The FACT that HE'S NOT YET PHYSICALLY, VISIBLY HERE should answer that question.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Satan Crushed Shortly
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
- Status
The FACT that HE'S NOT YET PHYSICALLY, VISIBLY HERE should answer that question.
28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9
37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10
The true meaning.
Isa 26:19,20,21 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.
I don't know everything. There are mysteries all through scripture. I admit that it seems like He should have already come but has not. It does not mean that he Has already came. If He had we all would know of it. The Bible says every eye shall see. So there is no chance that He already came. Christ isn't hidding out in some room somewhere.
MB
The Scriptures are written to Bible believers who get their eschatalogical views from scripture rather than from the daily newspaper. Peter places the Biblical perspective in proper order:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 ¶ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Both Paul and Peter spoke of a yet future "last days" that will come beyond their life time. Peter speaks of his own demise in ch. 1:15 and yet there is this yet "last days" future from his time. Paul spoke of his demise in 2 Tim. 4:6-7 but spoke of a yet future "last days" from his perspective (2 Tim. 3:1). So, after the death of Peter and Paul there is a future period yet to come called "the last days" (more on this later).
Next, Peter looks at future scoffers whose basis for scoffing is at that yet future time they will complain "where is the promise of his coming" - meaning he claimed to come shortly but it did not happen (from Peter's future perspective).
Peter rebukes them by reminding them of a past promise to end the world that God fulfilled and so he will fulfill this promise but not according to MAN'S CALCULATIONS OF SHORTNESS but according to God's view of "shortly" and with God a THOUSAND YEARS is a very breif period of time as we would regard one day. Hence, with God "shortly" is not to be computed by our view of time but God's view of time.
Now, concerning the last days. Most early post-New Testament period Christians believed that God's timetable for creation to creation is on a Seven day period. The number Seven characterizes the period of the first creation and the number seven characterizes the book of Revelation. However, they believed this divine time table was according to seven THOUSAND year days.
From that perspective the first coming of Christ occurred in the "last days" of this seven thousand year period or in the fourth thousanth year which introduces the transition in the "last days" of this seven thousand day week. Hence, the New Testament period occurred in the "last days". However, Paul and Peter looked at the end of this week of thousand years and saw a yet future "last days" at the end of that seventh year period which concluded with the "last day."
If you understand this Biblical symoblism and view prophetic time this way there is no problem. Those the apostles wrote to was instructed in this symbolism as evident by 2 Peter 3:8.
Finally, there is the common telescoptic method used by all Biblical prophets. They would take a near future catastrophic event and clothe it in the language of end of the world characteristics, not that the near event was the end of the world but it was a great teaching moment to show what the end of the world will be lack. This is true of the destruction of Egypt in the time of Moses. This is true of the destruction of Nineveh and Babylon in the Old Testament all of these were clothed in end of the world imagery. This is what Jesus did with the fall of jerusalem by Rome as it was a near event Jesus used as a teaching image of the yet future end of the world long after the first century.
Unfortunately, there are those who
Somewhere I owe a response but can't seem to find it.
You were going get back to my post # 22
This verse has nothing to do with AD 70, and IMO nothing to do with eschatology. There is nothing about the End Times either before it or after it.
The context to the verse is Romans 16:17-19. Paul is warning the Roman Christians to watch out for false teachers, especially those who 'cause divisions' and 'deceive the hearts of the simple.' He wants the Christians, especially, presumably, the leaders, to 'avoid' such people, to be 'wise' concerning what is good, and 'simple' or innocent of what is evil. Elsewhere Paul writes, '....lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are no ignorant of His devices' (2 Cor. 2:11).
I have personal experience of a church ruined by divisions, and have no doubt that this is one of Satan's tactics; but if the Roman church will take note of Paul's advice, God, who is a God of peace among His people, not of division, will crush Satan's plans through their actions. i.e. under their feet.
I believe that's all there is to the verse.. To try and push a particular brand of eschatology on the basis of one verse drawn out of context, is not wise.
Lodic
Well-Known Member
Thank you, Martin. That really makes sense. Although I am a Preterist, I can see your point that this doesn't have anything to do with eschatology within the context of the preceding verses . That would also address the dilemma of why Satan has been so active in our world all throughout history.
I get tired of repeating myself on this. No, it is not one verse. It is one of many verses that I have been constantly bringing up, many with time-markers. Your simply saying that it has nothing to do with AD 70 is just saying, not proving.
And I wish to God, the Lord that I love, that I may indeed in some small way by His grace "cause division" from this all too prevelant doctrine that overlooks so many clear statements of imminence and replaces it with fuzzy any-day-now vagueness that has shamelessly stretched "the last days" and "the last hour" into almost 2000 years. I have nothing to apologize for. I am taking God at His Word.
And Paul was not giving mere advice. An inspired apostle rarely gives advice. He speaks as the oracle of God. To say otherwise is to betray a low view of inspiration. Paul was giving his beleaguered charge prophetical encouragement that soon they - they personally, just like he had assured the Thessalonians - would soon get relief from the adversary.
I know that you are trying to insinuate that I am cultic. That is on you. I am assured of what I believe, and I don't care about naysayers. I say this as a friend: Do your best to distance yourself from what you have been taught and consider the possibility - the mere possibility, can you do that? - that maybe you are in the wrong.
Last edited:
Maybe the best way to answer this, Percho, is in snippets. Let me know if I passed over something you particularly wanted addressed. I know that some of the points here I had answered when writing to Hank.
I assume the reason for your bolding those words was to show that all of those things happen together. I agree. The coming, the instantaneous change of both the dead and the living, as well as the "death is swallowed up in victory".
Where we disagree is when that happened as well as what Paul meant. It happened in AD 70. At the Parousia Christ came, the dead rose from the graves, the saints living at that time (and not all Preterists believe this) also were changed (raptured). IMO, this was not a merely positional change (as many fellow-Preterists believe) but an actual snatching up of the living saints.
It was a spiritual, yet real event, just like the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration were real yet non-physical.
I disagree with your changing the thrust of the verb from soonness to quickness.
I assume the reason for your bolding those words was to show that all of those things happen together. I agree. The coming, the instantaneous change of both the dead and the living, as well as the "death is swallowed up in victory".
Where we disagree is when that happened as well as what Paul meant. It happened in AD 70. At the Parousia Christ came, the dead rose from the graves, the saints living at that time (and not all Preterists believe this) also were changed (raptured). IMO, this was not a merely positional change (as many fellow-Preterists believe) but an actual snatching up of the living saints.
It was a spiritual, yet real event, just like the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration were real yet non-physical.
Not quite sure why you write this. But I agree with what I think you are saying.
I disagree with your changing the thrust of the verb from soonness to quickness.
Sir, I, & several others have repeatedly asked you & some other prets here to please **PROVE** their assertions, & all we've gotten is imagination & guesswork for answers.
It's VERY EVIDENT Satan is NOT crushed, proven by the huge prevalence of sin worldwide. And one of his plots is the myth of preterism, which seex to make light of the return of Jesus.
Can the prets prove their assertions ? OF COURSE NOT!
Can you tell us when a meteor crashed into the sea(We assume the Mediterranean) & killed all life in it?
Can you tell us when all green grass was burned up?
Can you tell us when, after the plagues of Egypt, that all fresh water turned to blood?
Can you tell us when Jesus returned & was SEEN BY ALL, as He said He would be?
Patiently waiting for answers!
I agree that it isn't eschatological but something that is going to be done in the future and it is going to be done in quickness.
Now the future of that quickness is eschatological.
Paul is speaking to the church, ἐκκλησίας, n_ Gen Sg Feminine, wherever she is of all time. Verses 1, 5,23
When does that quickness take place?
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Her, pp Gen Sg f } ----------- When did the gates of Hades first begin to not prevail over, her, the church? --- Speaking of Jesus; Col 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. ---- Interestingly, the beginning is also a feminine noun,
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Romans 6:9
That is when the gates of Hades begin to not prevail over her, the church.
Now the, "being raised," of Rom 6:9 is, vp Aor Pas Nom Sg m. If I understand correctly and I may be wrong, the Greek guru's will have to tell me, the Aorist tense is something that took place in the past and will take place in the future.
Someone who knows Greek, speak up.
Therefore when will, the gates of Hades shall not prevail against, her, be a completed act?
Will it not be when? then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
Does that not take place quickly, swiftly?
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
but I wish you to be wise as to that which is good, and simple as to evil. But the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. (Swiftly) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Darby
This thread is about one verse and you have built a huge castle in the air on it, when it has nothing to do with eschatology, let alone AD 70.
1. Romans was written to -- wait for it --Romans! Palestine would have been to most of them, 'a far-away country of which they knew nothing' save that Christ had lived there. If you asked a Roman in, say, AD 80, how satan had been crushed under his feet. he would immediately have thought of the fall of Nero in 68 and the Year of the Four Emperors that followed.
2. If you are so foolish as to think that in some way Satan = Israel, you should know that AD 70 did not end Jewish malevolence towards Christians, quite the reverse. Curses against Christians were introduced into Jewish liturgy in AD 79,and F.F. Bruce (The Spreading Flame) details other disputes between Christians and Jews after AD 70. To go for AD 136 would make much more sense, as that really did break Jewish influence and power.
You should know by now that I am not Dispensational. But if I were absolutely forced to choose between Hyper-preterism and Dispensationalism, I would go Dispy without a second thought because, as incorrect as I think it is, it does at least not deny the Coming of our Lord.
You are not taking God at His word. Acts 1:11 blows Hyper-preterism out of the water as I have shown numerous times.
'Mere' is your word. I didn't use it.
How much would the Roman Christians have felt they were getting relief from their enemies when they were being used as human torches to illuminate Nero's garden? And the Jews had nothing to do with it and AD 70 had nothing to do with relieving it.
You should know by now that I am not Dispensational. But if I were absolutely forced to choose between Hyper-preterism and Dispensationalism, I would go Dispy without a second thought because, as incorrect as I think it is, it does at least not deny the Coming of our Lord.
I don't 'insinuate' it. Hyper-preterism is outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Is that clear enough for you?
I am sick of people bragging about changing their minds as if there were something intrinsically noble about it. There is no guarantee whatsoever that changing one's mind means that it is a change from worse to better. But in fact, if you knew anything about my background, you would not make such a charge. But can YOU consider the possibility that YOU are wrong?
To how God views time itself, Jesus was always right about to be born for His First Coming, He is still right at the door for His second coming event, as the deal is that we must see time in relationship to how God views prophecy working out, and not how we see it in strict linear time!
I was saved in 1975. From then until well after 2000 I was a futurist. I wrote things against preterists that I am ashamed of now. So yes, I have considered - and am always ready to consider - being wrong.
No, I didn't know about your background. As rude as you have been to me over the months I didn't particularly care to. Your thinking that I was bragging is just the latest uncouthness from you.
I do intend to get to your other points later.
Patiently waiting for answers I have already given? I am not going to repeat myself.
Do I not have permission to bring in other verses on my own thread? We often quote one verse to bring out broader truth that necessarily bring in other passage. In this case the issues were imminence and audience relevance.
Rome, like other parts of the Empire was settled with Jews. And wherever Christians went there were also those among the Jew who spoke against it. Just take a look at the last chapter of Acts.
You are not afraid to call a fellow Christian foolish. I am sorry to see that.
And why do you think I equate Satan with Israel?
The Jewish power was broken when their Temple was destroyed. And when the Roman soldier swept into Israel the former enemies of the Jews saw their opportunity to even the score against them. This happened not only in Israel but in Antioch, Cyene, Ephesus, Alexandria, and other places. A good single source to read about all this is Ussher's Annals.
Yes, you have quoted it, but you have missed the point of that passage. He was to come in like manner. "In the clouds". That is the like manner. I challenge anyone to do a study of "cloud" in the Bible. It would be very enlightening.
I don't deny the coming of the Lord. But it already happened. Christ is with us now as our Priest-King. Neither do I make light of the many, many times that Christ and His Apostles spoke of His coming in that generation. You pay more attention to your fallible creeds and traditions than to the Word of God.
Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense. I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with it, but the main instigator was Satan. wherever the Truth goes he tries to combat it. The Jews, very often, were convenient tools for him.
There is a hyper-preterism but I don't think you understand what it is. I am certainly not. But my preterism is clearly beyond the bounds of most of your creeds - but not Scripture. Martin Luther's Hyper-Christianity (justification by faith alone) was clearly beyond the bounds of the creeds and traditions that the RCC held to.
Sorry to hear that. We grow and learn. That often means changing our minds. Or are you the same person you were as a kid? I have changed my mind several times over the decades. It is part of living. There is nothing intrinsically ignoble about it.
That is one reason I post here. I now that I will often get good feedback. And that sometimes means fine tuning my beliefs.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. John 13:34
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust Matt 5:43-45
Just something to keep in mind,
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust Matt 5:43-45
Just something to keep in mind,
Just try to show us where in history the second coming and the resurrection of the living and dead in Christ happened, and when the Kingdom was set up here, and that will prove your case!
Why don't I also help the school of the prophets find the body of Elijah while I am at it?
- Status