It's Halloween Time!

Halloween is once again upon us.

Trick or treaters walking the neighborhoods looking to get some freebie candy. Churches putting on their "alternative" harvest festivals.

And parents and owners heaping loads of scorn upon their children and pets all in the name of fun!

(by the way: Visitors may enjoy one of my favorite Halloween memories)

How to Call Out Bitter Atheists

One more on atheism. I have my next eschatology post in the works.

A biblical creationist quizzes atheist extraordinaire, P.Z. Myers, and agitates him to no end.

Some good pointers if a believer has only limited time to offer an apologetic against unbelief.

Evolutionary Equivocation

Hitchens on Wilson

Following up on my two earlier posts against Bob, the atheist...

I am not a big Doug Wilson fan. He does have the gift of being an amusing writer at times, but I tend to like him more when he is quoting P.G. Wodehouse rather than discussing his personal brand of covenant theology.

That said, I will say the one area where Wilson can shine is engaging atheism. His book, Letter from a Christian Citizen, which was originally a series of blog articles I had the good sense to print out before they were taken down after the book was published, written against pretty boy atheist, Sam Harris, is a good example. Wilson's apologetic approach was an eviscerating autopsy exposing the absurdity of Harris's criticisms against Christianity. Wilson followed that series of blog articles with another review of Chris Hitchen's anti-theistic book, God in not Great. Those articles ran along the same line as the ones he had written against Harris, but fitted more to Hitchen's style.

A couple of years ago, Hitchens and Wilson, along with a posse of film makers, did three debates in New York, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia. The road trip was documented by the film producers and is now available as a film to see in limited release at those weird artsy movie houses down in L.A. known for only showing foreign sex films, or a DVD you can purchase at various outlets. I would go with getting the DVD.

At any rate, Hitchen's recently plug his new film venture at Slate,

What I have learned from debating religious people from around the world.

He says this about Wilson,

Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just "metaphors." He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he "allows" it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing. (Incidentally, just when is President Barack Obama going to decide which church he attends?)

I like how he comments upon Wilson's respect of his own traditions. Meaning, Wilson actually grounds his arguments in the Christian faith. The reason that comment struck me is that I see the spreading influence of the pop-apologetic method of such people as William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hank Hanegraaff, and Roman Catholic, Dinesh D' Souza having deep impact upon the minds of supposed evangelical Christians who are duped into thinking these guys are giving a meaningful Christian response to atheists like Hitchens. More than the ecumenical liberals. It's these guys who give vague, python-esque witterings to hard questions put to the Christian faith. They go out of their way many times to not talk about the Bible. Craig speaks of the "possibility of God's existence" and D' Souza, (did I mention he's a Roman Catholic?), refuses to even open a Bible when he presents his case for Christianity.

These guys are an embarrassment to the faith and I am glad see that even Hitchen's recognizes as such.

There's a website for the documentary: Collision

Bob's World

Musing from An Evolutionist...

Bob the evolutionist has been faithfully contributing to the comments of a couple my posts. He's trying his hardest to get us non-Darwinian evolutionists un-brainwashed from mythical god fairy religions.

Bob's also an atheist, a product of Catholic grammar school where the nuns must have beat his hand a bit too hard with a ruler. Atheist often like to chide us religious folks (the god fairy believers, as Bob calls them), as to why there is evil in the world if God is so good. Usually they like to appeal to illustrations of children being butchered in some diabolical way and ask why, if God is good, didn't He intervene in stopping the butchering of children.

Bob has his own theodicy with which to contend from his own worldview. This is usually where the Bob's in the world become unraveled in their consistency. On the one hand, they wish to embrace the blind, pitiless indifference of Darwinian evolution soaked in red by tooth and claw and disease and suffering, but then want to take seriously the problem of evil and complain against the God of the Bible as committing numerous autrocities.

Do I really need to tell you why I felt terrible for a very long time after my mother's death? Did you think atheists are inhuman?

When faced with the reality that the consequences of an evolutionary worldview tend to devalue the significance of humanity, the Darwinians rush to rescue evolution by explaining the mechanics of why they believe disease exists in the world. They then explain how atheists are humans at heart and are as equally upset about death and dying as the religious god fairy believers. The problem, however, is the unaddressed disconnect on the part of Darwinians as to why they ought to feel upset at evolution just taking its course upon a young mother of four children who is dying of cancer. Evolution is blind, pitiless and indifferent, why then should we care?

Even chimpanzees grieve over the death of their close relatives. Isn't that interesting?

Ah, but the Darwinian Bob appeals to the old "monkey see, monkey do" argument. Chimps grieve over the death of a close relative, just like human beings. I've not seen any chimp funerals, but drawing this illustration out a step further: Chimps also eat their babies, commit gang rape against females, and cannibalize the bodies of dead rivals. Yet, when humans do these sorts of things, we are outraged, and put the person down. Would Bob have us emulate chimps in these other areas? Why or why not? And therein lies the disconnect. Its one thing to say evolution supplies all the answers to life's complex problems, and it is quite another to be morally outraged when evolution is just taking its course.

What About Bob?

Musing of An Evolutionist...

A concerned evolutionist named Bob, whose profile is conveniently not available for review, has felt it his duty to educate us non-Darwinian evolutionists of the errors of our ways.

I am guessing there is not much happening in Florida where he lives. He's left comments on two recent posts, HERE and HERE.

Bob has dropped by in the past to leave his pearls of wisdom. The last time, however, he tied them together with strings of profanity so I was forced to delete them. It's hard for me to suffer with an individual who must resort to cussing in order to make his points. It's a lazy way to communicate to say the least. Cussing demonstrates a person who has an undisciplined mind.

But that's just me.

But much to our delight, Boob, I mean Bob, has regaled us once against with his insights to life. I am thankful he has lowered himself to even pay me a visit. I mean, I am an insane creationist. I usually never frequent the websites of crazy people. I am glad I am not so beneath Bob I am considered unworthy of his correctives.

"You, being a creationist, should really consider reading a book about evolution..."

"So, Fred, are you going to educate yourself, or are you going to continue providing evidence for my idea that creationists are creationists because they're too bloody lazy (or too afraid, you tell me) to read a book."

Evolutionists are all the time complaining bitterly that the reason people are creationists or ID proponents is that they haven't had the proper education in evolution. Some how, generations of America's students have missed out. The debate on origins would be ended if people would only have the wear-with-all to educate themselves. Not be so bloody lazy as Bob bitterly intones. As a remedy, there's always that one book that will explain everything with clarity. That one lecture which will compel beyond doubt.

Funny thing is, however, I, like everyone in the entire industrialized world, have had a steady diet of evolutionary education starting in 9th grade all the way to graduation in such subjects as biology, geology, cosmology, and pretty much any field of "science" I was exposed to. The same can be said about my basic college courses in the same fields of study. Moreover, our media, both television and film, promote evolutionary constructs. You can't get away from it.

But what happened to me? Why didn't I become a hard core evolutionist? I mean, my teachers were all convinced of the "facts" of evolution. They explained it well to me. The books did a good job of presenting the arguments. In fact, contrary to the hand wringing of evolutionists like Eugenie Scott and Bob that high school students are being brain washed against learning evolution, I readily accepted it. I even believed in evolution for many years after graduating high school and into college. So. Where did the evolutionists fail? How come they couldn't keep me? Could it be that evolutionists are just bad communicators? I mean, how much clearer can you get than a 9th grade biology text book. The whole first chapter is devoted to showing why evolution is true. Obviously, at least according to Bob, the rejection of evolution isn't on the merit of its ideas as a philosophy. Certainly not.

"It's interesting that you invoked Answers in Genesis. Did you know they make the claim that the entire universe was magically created only 6,000 years ago?"

Yes. And I happen to believe it for good reason. But I don't see anything different between my claim about the universe and the evolutionist's claim. Evolutionists make the claim the entire universe magically came into existence billions of years ago. There really is no difference between our positions except for the time issue. Magic is magic in both instances.

If that's your problem, then perhaps it's about time for you to grow up and face facts. Reality ain't so bad once you get used to it. Also, it's really nice to be right about science, instead of being a laughing-stock.

Yes, and I noticed it [the Bible] is full of violence, genocide, slavery, and gibberish.

As I write this, my wife is down at a hospital with a dear friend from our Church who is dying from cancer. She will leave a grieving husband and four children behind. But if I believe Bob the evolutionist, grieving for her is really absurd. I mean, she is merely succumbing to her evolutionary biology and in this case, bad genes and DNA that gave her cancer to die at such a young age. But hey! According to Bob, we just need to grow up and face the facts. Just get use to reality. It appears to me that evolution is full of violence, genocide, slavery and gibberish, too.

Are you too brainwashed with god fairy nonsense to understand science?

I have learned to automatically ignore Bible thumpers because they are too brainwashed to understand anything.

Bob uses the slur "brainwashed" a lot to describe his non-Darwinian detractors. On the one hand, he implores us to get educated, but then mocks us because our brains are washed. How can I get educated in what is suppose to be reality when my brain is washed? Do I know my brain is washed?

Being an evolutionist, he seems to assume our mind is detached from our brain. Humans can make choice; in this case, read more books on evolution so we will no longer believe god fairy nonsense. In other words, a person can think outside his biological construct. But my brain is a product of my DNA genetics, which according to Bob, is driven by evolutionary natural selection and descent with modification. If Bob's take on evolutionary reality is true, where is Bob getting this appeal to choices, changing minds, and brain washing? How exactly can I do that if I am predisposed to my DNA of believing god fairies? Why the metaphysical outrage Bob?

You are fighting thousands of brilliant scientists with your denial of evolution. You're also denying tons of evidence you don't understand and don't even know about.

Evolution is a basic scientific fact, which has even more powerful evidence than the fact that planets orbit stars. evidence for evolution comes from discoveries made by molecular biologists.

Bob, like most typical Darwinian propagandists, speaks in grand terms of evolutionary fact and solid evidence. Evidence = Evolution. That is science. Karl Marx often loaded his ideas with the terminology of "scientific" and "factual" in order to give it street cred. Evolutionary activists like Bob are no different. They make the mistake of assuming "evidence" is raw and naked and self-defined. To deny Darwinian evolution is to deny that water is wet. But evidence is just evidence. It needs an interpreter to make sense of it. Hence, Darwinians bring to bare their philosophy of the world upon lines of evidence and conclude it supports their philosophy. This is hardly scientific.

Additionally, Darwinians like to change terminology in mid-debate. Bob does this all the time. When Bob speaks of evolution, he automatically concludes with his definition that it is non-living matter -- to molecules -- to man. In short, magic. Spontaneous regeneration. But Pasteur has debunked such things more than a century ago. None the less, Bob then appeals to animals adapting to environmental pressures and claims such "evolution" demonstrates the primary definition of non-life -- to molecules -- to man when such is hardly the case.

please consider the idea that thousands of biologists just might know a bit more about modern biology than you do. I compare your denial of evolution to telling a brain surgeon how to do his job.

You are fighting thousands of brilliant scientists with your denial of evolution. You're also denying tons of evidence you don't understand and don't even know about.

Bob likes to chide the religious for following nonsensical sources of authority, like the Buybul. Bob, I would reckon, would pride himself as a free thinker, one who is not enslaved to the irrational thoughts of some outside authority. But Bob speaks of scientists as a sort of infallible, magisterial priest class who hold the keys to the understanding of all reality.

I have my religious authorities, Bob has his, and so Bob has become an evangelist for his religion with his comments. I mean, he sets forth a particular worldview (naturalistic atheism), that is carried about by a particular set of beliefs (Darwinian evolution), that sets before the hearer a choice (receive Darwinian evolution or remain brainwashed) that will result in the hearers alleged betterment (you will know the truth). Bob is a secular fundamentalist bigot.

Of course, Bob hasn't really addressed what his priest class should do with the apostates from his system, like John C. Sanford, or the heretics with in it, like Francis Collins. Right now their books are being burned. But will they one day be burned at the stake? From what I have read so far from Bob, Darwinian evolutionists are hardly the tolerant ecumenicals. If anything, they are the rigid Fred Phelps of the secular world.

Anyhow, Bob, thanks for not cussing.

Vindications

One more post of gloating righteousness.
Take note of the word "lemur."

"In this case, we’ll have to wait and see. But because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week."

Answers In Genesis, May 16th, News to Note.

"Organizations with the word “Family” in their name are invariably fundamentalists and creationists (with the possible exception of “Family Planning”), and OneNewsNow, the website of the “American Family News Network,” is a case in point as they react to the news of the “Ida” fossil by consulting Ken Ham, leader of the young earth creationist group Answers in Genesis. Ham’s conclusion: It's just a dead animal. Big deal."

Charles Johnson, curator, bitter anti-creationist, Little Green Footballs blog, Thursday, May 21st, 2009. 3:15 pm.
Who Cares About a Dead Lemur?

"The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs."

Discovery News, October 21st, 2009. Emphasis mine.
"Missing Link" Primate Fossil Debunked.


It appears the Charles owes Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham, and Rush Limbaugh a public apology. Something tells me it won't happen.

The Greatest Show on Earth

Customer Reviews from the atheist peanut gallery:

Great Show, Lousy Arguments

Doesn't live up to its subtitle



HT: Steve Hays

D' Oh!

Blind Confidence Fail:


"It’s just pathetic that on a day when such an amazing scientific discovery is announced, possibly one of the greatest finds of all time, Rush Limbaugh gets on the radio and tells his millions of admirers that it’s meaningless b******t.

It does mean something. This should be a day when all Americans — all human beings — are proud of what we can accomplish through science and research, and human intelligence. Discoveries like “Ida” happen once in a lifetime.

But instead we have high profile “conservatives” b***hing about it as if it’s a personal affront to them.

Just pathetically sad."

Charles Johnson, curator, anti-creationist, Little Green Footballs blog May 19th, 2009 10:38:48 pm (emphasis mine).
Rush Limbaugh, Creationist


"Among the geeks at ScienceBlogs, there’s a lot of debate about the appropriateness of the splashy media campaign to promote the “Ida” fossil; the NYT Opinionator blog has a round-up of the comments (and a nod to LGF for our Rush Limbaugh post): Let’s Not Go Ape Over Ida.

I understand the consternation scientists feel when they see these kinds of public relations techniques being used; it may be the first time a media event like this has been staged to promote a scientific discovery. But as long as the science is good — and in this case, the team of researchers worked on the fossil for two years before going public, and did publish a paper in the journal PLoS One — I can’t get upset over the PR push.

After all, every time we post about evolution at LGF, professionally-done, context-driven Google advertisements promoting creationism appear in our sidebars — and not once have we seen similar ads promoting evolution.

The anti-evolution, anti-science crowd is spending lots of money and enlisting the services of media and graphic designers to promote their side. It’s past time for real scientists to get in the game — with the caveat that they don’t forget to do the real research to back up the media effort.

Charles Johnson, curator, anti-creationist, Little Green Footballs blog May 20th, 2009 12:02:53 (emphasis mine)
Going Ape?

"Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

Discovery News, October 21st, 2009 (emphasis mine)
'Missing Link' Primate Fossil Debunked.

They say crow pie is a dish best served microwaved...

The Great Disappointment

For those interested in church history things, today marks the 165th anniversary of the "Great Disappointment" when William Miller's prediction about the Return of Christ happening on October 22nd, 1844 failed miserably. It left a whole lot of disillusioned people. In the wake of the "Great Disappointment" was spawned a new religious order in the Seventh Day Adventists, who taught the return was heavenly, with Christ giving an "investigative judgment" and cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

Miller's error was to spiritualize the 2,300 days described in Daniel 8:14 as years and then figure them into a chronology he developed from scripture that yielded for him the October 22nd, 1844 date. Those 2,300 years really speak to the time Antiochus IV persecuted the Jewish nation for 6 years and four months from 17o AD to 164 AD. The cleansing of the temple referred to by Daniel was when the sacrifices were restored by the Maccabees. We know it as Hanukkah.

Miller ignored Acts 1:7, where Christ specifically told His disciples (and us) that it is not for us to know the times or the seasons. Those things are left only to the Lord.

Pastor Marc's Mail Box

to: Jon Marc Grizzard
from: Kingsaint
subject: The evil's of calvinism

Dear Pastor Marc,

First I wish to say a hearty amen for standing up for God's ways and not buckling to the pressure of the world. It takes a strong man to be able to be likened unto a Nazi because you want to burn heretical books. Most Christians would probably compromise with the world if they were to be called names for what they believed is true. So I thank you for standing true.

Just one note, however. I did notice in the sidebar of your wonderful website that you have sermons from Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, David Brainerd, and Charles Spurgeon. You may not know this -- lots of Christians don't know this about these men -- but it may surprise you that they were CALVINISTS! Maybe you are unaware of what a horrible doctrine calvinism is.

Calvinism was made up by a false teacher by the name of John Calvin. He lived back in the 1500s. He made up five doctrines that he reads into the Bible. He denied the biblical doctrine of free will and taught the false doctrine of predestination that makes all men into robots and said that Jesus didn't die for anyone. His five doctrines have split more churches than any other heresy.

He lived in the city of Geneva Switzerland and turned it into a concentration camp that forced all the people to believe his 5 point doctrines, and if they didn't submit, he would torture them to death in various, cruel ways. He burned Baptist preachers at the stake in front of their families all the time. In fact, when Mao was looking to take over China, he went to Geneva first to read Calvin's original letters so as to know how to terrorize people so as to keep them in line.

Pastor, there are many fine KJV-only websites that expose this satanic five-point pentagram. Cooper Abrams has some great stuff, as does David Cloud and D.A. Waite. Laurence Vance wrote a powerful book refuting calvinism, in fact, read this letter from a saint rescued from calvinism after reading his book The Other Side of Calvinism.

I do hope you consider my words, because I would hate for people to get the wrong impression about your beliefs when they see prominent false calvin teachers like Charles Spurgeon and John Bunyan named on your site and wrongful separate from you.

In his grip,
Thomas Shedd

It's called providence

This one is hair raising. Even more so for parents.
(by the way, there may be an annoying commercial before the report).

Let's keep in mind: It would had been a miracle if the train had flown up into the air over the baby.
Providentially, the baby fell in the exact spot where the train just stopped over it on the tracks. See how that works?

Pastor Marc's Mail Box

mail to: Pastor Jon Marc Grizzard
from: fundyAV1611
subject: Suggestion for book burning


Greetings Bro. Marc,

I want to first thank you for being the one church during these days of apostasy that stands firm on the things of God. I know you are probably getting a lot of flack from carnal Christians and other worldly-wise people who think you are a crazy Nazi for sending the devil's books back to the hell fires from where they came. Just as the Word of God says, pastor, "all that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

I was wondering if you are taking suggestions for other books to be burned? I am concerned for the church of God, because I believe there are wolves that have crept in among God's sheep even within AV 1611 honoring churches like yours. People who claim they love the KJV, but in truth are really tares in the wheat. I recently discovered that G.A. Riplinger who wrote that monumental work, New Age Bible Versions that exposed all modern perversions as being products of the new age anti-christ, IS REALLY A WOMAN! I was truly shocked.

At first, I learned that her name was Gail Riplinger. I thought that was okay, because I have known some men who are named "Gail." But then I learned that her whole name is GAIL ANN RIPLINGER! And when I did a search on the internet about her, my suspicions were confirmed at her very own website! Mrs. Riplinger has been used by many KJV loving fundamentalists like yourself AND SHE HAS EVEN SPOKEN IN CHURCHES!!!

The Bible says quite plainly that:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: FOR IT IS A SHAME FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH!" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 )

And then the Bible says, "BUT I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2:12)

And the great prophet Isaiah warned, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and WOMEN RULE OVER THEM!" (Isaiah 3:12)

Additionally, there are serious rumors THAT SHE HAS BEEN DIVORCED TWICE! This makes her a WOMAN OF ILL REPUTE! I am fearful we are going to reap the whirlwind of God's judgment on the independent, fundamental congregations who utilize her works or her their pulpits to teach and preach, even if it is for defending the KJV only. THIS IS NOT RIGHT! It may not be popular with other independent Baptist preachers, but I do pray you will consider adding Gail Riplinger's works to your pile of books to be burnt. If I send you my copy of New Age Bible Versions, will you burn it for me?

Remember, it only takes a little leaven of apostasy to leaven the whole lump. We need to burn it out before we are all in danger of turning away from God.

Thank you,
Cecil Perkins

FBT Updates

I uploaded two more messages on the book of Daniel to my other website if anyone is interested.

Studies in Daniel

Balloon Boy

He's got his fifteen minutes of fame.

Might as well milk it dry...

Studies in Eschatology [14]

The Binding of Satan: present or future?

Continuing with my series on eschatology, I am moving along with my exegetical study of Revelation 20. I would recommend the last post to get some background. My contention is that the Augustinian hermeneutics amillennialists and postmillennialists employ when reading Revelation, especially chapter 20, does not handle the exegesis of the text, and thus does not capture accurately what the Apostle John meant to convey with this prophetic book. I am examining 5 major exegetical points I believe demonstrate my claim.

With this post, I come to the second major exegetical point: Is Satan bound now, presently, during the Church age, or does Revelation 20 describe a future binding of Satan?

The classic Augustinian interpretation of Satan's binding, and the one still defended to this day by the majority of both amillennialists and postmillennialists, is that the binding of Satan is a present reality. He was "bound," as it were, by the victory of Christ's death on the cross and His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. Satan's binding is not believed to be total, but it entails him being prevented from deceiving the nations and thwarting the gospel message from going forth into the world.

Amillennials and Postmillennial interpreters go outside the context of Revelation 20 to build their case for their understanding of Satan's binding. They will appeal to such passages as Matthew 12:29 and Mark 3:27 where Jesus speaks of the "strongman" being bound and his house plundered. It is believed the "strongman" of whom Jesus is speaking is Satan and his activities to oppose Christ's work. Additionally, they appeal to Christ's words in John 12:31-32, where Jesus states how judgment has come to the world and the prince of this world is cast out. Jesus words are understood to mean that Satan can no longer prevent the nations from coming to salvation.

Considering the text of Revelation 20, is this binding of Satan really just a metaphor, or symbolic language, only meant to described Satan's limited activities as far as the gospel message is concerned? Is this what John is meaning to convey? Allow me to consider 5 exegetical points to show why this binding is yet future and is in no way a present reality.

1) The "chain" imagery. Both amillennialists and postmillennialists will often chide future premillennialists and their view of the "chain" the angel uses to bind Satan. It is argued that a spiritual being like Satan cannot possibly be bound by a "chain," so some symbolism has to be in play here with John's words. To suggest he can is reducing your hermeneutics to absurd literalism. But no one is denying the use of symbolic imagery in Revelation 20:1. When considered in the context of Revelation 20, this image of a "chain" implies a captivity; or better, a complete restriction of activity the devil once enjoyed before being chained. This speaks against the "partial" binding view of the amillennial and postmillennial perspective who see Satan as just being limited with his activity, not totally removed from performing his previous activities.
Revelation 9:14, 15, is a description of bound demonic beings who are released to kill a third of mankind. The language implies clearly that they had no ability whatsoever to perform these duties until they were unbound, thus indicating the totality of their binding.

2) The characteristics of the abyss. Satan is more than just "chained." He is chained and imprisoned in the abyss. The word "abyss" (abussos in Greek) is sometimes translated "bottomless pit" and has the primary meaning as identifying the place in the underworld for imprisoning disobedient spirits. See for example Luke 8:31; Revelation 9:1-2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1, 3. The abyss is the place where demonic spirits do not wish to go (Luke 8:31), the confinement of the demonic creatures which are loosed to plague the earth (Revelation 9:1, 2, 11) and it will be the location where Satan will be imprisoned (Revelation 20:1) [Sullivan, 18].

G.K. Beale has written probably the most comprehensive commentary on Revelation advocating the classic amillennial position regarding the binding of Satan in chapter 20. He asserts that the abyss is synonymous with "death and hades" [Beale, 984]. He also argues the term "abyss" is a metaphor describing the spiritual sphere in which the devil and his minions operate and that sphere represents a spiritual dimension existing along side the earthly realm of humanity [ibid, 987]. However, Beale's take on the word abyss does not match what we see taught in scripture. The abyss, rather than being synonymous with "death and hades" is distinct from them. Where as "death and hades" is related mostly with judgment upon humanity (death the human experience, hades the destination), the abyss is identified mostly with the demonic, a place of confinement for them.

What is important to note is those demonic being imprisoned in the abyss have no contact with the human world, so the idea of Beale's that the abyss represents the demonic sphere existing along side the earthly sphere is mistaken. Revelation 9:1 tells of a star, interpreted to be some angelic being, possibly Satan, who has the key to the abyss. When it is opened, the unclean spirits within are released upon the world. When they were imprisoned in the abyss they had no contact with the world, now that they are released, they do. The implications of this description of the abyss are clear: when Satan is imprisoned within it, he no longer has contact with the human world. Hence, he is more than just limited in his activities; his activities completely terminated on this earth.

3) The use of the purpose clause "no more." Revelation 20:3 states that when Satan is bound, he "no longer" deceives the nations. The phrase "no longer" or "no more" or "any longer" is the purpose clause hina me eti. The clause within its context speaks of a complete cessation of activity. In regards to Revelation 20, the deception of the nations. This deception of the nations is spoken about in Revelation 12:9, 13:4, 18:23, 19:20, and here in 20:3. However, one will note how the purpose clause speaks of an interruption of something that was already taking place, the deception of the nations. Satan can no longer deceive the nations. His ability to do so has been ended by his imprisonment.

Amillennialists and postmillennialsts argue that the clause speaks to only the deception of nations. In other words, Satan can still involve himself in other activities, which we see played out in history. But again, the entire language of the passage clearly confirms a total cessation of all activity, not just one. As Powell illustrates, "For example, if a warden says that he is putting a prisoner in solitary confinement, in order that he will no longer kill any more prisoners, this does not mean the prisoner is free to steal and do other such activities. The purpose statement does not determine the degree of the restriction at all; it is determined by the language used for the restriction" [Powell, 1]. The language of the first three verses of Revelation 20 implies just this. Satan is no longer free to do any activity at all.

4) The "seal" and "lock." Adding to the already clear terminology of cessation of activity is the words "seal" and "lock." A seal on the abyss where Satan is shut there in, would further strengthen the case for Satan's inactivity. He cannot go in or out of his prison without a guard knowing it. Additionally, the word "lock" implies a confined imprisonment out of which Satan cannot be freed until the one with the key to the lock unlocks it. In fact, all the imagery, or symbolism, being bound with a chain, sealed in the abyss, a lock locked with a key, all undoubtedly suggest a complete cessation of Satan's activity upon the earth. What is being described in these first 3 verses speaks strongly against the traditional amillennial and postmillennial interpretation of Revelation 20.

5) The reality of Satan's influence. Probably the most damaging piece of evidence against the idea of Satan only being partially bound or merely his activities being curbed is the reality of his influence upon the earth. Beginning even with the Scriptures we see Satan filling the heart of Ananias to lie (Acts 5:3), sending a messenger to hinder Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:18), tempting believers (1 Corinthians 7:5), blinding the minds of the unbelievers (2 Corinthians 4:4), disguising himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), holding unbelievers captive to do his will (2 Timothy 2:26), holding unbelievers in his power (1 John 5:19), and prowling about like a lion seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8). These are things happening after Christ has supposedly bound him at the cross.

The history of the world demonstrates the illogic of this concept of a bound/yet unbound Satan. Wars, man's inhumanity against man, demonic false religions, philosophies, and false churches, godless governments, cruel dictators, and the general wickedness of men and women all testify to the fact that Satan is unbound and is fully active upon the earth. It is not until after he is bound that these things come to an end.

*******
Sources

G.K. Beale, TNIGTC: The Book of Revelation. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1999).

Charles Powell, Progression Versus Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-6: Some Overlooked Arguments. On-line paper.

Steve Sullivan, Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20. On-line paper.

Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate. (Kress Christian Publications: The Woodlands TX, 2004).

Preacher Fail

Homeschool Mamas Beware

He even has a personal website.

Good Commercials

My friend Greg directs me to this fun, foreign commercial. I have no clue what the two guys are saying, but the visuals do all the talking.

Angry Bobbleheads

I am not a big fan of CCM, so I am not too familiar with Derek Webb outside his stint with the group Caedmon's Call. However, Derek wrote an angry song rebuking traditional evangelicals and their mean-spirited attitudes toward homosexuals. He so seethes with indignation he even used the cuss word to describe fertilizer.

Yeah... When some self-righteous blowhard cusses at me in a song, I feel the sting of shame and want to contemplate my ugly heart and repent in sack cloth and ashes.

He made a video of his song that can be viewed here (if any wishes to be cussed at).

I don't want so much to evaluate the evangelical culture aspect of this song. There are more thoughtful, articulate bloggers who can. I just had some thoughts:

I am curious as to why homosexuals have become the trendy group of sinners to defend against mean-spirited fundy evangelicals. When did that happen and why? Is it because they dress in the latest fashions? Know how to wear flannel well? Produce over rated theater? Is it because Magneto is gay? For some unknown reason, those of the emergent tendencies feel as though they have to rush to their defense when traditional marriage people point out the obvious sinfulness of homosexual behavior and lifestyle.

Certainly there are other "sinners" evangelicals will treat poorly. Child abusers come to mind. As do wife beaters. Pornographers, certainly. But for some reason I don't see Derek Webb writing a song in defense of pornographers who have been emotionally traumatized by mean evangelicals.

What about Ken Lay? He supposedly ruined the lives of thousands of people. His harshest critics wanted him gutted alive during N.B.C. primetime. Would Derek Webb write a song rebuking his mean critics for their vicious, hateful hearts, even to the point of invoking profanity so as to illustrate their hypocrisy?

Nah, something tells me he wont.

Nanny State

So there is this 6 year old kid in Delaware named Zachary who brought his camping utensils to school to use with his lunch. His school has succumbed to the leftist, pacifist view of life by adopting zero tolerance policies regarding the possession of potential weapons on campus. Six-year old Zachary's camping utensils had a knife included with them. Bad news for Zach. A teacher discovered the camping utensils and now Zach has become the tortured victim of lazy, undiscerning bureaucrats. He is slated to be moved to a reform school ("reform school?" Like in the 1950s?) with hardened, gang banging thugs.

More HERE.

Two things struck me when I read that story. My first reaction is that I bet women run the administration around that place. And lo and behold I was right. The superintendent is a woman and the "supervisor of school climate and discipline" (huh?) is also a woman. Surprisingly, neither one has a hyphenated last name.

Then secondly, have any of these people considered the fact that rulers, plastic notebooks, lunch boxes, pencils and pens are potential weapons? I mean, think Joker in the Dark Knight and his disappearing pencil trick.

Iconography Explained

This video is both informative, along with being disturbing. It's informative, because it reminds us of the power of visual image to convey a worldview with just a picture or cartoon.

It is also disturbing; and in a way sad. It reveals how the same image can manipulate the shallow thinkers, who regrettably, are a good portion of the world's population. People who are easily led astray by visuals reveal the weakness of their minds and the lack of ability to discern.

The contrast between the Democrats employment of image and the Republicans failure to utilize image is striking, and as much as the conservatives in our country want to win the battle of ideas, they are going to have to wise up and recognize the absolute necessity of using the Democrat strategy of image. It is just the way of our post-modern world.

Fun Theory

Studies in Eschatology [13]

Revelation 20: Sequential or Recapitulation?

With this post I come specifically to the text of Revelation 20:1-10, the source of the main disagreement between the various millennial positions. Even more to the point is whether this passage is referring to a future millennium or is it describing the conditions present now during the age of the Church. If we can determine how in which way we are to understand Revelation 20, we can then narrow our focus down to determine which eschatological position best explains the exegetical data.

Just as a brief reminder, both amillennialism and postmillennialism approach Revelation 20 with an Augustinian hermeneutic. That is to say, those systems, though they may draw different conclusions as to how the events of the millennium play out, believe Revelation 20 is basically describing conditions now during the Church age. Both groups would argue that the book of Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic literature filled with much symbolism. The exegete should not expect to take anything in the book with a wooden literalism. This is especially true of the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20. Additionally, the concept of the 1,000 years is only found here in this portion of Scripture, indicating even more that Revelation 20 should not be taken literally. The exegesis of Revelation 20 is then interpreted to accommodate these presuppositions.

Contrasted to this idea that Revelation 20 is describing conditions now during the Church age is the futurist position of premillennialism. That system understands the chapter as describing a future time during which Christ will return to destroy the enemies of God and His people and establish a millennial kingdom where righteousness dwells over all the earth. The premillennialists draw that conclusion because they interpret the prophecy of Revelation with the historical-grammatical exegesis recovered by the reformers during the age of the Reformation that reads prophetic passages more literally.

Now, with these basic things in mind, as we come to chapter 20 we want to consider the exegesis of the passage. When all things considered, does the passage affirm the classic Augustinian hermeneutics employed by amillennialists and postmillennialists when they interpret the chapter, or does the exegesis favor the more literal approach of premillennialism that sees this passage as future?

It's my position that the Augustinian hermeneutic must be abandoned as it is fraught with much philosophical baggage that mishandles the biblical exegesis. Instead of using Augustine's method, the biblical student should approach the Revelation with the historical-grammatical approach, recognizing the symbolism of the book, but interpreting it with a normal understanding of language. Moreover, the book is heavily dependent upon previous prophecy like Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, and like Revelation, those books contain symbolic language, but language providing description of historical realities. Daniel for instance uses symbolic language to describe such historical events as the fall of Babylon, the coming of Alexander the Great, and the rise of the Roman empire. The language of Revelation describes similar historical realities, and should be interpreted as explaining something real, not just being symbolic for the sake of being symbolic and using colorful metaphors.

As we survey chapter 20, there are five important questions I believe divide the amillennial/postmillennial positions from the premillennial position, and these I will consider in turn.

1) Is the chronology of Revelation 19 to 20 recapitulative or sequential?
2) Is the binding of Satan present or future?
3) Is the first Resurrection spiritual or physical?
4) Is the duration of the 1,000 years symbolic or literal?
5) Is the locale of the 1,000 years in heaven or on earth?

It is my contention that when we consider these points in light of the exegetical data of Revelation, they will not sustain an amillennial nor postmillennial perspective.

Let me begin with the first, Is the chapters of Revelation 19 to 20 recapitulative or sequential?

Recapitulative may be a new word for some, so let me define it. The idea of recapitulation is "to repeat in concise form." The Augustinian hermeneutic understands that the events described in Revelation 20 do not follow in sequence after Revelation 19. In fact, many amillennialists and postmillenialists believe the entire Revelation of John is a series of prophetic visions meant to provide details of the Church age. Most interpreters believe there are 7 visions (sticking with the number "7" symbolism of the author) and each vision returns the reader to the beginning of the Church age to either provide new revelation or fill in the details of a previous visions.

In this outline, Revelation 19 describes how the Church age will end with Jesus returning with victory over God's enemies who had been persecuting His people. Chapter 20, [and this is key], rather than describing events that follow immediately after those described in chapter 19, instead returns the reader back to the beginning of the Church age. Chapter 20 is believed to be returning back to Christ's victory over Satan at the cross and Resurrection (the concept of him being "bound"), and unfolds how the saints are resurrected spiritually to reign with Christ presently now as the Church triumphantly goes forth across the earth proclaiming the gospel and bringing nations to Christ. Only at the end of the Church age is Satan loosed for a little while to deceive the nations who attempt one final assault against God and His people, what is described with a bit more detail at the end of chapter 19. Hence chapter 20 precedes chapter 19 in order of events, and chapter 19:11-21 runs concurrently with chapter 20:7-10. They are passages explaining parallel events, not passages describing sequential, chronological events following after each other.

Yet, when we consider the book of Revelation as a whole, is John meaning to convey the idea of recapitulation? Especially chapters 19 and 20? There are many vigorous defenders of recapitulation. R. Fowler White and Cornelius Venema, for example, have both written capable defenses of recapitulation between chapters 19 and 20. Yet, in spite of their work, I agree with commentator Robert Thomas that when all things are considered, the concept of recapitulation does not rest upon the exegesis of the book, but rather is concluded because of philosophical precommitments utilized when interpreting Revelation [Thomas, 404]. This in a way is the Achilles Heel of non-futuristic, non-premillennial systems. If it can be demonstrated clearly that Revelation 20 follows Revelation 19 sequentially, those systems really have no foundation upon which to rest their arguments.

So how is Revelation 20 sequential to Revelation 19?

First, we can say the context demands it. Revelation chapters 19 and 20 are part of a larger whole of the book that tracks with a series of important events which follow after one another. Matt Waymeyer explains it this way, "The context and flow of Revelation 12-20 point to a chronological relationship in which the events of chapter 20 follow those of chapter 19" [Waymeyer, 62]. He goes on to outline the chronological relationship as,

• Satan being cast down to earth and beginning his work to deceive the whole world (Rev. 12:9).
• Satan enlisting the beast and the false prophet to accomplish his task of deception (Rev. 13:1-18; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10).
• The unholy trinity is successful in their attempts to deceive and are defeated by Christ at His return who conquers them and casts them into the lake of fire in a series of visions. (Rev. 19:11-20:10).
• By the end of chapter 19, only two of the three of the unholy trinity - the beast and false prophet - has been defeated. Chapter 20 then continues the thought of judgment of those three, by binding the head of the group, Satan, in the abyss [ibid, 62-63].
  

It is clear that there is no logical, grammatical break between the events ending chapter 19 and those continued into chapter 20. On the contrary, there is unity of thought, especially between the judgment upon the three members of the unholy trinity - Satan, the beast, and the false prophet. It disrupts the flow of thought to suggest the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire, while leaving the doom of Satan unresolved by claiming chapter 20:1-4 is returning the reader back the beginning of the Church's ministry after the great commission. The fate of the devil is answered, however, when chapters 19-20 are treated as sequential.

John's use of "and I saw" (kai eidon) in 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11; 21:1 indicates a series of visions happening right after one another; a progression of chronological thought. D.E. Aune argues that the phrase "and I saw" does three things: It introduces a new vision, a major scence within a vision, and focuses on a new or significant figure or action that occurs within a continuing vision narrative [Aune, 338]. Some amillennialists will argue the phrase, while providing a visional chronicle, is not providing an historical chronicle. In other words, they believe the vision is in chronological order, but not necessarily the history of events [Sullivan, 5]. I would point out such an argument assumes a commitment to the Augustine hermeneutic and is not derived from the exegesis itself.

The purpose clause of Revelation 20:3, "any longer" (eti) strongly brings one to the conclusion that the events of chapter 20 follow closely behind those of chapter 19. "Any longer" indicates an interpruption of something already taking place. In this case, the deception of the nations by Satan as outlined in Revelation 12-19. I will go into more detail about this purpose clause in my next post to this series, but the binding of Satan is the very thing providing the use of "any longer."

And then Revelation 20:10 states how Satan will be cast into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet are also. These two individuals were judged and thrown into the lake of fire at the end of chapter 19. The only way the words of 20:10 can make any exegetical sense is if chapter 20 follows sequentially after chapter 19.

The next post will continue my exegetical examination by considering the "binding of Satan."

*******
Sources:

D.E. Aune, Revelation 1-5. (Nelson: Nashville TN, 1997).

Craig Blaising, "Premillennialism," in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond. ed. Darrel Bock. (Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1999).

Charles Powell, Progression Versus Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-6: Some Overlooked Arguments. On-line paper.

Steve Sullivan, Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20. On-line paper.

Robert Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. (Moody: Chicago IL, 1995).

Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate. (Kress Christian Publications: The Woodlands TX, 2004).

R. Fowler White, “Making Sense of Rev 20:1-10? Harold Hoehner Versus Recapitulation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (December 1994).

Honorable Mentioned

President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

For creating a political climate where peace can possibly thrive.

Its a perfect postmodernist reason.

He hasn't really done anything to earn the distinction. He's like the Kramer of the political world: A big dreamer who mooches food off his neighbors. Why not give him an Oscar, too? Or some other meaningless award?

The Nobel Peace Prize committee jumped the shark a long time ago, especially when they started giving terrorists peace prize awards. But now, they have turned the award into the equivalent of the honorable mention I won at the county fair in 3rd grade for my dinosaur picture. Of course, I shared that honorable mentioned with 40 other kids.

Here's a list of those people passed over so the left of the world could declare who they like the most:

Meet the Nominees Who Were Passed Over

When Skeptics Attack

Skeptics are starting to unite in order to combat all of the conspiracy theories and urban legends that flood the Internet.

When Sceptics [sic] fight back (I'm guessing the reason for a "c" instead of the proper "k" is because it's a British site).

There are a couple of insights we can glean from this article:

- Skeptic is really just a synonym for "atheist." At least that is how the word should be understood in popular culture these days. Many of the skeptical defenders of truth mentioned in the article are notorious anti-theists. They would list Noah's flood and the Creation Museum along side JFK conspiracies and UFO videos. They already entertain a "rebellious" streak at heart and cast any authoritative truth claims into a cloud of doubt. This is particularly true of religious truth claims, and because they come from religious sources, such claims are automatically placed into the category of "skeptical."

- These brave, yet lone voices crying out for reason and truth on the Internet wilderness never turn their debunking skepticism against Darwinian evolution. Oh, they certainly speak out against "science," but it is what they define as "junk science" or "pseudo-science." Things like acupuncture, chiropractics, and creation science. But, you won't see them giving a detailed debunking to, say, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings of embryos by which he promoted the pseudo-science that human embryos recapitulates so-called stages of human evolution. His fake embryo pictures are still published in high school text books to this very day. So much for countering torrents of bad articles put out by snake oil salesmen and lazy journalists.

Iron Mountain

I love these sorts of things. A gianormous underground facility for safe guarding precious materials from top secret military stuff to Elvis's first studio recording.

Check out the conspiracy oriented comments posted under the video. I reckon if I was going to hide crashed UFOs and the bodies of the alien pilots, Iron Mountain is a good a place as any.

Here's the company's official website

Readings from Paul Johnson #9

I had occasion over the summer to listen to the audio book version of Paul Johnson's Heroes. It is a book of biographical sketches from history's most fascinating, famous, infamous, and in some cases, virtually unknown individuals society would consider "heroic." I would recommend anyone picking up a copy, or listening to the book on audio format. This section on Emily Dickinson was thoroughly amusing and provides good insight as to why she was an eccentric recluse. If ever I preach on the subject of anxiety, I will certainly cite this passage.

The Terrors of Emily Dickinson

[Emily Dickinson's] life was a successful struggle against fear, in which she drew nourishment from her creative gifts... Though writing poems was a protection against fear, publication of them, to her, was a gross intrusion on her privacy, a rape, or an act like going naked into a drawing room.

The fear was instinctive, natural and lifelong, and sprang from two causes: her religion and her parents. She, like her family, was Calvinist and believed in double predestination. She, like her mother, but unlike her father, believed from an early age that she was "saved," and took Communion, on occasion, without difficulty. Religion pervaded her life, but it is not clear whether she believed in God, at any rate in a benevolent, merciful and loving God. She thought God was unjust and cruel, especially to Moses, in not letting him see the Promised Land: she wrote three indignant poems on this subject. ... The most important word in her life was "power." She used the word often, and associated it with God, who exercised power for good or evil. Death, especially from tuberculosis and scarlet fever, was common in her age group. Her uncle Asa Bullard edited (in the 1830s) a children's paper, the "Sabbath School Visitor," designed to convert children to religious enthusiasm by emphasizing the imminence of sudden death, physical dismemberment and fatal illness. ...

But if her parents had no godlike power over her, they could keep her in fear, if only by the contagion of their own fears. Her mother was in a constant quiver of anxiety, always terrified of losing her purse, her sewing, her luggage, her way. She used to say: "When in doubt, don't go out." She was a poor creature: "I never had a mother," said Emily later. Her father was far from a nonentity... [H]is belief that he was not (yet) "saved" led to fear that he would die thus, and so be separated from those he loved for eternity. This fear dominated his life, and he passed it on. But he filled Emily with physical fears too. She recalled in her fifties that he had taken her to the mill to get grist, and warned her about the powerful mill horse: "Do not get out [of the wagon] and go near the horse, or you will be trampled." She added: "The horse looked around at me, as if to say, 'Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard the things that I would do to you if I weren't tied."...

When he was away his family, and especially Emily, were told to observe many restrictive rules, which limited their movements. She was not allowed to go to school if it were cold; no sledding; no play in the snow. Her father had a terror of drafts, of being struck by lightning and of sudden sickness. ... Edward Dickinson's letter are full of advice about and formulas for health. Staying at home, preferably in bed, was the sovereign remedy. He believed himself to be prone to accidents, and was terrified of what would befall his family if they left the house, especially if he was not there. When away, he told Emily: "Never go out, and lock all doors at all times." His instructions to Emily when she had to go on a visit by train, were disturbing: "When you come home be careful to get out of the car at Palmer -don't fall, keep hold of something all the time, till you are safely out-lest they should start, and throw you down, and then run over you." He had a particular fear of going to a prayer meeting in the vestry, which was a basement: "My positive instruction is that you do not go into the vestry, on any occasion, for any purpose, in my absence. Now don't disregard this. I shall find out if you do. It is a most dangerous place, and I wonder that anyone will venture into it." He also gave constant instructions about avoiding snakes. She later wrote:

I was much in the wood as a little girl. I was told that the snake would bite me, that I might pick a poisonous flower, or goblins kidnap me, but I went along and met none but angels, who were far shyer of me than I could be of them.

Heroes, pp. 153, 154, 155, 156.

FBT Updates

I have been going through the book of Daniel for my volunteer's lunch time devotionals. I just put up the first 4 messages this afternoon if anyone is interested.

Studies in the Book of Daniel

I have taught up to chapter 8, so I have a few more to upload. It takes me a bit to prepare, so long-suffer with me.

Head Turners

Every once in a while I get into some terse debate with anti-young earth creationists. The comment exchange under this post with some guy name "kaffinator" represents such terse debates.

One of the talking points by the anti-young earth debater is biblical creationists have never produced any workable theories to explain the origin of life, or how things operate in the natural world and so forth, and then the antagonist cites examples from biblical creation allegedly demonstrating the serious lack of scientific merit like the vapor canopy theory postulated to explain where all the water came from for Noah's flood.

Point being: If a young earth creationist develops a theory and proposes a theoretical model to explain the theory that is later abandoned because it maybe shown to be wrong, the theory is concluded to have been developed by a crank to begin with who was never practicing legitimate science.

If the Darwinian evolutionist, on the other hand, does the same thing, he is hailed as uncovering some new and profound view of the world. Additionally, the previous model the scientific community lauded as the truth but is now shown to be false, is considered a worthy scientific attempt that helped us to refine the facts.

Fossils radically alter ideas about how early man looked.

Also never mind the fact that paleo-anthropology has been a field swimming in fraud and corruption by researchers for years.