Can a tare become saved?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Though, it is primarily about the end of the age, there are these parts, below. Why isn't verse 25 significant?

Goodness sakes. Why do you insist on misrepresenting almost everything I say? Show me where I said verse 25 is insignificant.

Have you never any even thought about any of the following? Do you just interpret things sometimes, keeping in mind I said sometimes not all of the time, without actually thinking some of these things through first?

Is it your goal to just annoy me? I have tried to offer an olive branch to you to stop these personal insults and you apparently have decided to reject that offer and insist on making personal insults. I did the same thing with Zao is life and now we are getting along much better because of making an effort to stop the personal insults. Why is it that you have no interest in doing the same?

Such as the following below?

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Obviously, this has to have a beginning. Which means before the enemy did this there were no tares among the wheat in the meantime.

Read the parable of the sower that Jesus told just before this parable.

Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; 4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: 5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: 8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Here is what He said to explain that parable.

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Remember, the tares are described as "the children of the wicked one" (Matt 13:38). What unbeliever doesn't fit that description? None.

So, to me, the tares represent those who "heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart", those who "heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended" and those "that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful".

The wheat represent those "that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty".

The reason it talks about the devil sowing tares among the wheat that is already in the field is because someone isn't considered part of the wheat or tares until they have responded to the gospel message. Those who responded favorably to it when it was first preached, like the disciples were the original wheat in the field. But, when the gospel message started being preached to others by the disciples then there were those who "heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart". See what came first there? The gospel was first preached by Jesus to the disciples and they accepted it and were then wheat in His field. After that they preached the gospel to others and they "understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart". So, the sowing of the good seed in the field that became wheat came first, followed by the sowing of the tares.

That alone proves that it is not reasonable that the lost in general are in view here. After all, before what verse 25 records happens, no one is going to argue that the lost in general don't exist yet. Should we read verse 25 like such?

While men were still awake, thus still paying attention, there were no lost in general yet. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed the lost in general among the wheat, and went his way.

Once again, before this happens first---while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat---there obviously were no tares among the wheat in the meantime. Verse 25 has to have a beginning. The lost in general have been around since the days of Cain. There is zero connection with the lost in general and the tares meant here.

You are not recognizing that before hearing the gospel everyone is neutral and is neither part of the wheat nor the tares. Once someone responds to the gospel they then become a child of Christ's kingdom or a child of the devil, depending on their response.

Again, if you read the parable of the sower you can see that Jesus sowed many seeds, but not all of them "fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.". Initially, He only sowed seeds on good ground and it brought forth wheat (children of the kingdom) which were His disciples. When they began preaching to others then they "understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart". That initially included the Pharisees so they were the initial tares that Satan sowed in the field.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why do you think this is a literal description of Satan's binding?

I didn't say it was literal. I argue that a pit metaphor discounts the idea of restricted influence. Not only does the pit metaphor indicate a lack of influence, but the idea that Satan is placed into the pit so that he is unable to deceive the nations.

It's not. It's not talking about Satan being literally cast into a literal Abyss with a literal great chain with a literal Abyss then being literally locked with a literal key.

I know that. Pay attention.

Premils don't give much thought to what it means for Satan to "deceive the nations".

Exegetically speaking, Revelation 20:3 states that Satan is bound in the abyss so that he cannot deceive the nations until the thousand years are completed. The text does not explicitly limit this deception to Israel's enemies, but rather speaks broadly of "the nations." Some interpretations suggest that this period of restraint allows for a time of peace and prosperity, where Christ's reign prevents Satan from influencing the world.

However, when Satan is released, he immediately deceives the nations again, leading them into rebellion against God's people. This suggests that his binding was specifically to prevent this deception and rebellion during the millennial reign.

Satan's deception plays a key role in stirring up opposition against God's people. If Satan deceived Israel's enemies, they would be more likely to attack. By restraining him, God ensures a temporary period where such deception does not occur.

So, they think him being bound means he is unable to deceive at all and is completely incapacitated.

I guess you weren't listening. The bottomless pit metaphor conveys the idea that Satan is entirely incapacitated.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In Matthew 13:24-30 we have the parable of the weeds, then in verses 36-43 we have the explanation of the parable.

The Amil view has Satan bound from deceiving and keeping people in darkness during a current millennium. If Satan is bound and unable to deceive then it would seem to be possible for an undeceived tare to recognize they are a tare and accept Jesus as their savior. However in Matthew 13:40 the tares are gathered and burned in the fire.

We know weeds can’t literally turn into wheat plants, which would seem to be a major point of the parable, but that would require a Premil view of Satan not being bound and the tares continuing to be deceived and in darkness until the harvest.

So I’m asking a simple question, can a tare become saved? And a follow up question, how does this fit with Satan being bound or not bound?

From a human perspective yes.

From divine perspective- never.

God knows wheat from tares. He never tells us to gather tares so he can make them wheat.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I implied no such thing. Not even close.

If what I hear you say is not what you mean, then clarify your argument.

Yes, exactly. And I am saying that Satan's binding relates to that.

I know. But you deny the obvious fact that if Satan is causing fear of death, then he is not bound in the way John indicates. Have you never seen a bottomless pit?

In some capacity, yes. So, you acknowledge that his power is restrained to some extent. I believe that represents his binding.

We both agree that Satan's activity has been restricted since Jesus' first advent, allowing the Gospel to spread. However, the Amillennial perspective has drawn the wrong conclusion from the correlation between Satan's limited influence and the spread of the Gospel. His influence is restricted because Jesus sent the Spirit of Truth to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Satan's activity is restricted primarily because of God's sovereignty, not due to any inherent weakness or privation on his part. Scripture consistently portrays Satan as a powerful adversary, but one who operates within the limits set by God.

Some theological perspectives emphasize that Satan's power is curtailed by divine permission—he cannot act beyond what God allows, as seen in the book of Job. Others highlight that the Holy Spirit is infinitely more powerful, ensuring that believers are protected and that Satan's influence is ultimately defeated.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 addresses concerns about the coming of the Lord and warns against deception regarding the timing of His return. Paul reassures the Thessalonians that the Day of the Lord has not yet come, emphasizing that certain events must occur first.

Key points from the passage:
The "man of lawlessness" must be revealed before Christ's return. This figure opposes God and exalts himself.
A restraining force is currently holding back this lawlessness until the appointed time.
Satan's deception will be at work, leading many astray through false signs and wonders.
God allows a strong delusion for those who reject the truth, leading them to believe falsehoods.
Believers are encouraged to stand firm in their faith, knowing they are chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit.

Paul's message is both a warning and an encouragement, urging believers to remain steadfast and discerning. Sanctification by the Spirit plays a crucial role in restraining lawlessness, as believers are set apart and empowered to resist deception.

In this context, it is apparent that while Amillennialism describes Satan as being "bound," this does not mean he is entirely powerless. His ability to deceive is limited, though not completely eradicated. The metaphor of the pit mentioned in Revelation 20 is commonly understood as a place of complete restriction for Satan, preventing him from misleading the nations during the millennial reign. The imagery of being bound with a chain and sealed in the abyss indicates a significant limitation on his influence.

Look at the text more carefully. While bound they are not kept from doing anything at all, but rather from tormenting those without the seal of God.

The absence of evidence is not proof. The text doesn't say what they were doing while they were bound. They were let go to perform their evil.

Wrong. Notice it says five of its heads, representing kingdoms, had fallen, and one "is". How could the beast not exist if one of its heads existed?

The head will exist in the future.

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

While it is true that Hitler was a baptized Catholic in his youth – He was Catholic name ONLY. He was no more a practicing Catholic than Charles Manson was a “peaceful hippie”.

Not only did Hitler NOT attribute his reign of terror to Jesus – he was heavily into promoting the pagan power of Teutonic gods for his success.

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

Adolf Hitler on Christianity: Quotes

Hitler often proclaimed his Christianity, how much he valued it, how important it was to his life, and even how much he was personally inspired by Jesus.

www.learnreligions.com

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter
2

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

Some Say Hitler Was an Atheist, But His Quotes Suggest Otherwise

If Adolf Hitler was an atheist, why did he keep saying that he believed in God and was doing God's work? His quotes show how he used theist belief.

www.learnreligions.com

 

[Davidpt]

I'm trying to help you here. Emotional arguments are logical fallacies, not reasoned arguments. Appeals to emotion are generally not preferred in rational discussions or debates because they can cloud judgment and lead to biased reasoning rather than objective analysis. While emotions are powerful and can be persuasive, relying too heavily on emotional appeal can distort facts, oversimplify complex issues, or manipulate audiences.

You prove without a doubt that it matters zero whether or not one can keep their emotions contained. Clearly, you can. No one denies that. But even so, still there are many of us that don't agree with you about everything you conclude. There are some in here that don't agree with anything you conclude. I'm not one of them since there are some things I agree with you about, just not everything.

If, in your mind, one that can keep their emotions contained, that this is because the truth is on their side, does that then mean anyone that can't keep their emotions contained, that even though they are arguing some of the same things you are arguing, thus agree with you, truth is not on their side because they are at times unable to keep their emotions contained when arguing with others?

 

[Marvelloustime]

By the grace of our HOLY GOD , HIS CHRIST and all that is OF HIM
you looking at a man that was once the worst of the worst , and could still have lipped HE beleived .
But praise be to GOD who is full of mercy and compassion , HE woke this man UP .
PUT HIM RIGHT INTO THE BIBLE TOO .
My goodness i still remember that lovely day . Now it had started out just like every other day before it
WITH a wicked man who loved his sin , YET COULD CLIAM HE BELIEVED IN JESUS .
That should scare the socks off most within even christedome itself .
I wont even begin to list the things i did . It could scare the moles off a sun burnt albino .
Scare the skin off a man what i could do . AND yet most are darn near the same man i was , and the most i speak of
ARE SITTING IN Churches still and even on websites .
BUT i digress . back to the topic. OH that day may have started out the same as every other day before
But by mid to late afternoon a stirring began . LETS PRAISE GOD SHALL WE , cause i sure didnt do that , HE DID .
And a whole different direction by a small stirring began .
FRIEND , i was so stirred up to SEEK and to LEARN OF GOD . it was amazing i must admit .
ANY guesses on what BOOK he put me into . THE HOLY BIBLE .
And man i could not get enough of that book . THANKS BE TO HIS TRUE LOVE HE PUT ON MY HEART for HIM , FOR TRUTH .
I was in it hours upon hours daily . Hours i could enjoy it . ITS LIKE all my heart wanted
was to know and to serve GOD . Some days , were up to EIGHT hours a day .
Do remember i was worst of the worst , SO THIS CAME OF GOD and not me .
Long story short , HE has Kept ME TO THIS DAY in that book .
WHY when i turned on TBN did it leave me empty at the first
WHY when i was so hungry for fellowship in churches DID THIER SERMONS LEAVE ME EMPTY
BUT NOT THE TRUTH IN THAT bible . NOW it didnt take too long to figure out why that was my friend .
THEY preaching THE MIX NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH .
That day was may thirtieth , in the year of our LORD two thousand and six
and as concering the reading of that bible daily
what has changed since that day , NOTHING . I STILL TO THIS DAY LOVE LOVE reading it every single day
WITH OTHERS TOO . yet i reject with upmost disgust THEM OTHER BOOKS so many seem to love .
NOW WHY IS that . CAUSE THEM best selling books , YA BEST LIFE NOW , ya rick warrens
YA SHACK , ya purpose driven life , THEMS BOOKS are DUNG . But the bible sure aint .
WHY do you think i keep on keeping on by the GRACE OF GOD trying to get everyone i know
TO GET back into that BOOK for themselves , and far from the denominations of men .
CAUSE MANY within CHRISTENDOM have been FLEECED and sadly seem to love to have it so .
Folks might be thinking i am too critical , judgmental , too hateful .
THEY WOULD BE WRONG .
I was just like them sold out ones are . BUT GOD TOOK MERCY and BY HIS GRACE
HIS SPIRIT i am trying TO HELP THEM . but friend , for my LOVE am i hated . FOR My love
am i scourned BY MOST ALL EVEN IN CHRISTENDOM . let that sink in for a bit
PEOPLE on even this site are fast to put me on ignore . but man do they love to hear twisted doctrines of men . SOMETHING
aint right , yes indeed CHRISTENDOM , CATHOLIC and PROTESTANT have BEEN TAKEN FOR A RIDE
on the train called the DELUSION that leads to PERDITION . and that is A FACT .

@amigo de christo

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't say it was literal. I argue that a pit metaphor discounts the idea of restricted influence. Not only does the pit metaphor indicate a lack of influence, but the idea that Satan is placed into the pit so that he is unable to deceive the nations.

It's amazing to me that any Premil would acknowledge that it's not literal, and I have never seen any Premil acknowledge that before, so I did just assume that. Glad you at least recognize that it's not literal.

The only thing he is said to not be able to do is to deceive the nations. You relate that to his general ability to deceive and I do not. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and that's what it means. Does that mean he would be unable to persecute Christians? It doesn't say he is bound from doing that. I see no basis for claiming that his binding renders him to be completely incapacitated.

Is that your impression of what "a great chain" represents"? Why would it not instead be a small chain if the purpose of his binding was to completely incapacitate him?

Exegetically speaking, Revelation 20:3 states that Satan is bound in the abyss so that he cannot deceive the nations until the thousand years are completed.

That is correct.

The text does not explicitly limit this deception to Israel's enemies, but rather speaks broadly of "the nations."

That is correct.

Some interpretations suggest that this period of restraint allows for a time of peace and prosperity, where Christ's reign prevents Satan from influencing the world.

I don't see such a thing taught anywhere in scripture.

However, when Satan is released, he immediately deceives the nations again, leading them into rebellion against God's people. This suggests that his binding was specifically to prevent this deception and rebellion during the millennial reign.

It would suggest that in that scenario, sure. But, I think that misses the mark of what his binding is all about and I have shared my view of that in detail.

Satan's deception plays a key role in stirring up opposition against God's people. If Satan deceived Israel's enemies, they would be more likely to attack. By restraining him, God ensures a temporary period where such deception does not occur.

I see Satan's little season as a time where Satan leads a global spiritual attack that unites unbelievers against the church. This results in the mass persecution and apostasy as well as the increase in deception and wickedness that Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:9-13 and that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2:3-12.

I guess you weren't listening. The bottomless pit metaphor conveys the idea that Satan is entirely incapacitated.

What I said was in regards to Premills in general, and this is what I said: "So, they think him being bound means he is unable to deceive at all and is completely incapacitated." and you just confirmed that same understanding here, so how was I not listening?

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

What does this have to do with what I said?

It referred to John 17:12

I was talking about this verse...

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

This is talking about the disciples who were given to Jesus by the Father. Satan was not given to Jesus. This is clearly talking about Judas Iscariot. He was one of the disciples who was given to Jesus and he was lost.

Judas was not lost.

The son of perdition is Satan.

 

[grafted branch]

From a human perspective yes.

From divine perspective- never.

God knows wheat from tares. He never tells us to gather tares so he can make them wheat.

I agree, and since in reality a tare weed never becomes wheat in a farmers field, it would seem best to say the parable should be understood from God’s perspective.

Here’s another problem to consider though, in Matthew 13:39-42 at the harvest the angels gather the tares out of His kingdom and they are burned with fire. In John 3:5 no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and Spirit. The tares are sown by Satan and removed from the kingdom at the harvest yet a tare can’t enter the kingdom to begin with unless they are born of water and Spirit.

What do you make of this apparent contradiction?

 

[Davidpt]

I agree, and since in reality a tare weed never becomes wheat in a farmers field, it would seem best to say the parable should be understood from God’s perspective.

Here’s another problem to consider though, in Matthew 13:39-42 at the harvest the angels gather the tares out of His kingdom and they are burned with fire. In John 3:5 no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and Spirit. The tares are sown by Satan and removed from the kingdom at the harvest yet a tare can’t enter the kingdom to begin with unless they are born of water and Spirit.

What do you make of this apparent contradiction?

The context is the kingdom of God. Not everyone is in the kingdom of God. Certainly, satanists aren't, atheists aren't, nor are unbelieving Jews, to name a few. The only ones in the kingdom of God are the professed saved. Some interpreters apparently think everyone in the world are in the kingdom of God. That everyone in the world is saved. After all, that's what it means to be in the kingdom of God, does it not?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Take this passage, for instance. When the kingdom of God is taken from them does that still mean they are in the kingdom of God? If this verse doesn't prove that everyone on the planet is not in the kingdom of God, nothing does.

So, IOW, context rules. Context determines what something means. The context of the parable in question is the kingdom of God. And what about these ‌in Matthew 21:43? How can they be removed from the kingdom of God when the angels do the reaping when they have already been removed from the kingdom of God way before any of the angels do any reaping?

 

[Dash RipRock]

The wheat receive mercy from God to be saved, and the tares were hardened.

Let me guess, you think those that the Lord did not "elect" He is personally involved in blinding their minds so they will never believe because He does not want them to be saved? That's right out of the demonic teachings of calvinism.

We are born with an hereditary proclivity to selfishness, which is sin.

Wow, so God put in in to every little baby that was ever born?

once a person is saved there is no chance that they can lose their salvation.

That's false doctrine.
Guess you never heard of the Galatians who the Lord said thru the Apostle Paul that they had fallen from grace

God knows wheat from tares. He never tells us to gather tares so he can make them wheat.

He never says the tares cannot get saved either if they repent of their sins and get born again and live for the Lord

I agree, and since in reality a tare weed never becomes wheat in a farmers field

All things are possible with God. To say that is not true is to stand in opposition to the Lord.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

Adolf Hitler on Christianity: Quotes

Hitler often proclaimed his Christianity, how much he valued it, how important it was to his life, and even how much he was personally inspired by Jesus.

www.learnreligions.com

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter
2

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

Some Say Hitler Was an Atheist, But His Quotes Suggest Otherwise

If Adolf Hitler was an atheist, why did he keep saying that he believed in God and was doing God's work? His quotes show how he used theist belief.

www.learnreligions.com

People are judge by their ACTIONS - and NOT not by their obscure statements.
Remember - Joe Biden claims to be a "devout" Catholic - while fighting vehemently for abortion rights . . .

Hitler’s obsession with the occult is well-documented . . .
Occultism in Nazism - Wikipedia

Unholy Alliance: A History of Nazi Involvement with the Occult (New and Expanded Edition) Hardcover – November 15, 2019
Amazon.com

Hitler and the Occult (German Studies) Hardcover – April 1, 1995
https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Occult-German-Studies-Anderson/dp/0879759739​

The Occult History of the Third Reich
The Occult History of the Third Reich - Apple TV

National Geographic: Hitler and the Occult (TV Movie 2007)
National Geographic: Hitler and the Occult (TV Movie 2007) 6.2 | Documentary, Biography, History

As for your allusions to the Church’s involvement with Hitler – you need to do your homework.

Not only did the Church condemn Hitler’s actions – Pope Pius XII was responsible for rescuing more Jews than any singer person. Because of his anti-Nazi heroism - after the war, the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism, taking the birthname of Pius XII (Eugenio) as his Baptismal name.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If what I hear you say is not what you mean, then clarify your argument.

I say the same to you. I try to be as clear as possible, but I suppose I don't always succeed.

I know. But you deny the obvious fact that if Satan is causing fear of death, then he is not bound in the way John indicates. Have you never seen a bottomless pit?

No. And neither have you. There is no such thing as a literal bottomless pit that we can see. Any pit we can see would reach bottom eventually. The pit being bottomless is a figurative expression. The whole description of a dragon being bound with a great chain in a bottomless pit/Abyss is symbolic.

The point I'm making with Hebrews 2:14-15 is that, after Christ died and took the power of death away from Satan, he was no longer able to deceive a vast majority of the world into thinking there was no hope of anything after death which lead them to fear death. Jesus taking the power of death away from Satan has resulted in "a great multitude" from all nations being saved and being guaranteed to inherit eternal life in the new heavens and new earth (Rev 7:9).

We both agree that Satan's activity has been restricted since Jesus' first advent, allowing the Gospel to spread.

It's surprising whenever we agree on anything, so...Yay!

However, the Amillennial perspective has drawn the wrong conclusion from the correlation between Satan's limited influence and the spread of the Gospel.

No, it has not.

His influence is restricted because Jesus sent the Spirit of Truth to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

And Satan needed to be bound for that to happen. He needed to have the power of death taken away (Heb 2:14-15), needed his goods and his house to be spoiled (Matt 12:28-29) and needed his works to be destroyed (1 John 3:8) in order for that to happen.

Satan's activity is restricted primarily because of God's sovereignty, not due to any inherent weakness or privation on his part. Scripture consistently portrays Satan as a powerful adversary, but one who operates within the limits set by God.

Of course, but at times he is given more freedom than others. Such as in OT times and during his little season.

Some theological perspectives emphasize that Satan's power is curtailed by divine permission—he cannot act beyond what God allows, as seen in the book of Job. Others highlight that the Holy Spirit is infinitely more powerful, ensuring that believers are protected and that Satan's influence is ultimately defeated.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 addresses concerns about the coming of the Lord and warns against deception regarding the timing of His return. Paul reassures the Thessalonians that the Day of the Lord has not yet come, emphasizing that certain events must occur first.

Key points from the passage:
The "man of lawlessness" must be revealed before Christ's return. This figure opposes God and exalts himself.
A restraining force is currently holding back this lawlessness until the appointed time.
Satan's deception will be at work, leading many astray through false signs and wonders.

So, this means that particular work of Satan through false signs and wonders either was not occurring previously at all or was not occurring previously to the same extent, right?

God allows a strong delusion for those who reject the truth, leading them to believe falsehoods.

And, part of his he does that is by setting Satan loose.

Believers are encouraged to stand firm in their faith, knowing they are chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit.

Paul's message is both a warning and an encouragement, urging believers to remain steadfast and discerning. Sanctification by the Spirit plays a crucial role in restraining lawlessness, as believers are set apart and empowered to resist deception.

In this context, it is apparent that while Amillennialism describes Satan as being "bound," this does not mean he is entirely powerless.

Right.

Tell me, does the binding of the strong man render him entirely powerless (Matt 12:26-29)?

His ability to deceive is limited, though not completely eradicated. The metaphor of the pit mentioned in Revelation 20 is commonly understood as a place of complete restriction for Satan, preventing him from misleading the nations during the millennial reign. The imagery of being bound with a chain and sealed in the abyss indicates a significant limitation on his influence.

Yes, a limitation, not a complete restriction. The dragon is bound with "a great chain", not a small chain.

The absence of evidence is not proof. The text doesn't say what they were doing while they were bound. They were let go to perform their evil.

Sorry, but I think this is a weak response.

The head will exist in the future.

How does saying the sixth head "is" a case of saying it will exist in the future? If it did not exist at the time John would have said it "is not" as he said about the beast itself. So, at that time there was a sense in which the beast "is not" but also a sense in which the beast "is" because one of its heads "is" that time.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It referred to John 17:12

Judas was not lost.

The son of perdition is Satan.

Tell that to Jesus . . .

Matt. 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man (Judas) who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

 

[grafted branch]

The context is the kingdom of God. Not everyone is in the kingdom of God. Certainly, satanists aren't, atheists aren't, nor are unbelieving Jews, to name a few. The only ones in the kingdom of God are the professed saved. Some interpreters apparently think everyone in the world are in the kingdom of God. That everyone in the world is saved. After all, that's what it means to be in the kingdom of God, does it not?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Take this passage, for instance. When the kingdom of God is taken from them does that still mean they are in the kingdom of God? If this verse doesn't prove that everyone on the planet is not in the kingdom of God, nothing does.

So, IOW, context rules. Context determines what something means. The context of the parable in question is the kingdom of God. And what about these ‌in Matthew 21:43? How can they be removed from the kingdom of God when the angels do the reaping when they have already been removed from the kingdom of God way before any of the angels do any reaping?

I agree not everyone is in the kingdom of God. Here’s how I see it …

If there was a harvest in 70AD then you can have chief priest and Pharisees being removed at that time. Interestingly enough they are also said to be of their father the devil in John 8:44 and the tares are called children of the wicked one in Matthew 13:38.

We know from Matthew 13:37 that word “soweth” is present tense so the Son of man sowed prior to the cross and it would be plausible to say Satan also sowed prior to the cross then went his way.

That would allow for the tares to enter the kingdom, prior to the cross, and have John 3:5 be true after the cross. Everything can fit together and make sense but I know not everyone will agree with me.

 

[Davidpt]

It referred to John 17:12

Judas was not lost.

The son of perdition is Satan.

You have things backwards. Judas is the son of perdition and that he is lost. In 2 Thessalonians 2 the 'Wicked' is meaning the man of sin, it is meaning the son of perdition. Look up the Greek word used for 'Wicked' in that chapter. In not one verse where that same Greek word is used elsewhere, is it ever being used in regards to satan.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Wicked
anomoV
anomos
an'-om-os
from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and nomoV - nomos 3551; lawless, i.e. (negatively) not subject to (the Jewish) law; (by implication, a Gentile), or (positively) wicked:--without law, lawless, transgressor, unlawful, wicked.

The following verses are where that same Greek word can be found.

1 Cor 9:21, 1 Ti 1:9, 2 Pe 2:8. 2 Th 2:8

Also compare 2 Thessalonians 2:8 with the following.

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


This----whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth--with this---And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth

 

[grafted branch]

All things are possible with God. To say that is not true is to stand in opposition to the Lord.

But then you have to claim it’s impossible for God to call someone a tare that He already knows will never accept Him. All things are possible so you contradict yourself.

 

[Dash RipRock]

But then you have to claim it’s impossible for God to call someone a tare that He already knows will never accept Him. All things are possible so you contradict yourself.

Jesus said all things are possible with God - Matthew 19:26

I stand in agreement with the Lord.

Feel free to remain in agreement with the devil and discount the words of the Lord.

 

[grafted branch]

Jesus said all things are possible with God - Matthew 19:26

I stand in agreement with the Lord.

Feel free to remain in agreement with the devil and discount the words of the Lord.

Right, we know it’s possible for God to call a tare someone He already knows will never accept Him. If a tare did become saved then that would make God a liar because He already said a tare was someone who would never accept Him.

Do you think it’s possible for God to lie?