Rev. 20 and literal v. spiritual implications

And I answered your question. Was there some part of that answer that you misunderstood? If so, feel free to ask more specifically. It seems to me that you are equating two things without proper basis.

So then why not explain several things:
1. The texts that make explicitly indicate that Satan is not currently bound.
2. The reason why the OT Scriptures description of the Kingdom of God do not correspond to what we are currently living in.
3. The reason why the disciples asked about when the kingdom would be established in Acts 1. If the kingdom was already in force, then why did they ask about it? If the kingdom was already in force, then why did Christ not correct them? He left them to go on thinking they were right to expect a future kingdom.
4. The difference between the work of Satan prior to Matt 12 when he was not bound and now when he is bound. The Scripture seems to indicate no difference whatsoever. So if there is no difference, in what sense is this a binding?
5. If Satan is not currently deceiving the nations, then why are so many rejecting the true gospel for its many imitations, embracing false religions in great numbers. That does not sound like the kingom prophesied in Scripture.

I am not sure where you missed my post above. I said that the binding does not seem to correspond with what Scripture says. It is not really about my thoughts but what Scripture says in the various passages. In Rev 20 he is bound and not able to deceive the nations; in various other NT passages he clearly is deceiving people. How do you reconcile these things.

You might say a lot of things about my posts but you certainly cannot say that they ignore Scripture. I have posted the Scriptures that seem to indicate that Satan is not currently bound in any substantive way. Why don't you give a shot at answering those questions instead of repeating your previous assertions.

I have. I have demonstrated over and over again the exegetical basis for my discussion. One thing I have found in this forum (and you are illustrating it again) is that so many amills are not willing to participate in the exegetical process. They rehash old issues and cite people without any critical approach to their published mentors. I think we need to adopt a little more of a critical thinking method in approaching this issue.

Again, Christopher, I do not mean anything negative towards you even though you might think so. I am challenging your beliefs on the basis of what Scripture says. We all must make our beliefs stand up to the test of the text. Where it cannot do so we need to abandon our beliefs.

[ March 25, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

As I have said before, you can't just lump everyone together who calls himself a dispensationalist. Grant Jeffreys and others like him are just a bunch of sensationalists who prey on the ignorant.

What prophesies to Israel does the church fulfill?

Most dispys say that the sacrifices are nothing but a way to look back at what the Lord accomplished. It has nothing to do with purification or anything like that.

 

I don't think dispensationalists are trying to know all the details. I think we are simply trying to ascertain what the Bible says and how it fits together. As for Rev 20 and the sacrifices, Rev 20 essentially gives very little information except the time frame and the resurrections. Most information about the Kingdom comes from teh OT. If there were no OT, I could grant the amillennial position legitimacy. However, the OT is wholly incompatible with amillennialism. I am a dispensationalist because of what the OT says and because of what the NT says about the OT.

Historic premillennialism is simply posttribulationism. They make the same essential assumptions about the Millennium as the Dispensationalists do. They simply see an egalitarian structure rather than a heirarchical one because of their belief that Israel and the Church are essentially the same.

Please identify these. I am not familiar with any prohpecies or promises made to Israel that are fulfilled in the church.

As far as the sacrifices, as we have said many times, remember the sacrifices were not just about atonement for sin. They served a theocractic, civil, and ceremonial purpose, all of which will be present in the millennium.

 

And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as [one] breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury. [Jer. 19:11]

Jerusalem reestablished as a nation? I think not.

By His grace, Christopher †

 

True, but I was taking it as including believers as the "true Israel" as Paul discusses. Christian believers are later distinguished as "the remnant of her seed", but just as the Father and Son are one, so are the mother and daughter [in-law--i.e. the Bride of Christ].
These are just theories, and otherwise, I too admit to often wondering what exactly the flight of the woman for 1260 days(years) exactly represents.

 

1260 days happen to be 3 1/2 years. Taken with the other time passages (42 months; a time, times, and half a time) you have several references to 3 1/2 years. Thus 7 years (two of those time references are during the same time). WHOA! Daniel said the same thing. No, amills, you cannot just pick and choose what portions are exclusively metaphorical. It is literal unless it would render an absurd interpretation. If it is metaphorical, it represents something literal. This doesn't violate the literal principle.

 

As a slight scribal issue, Jerusalem never was established as a nation and never will be. It is a city. The nation is made up of people.

More to the point, why does this verse take priority in your theology over the scores of verses that testify that Israel will be reestablished and rebuilt?

 

Christopher, would you explain when this prophesy was fulfilled?

 

I don't know if by "amills" you were referring to me (your post was answering me, right?), but I'm not amill.
I just recognize that there are different ways of taking certain elements of the prophecy. Many people use the "day for a year" principle, which would make 1260 years. It doesn't even have to be one or the other; both could actually be true. There is a principle of duality; the prophecy has a larger past typical fulfillment (1260 years in history), and a smaller but greater antetypical fulfillment (the future 7 years).
In both cases, I am not dogmatic on what the flight of the woman is, that was my point.
I you believe it is ethnic Israel in the tribulation, then what is her flight to protection? Isn't Israel left for persecution during this time?