannot appreciate the need for spiritual warfare, they have an opportunity to disabuse themselves of this miscalculation by listening to my lecture series on spiritual warfare. Far from this subject being in conflict with amillennialism, in the opening lectures, I identify the binding of Satan (i.e., his defeat at the cross) as the very reason, biblically speaking, that we are capable of successfully defeating him in combat.
Those who oppose this view not only overestimate the power of the devil in this age (dispensationalists, in particular, seem to find great enjoyment in overestimating and sensationalizing his activity), but also greatly underestimate what the biblical writers tell us Christ has accomplished through His death and resurrection. If Paul did not believe that Christ had spoiled the principalities and powers" [with due acknowledgment of Paidion's alternative view of this expression] (Col.2:15), he hardly could have promised that, by our taking up the armor of God, we can withstand all the devices of Satan (Eph.6:10ff). The very reason the armor exists and is effective is that Christ has accomplished this signal victory over the powers of darkness.
One thing that never ceases to puzzle me is why some Christians so strenuously object to acknowledging the extent of Christ's victory at the cross. I should have thought this truth would hearten Christians, not elicit violent resistance!
You wrote:
"The dog on a chain arguement isnt valid and is a weak attempt at trying to use human logic to reduce the meaning of what bound and sealed really mean."
If this illustration arises from "human logic," then from what specie of logic does your understanding of "binding" arise (dolphin logic, perhaps? Maybe we should be using chimpanzee logic?)?
Your statements about this make it clear that you are assuming what is not at all necessary (or even very reasonable) to assume—namely, that the visions that John saw on Patmos employed literal images to make their point, rather than symbolic ones.
I have never quite understood how any biblically-literate person could justify this assumption. The visions of the Old Testament (many of which closely resemble those in Revelation) certainly do not use literalism, but symbolism.
In Daniel two, four metals comprising a statue are symbolic for four empires, and a stone that grows into a mountain represents the kingdom of God. In Daniel seven, four beasts stand as symbols of the same four empires. The sea from which they arise is a symbol for the Gentile world. In Daniel eight, the second and third of those beasts are recast with different symbols: a ram and a he-goat. Does anyone pretend to take these visions "literally?"
The same is true of Ezekiel's vision of "the dry bones" or Zechariah's flying scroll, or the woman in a bushel basket, carried by two storks to Babylon, etc. These, and virtually all biblical visionary revelations, are given in symbolic, not literal, form. The same will be found to be true in Joseph's dreams, Pharaoh's dreams and Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Dan.4). The book of Revelation (which borrows symbolism from all of the above) is not materially different in nature.
In Revelation, the riders of four variously-colored horses are universally recognized as being symbolic of certain earthly developments that do not involve four literal horses at all. A lamb with seven eyes and seven horns is an unmistakable symbol of Christ. A dragon with seven heads and ten horns is a symbol for Satan. This dragon is symbolically said to be confined with a chain in a pit (which, we are told, is symbolic of his being restricted from deceiving the Gentile nations). The list of biblical symbols goes on and on, including non-literal references to wheat and chaff, to sheep and goats, to leaven and mustard seeds, etc.
One would be as wise to argue for taking the four beasts of Daniel literally as to suggest a literal interpretation of the binding of the dragon in Revelation.
When those objecting to the amillennial doctrine suggest that "if Satan is bound, he would not be able to...[fill in the blank]," they are pretending to know precisely the limits implied in the symbolism. I make no such guesses. The only explanation of the symbol of the bound dragon given in scripture states that he is restricted from some or all of his former privileges of deceiving the nations of the Gentiles. If it means more than this, we are not told. It is dangerous to guess—even more dangerous to think that such guesses possess any authority or determinative value in assessing doctrine.
On what authority can we pretend to know that the information communicated through these symbols precludes Peter's warning us to watch out for the devil, who roams about as a lion? If John's vision of Satan being bound is making an entirely different point than that which Peter is making, there is no significant overlap (and no possible contradiction) between the two images.
It seems clear that John's vision speaks of a cosmic reduction of the devil's liberty to deceive the "nations" (taken as a category, i.e., the Gentiles), apparently due to the fact that the Word of God has now been sent to these nations as never before. By contrast, Peter alludes to the individual Christian's encounter with the wiles and malice of Satan—which agrees with everything and contradicts nothing in scripture. Two separate concepts are in view in the two passages. There is nothing about one that comes into conflict with the other.
If anyone thinks (as some apparently do) that an amillennialist cannot appreciate the need for spiritual warfare, they have an opportunity to disabuse themselves of this miscalculation by listening to my lecture series on spiritual warfare. Far from this subject being in conflict with amillennialism, in the opening lectures, I identify the binding of Satan (i.e., his defeat at the cross) as the very reason, biblically speaking, that we are capable of successfully defeating him in combat.
Those who oppose this view not only overestimate the power of the devil in this age (dispensationalists, in particular, seem to find great enjoyment in overestimating and sensationalizing his activity), but also greatly underestimate what the biblical writers tell us Christ has accomplished through His death and resurrection. If Paul did not believe that Christ had spoiled the principalities and powers" [with due acknowledgment of Paidion's alternative view of this expression] (Col.2:15), he hardly could have promised that, by our taking up the armor of God, we can withstand all the devices of Satan (Eph.6:10ff). The very reason the armor exists and is effective is that Christ has accomplished this signal victory over the powers of darkness.
One thing that never ceases to puzzle me is why some Christians so strenuously object to acknowledging the extent of Christ's victory at the cross. I should have thought this truth would hearten Christians, not elicit violent resistance!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
"One thing that never ceases to puzzle me is why some Christians so strenuously object to acknowledging the extent of Christ's victory at the cross. I should have thought this truth would hearten Christians, not elicit violent resistance!"
Note, it is not the amillennialist, but the dispensationalist that continues to preach that Jesus did not:
1. Establish a kingdom.
2. Make Jew and Gentile into one man.
3. Bind Satan.
4. Do away with sacrifices forever.
5. Become the center of worship.
6. Rightly predict the A.D. 70 tribulation
7. Sit on David's throne
8. Fulfill all the Old Testament types and shadows
9. Raise the fallen tabernacle of Israel
Jesus said, "It is finished!"
The dispensationalist adds, "For now."
JD
Note, it is not the amillennialist, but the dispensationalist that continues to preach that Jesus did not:
1. Establish a kingdom.
2. Make Jew and Gentile into one man.
3. Bind Satan.
4. Do away with sacrifices forever.
5. Become the center of worship.
6. Rightly predict the A.D. 70 tribulation
7. Sit on David's throne
8. Fulfill all the Old Testament types and shadows
9. Raise the fallen tabernacle of Israel
Jesus said, "It is finished!"
The dispensationalist adds, "For now."
JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Ok. I'll give it another shot.Paidion wrote: Sean, it appears that you have misunderstood my use of the phrase "bad metaphorical language". I was not implying that metaphorical language is intriniscally "bad", but rather that if Peter had believed that Satan was bound in the day that he warned about the devil prowling about like a lion seeking someone to devour, he was using metaphorical language in a "bad" (that is "ineffective") way. So your examples of metaphorical language which cannot reasonably be taken literally are inapplicable to the point.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.
Why would Peter compare a bound Satan to a roaring lion prowling around seeking some one to devour? The simile doesn't make sense if Satan were bound when Peter wrote these words.
Suppose an intruder had broken into your house, and you caught him.
The next day would it make any sense to say to your friends, "The intruder I caught had been prowling around my house like my chained dog outside"?
Satan is bound in one sense, but not in another. Satan can "attack a man" by breaking in his house and tempt him, lead people against him or even lead him into sin. But can the same be said for a Christian who wears the full armour of God? Is there a difference between someone who has "put on Christ" and someone who is defenseless?
Gentiles were at one time aliens and strangers without God and with no hope:
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Something has changed in the Gentile world. Something is different than it was before Christ for the Gentiles. The Gospel brings this fact to light. This wasn't the case before Christ. It brings Gentiles (as well as Jews) out of the darkness of their sin and depravity as well as the reach of satan. That's one of the things we are to be aware of, we don't want to boast that we stand or we could fall (1 Cor 10:12). That warning is akin to "beware of satan prowling around", stay focused and obedient, "keep Christ on" so to speak. It seems to me that this power to resist the devil is simply an extention of Christs' power in us by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is something we didn't have residing in us before the cross/resurrection.
So in one sense the devil can decive some, but not others. Because some are regenerate and others are not. The gospel going to "all nations" is a means of regenerating the lost, so they are no longer in bondage to sin and satan.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Jesus said, "It is finished!"
The dispensationalist adds, "For now." Well said JD
The dispensationalist adds, "For now." Well said JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
While reading these comments I thought of a good example, Eph. 4:26-27. "Be angry and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity."
My thoughts:
1. The source of anger is in the heart.
2. We can, through the spirit, control our anger.
3. If we do not, we provide an opportunity to Satan that he otherwise would not have.
4. If we provide the opportunity, he is sure to take it.
My thoughts:
1. The source of anger is in the heart.
2. We can, through the spirit, control our anger.
3. If we do not, we provide an opportunity to Satan that he otherwise would not have.
4. If we provide the opportunity, he is sure to take it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Many great responses here, I would just like to add one thing from the mouth of Jesus:
Luke 22:31-34
31 And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." 33 But he said to Him, "Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death." 34 Then He said, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me."
NKJV
Peter not only overestimated his own commitment to Christ, but also underestimated the power of deception Satan has (as many Christians apparently do today). In fact, this passage suggests that it's rather effortless for him to do so (sift you as wheat?). I heard Steve say in one of his lectures that Satan cannot convince you to sin until he makes you believe some lie. We either believe that something is not sin, or that there are no consequences.
Jesus employed the weaponry of prayer to keep Peter from completely abandoning his faith altogether. As Sean pointed out, we now have the Holy Spirit to not only arm us against the wiles of the devil, but to steadily capture his territory as well.
2 Cor 10:4-6
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.
NKJV
Without these "weapons", Satan can apparently deceive the nations with ease as he did for millenia before Christ. But now, for some reason, he is losing the battle. So what is that reason?
Satan is indeed incapable of resistance against and army of Spirit-filled followers of King Jesus and is therefore "bound" and "disarmed" to some degree. Not that he's going down without a fight, but that he is outgunned.
Satan is a very "strong man" and unless he were "bound", the church could not be "plundering his house" as it obviously is.
Luke 22:31-34
31 And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." 33 But he said to Him, "Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death." 34 Then He said, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me."
NKJV
Peter not only overestimated his own commitment to Christ, but also underestimated the power of deception Satan has (as many Christians apparently do today). In fact, this passage suggests that it's rather effortless for him to do so (sift you as wheat?). I heard Steve say in one of his lectures that Satan cannot convince you to sin until he makes you believe some lie. We either believe that something is not sin, or that there are no consequences.
Jesus employed the weaponry of prayer to keep Peter from completely abandoning his faith altogether. As Sean pointed out, we now have the Holy Spirit to not only arm us against the wiles of the devil, but to steadily capture his territory as well.
2 Cor 10:4-6
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.
NKJV
Without these "weapons", Satan can apparently deceive the nations with ease as he did for millenia before Christ. But now, for some reason, he is losing the battle. So what is that reason?
Satan is indeed incapable of resistance against and army of Spirit-filled followers of King Jesus and is therefore "bound" and "disarmed" to some degree. Not that he's going down without a fight, but that he is outgunned.
Satan is a very "strong man" and unless he were "bound", the church could not be "plundering his house" as it obviously is.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32