Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About DavidM

  • Rank


  • Interests
    Theology and computers


  • Occupation
    Computer and web enthusiast at WPMU DEV

Recent Profile Visitors

294 profile views
  1. I thought that was obvious myself, especially since Christ was freed from the sealed tomb, which was a necessary step for any and all further action from believers. Satan is fundamentally like the federal head of the demons so holding that analogy, we should technically see no activity from them if he's sealed. I'll have to dig further into this but I mentioned it initially because I thought it would be very clear.
  2. It wasn't a matter of opinion. That list of people was irrelevant to this topic.
  3. I don't see what any of those people have to do with anything I've said. Are you aware that mentioning them in this context is irrelevant?
  4. That context is crystal clear about Satan's binding and in fact, I completely see how people could perceive Satan as being bound right at that point. I assumed that when I first read it. But issues start stacking up as you take into account the rest of Scripture. The simple fact that demons were still being cast out after that point should be a clear indicator. If even one more demon is cast out, then the best we could say is that Satan is in the process of being bound, no? Mind you, I realize Amilennialists have posed various solutions surrounding Satan's binding. But the idea of demons still being cast out after Satan is supposedly bound has always stuck out to me. It would be necessary in order to say the Gospel has now reached the entire globe since Scripture doesn't state that it has occurred nor does it state exactly when that point would be. That's all I was getting at.
  5. I believe Christ was saying that his redemptive work was finished. I don't believe he was saying Satan was bound at that time since demons were still being cast out after that point. Sorry I missed replying to your prior question but in answer, Scripture. God's Word is above all else so what Scripture says is of the utmost importance. To clarify too, I'm no scholar. I believe in simplicity myself as well, and I aspire to have a childlike faith. I hope my words don't convey other than that aspiration.
  6. Sorry I missed this one in my reply. I'm actually incredibly confused with that one since my former post addressed the inconsistency of saying Satan's binding is specifically so he can't deceive the nations, meanwhile deferring to Calvin's saying that people of other religions (reprobates) are deceived/blinded. If we're to understand that Satan's binding is for the purpose of the nations not being deceived, how does it make sense to say the reprobate are not protected from Satan's deceit?
  7. Okay, can we first agree that you must turn to the world outside Scripture to suggest that the Gospel has thus far reached the entire globe? When you mentioned the word 'newspaper', it resonated with the common accusation of Dispensationalism being "newspaper theology". Everyone making such a claim is subject to it as well. And a person claiming a Dispensationalist is relying on modern events is likewise relying on modern events to ascertain that the Gospel has indeed reached the entire globe. Can we agree on that? Also, thanks for clarifying what you were referring to. I was completely lost as to how you could reference newspapers in regard to my replies. But I see your point in mentioning it now. I hope you'll likewise see the point of my counter-contention while accepting my apologies for having missed your point in referencing the newspaper in that prior reply. Right, I was emphasizing Satan's ability to move upon the earth. Would you mind answering my former question about showing where in Scripture it says that Satan can't be physically bound? As to immovability being a condition of his binding, I'd actually refer to all examples of binding in Scripture to illustrate how binding is to be understood. In all cases I'm aware of, movement is impaired. Moreover, Satan isn't just bound. He's thrown in a pit and the pit is sealed, so other examples apply as well. Daniel 3:23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace. Genesis 42:24 Then he turned away from them and wept. And he returned to them and spoke to them. And he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes. Daniel 6:17 And a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel. Also, when I said "at the very least", I was referring to a Dispensationalist's understanding of the binding. They'd understand that he's restricted from going to and fro on the earth, at the very least. What more than that he's restricted from is open to discussion but I'd say that's a clear one. I hope that all makes sense, Kawika
  8. Wait a second, that is a serious charge. Where have I once referred to a single thing in the newspaper or in current events? I'd like to clarify again, I'm still unclear about eschatology. I'm speaking from the position that's been communicated to me through Dispensationalists, I'm providing answers from that viewpoint. The Dispensational system wouldn't say evil will be completely removed from the world at the time of Satan's binding since evil still exists in the heart of man. Instead, Satan's evil provocation and orchestration would be completely removed. Could you tell me where in Scripture you derive the idea that Satan can't be physically bound? Job 2:2 depicts him having traveled to and fro on the earth. So I'd say his bounding could entail that he can't travel to and fro on the earth, at the very least. Do you not see the inconsistency in those answers? You said earlier with reference to Riddlebarger that Satan's binding was so he couldn't deceive the nations. And now, this answer fundamentally says that he's deceiving the nations but not the Church. Also, my question wasn't, 'Why do we see so many nations and people deceived by other religions?" My specific question was this ... So if Satan's binding allowed the Gospel to reach the entire world, did it simultaneously allow false religions to reach it as well; false religions that are clearly the devil's work? Do you see the difference and reason for the question? It's about consistency. If you say Satan's binding was so the nations aren't deceived, yet coinciding with the spread of the Gospel to the nations is the spread of demonic religions, the question follows. How does that make any sense? May God bless you further this day and may our communication be laced with truth and patience in advancing it, Kawika
  9. Hi Becky, I hope you won't mind that I generally refrain from too much clarification such as with my prior post. In saying the Gospel hadn't yet reached the entire world, I meant it hadn't yet reached the entirety of the world literally. It hadn't yet reached far off nations like the Americas, for example. The context of the NT passages you quoted use the word 'world' similarly to how it's used in Luke 2: Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. In other words, the use of 'world' in those passages refers to the known world. We only know that by extension since the Gospel hadn't yet reached Iceland, the Americas, much of Africa, etc. And Caesar Augustus' census likewise wouldn't have extended to those regions. The passage is just referring to the known world. Hope you're having a blessed day, Kawika
  10. Good day once again brother, The reference I made to the newspaper was specifically regarding the fact that at the time of the NT Church, the Gospel hadn't yet reached the entire world. We know now that it practically has because of news that reaches us from across the world. So someone claiming Dispensationalism is "newspaper theology" faces the same charge. John Darby was a historic Protestant, unless you wish to exclude those who disagree with the analogy of faith. If that's to be the case, we might as well keep with the specifics of eschatology rather than trying to define Protestantism. I recall having read that from Riddlebarger in the past. I don't see how it answers the specific question I asked in regard to evidence of the following: - The nations are no longer deceived by Satan.  Riddlebarger asserts that Satan is bound right now, submits he's still the “god of this age” who blinds “the minds of unbelievers”. I don't know how anyone could see that as consistent but I'd rather clarify that the following does not answer the above question... All that does is expounds on what Riddlebarger thinks Satan's binding does not include. It says nothing at all about what it does include. Can you see the point of concern there? I'm asking specifically, what does it mean to say the nations are no longer deceived by Satan? I believe my previous statements apply here as well, though they were not replied to. Riddlebarger's words don't address them. The Gospel has met varied results in various nations. Other religions have as well, Islam being chief among them. So if Satan's binding allowed the Gospel to reach the entire world, did it simultaneously allow false religions to reach it as well; false religions that are clearly the devil's work? Even so, Christianity hasn't met much success at all in large nations like India and China. In general, Chinese and Indians wouldn't have a clue what it means to say, "Know the Lord." So how exactly is it that the nations are no longer deceived by Satan?
  11. Hi William, I had a reply ready to post but after pressing the Submit button it reverted me back to an earlier version so I lost the content of the full post. I already know better than to rely on web-based editors so I should have written the text locally then posted. I'll be more cautious going forward but as it stands, I've lost the bulk of my reply. I meant to say though, if it seems like I'm asking questions that have already been addressed, there are particular things I don't believe have been addressed. Can you please provide the evidence of this specifically? - The nations are no longer deceived by Satan. You mentioned the success of the church in reaching the entire globe, but first off, isn't that evidence from the newspaper? Second, the nations are still deceived. Most of them do not believe Jesus is Lord. Those that do tend to be as divided as America currently is. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam also have similarly penetrated most areas of the world. Islam is probably the most prevalent now. So what exactly does it mean to say the nations are not deceived? It would be impossible to provide a newspaper as a source since Dispensationalism would say that's all future. 🙂 On the other hand, there's an oft-repeated claim about Dispensationalism being "newspaper theology" that would apply to those relying on St. Augustine's eschatological thesis since his work would have been akin to the theological news of that day. Dispensationalists would likely refer to Psalm 2 and Zechariah 14 for their understanding of the world at the time of Christ's milennial reign, wherein nations go up to pay homage to him in Jerusalem and those that don't pay homage receive his wrath. Revelation 20 opens with Satan's binding for 1000 years and flows into the depiction of Christ's reign for that 1000 years. So they'd understand that literally. That's how I've been told a Dispensationalist might evidence their perspective. I've also been told the proof of the Dispensational system is that any attempt to negate the literal, grammatical, historical, contextual method of interpretation would entail nothing could rightly be understood in Scripture since all understanding would be rendered arbitrary. What is the proof Amillenialists would claim? Blessings on this beautiful night! Kawika
  12. Hi Guppy, Thanks for your question and interaction here. I'm still learning about eschatology so I especially enjoy questions to that effect. I hope you'll let me know and be quick to forgive if I come off as too blunt, rude, condescending. I actually see the depiction as believers being granted authority over the demons, in Christ's name, as an illustration of Christ's authority. I see it as a separate thing from Satan being bound. I believe his being bound will serve a larger purpose in the future where mankind's sinful tendencies still exist even while Satan has no power to provoke it. At least, that's how I see it at this time. Being still too unlearned, I try to clarify my stance as being relatively weak. I hope you're having a blessed day as well and look forward to any further interaction. 🙂 Kawika
  13. G'day brother! Dispensationalism is definitely not an extension of Arminian or otherwise free will doctrine. The system came to fruition through John Darby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby) who was a foremost Calvinist in his day. While he's often recognized as the founder, Dispensational tenets exist scattered throughout history. Really, he was just a premillenialist who saw no other way to remain consistent than through those tenets. There is nothing amongst those tenets that presupposes, entails or otherwise encourages Arminianism. As for the premil side having confused Arminians, I've personally seen that among many professing Calvinists regardless of eschatology. The vast majority of professing Calvinists I've talked with are hesitant on one or two points. I admit, nearly all those I know in the Dispensational camp are among them. Still though, real Calvinists are not so common among those who profess it. How so many Dispensational folks tend toward that is worth discussion but I don't believe that diminishes the eschatology itself. Actually, Satan was there even after the fall. So we don't have any measurement of activity without his influence unless you assume he was bound at Christ's time, in which case we have the Old Testament data to compare with a combination of New Testament data and the continuation of human history. Comparing those two should make it clear, there's no obvious difference in sinful activity. But some difference should be obvious if Satan is now bound. That's my problem with the idea that he's bound now. I actually believe the purpose of Satan's binding is to highlight the fact that sinful desires still persist even without his activity, but that there's a very clear distinction in degree. I don't see how someone could say he's already bound since there isn't a clear distinction in the degree of sinful activity throughout the world and even within the church. To rehash, that was in response to your question, "if Satan is bound will people continue doing the will of their father, the Devil?" In direct reply to that, I'd say, "Maybe." But Satan being the provoker of sinful deeds, I'd expect to see a significant decrease in such activity if he's bound. Do you think that's reasonable? Just to clarify too, would you affirm all the following? - Satan is bound. - The nations are no longer deceived by Satan. - People continue doing the will of Satan. The Dispensational scheme would say that Satan is bound at some future time, during a future milennial reign of Christ. Satan's binding at that time entails that all the nations of the world clearly see and accept who Christ is. Not a single person in the entire world disputes his authority. They universally bow before him and people travel across the world to pay homage to him in Jerusalem. That's the Dispensational answer to the question of "what does it mean to say the nations are no longer deceived by Satan?" Is there any bit of biblical data you think doesn't comport with that? But all Satan does is provokes man's depravity, no? He's blamed for the provocation but man is always blamed for succumbing. So if Satan is ever blamed, the human culprit is always blamed as well. Following that, if the provoker is bound from provocation, there should be a significant difference in man's overall activity. Right? Hope you're having a blessed day thus far. And on that note, Happy Father's Day! Kawika
  14. Hi bro, Thanks up front for your patience. These types of things often take me quite a while to get my mind focused enough to respond in full. I hope you'll let me know if I miss anything you see as crucial. I'd hate the thought of missing a question and being taken as purposely sidestepping, especially considering I hate that tactic being used against me! Hope you've had a blessed day while awaiting a reply. 🙂 I wouldn't say he's the only cause of deception among believers. I actually wouldn't affirm either way. But my concern is that the proliferation of premil eschatology is so significant that if amil were true, I'd expect that premil would have to be seen as Satan's work (since it's significant). I mean, would it really make sense to say premil has gain so much ground because countless believers individually just happened to agree on the same system? It seems to me the amillenialist would have to submit that premi exists, at least to some significant degree, by way of the devil's work. The early church was largely premillenial as well. Premil has been around from the start, amil and postmil came about only after St. Augustine's influence. While that itself isn't an argument against amil and postmil, it does present tension in the sense that if premil is not the devil's work, a significant mass of Christian history is rooted in something they all arbitrarily came to agree upon on their own. And if it were Satan's work, then his binding would seem practically useless. In context, what you're asking is like asking if people would continue doing x when the very thing mainly provoking them to do x in the first place were removed. No? To help keep things in context, my question was regarding proof of the amil position. As part of the answer to that question, isn't this bit subjective? Moreover, wouldn't it be problematic for the OT prophecies of judgement and correction? For example, when Ezekiel gave prophecies telling of bad things to come, would the people have been unable to acknowledge the sovereignty of God now and proclaim Soli Deo Gloria rather than reserve it for the future? After years of disputing the issue of eschatology in my head, I've come to see (as you clearly have as well) that this really comes down to the method of interpretation. While I do realize that, I tend to jump into discussions surrounding Satan's binding because for me personally, it's been the biggest detractor. It's the reason I tend toward premil. I'm still unsettled on eschatology, but the idea of Satan being bound right now where his influence is so clearly overpowering throughout the world, keeps nudging me toward the premil side.
  15. Hi brother William, I really appreciate many of the key truths that article brings up, though I have to disagree with several statements made therein. This one especially struck me: That statement is inaccurate. Satan isn't just bound from deceiving the nations. Revelation 20:3 clearly states that he's bound, and the purpose of the binding is so that he might not deceive the nations any longer. In other words, he's not just bound from deceiving the nations. He's bound, period. And the reason is then given for that binding. Also, have you considered that Satan is still very clearly deceiving the nations of the world today? It's true the Gospel has made its way through practically all nations but Christianity is pretty quickly being supplanted by Islam. Consider too, the popularity of Premillenial eschatology. If Amil eschatology were accurate, then that would mean Premil eschatology is the result of Satan's handiwork, which itself would run counter to the Amil scheme where Satan is bound. Something that struck me as odd to, that Amil explanation would entail the success of the Gospel is fundamentally due to the binding of Satan rather than the work of the Holy Spirit. No? Moreover, or at least more important to me, what exactly is the proof that Satan is bound right now? It's one thing to say there are a lot of biblical facts that seem to fit the idea, it's another thing to show it's necessarily the case. How can it be shown from necessity that Satan is currently bound? Blessings to you bro, in Christ's name, David
  • Create New...