----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlo Rose" <rosec007@...>
Subject: [soundofgrace] Rev 20 #1


> John,
>
> I believe you have created some straw arguments in your questions and I'm
> puzzled by a few of your questions.  And I'm really confused what you mean
> by "first" and "second" coming.  There are just two advents.

JGR:  And all of hstory, including the 1,000 year reign of Christ, revolves 
around those two advents.

 snip  snip

> The reason why Rev 20 was brought up was not to address the coming of
> Christ, but to address the issue of the millennial kingdom and whether it
> was literal or not.  It was not brought up to address the coming of 
> Christ.
> We should not be asked questions that the text doesn't address.

JGR:  But Carlo, the text specifically addresses the coming of Christ. The 
whole issue of Pre-mil versus A-Mil has to do with the two comings of Christ 
as they relate to the binding of Satan and the 1,000 years.  The word 
Pre-mil means the second coming of Christ takes place "Pre," or before, the 
millenail kongdom is ushered in. The text certainly deals with the coming of 
Christ in relation to the binding of Satan.

> But I can answer your question outside the context of Rev 20.

JGR:  But again, we are talking about Rev. 20. The Pre-mil is using it as 
the primary, actually the only, proof text proving that the binding of Satan 
in Rev 20 does not take place until the second coming of Christ. The whole 
case for Pre-mil is built on Rev. 20.  You can't prove the Pre-mil position 
without also establishing the point in history when the first and second 
comings of Christ take place. That is not a starw dummy, that is asking for 
essential biblical exegesis. I am asking for an explanation of Rev. 20.

> The first
> coming of Christ was at His incarnation.  There are only two advents, 
> First
> and Second.  That's it.

JGR:  So what happened at each of these comings?  What is the relationship 
of those two coming to the 1,000 years and the binding of Satan?  You have 
not answered the vital question.  Accoring to Rev 20, when does the 1,000 
year reighn of Christ begin? At Christ's first or second coming? That is the 
question I am asking.

> You also insist that we cannot put the first coming into the second time
> frame (which premills both historical and dispensational do not) because
> that is when the second coming takes place according to Rev 20.

JGR:  Pre-mils don't put the first coming of Christ any where in Rev 20 
simply because it will not fit ito their system!  So when does the first 
coming take place in the time frames of Rev 20?

> Actually the second advent takes place in Rev 19,

JGR:  But Carlo, the whole argument is the statements in Rev. 20. Stick with 
understanding Rev. 20 first.

snip   snip

> JGR wrote: "The vital questions about which Christians disagree concerns 
> the
> 1,000 years when Satan is bound. The questions are, (1) "Exactly what does
> "binding mean," (2) is 1,000 years to be understood literally as 365 day
> years, and (3) is this binding of Satan to be understood as past, present 
> or
> future?"
>
> My response: The real key question is not what does binding mean.  I mean 
> if
> a prisoner were bounded with whatever, but was under house arrest in his
> bindings with cell phone, TV, computer and assistants to help him with
> whatever, then that's one thing.  He could have some influence with all 
> the
> tools especially with his assistants.  There's no question that Satan is 
> on
> leash held by the Lord only allowed to do what the Lord wants, but still 
> has
> some influence.  But if a prisoner were bound and thrown in solitary
> confinement for 20 years, that prisoner has no influence.

JGR:  Spoken like a convinced A-Mil!!!! That is one of his chief arguments!

The question remains?  According to Rev. 20, at what point in history does 
the first coming of Christ take place?
JGR