jeffweeder
Well-Known Member
I am defining it by using more of John's writings. You yourself are assuming stuff without backing it up with anything.
If I am wrong then you know what you need to do.
The final harvest?
- Thread starter Randy Kluth
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If I am wrong then you know what you need to do.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,994
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No, you are taking contextually unrelated writings and using eisegesis to force them into Rev to remove what the first resurrection is in the actual chp in Rev. It clearly shows spiritually resurrected people that were physically killed because they rejected the beast and had the witnesses of Christ (only spiritually resurrected people can do that), AFTER that John sees them alive and reign with Christ and they are said to have taken part in the first resurrection, and that there is a second resurrection of the "rest of the dead" which did not live again with the others.
Amill denies they were literally killed/beheaded, and places their spiritual resurrection after the death they experienced which contradicts what the text provides, erasing their physical resurrection and placing it with the unsaved as if "the dead in Christ rise first" now means "the dead in Christ rise along with the wicked."
Hello Randy, good to be back.
Two resurrections does indeed pose a problem for Premills since you believe both resurrections are physical. But the Bible is clear there shall be but ONE physical resurrection for ALL the dead in an hour that is coming when the last trumpet sounds. Scripture never says the first resurrection is physical. That is assumed by Premillennialists by thinking the martyred saints were brought back to physical life again to live and reign with Christ for one thousand years. That is not a blanket statement of fact. The passage in fact tells us these martyred saints are physically DEAD yet alive. They are not physically alive as disembodied corpses, they are alive in heaven because while physically still alive they HAD LIVED and REIGNED (past tense) and then died in Christ for a thousand years. IOW within their life times they were faithful to Christ, and in fact became martyred for their faith.
Revelation 20:4 (KJV) 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.
The first resurrection during this TIME symbolized a thousand years speaks of the physical resurrection of Christ. It is only by having part in Christ while we physically live that we overcome the second death that shall be for the rest of the dead in an hour coming when ALL the physically dead are resurrected either to immortal life or damnation.
That physical resurrection that is coming will NOT include the physical body of Christ because He is the "first resurrection" and was already raised to physical life from physical death after His crucifixion and death. It is in partaking of His resurrection life that faithful saints too have part in the "first resurrection." That when our natural spirit is raised from spiritual death supernaturally through His Spirit in us. When we have been born again, we have partaken of the first resurrection through the life and death of Christ. This is why Scripture says Christ is the first to be raised from the dead, and that He is the resurrection and the life to whosoever lives and believes in Him, and their spirit shall NEVER die. That's why John understands that physical death could not kill the eternal spirit for those who died in faith. They are as John tells us alive in heaven living (spirit) souls, without physical body, but not without life.
In reply to your last question, faithful saints rule and reign with Christ in life or during their lifetimes. They rule and reign with Christ while alive on this earth, and after they physically die they are still holy and blessed, overcome the second death, priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him throughout this symbolic time given the church on this earth to build the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven as they proclaim the Gospel unto all the nations of the earth. Then the last trumpet will begin to sound and this time shall be no more. It cannot be literally ONE thousand years as Premillennialists believe. If that were true we could know precisely when the Lord shall return. Time is symbolically written "a" thousand years that no man might know the day for His return. This time, symbolically written shall not end until the Gospel has been preached unto all the nations of the world and the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven is complete.
Matthew 24:14 (KJV) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Revelation 10:5-7 (KJV) And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Once the mystery of God, (that is Gentiles shall complete the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven) is finished, then time given the Church on earth for preaching the Gospel in all the world for a witness unto all nations shall be finished, and then the next age of immortal & incorruptible physical life upon the new earth shall begin.
Last edited:
Ruling with a rod of iron is peaceful and gentle, and this is what we find in this age of TIME symbolized a thousand years within the confines of faithful saints. It's not future, but present reality for those who are in Christ, faithful saints.
You're assuming that John physically SEES them alive again to reign with Christ during a literal ONE thousand years. But the Greek word translated "saw" εἴδω does not pertain to physically seeing them, but rather John is given to understand, or know, be aware of, behold that death did not take the lives of these martyred faithful saints. THEY ARE ALIVE! In heaven they are living (spirit) souls after death because in life they remained faithful unto death in their proclaiming of Christ. They are spiritually alive, but the rest of the dead, or those who shall never be spiritually alive during their lifetimes will not live again until this symbolic time, written "a thousand years" has ended.
Randy how can you reconcile this with what Christ tells us here:
John 5:25 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Who are "the dead" who can NOW hear Christ and live? Wouldn't you agree that Christ is speaking of those who are dead spiritually? How else can the dead hear His voice and live?
I agree we will not be resurrected physically to reign with Christ, but how can you say being with Christ is not actually being there with Him? It is through His Spirit in us, testifying to our spirit that we know that we HAVE, not shall have physical life with Him, but HAVE spiritual life with Him now that shall never die. Else why would Christ say whosoever lives and believes in Me shall NEVER die?
You're looking for a physical Kingdom of God that shall NEVER come to this earth, but shall be upon the new earth after this earth has passed away. Through His Spirit in us, we most assuredly have "checked in" to the spiritual Kingdom of God, and His Spirit shall never leave us.
It's true, we have NOT been physically resurrected from mortal to immortal bodies of flesh. But the reason we have our "Hope made sure" now is because in life we have partaken in the first resurrection when we were born again. To be born again or born from above is to be supernaturally changed from spiritually dead to spiritually alive through the resurrection of Christ, the "first resurrection"!
How can vs 4 be speaking of their physical resurrection since, as you say, they were born again Christians during their lives and martyred for their faith? Therefore it is during their lifetimes they "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Because it is during our lifetime we must be born again, and physical death comes to us at the end of our lifetime. NONE will be physically resurrected before an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds when ALL the physically dead shall be resurrected to immortal life or damnation.
"Incorrect. It is exactly as I explained it. It is Amill that re-defines what the first resurrection of Rev 20 is, altering it's meaning."
A disingenuous statement/assertion at best... No matter which millennial view one subscribes to (premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism, or preterism) he or she could say that same thing of the other three. He or she may think the other three get it wrong, and obviously do, but accusing anyone of intentionally "altering its meaning" is ridiculous. The debate is centuries, even millennia ~ old, from the first century to the twenty-first, and will (unfortunately) continue until Jesus comes back. The discussion ~ discussion ~ is still worth having, though. I just wish some (many) were capable of keeping it a constructive ~ edifying ~ conversation, but such is surely not the case, unfortunately, as has been so evident here.
Grace and peace to all.
I agree being born again is not OUR physical resurrection. I know of no Amillennialists that would argue it is. You don't have to buy into anything Randy. To be born again is to be made alive IN CHRIST! It is through His resurrection (first resurrection) that we MUST partake of during our lifetimes to have spiritual life in Him (His Spirit). Saints are NOT the first resurrection! We are partakers of Christ's resurrection, for He IS the first resurrection. We do not partake of Him physically, but spiritually, through His Spirit in us when we are born again. To have spiritual life through the resurrection life of Christ is how we spiritually enter the Kingdom of God in life. Because the spiritual life we receive when we are born again of His Spirit is ETERNAL we NEVER die. Our body dies, but as John shows us, death cannot keep us from the life we received through His Spirit in us, so after our physical body dies, we, as spiritual body go to heaven ALIVE. Not alive through physical resurrection, but alive through His Spirit in our spirit, and this is what John understands.
This is true, because our bodies, unlike our spirits shall not possess immortal life until they are ALL physically resurrected and changed in an hour coming when the last trumpet sounds. But our spirit became ETERNAL through the Spirit of Christ in us when we were born again. This is why it's written that we who have been born again HAVE ETERNAL life. Not physically yet, but our spirits made alive in Christ through His Spirit cannot die!
Why would Paul say "we've experienced the 1st Resurrection"? When we are born again we do not experience the first resurrection! There is only ONE first resurrection, not many. That's why it's 'first'. And that first resurrection was already experienced by Christ when He was the first to be physically resurrected to never die again. We cannot experience what happened FIRST long ago, we can only partake of His resurrection through His Spirit in us. And when we are born again in Christ through His Spirit we share with Christ in His "first resurrection" spiritually, and will not be physically resurrected before the last day.
First - πρῶτος prōtos, pro'-tos contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):—before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.
Randy, Pinseeker quoted correctly. Satan is bound only to prevent him from deceiving the nations. If Satan were not now, since the cross, bound, how are the Gentile nations able to hear the Gospel and be eternally saved? Prior to the cross the nations were deceived, having never heard the Gospel, without knowledge of Christ our Savior. But now people from all nations (Gentiles) too, like Israel can hear the Gospel and according to grace through faith be eternally saved. People from every nation can now hear the Gospel and if they hear and believe become saved. The deception of death having power over them was removed forever, now they have knowledge of Christ, and understand that death no longer has power over them because in Christ physical death simply means leaving this earth and ascending spiritually alive to heaven.
Randy, hope you don't mind that I'm selectively picking parts of your various replies. This is simply for brevity sake, so if there is something I have not addressed just let me know.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,994
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Sounds about right.
This they say has about happened recently, nations and tribes. There are hundred million Christians in China and India as well. Russia has 60 million. All Islamic nations gave heard the gospel. Remote tribes throughout the world have had missionaries. All through Africa has heard. Soith Americans are Catholics. Who hasn't heard of Jesus? He is about ready to come.
Lawlessness increases and yes we are close to that precipise, when good and evil will be divided. We are taking sides and it really seems as though the other side is living in an alternate, upside universe where right is wrong, good is evil. This ONE World Government has already exercised its power during the pandemic ( a trial run). So once the Antichrist is revealed, he will dictate and people will be forced tontake sides. Take the mark of the Beast or else. Romans 1 clearly says God has His limits, then he let's the person go to do what they want. That's what you would call a mature tare!
I believe lots of seal and trumpet events take place until the 7th Trumpet ( last) is blown. This is a Mid-Trib/ Pre-Wrath view, with the final 7 Bowls left (Armageddon on there). That may last from day 1260 to day 1335.
Both. After the MK there will be another rebellion towards the end.
You had another question about the Lake of Fire. Those tares who are gathered in the Great Tribulation are thrown in the fire. One third if the planet is on fire during this time. Likely the earth is split open in and around Jerusalem. The Dead Sea has a history of volcanic activity. The Great Syrian/African Rift extends some 3700 miles to Mozambique with many dozens of dormant volcanoes and active ones in Africa. Lately earthquakes have be one more frequent.
Jesus returns, stands on a mountain and it splits. Euphrates River is drying up. What if a super-volcanic eruption took place and a giant fissure with a lava lake below happens. Those 200 million marching towards Israel will be throw into that fissure...
And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. REV. 9:1-2
A KEY VERSE:
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. DEUT. 32:22
Sounds like a volcanic eruption to me.
Anyways, at the end if the Mullennial Kongdom us the Great White Throne Judgement. 2 Oeter 3:10 describes a time when the first heavens and first earth are destroyed along with Hades, everyone in it and Death itself. That would also be considered a Lake of Fire event.
Again, nobody is arguing whether we are "born again," using the metaphorical language of "new birth" or of "raised up!" We agree that when we are "born again" we are not raised from the dead! So let's get passed that?
You're arguing that the "born again" experience is legitimately called the "1st Resurrection," right? That would mean "resurrection" in this instance is a metaphor, right? But metaphors do *not* get used in the context of a literal, physical resurrection, you think? One cannot say, "I physically died, and now I'm resurrected," meaning that I literally, physically rose from the dead and then still expect you to understand my statement as metaphorical.
But that's exactly what you and Amillennialists are doing! The entire context literally screams that this has been a physical death with the martyrs beheaded by the Beast literally coming back to death in a *physical resurrection.* The "1st Resurrection" is, therefore, a literal, physical resurrection, and you can't legitimately turn that into a metaphor!
When we do this, we corrupt what the Bible is saying, and we do it illogically and completely on our own authority. And Amillennialists have been doing this for many hundreds of years simply because they wanted to dismiss any notion of a literal, physical Kingdom with literal, physical Jews being restored to nationhood. And yet, today that is exactly what we have--a literal, physical nation of Jews restored to nationhood! They just have yet to be pared down and remolded into a strictly Christian nation.
To partake of Christ's resurrection is not what the passage says. The passage literally describes the martyrs of the Beast being resurrected, and this is what is called the "1st Resurrection"--not the resurrection of Christ.
Paul describes our being "raised with" Christ because it is analogous to Christ's own resurrection and is the legal 1st step before we ourselves are actually literally raised up at the 2nd Coming. It is a *legal 1st step* and is language used as a metaphor to depict our spiritual rights being connected to Christ's victory.
It is not yet our own victory, but only the victory he has won for us. It is not yet our resurrection, and so it must be a metaphorical usage describing Christ's standing on our behalf.
That's not a valid argument, in my view. A singular resurrection can refer to either an individual resurrection or a composite, plural resurrection of many! The singularity of a "1st Resurrection" is not decisive in the argument.
Satan has always been limited in his power. He was defeated *legally* at the Cross, but is still "prowling about!" He is still deceiving people, who are suckered by the Devil's deceptions. They are still buying into falsehoods concocted by that evil being. And Satan is still inspiring people to want to murder Christians and to think atheism is taking over the world. It is creating international troubles.
The nations are still deceived, or they would not be opposing former Christian nations, and they would be *accepting the Gospel* for themselves. Satan has never been able to stop God's plan from taking place, either OT or NT.
What he does, however, is stop the completion of God's plan, preventing the fulfillment of His promises. That's why Israel has never been able to hold onto and achieve her national hope of representing God's Kingdom in their nation. That's why Christian nations have still as yet been able to do the same.
No, you've addressed the salient points. I pick and choose the items I wish to address all the time. Thanks for your comprehensive and astute replies. We disagree, but you have addressed the important elements. Take care....
I may not agree with every single point, but overall a good post in my estimation. The signs of the final harvest are here, particularly with the widespread and comprehensive impact of the Gospel message. I think that the developing resistance to the Gospel, world-wide, is a clear sign that the final judgment of the world is approaching. Lots of good points there. Thanks.
We both agree that there is now a "spiritual resurrection" of sorts, prior to the *physical resurrection* of our bodies that is coming. I just don't believe our being "raised up with Christ" metaphorically is being identified with or being named in the Bible as the "1st Resurrection."
In context, the "1st Resurrection" is an actual physical resurrection of Christian martyrs who were beheaded by the Beast. It is not, in that context, being used either analogically or metaphorically, as it is used for our New Birth, though I do agree that the language of "resurrection" is used in the Bible for our New Birth.
So we don't disagree that Christians have already been entering into Eternal Life. We just have not yet experienced immortality in our bodies.
There is no disagreement on this. Our disagreement is with the language depicting this as a literal resurrection in the context of Rev 20. You and all Amillennialists simply choose to turn the entire episode into a metaphor of our spiritual rebirth. And Premillennialists prefer to see Rev 20 as a literal account of a physical resurrection of the saints.
If we are to literally, physically be raised from the dead one day, then yes--I believe there will be a literal physical Kingdom come to this earth. It is called, in my words, "the fulfillment of God's promises." And ultimately, it will be called "the New Earth."
I do not spiritualize "Israel," since Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had literal descendants, the literal tribes of Israel. Their failure to complete their national aspirations is not reason to spiritualize what God had tried to do with them in the OT, and what He ultimately plans to do with them in the NT.
But this is what we're disagreeing on. We simply disagree on how much of God's word is to be taken analogically or literally.
This is a unique aspect of God's word that is difficult to explain outside of God's word. What we presently experience in Christ is a present reality, but is expressed, analogically, in our legal participation in something that Christ has gone on before us to accomplish. He has arrived, but we have only arrived there with him legally.
And so, this is analogous to Christ's own resurrection, and is not yet our own resurrection. But it can be said that we participate in it by virtue of legal rights he has already won for us. The fact it is not complete is indicated by the limitation of the legal rights he now affords us. We are not literally there yet. But we do have benefits already.
And so, our being "raised up with Christ" is a metaphor albeit with current substance to it--current benefits. But it is only a metaphor because it hasn't been completed in our own physical resurrection.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,994
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And also not a reference to any version of being born again or a spiritual resurrection in life BEFORE being murdered. Clearly the saints in verse 4 died as born again Christians and the only resurrection they can experience after that is the physical resurrection, the first resurrection in a chapter that describes two resurrections.
Changing "first resurrection" into something else is no different than how Pretrib changes "apostasia" into the rapture. This is how we spot false doctrines, by the changes made to the text and/or definitions to alter or misrepresent what is actually being said. Haven't we seen that tactic before where the devil misquotes/misrepresents scripture to change the meaning?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
You are being wooden and too literal here.
The first resurrection only happens because a human is given his physical life back. You claim these throne are those beheaded judging others, yet that is not what John declares. Those beheaded are not judging the rest of the church.
Your point suggests that those beheaded decide if you and others can even be saved, ie your "first resurrection".
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them."
If you entered a courtroom , and saw the person sitting up there, and knew that judgment was given to them, would this not be a day of judgment for you?
Revelation 19 ends in 2 judgments:
1. The FP and beast cast into the LOF.
2. All humanity killed on that battlefield.
Revelation 20 starts with 2 judgments:
1. Satan bound for a thousand years.
2. Those beheaded souls stand before thrones and awarded the first resurrection.
That is not being wooden nor literal. That is just common reading comprehension.
You then make the claim those beheaded are the ones sitting on those thrones progressively for a thousand years judging others who are receiving the first resurrection progressively for a thousand years.
Then you claim the first resurrection is actually the second birth where one's spirit is dead and now alive. Is your claim that all humanity is born in a beheaded condition and they sit in judgment of each other for the last 2 millenia? Because that is how your interpretation sounds.
No one that I know of limits the first resurrection to that very moment in those verses. Most just claim there is a first and second resurrection like you do. In most interpretations the first resurrection is just a chronological point in time. If there is a first time, then that implies a second time.
The first resurrection is not a moment in time. That is too wooden and literal. The first resurrection is not chronological implying two different events.
If you claim the first resurrection is the second birth, then why do you also insist it is the first of two events people experience?
My point is that the first resurrection is neither of your multiple interpretations, nor is a wooden nor literal interpretation of these verses.
In John 3 Jesus points out the first birth is physical and the second birth is spiritual. The logical point is extending this to the first death still being physical, and the second death spiritual. If one is physically raised from the dead, that is the first resurrection. That is not a reasoning taken solely from Revelation 20. Many also think that those at the GWT are also given a physical body, ie first resurrection, even if it is the second event in that chapter. That is not stated. What is stated is that the rest of the dead do not live again. It never says they will live again.
If they live again, they are given the first resurrection for the first time. Not the second birth. But one does not need the second birth to avoid the second death. One needs the first resurrection, and that is sufficient.
In failed human understanding why equate the second death with anything physical at all? The second death is indicative of being removed from the Lamb's book of life. But the second birth was never realized as well to make that name official in the Lamb's book of life. While God voted for that person, that person never voted for himself which is the act of the second birth.
The second birth is symbolic as well as spiritual in the sense one submits to the will of the Holy Spirit. One is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Which for the last 1993 years has been physical death, when the soul leaves this physical body of death for the permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise, the first resurrection. One is no longer in a state of death at the point. So the first resurrection has been in place since Lazarus was called out of death into eternal life. It is an ongoing phenomenon, and blessed are all those, because they do not stand at the GWT and face the second death.
Right--really a brilliant argument! I'd like to understand how Amills down thru the ages have dealt with this point?
No question about it. When Scriptures state something explicitly, that is the basis for belief in them as "doctrinal." So the words have to be changed so as to appear to believe something else is being explicitly said.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,994
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
The current ones just sidestep it. I mean, how can non-spiritually resurrected people reject the beast and have the witnesses of Christ, get killed for those beliefs while still not being born again, then after being alive and dying get spiritually resurrected/born again? How can you stand up for Jesus and reject the beast and MOB while NOT being born again/spiritually resurrected? It's not possible. That's not how the order works.
The truth is, being spiritually resurrected/born again is not being discussed in Rev 20. It already had happened in a timeframe BEFORE Rev 20.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Do you head directly to John 5 or do you point out John 3 to define the first and second births? The first resurrection can only happen after the first death. The first death only happens after the first birth. So what is the first birth of water?
You were quite clear in saying, EWQ ~ and I quote ~ "It is Amill that re-defines what the first resurrection of Rev 20 is," Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but your assertion here clearly implies an intentional act. It would have been much less ambiguous if you had said "mis-defines" or "is wrong about." Words are important, my friend... which you know, I'm sure.
Grace and peace to you.
Similar threads
