Thise included in the First resurrection were beheaded and killed for cause of Christ, so that would be a physical resurrection there!You are dodging the issue. For you to answer the questions would negate your argument.
All sides agree that there is a physical resurrection of all believers at the second coming. What you are missing, and so is Premil, is that other clear Scripture shows "the first resurrection" to be Christ's glorious conquering of the grave. We see that "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5) relates to what Christ secured 2000 years ago. What is more, you are careful to avoid the fact that "the first resurrection" that believers experienced is actually spiritual not physical. Finally, you ignore the fact that spiritual resurrection is the only resurrection that is said to give us victory over the second death.
Jesus said in John 5:24: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
He continues in the next verse (John 5:25): “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.”
Jesus said in John 6:50-51, 54&58: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread,he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life … he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
John 8:51 Christ said to the Pharisees, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death … If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death (or experience the second death).”
Jesus said in John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (or experience the second death), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (or experience the second death).”
Revelation 20:6 says the exact same, speaking of the same salvation, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”
What is the purpose of the millennium according to historic premillennialism
- Thread starter Broadus
- Start date
- Status
Thise included in the First resurrection were beheaded and killed for cause of Christ, so that would be a physical resurrection there!
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Can you give Scripture to support your theories instead of doctrinal soundbites?
Sure, 1corinthians 15, 1 John 3, Revelation 20, and 2 Thessalonians 4.
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
LOL. You cannot even give exact references!!! All these chapters prove that there will be a general resurrection when Jesus comes.
What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
Where in Scripture does it mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end?
Last edited:
There is a time being regferenced between the saved in Christ being raised up, and the lost for the GWT....
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Everything you present to support your opinion revolves around one chapter. You have presented zero corroboration yet. Your motto of biblical interpretation is: "what saith Rev 20." Amils stand with Paul in his wise motto in Romans 4:3 "what saith the scripture?"
Last edited:
All based upon you understanding of the First resurrection meaning when saved, but the Apostles and Jesus tied that into the physical Resurrection. The saved and lost will not be raised up at same time.
The literal sense of the term chosen by John to use there for the duration of time? Jesus stated that His Apostles shall each sit upon throne judging Israel, when will that happen?
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
What do you mean? What "literal sense"? You are very hard to follow!
... and what does that indicate that is contrary to what Amils believe? It reinforces the general judgment when Jesus comes.
Last edited:
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Why if the rest of Scripture depicts Jesus Christ as the first resurrection (the first to conquer the grave) would the book of Revelation suddenly change track and suddenly make the resurrection of the just 2000 years+ later at the Second Coming “the first resurrection”? This just doesn’t add up. It creates contradictions in the Scripture. It has Scripture in conflict with other Scripture. It overrides a commonly accepted fundamental biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the first resurrection. It also brings much confusion, something that does not pertain to Holy Writ. The reality is it enjoys absolutely no corroboration from other Scripture.
You impose a private interpretation on Rev 20 that enjoys zero corroboration, and which flies in the face of repeated Scripture to the contrary.
In Christ’s description of the resurrection He depict a unitary event, albeit the elect precede the wicked. Jesus explains in John 5:28-29, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.” Evidently there is only one resurrection albeit involving two separated aspects: “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
The righteous and wicked dead all rise in response to the same sovereign voice - Christ's. There is no 1,000 years’ separation mentioned or hinted at in here.
There is one physical resurrection day in which there are two types of raising, (1) unto life, (2) unto damnation. Acts 24:15 says, “there shall be a resurrection of the dead (singular), both of the just and unjust.”
This verse speaks of a singular “resurrection of the dead” not multiple resurrections (plural) of the dead as the Premillennialist would try and intimate. The fact that Paul differentiates between the wicked and the righteous in no way proves that these are two separate resurrections coming at the end of two separate ages split by 1,000 years+ of history (filled with all the produce of the curse – sin, death and corruption). No, it simply demonstrates that there are two types of resurrection in the one final resurrection of the dead at the end. In fact, for Premils to insist on their concept is to force something into the passage that doesn’t truly exist. Scripture constantly distinguishes between the wicked and the righteous even though they are found participating in the same event at the same time. Why would anyone think it strange that the Holy Spirit would identify the two different parties that take part in the general “resurrection of the dead”? After all, it is a normal biblical procedure to distinguish between these two conflicting camps. Although to suggest that the identifying of these two distinct parties indicates two separate events at two separate times is illogical.
Daniel 12:1-3 reveals, “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”
This reading shows a general resurrection involving two types of people – the righteous and the wicked; one group rises "to everlasting life" the other to "everlasting contempt." The fact that we see a clear description of the general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked tells us that this is a tribulation that occurs prior to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The word here for “many” in the original Hebrew (rab) actually means: the abundance, referring to quantity, size, age, number, rank, quality. In the sense it is used here it includes everyone that is in the grave. Namely: “the abundance of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.”
Jesus said in Matthew 12:41-42, “The men of Nineveh shall rise (anistemi) in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up (egeiro) in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”
The righteous Old Testament Gentile saint – the queen of the south – is raised at the same time as the wicked Pharisees of Christ’s day to stand before the same judgment seat of Christ.
This is further impressed in the parallel portion in Luke 11:31, only with an additional example, saying, “The queen of the south shall rise up (or) egeiro in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise up (or) anistemi in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”
Here, the two main words used throughout the New Testament for resurrection are applied to the general resurrection that occurs on Judgment Day when the Old Testament time saints and wicked join the New Testament saints and wicked at the judgment. Remember the Queen of the South and Nineveh are presented as Old Testament Gentile saints that will “rise up in the judgment with” the wicked unbelieving Jews of Christ’s day. There is no prolonged parenthesis period separating the resurrection of the wicked dead and the resurrection of the righteous dead. They both “rise up” at the same time. The Old Testament Gentile city of Nineveh is shown to “rise up in the judgment with” (or meta) the religious Jewish world of Christ’s day and “condemn it.” The Greek word meta is described in Strong’s concordance as “a primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly, denoting accompaniment; ‘amid’.”
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I do admit that I am enjoying watching this interchange. David has no fear and will post one sentence summaries of what he is thinking about at the moment. Paul responds with dissertations. I don't think either side is getting through. Good sport, though.
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
This discussion reinforces the conclusion i came to in 2000, that Premil lacks basic corroboration for all its key tenets. Believe me, if it was there someone would be presenting it.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No. Some probably don't accept your corroboration standards (which, as I pointed out elsewhere, if applied to other doctrines would negate them, too). Others have already rehashed this on the board many times and many years before you came. Third, I presented my own thoughts one eschatology above which are neither premil nor amil.
Last edited:
The main difference here us that I will grant that his position is a viable option from the scriptures, but he states it as being Only option!
He seems to know the Bible well, but rigid, almost like discussing with a Kjvo person.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's actually what I was getting at. All sides have to "tweak" their systems to make it work.
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
That is not correct. I accept both Amil and Postmil as viable options from the Scriptures. On the grounds of corroboration, I believe Premil is similar to Pretrib. It enjoys no corroboration for all its basic tenets. This is no small thing, as we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age man will experience. It is just a slight downgrade from the NHNE.
Premils have to ignore or dismiss countless solid climactic Scriptures in order to let Premil fit. This is unacceptable in my opinion. The question that has not been answered here from the Op is, what is the purpose for a future millennium? Many of us would like to know the answer to this.
One of the main reasons I first questioned Premil was that no other NT writer mentions a literal 1,000 following the coming of Christ. If this is supposed to be what Premils suggest - namely the greatest age outside of the new heavens and new earth - then why did none of the other writers allude to it? We don't have one single second coming passage that indicates that there will be 1000 years following.
When we examine Revelation 19 it is totally climatic. Contrary to what you both intimate, we are looking at at the wrath of God been poured out upon the wicked.
Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.
Revelation 19 describes the climactic coming of the Lord and the destruction of all the wicked. It tells us that “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great” would be destroyed. The suffix "both free and bond, both small and great” is added to insure even Premils couldn't wiggle out of this. The beast's army relates to all who are not in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world. That is as water-tight in my estimation and as comprehensive and all-embracing as the Holy Spirit can explain it.
Last edited:
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
For the record, while I am happy to employ the KJV, I am not KJVO. I share your concern re their mindset.
I have been forced to move a lot on my theology over the years. I have changed from Arminianism to the Doctrines of Grace. I have changed from Pretrib Premil Dispensationalism to Posttrib Idealist Amillennialism. That is just some of many issues I have changed on the grounds of explicit Scripture.
Everywhere I go, I am bumping into many that have made a similar journey.
Last edited:
Since all scripture was inspired, one passage is enough!
He dies not seem to see premil at all in Bible. Wonder if due to reacting against Dispensational version?
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello, I am here!
I can speak for myself.I abandoned dispensational Premillennialism pretty quick after I came back to the Lord. I settled by default at the Postrib Premillennialism position. That was what was being taught in my church. I even preached it!
In the year 2000 I began to write a book supporting Historic Premillennialism. I began to quickly see that the doctrine was covered in holes. Numerous Scripture forbid the Premillennialism position. Passage after passage was climatic. Also, I could find no clear corroboration whatsoever for every tenant of the Premillennial view of Revelation 20. After six months of research I abandoned Premillennialism and embraced Amillennialism.
I have since continued my studies and have about 19 years of research built up. I am even more convinced today, than I ever was, that the Premillennial view of Revelation 20 is forcing something on the text that does not exist.
I have also undertaken deep research into the ECFs. For years I have heard (and read) that Premil was the historic default position of the early Church, yet when I examined various claims they did not seem to stand up to factual examination.
I have been happy to place my work online since 2000 for others to challenge. I find that the Amillennialism position is watertight.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Mostly true. There is no "default position of the Early Church" because there is no Early Church (™). Justrn and Irenaeus say premil-sounding things. Origen goes into full gnostic allegorizing. Augustine admits to allegorising. They are all over the map.
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Christians today are all over the place. Most have never taken the time to research it in any depth.
I am sorry that you demonize Origen. Have you read his works? Or did you read that on some blinkered Premil website? He was actually an opponent of Gnosticism. He literalized what Scripture did and allegorized what Scripture did.
Some form of premil was held by many in early Church, but AMil became primary view once established by Augustine to support Rome as Kingdom of God on Earth, helped by Origen forced allogory views of scripture.
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Hardly! There was only one Premil in the first 100 years after the cross - Papias.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I've spent the last 15 years reading over 12,000 pages of the church fathers. I've read through Peri Archon twice, along with all of Origen's leading interpreters. Paul's "allegory" linked events in Scripture to each other. Origen's allegory links Scripture to moral and theological principles.
As to "demonizing" Origen, I am only summarizing what the 5th Ecumenical Council (well, Justinian anyway) said about him.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I'll post the others later.
https://puritanboard.com/threads/origen-and-the-life-of-the-stars.96283/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/history-and-spirit-de-lubac.100309/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/a-...uide-to-the-early-fathers.96977/#post-1184978
https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-2-de-lubac.94099/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-1-de-lubac.94094/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/boersma-scripture-as-real-presence.98651/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/origen-and-the-life-of-the-stars.96283/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/history-and-spirit-de-lubac.100309/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/a-...uide-to-the-early-fathers.96977/#post-1184978
https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-2-de-lubac.94099/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-1-de-lubac.94094/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/boersma-scripture-as-real-presence.98651/
Last edited:
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
I looked at the first link and there was no evidence to support your supposition.
sovereigngrace
Puritan Board Freshman
Glad to see that you have researched this. Please present exact quotes instead of people’s opinions.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
