Search results

What? But you just quoted the opposite and applied it to the wicked. That is a total contradiction.

When Paul says, “she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (1 Timothy 5:6), is this talking about spiritual death or physical death?

You totally avoided his question. That is who you are and that is what you do. How is someone raised from spiritual death to spiritual life?

Instead of always repeating what Scofield believes, how about addressing the sacred text and explain what the text says?

Where did you find this phrase "church age saints"?

Your issue is not just with Bible-believing Amils; it is with the Bible. We have our part in it spiritually by faith. Romans 6:4 says, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Colossians 2:12 again concurs, saying...

Oh, really? So, the first resurrection refers to "the rest of the dead" who lived after the thousand years are finished (1 presume after Satan's little season – 1000 years after the second coming)?

In the reference here to “firstfruits,” Paul is effectively outlining an existing truth. He is stating how Christ is currently “the firstfruits,” rather than merely was or will be. The reference here to “the firstfruits” therefore is simply made in the context of what Christ is today rather than...

So, you no longer relate Isaiah 66:22-24 to some supposed millennium after the second coming?

We have our part in it spiritually by faith. Romans 6:4 says, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Colossians 2:12 again concurs, saying, “ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who...

But you are making the first resurrection a future event when Scripture applies it to Christ 2000 years ago. That is where your doctrine falls apart. The "first resurrection" has happened a long time ago. Many Scriptures prove that Christ’s resurrection is the protos or the foremost in time...

When have i said that?

You apply the NHNE in Isaiah 65 to your supposed future millennium. That makes 2.

I am talking about the speculative date-setting.

Avoidance and name-calling is a notable sign of defeat. That is where Premils end up before throwing up the white flag.

That is not a direct response. It is an evasive and faulty opinion. Many overlook the phrase "hath part." Whatever that refers to will seal this debate. The unfortunate thing for Premils is that it is present tense. So whatever resurrection it is speaking of, believers currently have their...

No! Where is a millennium mentioned anywhere here? Nowhere! So, that is a lie. You know it! How can anyone survive this? They cannot! Your location of Revelation is way-off. Numerous passages like this prove that.

This is why I am not a Historist. They do the converse of Pretribbers, they use Scripture to support their own opinions of history. It is totally arbitrary. The problem is: get 10 Historicists in a room and you will get 10 different opinions.

Hello! Christ was the firstfruits at the resurrection; Christ is the firstfruits reigning now and He will be the firstfruits at His glorious Second Advent. 1 Corinthians 15:20 says, “NOW is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” The reference here to...

Not so. The first resurrection is Jesus - and Him alone. We have our "part" in Him through salvation (spiritual resurrection), not through physical resurrection. It is through salvation that we overcome the second death. There is multiple Scripture to back that up. I can give some if you want.