What is meant by being gathered?

[Arial]

Pretty much the same thing.

No it isn't. Not by the definition you have given of the restrainer being removed, since you said that if the Holy Spirit is removed, and since he indwells the believer, then that means that the believers are removed. And by extension that the church is then the restrainer.

Yes, Satan will be bound during the 1,000 year reign. Which is after the 7 year tribulation which is after the restrainer is removed and the anti-christ is revealed.

These things cannot be simply stated as fact without you demonstrating their truthfulness. You stating them, or using a scripture that you have already interpreted in whatever way you have interpreted it, standing alone as the proof or demonstration of its truthfulness, is not providing support or proof. If there are other interpretations, and there are, you will need to substantiate what is not true about them, when/if they are brought up, by demonstrating the truthfulness of what you stated.

Many, if not all, contributing to your thread do not interpret a literal 1,000 yr reign or a seven year tribulation, into Revelation. You would need to do some actual convincing by evidence----which if you are correct, could be done by refuting soundly their assertions. Not just contradicting them and saying they are wrong.

Yes it does. This is still future.

In your opinion. But opinions alone don't make a debate or a conversation. I don't happen to interpret Scripture as saying it is future, but rather that it is going on right now and has been since the resurrection and the apostles instructions to preach the gospel to all nations, which, because they did this, Christians of all time since, (a very long time, which the number a thousand and multiples of a thousand, in many other places in Scripture are not literal but represent a large number of people or many years), gathering sheep into Christ's flock, from all nations. In which case the restraining would be preventing Satan from stopping the preaching of the gospel to all nations. And this providence can do by a number of means. If that is the case, then when that restraint is removed, he can stop the gospel being preached through persecution of the church by governments and whatever other means is used. But he cannot stop people from believing or take any out of God's hands.

What do you have to say about that?

Yes it does. This is still future.

See above.

I'm not quite sure just what yes or no means in your post question.

It means does what I stated (and I will quote it below to refresh your memory without having to scroll and guess) show the possibility of a different interpretation than the one you have given regarding 2 Thess 2 regarding the restrainer and the way in which you have applied it? Yes or no. You don't have to refute it, or present your view that has already been given. The question is not about whether or not what I stated is correct. It is about open to possibility.

In Rev there is a mention of Satan being bound from a particular thing. That of deceiving the nations. And it says that after a thousand years he will be released from that binding and go out and deceive the nations.

I will ask the question in a different way that may be more clear to you. If I am understanding you correctly, you determine that the binding of Satan in Rev 20 is future because you say he is obviously not bound now. But that is done without connecting what Paul says in 2 Thess 2 about the restrainer with the Rev passage. What if they are connected and John and Paul are saying the same thing? Paul is relating it to the Thessalonians and the particular issue they had. John is stating it from the perspective of it being revealed to him by the perspective of the Spirit (invisible) realm. (What went on in that realm presented in symbolic form as it obviously was). If this is the case, does that make your interpretation the only possibility?

Yes, the restrainer is currently holding back the antichrist. The restrainer is like a dam holding back a body of water....sure some water may flow around the dam or through the dam....but for the most part it's a trickle in comparison. When the dam is removed...taken out of the way...there is a flood.

The antichrist may be an actual person or he may not be. I have heard both sides, both have some merit imo, and I have not come down firmly on either side. Whichever it is, it does not change the ability to interpret the scripture as to its thrust. If it is an individual, he is empowered by and serving Satan. The one bound from deceiving the nations. It could be a government or institution. Still empowered by Satan who imo is bound now from deceiving the nations. Either way it is the Holy Spirit (God) who is restraining. And God does not restrain unable to plug all the leaks. So that to me is even more weight to the side that there is one thing he is being restrained from and connect to the binding of Satan in Rev 20. The church is active in the activity that Satan is restrained from doing. They are preaching the gospel to all nations, gathering in God's people that are in all nations. As a Calvinist you should be able to see that. His all people in all nations are the elect in all nations who must hear the gospel and believe., So. Possible?

 

[CrowCross]

No it isn't. Not by the definition you have given of the restrainer being removed, since you said that if the Holy Spirit is removed, and since he indwells the believer, then that means that the believers are removed. And by extension that the church is then the restrainer.

I think you might want to slow down a bit.....The Holy Spirit being removed was presented as one of the beliefs concerning the restrainer

These things cannot be simply stated as fact without you demonstrating their truthfulness. You stating them, or using a scripture that you have already interpreted in whatever way you have interpreted it, standing alone as the proof or demonstration of its truthfulness, is not providing support or proof. If there are other interpretations, and there are, you will need to substantiate what is not true about them, when/if they are brought up, by demonstrating the truthfulness of what you stated.

Many, if not all, contributing to your thread do not interpret a literal 1,000 yr reign or a seven year tribulation, into Revelation. You would need to do some actual convincing by evidence----which if you are correct, could be done by refuting soundly their assertions. Not just contradicting them and saying they are wrong.

I have mentioned the 1,000 years are mentioned 6 times and presented as literal.
You on the other hand have spiritualized the 1,000 years with no reason to do so....other than that's what you have been taught and now is your bias.
In previous post you mentioned we are currently in this 1,000 year time period...yet Satan clearly isn't chained up in a pit but rather roaming around like a roaring tiger seeking to kill and destroy.

In your opinion. But opinions alone don't make a debate or a conversation. I don't happen to interpret Scripture as saying it is future, but rather that it is going on right now and has been since the resurrection and the apostles instructions to preach the gospel to all nations, which, because they did this, Christians of all time since, (a very long time, which the number a thousand and multiples of a thousand, in many other places in Scripture are not literal but represent a large number of people or many years), gathering sheep into Christ's flock, from all nations. In which case the restraining would be preventing Satan from stopping the preaching of the gospel to all nations. And this providence can do by a number of means. If that is the case, then when that restraint is removed, he can stop the gospel being preached through persecution of the church by governments and whatever other means is used. But he cannot stop people from believing or take any out of God's hands.

As mentioned before to you with a weak or no reply...I have asked when Rev 8 has happened?
In fact I've provided you with current science concerning a possibility with asteroid apophis 99942. Remember?

What do you have to say about that?

See above.

It means does what I stated (and I will quote it below to refresh your memory without having to scroll and guess) show the possibility of a different interpretation than the one you have given regarding 2 Thess 2 regarding the restrainer and the way in which you have applied it? Yes or no. You don't have to refute it, or present your view that has already been given. The question is not about whether or not what I stated is correct. It is about open to possibility.

I've already mentioned several possibilities...and told you who I believe the restrainer is. {Edit: Personal and false accusations made against poster.}

I will ask the question in a different way that may be more clear to you. If I am understanding you correctly, you determine that the binding of Satan in Rev 20 is future because you say he is obviously not bound now. But that is done without connecting what Paul says in 2 Thess 2 about the restrainer with the Rev passage.

{Edit: personal insult}
Yes, the restrainer is currently holding back the antichrist. The restrainer is like a dam holding back a body of water....sure some water may flow around the dam or through the dam....but for the most part it's a trickle in comparison. When the dam is removed...taken out of the way...there is a flood.

It is my belief that christians are holding back the flood, they are the dam empowered...enabled, authorized, and allowed... used..by God to restrain evil. That is to stand against the schemes of the devil. To stand against the rulers, to stand against the authorities, to stand against the cosmic powers and to stand against this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. We Christians are the restrainer. Could I be wrong? Yup, I presented several other possibilities and brief reasons why I don't think they are the restrainer.

What if they are connected and John and Paul are saying the same thing? Paul is relating it to the Thessalonians and the particular issue they had. John is stating it from the perspective of it being revealed to him by the perspective of the Spirit (invisible) realm. (What went on in that realm presented in symbolic form as it obviously was). If this is the case, does that make your interpretation the only possibility?

The antichrist may be an actual person or he may not be. I have heard both sides, both have some merit imo, and I have not come down firmly on either side. Whichever it is, it does not change the ability to interpret the scripture as to its thrust. If it is an individual, he is empowered by and serving Satan. The one bound from deceiving the nations. It could be a government or institution. Still empowered by Satan who imo is bound now from deceiving the nations. Either way it is the Holy Spirit (God) who is restraining. And God does not restrain unable to plug all the leaks. So that to me is even more weight to the side that there is one thing he is being restrained from and connect to the binding of Satan in Rev 20. The church is active in the activity that Satan is restrained from doing. They are preaching the gospel to all nations, gathering in God's people that are in all nations. As a Calvinist you should be able to see that. His all people in all nations are the elect in all nations who must hear the gospel and believe., So. Possible?

 

[Arial]

I think you might want to slow down a bit.....The Holy Spirit being removed was presented as one of the beliefs concerning the restrainer

Nevertheless, that is what you said.

At one time I leaned that direction....then leaned towards it being the church....then back to the Holy Spirit and eventually settled on the church.
The only rough spot I have with it being the church is the word....HE....For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way.......as the church is typically considered as a bride, not a he.

But as to being the Holy Spirit...if he goes then the christians with the Holy Spirit in them also go

And you say we do go. But you above you also indicate that the restrainer is not the church as the church is not a he. I can't be responsible for selecting which of your inconsistencies I should appeal to.

I have mentioned the 1,000 years are mentioned 6 times and presented as literal.

You say they are literal but that does not make them literal, particularly in a book that uses symbols and numbers as representatives in vision images, to convey its message. And when we nearly always see in the OT, numbers being used because they represent specific things. I.e. seven, three, forty, six, 10, and when they are used in multiples such as 12x12 or multiples of 10 often it is representing a complete (containing all of something) or a multitude, or an long but undesignated period of time. That cannot be ignored, especially when applying them to apocalyptic literature, makes more sense to reality and the rest of scripture, that taking them literally does. WHen taking them literally distorts other parts of Scripture.

You on the other hand have spiritualized the 1,000 years with no reason to do so....other than that's what you have been taught and now is your bias.

I have not spiritualized it. I have applied a biblical principle to it. One that won't have apocalyptic literature being interpreted as though it were historical narrative. Just for the record, I was taught and believed your pre-trib pre-mil first. It was becoming aware that that was just one view of several, and exploring the several, that made me see the inconsistencies with Scripture that were in the first. The one btw, which is what you have been taught and is now your bias. The argument is a logical fallacy.

In previous post you mentioned we are currently in this 1,000 year time period...yet Satan clearly isn't chained up in a pit but rather roaming around like a roaring tiger seeking to kill and destroy.

That is because neither the pit nor the chains are literal, and the message of the passage is not that he is not bound from all activity but just one thing---deceiving the nations. The point I was trying to drive home in my first two posts.

As mentioned before to you with a weak or no reply...I have asked when Rev 8 has happened?
In fact I've provided you with current science concerning a possibility with asteroid apophis 99942. Remember?

Not in this thread you haven't and it is irrelevant to this conversation so I am not dealing with it here either. I am dealing with one thing here, not the entire book of Revelation. Neither does current science and the possibility of an asteroid have anything to do with this conversation. Stick to the present and the present conversation, not the entire map.

I've already mentioned several possibilities...and told you who I believe the restrainer is

Crow I did not ask you about "several possibilities". And I did not ask you who you believe the restrainer is. I ask you what you thought about what I said. Was it possible? But never mind. It is clear I will get nowhere with my inquiries.

Yes, the restrainer is currently holding back the antichrist. The restrainer is like a dam holding back a body of water....sure some water may flow around the dam or through the dam....but for the most part it's a trickle in comparison. When the dam is removed...taken out of the way...there is a flood.

It is my belief that christians are holding back the flood, they are the dam empowered...enabled, authorized, and allowed... used..by God to restrain evil. That is to stand against the schemes of the devil. To stand against the rulers, to stand against the authorities, to stand against the cosmic powers and to stand against this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. We Christians are the restrainer. Could I be wrong? Yup, I presented several other possibilities and brief reasons why I don't think they are the restrainer.

Repeating yourself is not what I ask you to do. What I replied to this the first time you posted it is what I ask you to address. But never mind. It ain't gonna happen. I don't know why you ended your post with a quote from my post and said nothing about it.

 

[CrowCross]

You say they are literal but that does not make them literal, particularly in a book that uses symbols and numbers as representatives in vision images, to convey its message.

Oh, so the whole book is symbolic? really???

I have not spiritualized it.

Yes you have.

 

[prism]

The word apostasia (apostasy) can mean a physical departure or it can mean a theological departure.
In this instance physical departure is the best fit.

Which would mean the Rapture. Andy Woods seems to zero in on this point nicely.

 

[CrowCross]

Which would mean the Rapture. Andy Woods seems to zero in on this point nicely.

Andy Woods does a great job explaining it.

2 Thes 2:3 says...

1599 Geneva 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that the man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

ESV Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

KJV Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

NASB No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

For a study of the word 646. apostasia click link. The word was only used twice. The root word 868. aphistémi may help with the understanding of the word.

The word seems to have several nuances depending on the context of the verse. The verse in context is a review of 1st Thes as Paul was trying to fix the false teachings in the false letter.

The question is...what is the "apostasia" shown in red above? Is it physical or spiritual?

Is it the church falling away from the teaching of the bible....or....is it the church physically departing from the earth...as in the RAPTURE?
The 1599 version used departing and the later translators choose to use words that represent a defection rather than a physical leaving.

Concerning a physical departure the word apostasia is derived from the word aphistémi. Acts 12:10 uses this word as follows
"and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him." This departure wasn't a spiritual departure but rather a physical departure.

2 thes 2 starts off with a discription of the "gathering" which is the rapture....then describes it in verse 3 as the departure.

Right now I'm going with "Rapture". That is the idenity of anti-christ will not be know until after the rapture.

The verse can be read as follows...Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rapture comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

 

[prism]

Is it the church falling away from the teaching of the bible....or....is it the church physically departing from the earth...as in the RAPTURE?
The 1599 version used departing and the later translators choose to use words that represent a defection rather than a physical leaving.

He goes on to add that the Wycliffe, Geneva, Beza, and Jerome's Bibles all indicated a physical departure.
It is speculated that a 'spiritual' departure was introduced by the Rheims (1576) as a push back against the Protestant Reformation (1517+) (hence the spiritual departure).

Douay-Rheims
2Thess 2: 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,