Letter to the American Church

[Jaime]

I disagree 4WD. How is the state of Gentile blessedness "reached" and how do we know it has happened? Also, we must address the partial blindness or hardening of the Jews. Was this like God hardening Pharoah's heart for a purpose! I believe so. What purpose would their be in the story to speak of the partial blindness UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? Come in to WHAT? Or just simply come in to the obvious, the kingdom or church?  Why leave the object of the sentence open to something like blessedness. In the Kingdom of God, one is either in or out right? Lost or saved. The initial Gentile comverts were purposed to provoke the Jews to jealosy. For what purpose? Maybe something to do with the imposed partial blindness or hardening?

[4WD]

I disagree 4WD.

I had no doubt, Jaime, that you would disagree.  You have to if you want to continue in the premillennial view of the end times.  What I showed you is that the definition and meaning of the word "fullness" as you want to use it in Romans 11:25 is not right.

How is the state of Gentile blessedness "reached" and how do we know it has happened?

I believe the state of Gentile blessedness was reached when the Holy Spirit finished delivering God's written word.

Also, we must address the partial blindness or hardening of the Jews. Was this like God hardening Pharoah's heart for a purpose! I believe so. What purpose would their be in the story to speak of the partial blindness UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? Come in to WHAT? Or just simply come in to the obvious, the kingdom or church?  Why leave the object of the sentence open to something like blessedness. In the Kingdom of God, one is either in or out right? Lost or saved. The initial Gentile comverts were purposed to provoke the Jews to jealosy. For what purpose? Maybe something to do with the imposed partial blindness or hardening?

The Jews partial blindness was the source for the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. It is the cross that initiated the New Covenant.  The New Covenant was fully enunciated with the completion of the New Testament given through the Holy Spirit. Partial blindness of the Jews past that point serves no purpose in God's plan.

God's plan for the Jews now is no different that God's plan for the Gentile.  Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

That fact is given us in a number of ways throughout the NT. Paul repeatedly made that clear.  I can post those for you if you want, but I think you are well aware of them if you would only admit it.

[Jaime]

I don't consider myself premillenniel at all. If anything I am mid trib or post trib, per my understanding of Mathew 24, wherenit says AFTER the tribulation (the greatest of all time)  of those days  I believe the church WILL go through the tribulation, but not the final wrath of God. If not God has some 'splainin' to do to the first century Christian martyrs

I agree that God's plan for the salvation of Jews is the same as the Gentiles, except that the blindness or  hardning is lifted on the Jews and THEN they mist answer the Gospel  calling like we have. Otherwise why mention the. Lindnessnor hardening at all in Romans 11?  Doesn't mean all Jews will say yes since all Gentiles do not say yes to the Gospel. Therefore same ol' same ol' after the supernatural hardening is lifted.

[4WD]

Jaime, the "millennium" is the undefined but very long time between the first and second comings of Jesus Christ.  This is the millennium.  The millennium is now.  We are living in it.

But that is a subject for another OP.

[Jaime]

I don't agree. If so, Satan is then presently bound? I don't believe that Satan is bound. If anything, he is more UNBOUND now. This present time is anything BUT a time of unprecedented peace all around the world.

[Texas Conservative]

Jaime, the "millennium" is the undefined but very long time between the first and second comings of Jesus Christ.  This is the millennium.  The millennium is now.  We are living in it.

But that is a subject for another OP.

Naw.  We aren't.

[4WD]

I don't agree. If so, Satan is then presently bound?

Yes.

To explain that would take far more than I can post here.  I would recommend to you the chapter 28, The Millennium, in "The Faith Once For All" by Jack Cottrell.

[4WD]

Naw.  We aren't.

Yeah.  We are.

[Jaime]

4WD what does Cottrell say about Satan being bound now? To me obviously he isn't bound at all. He is roaming around like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. The Bible says once he is released, after being bound, he is free to deceive the nations. I  think it is just as likely he has been released to decieve the nations presently if he was ever bound at all during an indeterminatelly long millenniel reign, based on the present state of the world.

[4WD]

Here are the first several paragraphs from Cottrell. There is quite a bit more to argue for his position. You can find the rest here: Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine For Today (p. 679 and follows). College Press Publishing Company, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

A. The Binding of Satan

The first three verses of Revelation 20 describe an event that surely sends a thrill through every Christian's heart: the binding of Satan.

The text says, Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

My strong conviction is that Jesus bound the devil when he came the first time. Many find it extremely difficult to accept this idea, mainly because they hear the words "binding of Satan" and formulate their own idea of what this must mean before they examine the biblical data. If Satan is bound, they think, then there should not be any sin or even temptation on the earth. But sin obviously was not eliminated by Christ's first coming and is still abundant on the earth today. Would one not have to be blind to think that Satan is bound in times like these?

The key to understanding the binding of Satan is to pay close attention to what the Bible actually says about it, not only in Rev 20:1-3 but elsewhere in the NT as well. Regarding the latter we begin with the way Scripture describes the purpose of Christ's first coming. Among other things, it is specifically taught that Jesus came to deal with the devil. First John 3:8 says, "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." Among Satan's works are falsehood and death (John 8:44; Heb 2:14), but Jesus came "to testify to the truth" (John 18:37; see John 8:31-47). He has already "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim 1:10).

Jesus came not only to destroy Satan's works but to "destroy" Satan himself. Hebrews 2:14 clearly states that Jesus came the first time "so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil" (NIV). The word rendered "destroy" by the NIV (katargeo) does not necessarily mean "to annihilate, to abolish completely." Obviously Jesus did not do this to Satan at his first coming. But the word also can mean "to set aside, to make ineffective, to nullify, to render powerless." This is the better understanding here, as in the NASB: Christ came to "render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil."

Either way this is very strong language. John says Jesus came specifically to destroy the devil's works; Hebrews says he came to render the devil powerless. We must ask, if this is why Jesus came, did he actually accomplish these things or did he fail? Surely it would be blasphemous to say the latter. Therefore we conclude that Jesus destroyed Satan's works and rendered him powerless when he came the first time. This is in effect no different from "the binding of Satan" in Rev 20:1-3. If anything, the language of 1 John and Hebrews is even stronger than that of Revelation 20.

[Jaime]

If Jesus was to bind or destroy Satan at Jesus' first coming, I would say it failed by all accounts visible to us today.

I wonder if we need to better understand bound or bind. It can't mean to render powerless if Satan is bound today. Not meaning to sound sacreligious, but I am a big proponent of the notion we lose something in the translation of some words. At the bare minimum, bound should mean utterless powerless and I don't SEE that at all today. Evil is way out of control, and Satan seems to have perfected his devouring like a seasoned roaring lion. And nations and peoples are deceived on a wholesale level across the globe, what with child trafficking, sexual perversion, witchcraft and other occult practices, etc.

This all seems like a handy gymnastics to justify or defend an Amillennial or even Preterist position.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

If $the i te t was to bind or destroy Satan at Jesus' first coming, I would say it failed by all accounts visible to us today.

I wonder if we need to better understand bound or bind. It can't mean to render powerless if Satan is bound today. Not meaning to sound sacreligious, but I am a big proponent of the notion we lose something in the translation of some words. At the bare minimum, bound should mean utterless powerless and I don't SEE that at all today. Evil is way out of control, and Satan seems to have perfected his devouring like a seasoned roaring lion. And nations and peoples are deceived on a wholesale level across the globe, what with child trafficking, sexual perversion, witchcraft and other occult practices, etc.

This all seems like a handy gymnastics to justify or defend an Amillennial or even Preterist position.

Have you considered...

Perhaps humanity doesn't require an active devil in order to do horrible things?

[Jaime]

I have considered unprecedented evil iS at least somewhat a result of Satan's activity rather than not. The revelation scripture about binding of Satan implies a peaceful or  Utopian existence with Satan bound at least when coupled with Old Testament references of the 7th millennium where the lion lays down with the Lamb etc. of my 70 years, recent years are anything but peaceful or Idyllic, hence my view Satan is NOT now bound.

[4WD]

I have considered unprecedented evil iS at least somewhat a result of Satan's activity rather than not. The revelation scripture anoit binding of Satan implies a peaceful or  Utopian existence with Satan bound at least when coupled with Old Testament references of the 7th millennium where the lion lays down with the Lamb etc. of my 70 years, recent years are anything but peaceful or Idyllic, hence my view Satan is NOT now bound.

You are doing exactly what Cottrell has urged you not to do, namely, you are formulating your own idea of what the binding of Satan must mean instead of examining the biblical data. He goes on to point out that having the indwelling Holy Spirit as our helper is a sign of the binding of Satan in the sense presented in the Bible.

[Texas Conservative]

You are doing exactly what Cottrell has urged you not to do, namely, you are formulating your own idea of what the binding of Satan must mean instead of examining the biblical data. He goes on to point out that having the indwelling Holy Spirit as our helper is a sign of the binding of Satan in the sense presented in the Bible.

Wouldn't you be doing the same thing?  Except for formulating your own idea, you are giving Cottrell's?

[4WD]

Wouldn't you be doing the same thing?  Except for formulating your own idea, you are giving Cottrell's?

Possibly, but having read and studied Cottrell's, I believe him.  I don't agree with him on everything, but on this I agree.  I started out many years ago thinking that the premillennial view was the correct one.  I have since changed that, and Cottrell wasn't the reason I changed. I didn't realize until later that Cottrell's view was basically the same as mine.  He does a better job than I do of laying the biblical reason for his view.

[Hobie]

Jaime, the "millennium" is the undefined but very long time between the first and second comings of Jesus Christ.  This is the millennium.  The millennium is now.  We are living in it.

But that is a subject for another OP.

Lots of peace and safety in this 'millennium', and goodwill. I don't think you are correct to say the least...

[Cobalt1959]

Where we differ 4WD, i think God can and WILL use an unlikely man exactly like Trump to turn this country. God used a man who was a murderer and adulterer in King David.

This is always a bad rationalization, and it leads to our current growing crop of over-testosteroned TheoBros.  The ones posting muscle-bound, or gun-toting selfies of themselves on X and telling everyone we need to be prepared to kill people and take back the church, and form a theocracy.  Bad, bad logic.

You cannot equate the actions of King David under Mosaic Law to behavior within the Age of Grace and the Church.  IHOPKC is trying to use this same logic to excuse the actions of Mike Bickle and it is always the wrong way to go.

[Jaime]

Point was Cobalt, God CAN use an imperfect man to bring about his will. We don't need to elect the percect or almost perfect human being for God to use him for His purposes. And who is Mike Bickle?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

IHOPKC is trying to use this same logic to excuse the actions of Mike Bickle and it is always the wrong way to go.

International House of Pancakes, Kansas City? 

[4WD]

International House of Prayer, Kansas City.  Google it.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

International House of Prayer, Kansas City.  Google it.

I was so close.

[Texas Conservative]

International House of Pancakes, Kansas City? 

I think I like this one better.  But House of Pancakes is probably more in line with truth than the guy talked about earlier by cobalt.