Revelation 20 – The Millennial Regin, the Loosing of Satan, and the Great White Throne & Democracy Is Not Freedom by Ron Paul

As I had said yesterday, I’m not that keen on politics, but I’m not an idiot either (if I was I’d work in D.C.) so I can certainly understand the below article.

Or at least what I think Ron Paul is saying is that we need to fire most people that are in the White House and Congress and start all over again, start with people that are true Americans, people that follow Jesus, like President Trump.

There are only two more chapters of the Bible so tomorrow I want to talk about the most important matter in everyone’s life.  You need to take a close look at yourself and ask…

Revelation 20
The Millennial Regin, the Loosing of Satan,
and the Great White Throne

As the final moment arrives to complete the judgment of sinners, we can expect that arrogance and rebellion have finally finished their course.
The Bible is filled with godless men that were always ready to laugh in the face of God.
The nature of sin, which started in Heaven among the angels and invaded the garden of perfect beauty to defile the human family, was never a light thing.

Some men restrain themselves lest they show the full potential of their evil possibility, but the ultimate powers are never far below the surface.

Sin is deeply rooted and blatantly destructive.

When sin is unrestrained, it is as dark as midnight.

Even when it is restrained, it is still nothing but naked death.

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

20:1-22:21 – These last three chapters reflect many of the subjects and themes of the first three chapters of Genesis.

“Bottomless pit” – Greek abyss.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

“Thousand years” – the millennium (from the Latin mille, “thousand,” and annus, “year”).

It is taken literally by some as 1,000 actual years, while others interpret it metaphorically as a long but underdetermined period of time.

There are three basic approaches to the subject of the millennium:

1. Amillennialism: The millennium describes the present reign of the souls of deceased believers with Christ in heaven.

2. Premillennialsim: The present form of God’s kingdom is moving toward a grand climax when Christ will return to establish His kingdom is moving toward a grand climax when Christ will return to establish His kingdom in a literal, visible reign of peace and righteousness on the earth.

3. Postmillennialism: The world will eventually be Christianized, resulting in a long period of peace and prosperity called the millennium.

This future period will close with Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment and the eternal state.

The context favors the second view. The 1,000 years are mentioned six times, and there is every reason to take them literally, not allegorically.

The result of sin was clearly visible when Lucifer chose a creature to hide within and stole his way into the first garden.
That creature walked into the presence of Adam; but because of the weight of sin’s consequence, he had to crawl out.

This has been the perfect result of sin for six thousand years.

Sin never leaves with the same beauty with which it enters.

Sin is totally incapable of maintaining the joy of its own action.

By sin’s own nature, it is not capable of one act without leaving a dark mark on its victim.

If the human family could simply gather up the fragments left of anyone overcome by sin and look at it without the facade that Satan has produced, we would hate its every expression.

We see only the obscure lines of age, disease, exhaustion, and brokenness and forget that all of this is the remnant of the fallen nature.

With our naked eyes, we have never seen a man or woman that hasn’t been touched by sin; so, we do not know for what to look.

Sin works deeply, often slowly, but it holds firmly.

When it is finished, nothing is left.

The Bible never covers over this story, but “we see through a glass darkly” (I Cor 13:12).

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and Judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

“Souls of them that were beheaded” – this seems to be the souls of all those believers who died in the tribulation.

“The lived” – the first resurrection.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

“Rest of the dead” – the wicked, referring to all unsaved dead from Cain onward. They will not be raised until after the millennial reign of Christ.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

“Second death” – defined in v. 14 as the “lake of fire.”

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

“Gog and Magog” – symbolize the nations of the world as they band together for a final assault on God. The Old Testament background is Eze 38-39.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were Judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

“Judged…according to their works” – the principle of judgment on the basis of works is taught in Ps 62:12; Jer 17:10; Rom 2:6; 1 Pet 1:17 and elsewhere.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were Judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 

Democracy Is Not Freedom

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts. ~ Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq.

They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.

Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated.

In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.”
Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions.

In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom.

Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom.

Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. 

James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government,
“There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect preexisting rights.

Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy.

Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations.
Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free?

Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free?

The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly.

For all our talk a bout freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future.

They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion.

Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world.

The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else.

States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud.

For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens.

Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers.

This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes.

If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations.
If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion.

So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.

To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away.

But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others.

In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive — and thus incompatible with freedom.

“Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength.

Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state — but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism.

Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world.

The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed.

“Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics.

If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.

We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule.

We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action.

We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word. 

…am I saved?