Post-Mil Loosing of Satan

TaylorOtwell · #1 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:37 PM

How does Post-Millennialism understand the loosing of Satan at the end of the millennium?

I thought post-millennialism was supposed to be completely optimistic. But, if Satan eventually deceives the nations after the millennium, where does optimism fit in?

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:39 PM

The loosing of Satan - in the opinion of this postmillennialist (not all) - represents a Satanic attempt to destroy Christendom before Christ returns.

Postmillennialism is optimistic, but not utopian; there will only be absolute victory when the Lord returns. However, there will be substantial victory in history as well.

Barnpreacher · #3 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:53 PM

Taylor,

Here is a good series on Revelation (especially chapter 20) by Richard Bacon that explains the position you are asking about. If you scroll down you'll find a drop down box that includes his other messages on Revelation.

His messages are very biblical and convincing. And this is coming from a guy who never thought he would question his pre-millennial position.

SermonAudio.com - Millennial Reign

armourbearer · #4 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:05 PM

I can understand an inter-adventual loosing of Satan on the historicist scheme; but I don't think it is possible to allow for such a loosing AFTER a thousand years when the thousand years is supposed to represent a perfect period between Christ's ascension and the judgement. Modern postmillennialists who adopt the idealist view of Revelation involve themselves in a contradiction at this point.

Barnpreacher · #5 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:09 PM

Who are some of the modern Post-Millennialists that you are referring to?

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I can understand an inter-adventual loosing of Satan on the historicist scheme; but I don't think it is possible to allow for such a loosing AFTER a thousand years when the thousand years is supposed to represent a perfect period between Christ's ascension and the judgement. Modern postmillennialists who adopt the idealist view of Revelation involve themselves in a contradiction at this point.

Hence I argue that the binding of Satan - in the specific context of Rev. 20 - began in 70 AD.

Daniel Ritchie · #7 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Who are some of the modern Post-Millennialists that you are referring to?

R.J. Rushdoony holds such a view.

Barnpreacher · #8 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I can understand an inter-adventual loosing of Satan on the historicist scheme; but I don't think it is possible to allow for such a loosing AFTER a thousand years when the thousand years is supposed to represent a perfect period between Christ's ascension and the judgement. Modern postmillennialists who adopt the idealist view of Revelation involve themselves in a contradiction at this point.

Hence I argue that the binding of Satan - in the specific context of Rev. 20 - began in 70 AD.

Did the binding not have its roots started in a sense in the wilderness when Satan's temptations of Christ were defeated? If it began simply in 70 A.D. then where does that leave the role of the cross, resurrection and ascension in the binding of Satan?

Backwoods Presbyterian · #9 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:14 PM

The "loosing of Satan" is a last-ditch effort to thwart Christ.

Barnpreacher · #10 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Who are some of the modern Post-Millennialists that you are referring to?

R.J. Rushdoony holds such a view.

I see where Hendrickson also holds to idealism. Or is that a misrepresentation of his stance? I haven't read enough of Hendrickson to know one way or the other.

Daniel Ritchie · #11 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I can understand an inter-adventual loosing of Satan on the historicist scheme; but I don't think it is possible to allow for such a loosing AFTER a thousand years when the thousand years is supposed to represent a perfect period between Christ's ascension and the judgement. Modern postmillennialists who adopt the idealist view of Revelation involve themselves in a contradiction at this point.

Hence I argue that the binding of Satan - in the specific context of Rev. 20 - began in 70 AD.

Did the binding not have its roots started in a sense in the wilderness when Satan's temptations of Christ were defeated? If it began simply in 70 A.D. then where does that leave the role of the cross, resurrection and ascension in the binding of Satan?

Satan was bound by the cross, but that cannot be the binding in Revelation 20, as the binding there is reversed - but the work of the cross will never be reversed.

Daniel Ritchie · #12 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Who are some of the modern Post-Millennialists that you are referring to?

R.J. Rushdoony holds such a view.

I see where Hendrickson also holds to idealism. Or is that a misrepresentation of his stance? I haven't read enough of Hendrickson to know one way or the other.

Yes, he is an idealist.

armourbearer · #13 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:22 PM

It is better to see the loosing of Satan as a parallel activity throughout history. So on the one hand he is bound from being able to deceive the once blinded nations as well as harm the saints after death, but on the other hand he is actively engaged in stirring up the nations to do their utmost to overthrow the saints and claim possession of the earth for themselves. This fits in well with one of Revelation's main themes, which identifies the saints as the true heirs of the earth.

TaylorOtwell · #14 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 10:42 PM

Thanks for the responses all.

So, in the post-millennial view, when does Revelation 20:7-8 occur? The text states that it is after the thousand years have expired. Also, it says that the number of those in rebellion against the Lord will be an amount like the sand on the seashore. In the post-millennial view, does the glory of God cover the earth as the waters cover the sea and then Satan is loosed and there is a massive number of heathen who fight against the Lord?

Rev. Winzer, thank you for your response, but can you help me understand how the loosing of Satan can be throughout history when the text says it occurs after the thousand years have expired?

I'm speaking from ignorance in these matters, thank you all for your help.

armourbearer · #15 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaylorOtwell

can you help me understand how the loosing of Satan can be throughout history when the text says it occurs after the thousand years have expired?

If the thousand years is taken symbolically, it means the fulness of time in the purpose of God. As representative of complete time, the thousand years excludes the idea of a successive period of activity. Since this is a vision, it is perfectly natural to take the AFTER reference as a description of the same history being viewed from a different perspective. This is what is known as "recapitulation," which is fundamental to the idealist approach to Revelation.

VirginiaHuguenot · #16 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 08:46 AM

It is worth reading Jonathan Edwards' chapter on the final apostasy in his History of the Work of Redemption.

Links and Downloads Manager - Revelation & Eschatology - History of the Work of Redemption -- Jonathan Edwards - The PuritanBoard

Daniel Ritchie · #17 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaylorOtwell

can you help me understand how the loosing of Satan can be throughout history when the text says it occurs after the thousand years have expired?

If the thousand years is taken symbolically, it means the fulness of time in the purpose of God. As representative of complete time, the thousand years excludes the idea of a successive period of activity. Since this is a vision, it is perfectly natural to take the AFTER reference as a description of the same history being viewed from a different perspective. This is what is known as "recapitulation," which is fundamental to the idealist approach to Revelation.

David Silversides, who takes an idealist view of Revelation, highlights his objections to R.J. Rushdoony's take on Revelation 20 in the sermon below. Although I disagree with his "golden age" view of the millennium, I thought his critic of the amillennial and idealist postmillenial view of Rev. 20 was pretty good:

SermonAudio.com - Postmillenialism and Rev 20

armourbearer · #18 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

David Silversides, who takes an idealist view of Revelation, highlights his objections to R.J. Rushdoony's take on Revelation 20 in the sermon below. Although I disagree with his "golden age" view of the millennium, I thought his critic of the amillennial and idealist postmillenial view of Rev. 20 was pretty good:

SermonAudio.com - Postmillenialism and Rev 20

Thankyou for the link. I hope to have a listen in the next week or so.

TaylorOtwell · #19 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 09:08 PM

I'm getting close to being done listening through Dr. Richard Bacon's sermon on Revelation 20. However, I am still having trouble getting the flow of Revelation into my head. Is there a chart or an outline that describes the whole book in an overview form?

Or, is their a good overview commentary on the book from the post-millennial position? Preferably a commentary that most post-millennials can agree is a good presentation of the book's teachings...

Daniel Ritchie · #20 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaylorOtwell

I'm getting close to being done listening through Dr. Richard Bacon's sermon on Revelation 20. However, I am still having trouble getting the flow of Revelation into my head. Is there a chart or an outline that describes the whole book in an overview form?

Or, is their a good overview commentary on the book from the post-millennial position? Preferably a commentary that most post-millennials can agree is a good presentation of the book's teachings...

It would be difficult - if not impossible - to find a commentary on Revelation that all postmills agree on, as postmills differ on which method of interpretation to use: historicist, idealist, or preterist.

Daniel Ritchie · #21 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:15 AM

Taylor, in terms of postmillennial commentaries on the different interpretations of Revelation:

Idealist: R.J. Rushdoony's Thy Kingdom Come (which also does Daniel)

Preterist: David Chilton's The Days of Vengeance (though this suffers from interpretive maximalism in places), I look forward to Ken Gentry's forthcoming commentary.

Historicist: most of the older commentators (Matthew Henry etc.) fall into this category, however, if I am not mistaken, I believe that a minister in Rev. Winzer's denomination wrote a commentary on Revelation called The Radiant Light of the Revelation - but the gentleman's name escapes me.

Daniel Ritchie · #22 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 08:47 AM

Also, for preterist postmillennial overviews of Revelation, you may wish to consult Keith Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope and Ken Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion.