Try to consider carefully why I am saying what I am saying in reply to your points (please).
:) You mean as if I don't always do so? <chuckles>
At least it will help you to understand what my thinking is about this and why I cannot be Amil:
Well, I pretty much do. But everybody can change his/her mind, so never says "never"... :)
Forget about root words...
Well, we can't forget about the language (Koine Greek) in which the New Testament was written. Hey, you've pointed out the New Testament Greek in many of your posts ~ even in the same context that "this same Greek word that is used here is also used there and there..." ~ but now you're wanting to "forget about the words"?
...individuals collectively make up peoples, nations, tribes and tongues.
Sure they do, but that does not somehow negate the difference.
Well I think you know as well as I do that whether or not it contradicts John's vision of the binding of Satan, depends on where in time you place John's vision, so .. no evidence presented there
LOL! No, it does not "depend on where in time you place John's vision" at all; it is what it is. But "no evidence" that you will accept... I certainly get that, and surely not for the first time... :)
What (in my opinion) Amils are failing to see (as seen in your statement above) is that what you are implying, is that Satan is at the very least as powerful as the Holy Spirit, and therefore needed to be bound because, failing Satan being bound, "the gospel could not spread the way it has been", and either no one could be saved, OR almost all seed planted by the Spirit of Christ on the heart would have fallen by the wayside.
You know, Fullness of the Gentiles, what you say here is really quite ridiculous. I mean no offense, but yes, quite ridiculous. All I'll say to this is two things:
- No, Satan is not nearly as powerful as the Holy Spirit ~ Who (well, I think you agree with this, but maybe not...) is God. So I'm not at all implying that, nor is any "Amill" worth his or her salt. I get that some folks may somehow get that idea about amillennialism ~ somehow ~ or just want to portray amillennialism in that (or other) absurd light, but, whatever the case... What you're saying here is... well, misguided at best, but in the end ridiculous.
- It may sound simple ~ or like some kind of cop-out, but most certainly it is not ~ but God has made things to be how He has made things to be, He has done what He has done, things are as they are and will be as they will be because God has decreed it. To "steal" Paul's question in Romans 9 ~ which is in a little different context, but applies here, just a little bit differently ~ who are we to answer back to God? And so, slightly different from Paul's “Why have you made me like this?” there, we cannot really ask, "Why did you make things to be as you have made them to be?" So for anyone to suppose that Satan "had to be bound because otherwise the gospel could not spread the way it has been" is just silly. It's just... how God has done things, how He has made things to be.
The gospel of God is able to go out into the nations and do what it has done despite Satan's attempts at hindrance.
Yet, before Jesus came, it did not. See, here, I think the thing to do would be to discuss at least one of the basic differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and, as I have said, lesser Israel and greater Israel... And this is where the misunderstandings of premillennialism really come from.
The Holy Spirit will not prevent someone from making that choice - and the individual, through his own choice, will have left the seed sown in his heart wide open for Satan to snatch away...
Ah yes, free will! Another... well, another... trouble spot... :) I mean, certainly not to deny that we have free will or make choices, but... :)
...asserting that he is bound because it's necessary to stop him from being able to hinder the gospel in the way that you assert above, is implying that he is as powerful as the Holy Spirit, and therefore needed to be bound.
But I didn't assert that or insinuate that at all, nor does Amillennialism make that assertion or insinuation. So again, is your saying this just in error, inadvertent, a misunderstanding? Or is it an intentional mischaracterization... what we might call a false setup, or a strawman argument?
All that the above is proof of, is that whether before or after Christ died and rose again, He (Christ) is more powerful than Satan - infinitely more powerful - and is able to bind Satan at will - which is exactly what He was doing before His crucifixion.
Hmmm, well, I think in this statement you're very close to agreeing with me. :)
Think about it. Yeah... "as if you haven't"... Yeah, sorry... :)
Just in the immediate context of Matthew 12, Jesus had cast out demons, and He was telling the Pharisees,
"if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you... how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house..."
And John says,
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain... He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended..."
Even beyond the Greek '
deō' ('binds'/'bound') in those two passages, the parallel is irrefutable.
I don't know if my memory is just giving me a guilt trip to be even more sarcastic with me, but I have in the back of my mind that quite a while back I took your playful light sarcasm up in the wrong way (meaning I wrongly thought it was meant to belittle), and reacted badly. I sincerely apologize if you have any memory in that regard.
Bygones. No worries. Grace is not optional. :)
I was merely trying to make the point that he is defeated, but not yet destroyed in the lake of fire.
Well, good. :)
And what I was implying was "likewise, he is defeated, but not yet bound from being able to deceive the nations"
Hm. Yes, as you might have imagined I would when you typed this, I see this one little statement as quite contradictory in and of itself. Interesting...
(through religious words that are lies).
No idea what you mean by this parenthetical comment, but no matter... :)
Grace and peace to you.