Don19

I would strongly urge you not to. I personally doubt you will find a truly born again Christian within the ranks of Quakerism. I do know this group emphasizes the so-called "social gospel" which is no gospel at all. I believe Quakers claim all men have an "inner light," which is false. A corrupt tree, which is man, can only bear corrupt fruit. Only Jesus Christ is the light of the world. But Satan and his ministers do appears as angels of light (2 Cor 11:14-15). I don't see the gospel on the Quakers Australia website. And there's this: https://www.quakersaustralia.info/about-us/our-beliefs And this... Which is a denial of the faith of the Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). There's no answer besides Him. And He is the ONLY Way. No one comes to the Father except through Him. He died and rose again for our sins. If they do not preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, they're not of God. RUN, don't walk, from these heretics!

I don't see this having anything to do with water baptism. In fact, I'm convinced that we'll never understand water baptism if we don't understand that its purpose changed in the book of Acts. Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized in Acts 10, but that was after they'd received the Spirit! You'll recall that Peter preached repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2. Furthermore, Jesus said He would give the keys of the kingdom to Peter in Matthew 16, and this is probably the #1 verse that Catholicism has usurped in order to assert that it, alone, has the keys to the kingdom. However, Jesus gave the keys to Peter, not his "successors." And Peter exercised such authority in water baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit. But that's the circumcision gospel (see Gal 2:7). Paul's distinctive gospel (which is God's final revelation, and through which God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ - Rom 2:16) entails the gift of the Spirit by faith, not water baptism. Paul himself received the Spirit before he was baptized in water. Paul asks in Romans 10:14, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed [...]" - so I take it that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is a necessary condition to calling on Him. Rom 10:10: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." To the extent that we would separate believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth, the former is unto eternal salvation (compare Rom 10:3 - the righteousness is God's righteousness imputed) and the latter is about a time salvation (i.e., not eternal salvation). Because Paul draws a contrast here between the law of Moses and the gospel of Jesus Christ in Romans 10. The word being nigh, in the heart and in the mouth, is taken from Deuteronomy 30:14 in reference to the law of Moses - that the man who does those things commanded in the law of Moses shall live by them (Rom 10:5). Indeed: But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. (Deuteronomy 30:14) But the righteous live by faith (Hab 2:4). It has been well-observed that not every instance of the word "salvation" in the Bible refers to an eternal salvation. Here, I believe it refers to the deliverance in the life of a believer from a guilty conscience. Likewise, calling upon the name of the Lord is linked to salvation in Rom 10, which is time salvation, because Paul clearly sets forth belief as the primary, necessary antecedent to calling upon the name of the Lord in verse 14. This is the same sort of time salvation spoken of in 1 Tim 4:16 by continuing in correct doctrine, and it is conducive to the end that the just shall live by faith--not that they should retain eternal salvation, which is impossible to lose once one has received the earnest of the Spirit. And how is it a salvation or deliverance? Because the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual (2 Cor 10:4), so believers are fighting an ongoing war against the powers of darkness in this life, and the way to overcome that is by faith in Jesus Christ. Eternal salvation is not, and cannot be, contingent on a confession with the mouth, because that is a work. God gave the Spirit to Cornelius and the Gentiles when they heard and believed, even while Peter was speaking. Neither is it contingent on a prayer, because that is also a work. Water baptism is a work. So it is through faith.

As I understand it, those who practice infant baptism believe that their children are "in the covenant" somehow by that act, on a conditional basis, until they are born again by believing on Jesus Christ. This is a very serious error, because the New Covenant is wholly promissory (Gal 3:18). There's no such thing as a conditional arrangement. Everyone who has partaken in New Covenant will surely be saved (John 4:13-14, John 6:50-51). Water baptism is not a "covenant sign," as some teach, but a command or ordinance (Acts 10:44-48). The gift of the Spirit is no longer conditioned on water baptism, as in Acts 2, since God poured out the Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10. Rather, the gift of the Spirit is by faith (Gal 3:2, 3:14; Eph 1:13), as in Acts 10. Water baptism looks forward to the baptism of the Holy Spirit (John 1:33, 1 Cor 12:13).

Is the whole tree not rotten? Is there a branch of Lutheranism that denies water regeneration, and affirms eternal security? Because the "conservative" LCMS spouts paradox theology and other corrupt fruit, as I judge it from their website. Paradox theology is a sneaky way of denying truth.

I'm not sure about Luther himself, but my point stands because Lutheranism is its own thing. And water regeneration + conditional security = "another gospel."

I don't have a positive view of Lutheranism. It's not the gospel. Lutheranism teaches a form of baptismal regeneration and denies eternal security.

Let’s rather thank God, seeing that He works all things after the counsel of His own will. Rom 8:28: 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. God is sovereign over all things, including evil, including the antichrist. Should we thank Satan or Judas for their wicked actions in crucifying Jesus—without which, we’d have no salvation? Of course not! We thank God for our salvation! We thank Jesus for laying down His own life for us. We thank God that He uses even the wicked deeds for men for our ultimate good! Which is why this suggestion to thank Catholicism for anything is preposterous. Our battle is spiritual, not carnal. 2 Cor 10:4: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Physical warfare has no spiritual significance for us. We can and should recognize God’s sovereign hand in it, however.

1 Cor 3:18-20:King James Version 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 1 Cor 1:23-31: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. Mat 11:25: 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

The pope's title is "vicar of Christ" or "vicar of the Son of God," which essentially means antichrist. The Greek word "anti" means "in place of" and not just "opposed to." https://biblehub.com/greek/473.htm "Vicar" is related to the word "vicarious" which means the same thing. The "temple of God" here is just a reference to the fact that the pope leads a so-called church of Christ. Vatican II didn't make the Roman Catholic Church any less of the antichrist religion it truly is. Catholicism still denies eternal security and holds itself out as the only true church. It still affirms papal infallibility. Rome changed its focus and now tries to absorb rather than persecute Bible-believing Christians. https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=vatican-ii-changed-only-protestants

Because some statements in the Bible that appear universal are actually more limited. Case in point... Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. Kind of like how we have "The World Series" in baseball. The papacy is not as strong as it once was. Indeed. And as Paul said: 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: (2 Thess 2:8) The reference to the man of sin being consumed by the spirit of His mouth should be interpreted to mean that the gospel has undermined Rome. And indeed it has. So the only thing that still needs to happen now is for the pope to be destroyed by Jesus when He returns. Maranatha!

Because Heb 9:26 says at His first appearance, He appeared to put away sin. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself He Who knew no sin was made sin. His first appearance was in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). So I believe verse 28, then, which speaks of His second appearance, will be "without sin" in a manner that contrasts with His first appearance. He will judge the world then. But at His first appearance, He said He did not come to judge the world (John 12:47). I don't subscribe to a pre-trip rapture. I believe the "rapture," as it were--plainly spoken of in places such as 1 Thess 4--occurs at the end of the world. Yes, He did come in judgment against Jerusalem, but that is clearly not the coming of 1 Thess 4, or 1 Cor 15:51-52: 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Compare to 1 Thess 4:16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: So this is when the dead are raised. That's what I mean by the 2nd coming. Maybe our president's surname is a sign. We can hope... There's a future element of the last days spoken of, however. Consider 2 Thess 2:3, 2 Peter 3:3, 2 Tim 3:1-13. 2 Peter 3 is especially pertinent to the end of the world. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. This is not symbolic or metaphorical language, and it didn't happen in 70 AD. The events of the first century were a shaking of the heavens and the earth (Haggai 2:6), not a melting of the elements. But then Paul in 2nd Thess 2 tells them that the day is not at hand! 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 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; I believe, clearly, the man of sin is the pope, and the restraining power spoken of was pagan Rome. Furthermore, the Thessalonians in the 1st century were not caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (or "raptured") as Paul described. I believe I've shown otherwise.

Colossians 1:13 says we have been translated into the kingdom. 1 Cor 15:24 says that Jesus shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father at His return.

1 Thess 4:15-17 works for me: 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The only missing word is "second" but that is not a big deal.

But what "day" is under consideration if not the 2nd coming? It's clearly the 2nd coming. Surely Paul is not talking about 70 AD, which would not affect the Thessalonians. So the "you" can be applied to believers of all generations, just like the "we" in 1 Thess 4:17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Again, clearly a text dealing with the 2nd coming.

Paul uses the term travail in reference to the the 2nd coming in 1 Thess 5:3. This suggests the 2nd coming may be preceded by birth pangs. Could COVID be a birth pang? It certainly could. Interestingly, the WHO, CDC, and President Trump all downplayed it (“peace and safety” perhaps). And the sun won’t last billions of years. It’s roughly 6500 years. It’s not billions of years old. For instance, it rotates 200 times more slowly than it should if the nebular hypothesis (old universe model) were true, violating the conservation of angular momentum. God created it about 6000-6500 years ago, as He did the rest of the cosmos. http://creationwiki.org/Sun

I’m not premil, but I still have to surmise that the regathering of Jews into the state of Israel has some eschatological significance, although it can be debated what exactly that may be. Thinking perhaps along the lines of Romans 11 or Luke 21:24. Moreover, though it is not specifically a biblical reason, it seems to me that the acceleration of technological advances, overpopulation, etc. would indicate the end is drawing near. I mean, really, how much longer can this continue. But prior to the industrial revolution, I suppose you could have argued for a longer duration of the world. What’s to stop someone in 1500 AD from thinking that the world could continue another 1500 years to 3000 AD before Christ returns? The world could have continued another 1500 years without an industrial revolution—and without modern cities and technology and transportation—from such a standpoint. But, as it stands today, I can’t see this world continuing on its current trajectory all the way to 3000. Even 2100 may be too far out before the Lord returns.

The context of Rom 8:28-39 is soteriological, not eschatological. You must have missed the part of my last post where I addressed it.

Yes, we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. If as few as 1% of Americans were elect, just that number would still be as the stars, based on the use of that concept in Deut 1:10 and the historical number to which it referred. Because 1% of Americans would be about 3.3 million souls. I'm not saying the percentage is that small; I say this for the sake of argument. (Of course, even if it were that, there's also all the dead in Christ, plus believers from other countries, etc.) Nevertheless, because the number of the redeemed is described both as a remnant and as the number of stars, I don't think my reasoning is too far off. In absolute numbers, even quite a small remnant today, in relative terms, fits the bill, being as the number of stars. Otherwise, how do we reconcile the concept of a "remnant" with the number of stars? I conclude both are true, since the Bible speaks of both as being true. I don't think postmil does this, as it posits a time when perhaps the majority of the world will be regenerate, which is not a "remnant" and which would seem to undermine all the Biblical precepts which treat of the church as a remnant, as not of this world, and as strangers and pilgrims, etc. So what? There are many things about the Reformed tradition that are unbiblical. A lot of that tradition is based on Augustine, but I believe Augustine was wrong. I believe Augustine denied individual assurance of salvation. Even Roman Catholicism teaches predestination, and that there is an elect whose salvation is assured. In an of itself, that's not the gospel. Without a basis for assurance for oneself, such a thing is useless. But Jesus promises us better gifts from our heavenly Father (Luke 11:11-13). Many of the Puritans were quite wrong on this issue. On that note, perseverance of the saints is a poor substitute for the Bible doctrine of preservation, or eternal security. Assurance is of the essence of faith. I wonder if "ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3:7) doesn't describe at least some Reformed (not all). Yes, I agree that the Olivet Discourse refers to 70 AD. Yes, some uses of "salvation" are not, strictly speaking, in reference to eternal salvation. Mat 24:13 is talking about temporal salvation from the events of 70 AD, not perseverance of the saints as many Reformed claim. But some take this "conditional time salvation" to an unbiblical extreme. So this goes back to your asking me to reconcile Satan as a stooge with him as the "god of this world." I believe I've made my position quite clear: Satan is defeated because he has no power to wrest us from the hands of God. No other power, if it were granted to us over Satan, even comes close! Hence why Jesus told the 70 not to rejoice in those temporal powers, but to rejoice because their names are written in heaven. I think it's quite clear from Scripture that God gives Satan free rein in many respects in this world. He is a far more powerful being than any of us. Neither Judas nor Peter are treated of as having any "free will," as it were, to resist the devil's designs for them with respect to the events surrounding Jesus's crucifixion. None of us could resist the devil on our own, which is why we need to be dependent on God. So I believe that's part of God's design in Satan. He has created an adversary far stronger than any of us, that He might be our Fortress against the devil. All things were created by God and for God (Col 1:16), including Satan. Now, many people think too much of the devil. No question about that. But it is also wrong to call him powerless, because Scripture treats him otherwise. But, like I said, he's a total stooge in God's hands. But his wiles force us into a position of greater dependence on God, and not ourselves.

This is one of the other issues with this postmil idea; the Bible describes the last days as "perilous" with many false professors (2 Tim 3:1-13). I can't ascertain the number of actual born-again Christians in the world, but it is certainly not 2 billion. Yes, I know, the number will be as the stars of heaven. So was Israel in Deut 1:10 described as such. And that would be, what, a couple million at most? But over half of the 2 billion today belong to denominations that teach a form of works-salvation (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Mormonism, even many Protestants, etc.) - and these are not regenerate believers, if they rely on their own works and not on Christ. Jesus said the way is narrow that leads to life, and few there be that find it (Mat 7:14). He said He will tell "many" to depart from Him who, from the context, clearly thought they were Christians (Mat 7:21-23). And what was the will of the Father that these reprobates did not do? They did not believe on Jesus (John 6:40). Truly, the elect are a remnant (Joel 2:32). The number of the elect is fixed by God. Nothing man can do to change that through evangelism. We can only serve as instruments in God's hands to bring the unconverted elect to faith. But if they are reprobates, they'll be cast away, just as the kingdom is compared to a net cast into the sea that gathers every kind with the wicked afterwards gathered up and cast away (Mat 13:47-49).

I believe we had this discussion in another thread. Paul condemned the Judaizers for preaching another gospel because they preached circumcision for salvation. Everything else could have been right (the resurrection, forgiveness of sins, etc.), but that little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (Gal 5:9). The gospel is salvation in Christ through faith, not the "dominion mandate." One can preach dominionism while neglecting to preach God's everlasting salvation. And such a one would be preaching "another gospel." Jesus blessed the meek, the mournful, the poor in spirit - not the domineering. He even told His disciples that they must be converted and become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mat 18:3). The gospel is that God has saved His people through Christ Jesus, and that we are eternally secure in this salvation, being given the earnest of the Spirit. Hence, you must become as a little child, being rocked to sleep in the cradle of grace. The great commission was given specifically to the apostles. I see no reason why it would apply to every member of the Body, as each one has a different gift and serves a different function. I do believe God equips evangelists and missionaries today, but that's not all Christians. The "dominion mandate," as it were, has been fulfilled spiritually in Christ. It is through Christ that we overcome the world, not through dominionism. Paul says we are more the conquerors through Him that loved us (Rom 8:37). Notice the word Paul uses - conquerors. More than conquerors! Is that reserved only for super-Christians with super evangelistic zeal, or are we all more than conquerors through Him Who loved us, even with simple, childlike faith in Him? I say it's the latter. It is the great love wherewith He loved us that makes us overcomers. Not anything in ourselves and not anything that we are able to accomplish in this world or for Him. At the end of the day, every last one of us is an unprofitable servant - i.e., it costs God more to retain us in His service than it would if He let us go. But He has promised He will never leave us or forsake us, and confirmed His promise with an oath (Heb 6:13-20). Because God's purpose has everything to do with love - such that the apostle John even said God is love! The world understands dominionism. The masses wanted to make Jesus a King by force, to overthrow pagan Rome, but He refused their carnal ambitions--instead dying on the cross for the sins of His elect. That's how Jesus overcame the world, by His death and resurrection. And that how we do that same - by dying to our sins (that is, to be released from the law of sin and death), and walking in newness of life in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:4). As Paul says, we are dead and our life is hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3). And likewise, we have been raised up and seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6).

I agree he had no warrant to divorce his wife. Marriage is to be a lifelong commitment between a husband and wife. I meant that Jesus's words in Mat 19:12 are a suggestion to the unmarried that, if they are able to accept that state, that they ought to do so. But it's a personal decision, and most people are not able to accept celibacy. I agree with you that marriage reflects the image of God in the way you describe. That being said, I do believe the "marriage as a dubious prospect, one that is no longer recommended unless the person can be content with it" is indeed what the New Testament teaches. Paul also plainly said, 32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." (1 Cor 7:32-34) So the unmarried man can be more focused on pleasing the Lord, without the cares of this world such as pleasing his wife. Moreover, marriage is not the final state for man, and Jesus says we will neither marry nor be given in marriage in the resurrection (Mat 22:30). So marriage only adumbrates for us the love of God, and even our relationship with Him. Moreover, the "dominion mandate" is carnal and does not belong to the gospel of Jesus Christ. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). We are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us (Rom 8:37). That's how we have dominion - spiritually, not carnally, through the love of Jesus Christ and the victory He has won for us, being seated in heavenly places in Him (Eph 2:6). This world is going to be destroyed soon by fire (2 Peter 3:10), and a new heavens and a new earth created. And we will have new, glorious, physical bodies. This world is cursed. Nothing that's of this world can even compare to this eternal state.

That's another good point: the New Testament speaks of being counted worthy to suffer for Jesus Christ (Acts 5:41). That can only be done joyfully if we have our eyes on eternity, and not this world. The early Christians sold their lands and houses to distribute the proceeds to Christians in need (Acts 4:34-35). Why not do that sort of thing under the law? No, it has to be grace that enables us to do that. It's has to be that certainty, that knowledge of eternal felicity that enables us to suffer here and now, to esteem others more highly than ourselves.

Satan is basically a stooge. He can do no more or less than God permits. Jesus corrected the 70 and told them to be joyful about their names being written in heaven, not their power over devils (we know based on other biblical revelation that having one's name written in heaven is eternal, not just from that verse alone). The magnitude of the difference in blessing here is hard to comprehend. But we're here in this world for a short time, such that the sufferings of this present world are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us (Rom 8:14). It's like if I promised you a $1, and you were happy. But then I said, no wait, I'll give $100 million dollars. Would you ask: "okay great, but what about the $1"? Am I unfaithful if I give you exactly $100 million? Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that the saints did not always have all power over the devil in this world. Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine and not water only for his stomach's sake and for his frequent infirmities (1 Tim 5:23). Paul prayed thrice that his thorn in the flesh, the "messenger of Satan," would be taken from him. And what did God say? "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:7-9) How true is that?! God's grace is sufficient for us. What more could we want, other than salvation through grace by faith in Jesus Christ?

According the prophecy, Satan and his kingdom did indeed prevail against and overcome the saints (Dan 7:21, Rev 13:7) - at least in a visible sense. It also seems from history that no "visible church" of Jesus Christ existed during the dominance of the papacy. Some Baptists believe in an unbroken line of churches dating back to the apostles, but this just cannot be proven from history. Rather, I believe we are to understand Jesus's words in Mat 16:18 that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church, not in the visible sense but in the spiritual. That is, not one of Christ's sheep will be lost (John 10:27-29, 17:2). Thus, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the individual who has been saved, as Jesus Christ baptizes His elect with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33) and with full assurance (1 Thess 1:4-5). There is, after all, a general assembly of the church (Heb 12:23) - just as there is but one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph 4:4-5). "Doom and gloom" is an unfair characterization of the premil and amil position. Most of us are waiting for the blessed hope which is the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus, Who will burn up this present evil world and take us to be with Him forever. That's not "doom and gloom"! Not for us! He has overcome this evil world, and with Him we too are overcomers. When Jesus returns, God's elect will be like a "brand plucked out of the fire" (Zechariah 3:1-2) - which shows the dismal and condemned state of the world, but the blessedness of the saints. There is far too much concern about the things of this world in the postmil position, especially in dominionism, etc.

The "truth of Luke 10:19" is put in perspective by the truth of Luke 10:20 - Jesus plainly tells the 70 not the rejoice in the authority they were given, but the rejoice because their names are written in heaven. So Luke 10:18-20 rather undermines dominion theology. Satan is a defeated foe because he has no ability to undo verse 20 - he has no ability to pluck us out of Jesus's hands or the Father's hands (John 10:27-29). However, he is still the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and seeks whom he may devour, including believers (1 Pet 5:8). So he can still cause us to stumble, but in this life only. Genesis 1:28 is demonstrably not a commandment for Christians today, as both Jesus and Paul recommend celibacy, but only for those who are able to be content with it (Mat 19:12, 1 Cor 7:7-9).