A spiritual resurrection and OSAS.

[LookingUp]

The point I've been trying to make, once one gets to this little season part, the first resurrection part has to then be in the past, and can no longer have any significance. One can't partake of the first resurrection after the 1000 years are completed, because to partake of the first resurrection has everything in the world to do with this thousand years. No matter how you look at it, the little season follows the conclusion of this 1000 years. Anyone saved during this little season couldn't possibly partake of this first resurrection at this point. It's impossible, because there is no way they too can partake of this reign with Christ a thousand years, because that thousand years has come and gone at this point. Revelation 20 makes it as clear as clear can be. Those of the first resurrection, meaning every last single one of them, they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
There's no way to square that fact with anyone who might be saved during this little season. With all of this in mind, it is then illogical that the 1000 years could be meaning now. Of course I haven't heard from Eric yet. So maybe he knows of a logical solution I haven't considered as of yet. But to me, I feel like I'm holding the trump card here.

Are you saying no one is saved during the little season?

[divaD]

Eric,

Could you please explain Rev. 20 from an amil view? Who are the beheaded martyrs? Who is the beast? Does Rev. 20:6 imply that the beheaded ones reign the entire 1,000 years (from the beginning of the 1,000 years to the end of the 1,000 years)? Does Rev. 20:6 necessarily extend to ALL believers over the entire 1,000 years?

Thanks!

Those are very good questions. I will be looking forward to Eric's response to those.

[divaD]

Are you saying no one is saved during the little season?

Of course not. But the view that sees the 1000 years as in now might be saying that, tho they may not realize it.

[LookingUp]

Of course not. But the view that sees the 1000 years as in now might be saying that, tho they may not realize it.

Are you saying that those saved during the little season will NOT experience the first resurrection? In your view, I thought the first resurrection was bodily resurrection leading to immortality. If so, how will those saved during the little season live forevermore in a mortal body?

[divaD]

Are you saying no one is saved during the little season?

Even in the premil view, once this little season occurs, the first resurrection would have no more significance, because there would have been a bodily resurrection at the beginning of the 1000 years. Also keep in mind, I'm not arguing from a premil pov, I'm arguing from a pov that would see this 1000 years as being now. All I'm trying to do is to show that that conclusion isn't as logical as they believe, unless of course Eric or someone similar, can show why I'm wrong about this little season part, in relation to the first resurrection.

[divaD]

Are you saying that those saved during the little season will NOT experience the first resurrection? In your view, I thought the first resurrection was bodily resurrection leading to immortality. If so, how will those saved during the little season live forevermore in a mortal body?

I don't recall anyone ever getting saved during the little season, via a premil pov. It is during the little season that satan deceives many in order to attack the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. Only in the view of one who sees the 1000 years being present, could someone be saved during the little season. So unfortunately I answered your question wrong when you asked me whether I thought anyone couldn't be saved during the 1000 years. For some reason I was still coming from a POV of one who sees the 1000 years as now. So since I got my head straight here finally, no..no I don't believe anyone could be saved during the little season, because I don't think the little season occurs in this age.

[LookingUp]

Even in the premil view, once this little season occurs, the first resurrection would have no more significance, because there would have been a bodily resurrection at the beginning of the 1000 years. Also keep in mind, I'm not arguing from a premil pov, I'm arguing from a pov that would see this 1000 years as being now. All I'm trying to do is to show that that conclusion isn't as logical as they believe, unless of course Eric or someone similar, can show why I'm wrong about this little season part, in relation to the first resurrection.

From the pre-mill pov, how are people bodily resurrected during the 1,000 years?

[divaD]

From the pre-mill pov, how are people bodily resurrected during the 1,000 years?

why does anybody need to be bodily resurrected during it? The ones that are to be immortal, they would already be immortal at the beginning of it. Everyone else would then have to be mortal. And these might be such as those that came against Jerusalem in Zech 14. Not all of those enemies get destroyed. There would be no reason then to not conclude they would be mortal survivors.

[John146]

As long as OSAS is Biblical, you could then be correct. Personally I can't find a single place in all of Scripture, that indicates once someone partakes of a resurrection, they can then somehow lose it.

Assume for the sake of argument that having part in the first resurrection has to do with believers spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection, which is what I believe. Now, can someone lose their part in His resurrection? If someone can lose their salvation then they can. So, can you see how my view of someone having part in the first resurrection does not support OSAS? Even if the first resurrection was not referring to Christ's resurrection and people having part in it and instead referred to a person's spiritual resurrection in terms of going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ, how do you figure that someone can't lose that when you believe that someone can be saved and go from being dead in sins and alive in Christ but later lose their salvation?

Look what the passage states.


Revelation 20:6 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.


So then, there's a possibility, especially since OSAS is not even remotely Biblical, that one can go from blessed and holy to cursed I guess, and that they don't get to really reign with Christ this 1000 years, even tho this passage says they do? What I'm getting at, if this 1000 years represents now, what happens when they die, but that they have lost this spiriritual resurrection somehow? How then can it be said they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years? Especially if that reign is supposed to be until He returns?

You assume that it's saying that the only ones who can reign with Christ must reign with Him the entire thousand years, but I disagree with that. I believe people have part in the first resurrection throughout the thousand years and therefore the amount of time each person reigns with Christ differs during the thousand years.

Then you have to wonder, if someone gets saved today, and Christ comes next week, does that then mean that reigning with Christ a thousand years really equals 7 days?

Why does it have to be that someone can only reign with Christ for the entire thousand years and no less? I think the souls of the dead in Christ that John saw were reigning with Him from the beginning and will continue to reign with Him throughout the thousand years but that doesn't mean they are the only ones who can reign with Him that whole time.

I would think if a thousand years doesn't really mean a thousand years, it would at least mean more that a thousand years, but not less than, especially 7 days.

I agree. But, again, you are assuming that the only ones who reign with Christ reign with Him the entire thousand years rather than seeing it as some reigning with Him the entire thousand years and then others joining them and reigning with Him as well during the thousand years.

Then here's something else to ponder. If the 1000 years equals the reign of Christ in the present, then what about the little season that follows? Does that mean that no one can be saved during this little season? But if they are, then how could they partake of the first resurrection, if to partake of that means to reign with Christ a thousand years, except the thousand years are now over, and it's it's now the little season? Maybe I'm doing a little bit too much thinking, but how else are we to determine if something is correct or not, if we don't do a little extra thinking in order to try and find out?

We know that Christ reigns forever and not just for a thousand years so there's no reason to think that people can't reign with Him during the little season after the thousand years as well.

Getting back to this 1000 years. Show me one place where it states that anyone of the first resurrection reigns any less than a thousand years.

I see how it is. Unless something is specifically spelled out for you it can't be so, is that right? I can ask you a question you can't answer as well. Where does it ever say that anyone who does not have part in the first resurrection would reign with Christ? Nowhere, right? Rev 20:6 describes those who reign with Him as being those who have part in the first resurrection. So, if the first resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ then where does that leave those who are alive and remain unto His coming? They would not be able to reign with Him in that case because they will not be bodily resurrected (since they won't be physically dead).

As far as those that are alive and remain, they too are bodily resurrected in a sense, except you really have to get outside of the box to see it.

Ah, I see you already thought of this. What is this box you are referring to? I'm not in a box so why would I need to get outside the box to see what you're seeing? If it's the truth then you should be able to explain so that others can understand. Otherwise, you have your own private interpretation.

I already tried to explain it earlier in this thread, but I don't think anyone was understanding where I'm coming from. I don't know how to explain it any differently than I did, but all I know is, it makes perfect sense to me.

Of course it does. But if it's the truth then it is something that more than just one person should be able to understand. Do you believe that God has revealed something to you that He hasn't revealed to anyone else? Why would Paul have differentiated in 1 Thess 4:14-17 between the dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain if those who were alive and remain were going to die and be resurrected as well?

[LookingUp]

why does anybody need to be bodily resurrected during it? The ones that are to be immortal, they would already be immortal at the beginning of it. Everyone else would then have to be mortal. And these might be such as those that came against Jerusalem in Zech 14. Not all of those enemies get destroyed. There would be no reason then to not conclude they would be mortal survivors.

Aren't people saved during the 1000 years? If so, how do they get immortal bodies?

[divaD]

Aren't people saved during the 1000 years? If so, how do they get immortal bodies?

I guess I wasn't aware anyone is saved during that time. I don't see any place in Scriptures that indicates one receives an immortal body after the first resurrection has taken place.

It then seems there is no rhyme nor reason for this 1000 years being in the future. I guess that all depends on what you see in the OT.

[John146]

The following is for Eric,. This is something I just came up with in my last post. I can't believe I never thought of this sooner.

There's before the 1000 years. There's during the 1000 years. And there's after the 1000 years, meaning the little season. Let's assume the first resurrection is spiritual, and that the 1000 years means now. What then does Revelation 20 plainly state?

Revelation 20:4...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:6....they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

IOW, everyone that is a part of the first resurrection, they get to reign with Christ 1000 years. Keeping in mind then, that there's before, during, and after, in relation to this 1000 years, what then happens during this little season? Should we assume no one can be saved during this time?

No. It doesn't say that, right? So, why would we assume that? Why would we ever assume that there would be any time period where people could not be saved? I don't believe that makes any sense.

But what if they are? Then don't they get to take part in this first resurrection?

In my view they do because having part in the first resurrection has to do with spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection. I see no reason why no one could get saved during the little season.

But how do they do that if to partake in it means to get to reign with Christ a thousand years?

Do you believe Christ's reign ends when the thousand years are over? If not then why would you assume that people only reign with Him for a thousand years and then don't reign with Him after that? We know His reign will be forever, right (Isa 9:6-7)?

[John146]

Hi John 146,

The Lord delivered His people (the Israelites) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. God had revealed Himself to these Israelites and chosen them as His people, but does that mean they were all saved? The author of Hebrews is addressing brethren here in verse 12, but does this mean that everyone in this large group of Hebrews must be a believer? As we read in verse 14, For we have become [past tense Gk. verb, gegonamen, meaning we have become already] partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." Notice that this is essentially a repeat of verse 6, where we read: but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house - whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. The only ones in the end who will be identified as those who have become partakers of Christ, will have been those who hold fast the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end." These faltering Hebrews who depart from God begin with loud confidence and profession of loyalty. But later? The wording of the above verse in Hebrews is not - "and you will become partakers of Christ (future indicative) if you (future indicative) hold fast." It is rather - "you have been, and now are, partakers of Christ, if in the future you hold fast to Christ." I see holding fast to Christ as a manifestation of genuine belief and having become partakers of Christ and I see departing from God as a manifestation of unbelief and failure to have become partakers of Christ. Just as we see in 1 John 2:19, if they had been of us, then they would have continued with us.

Just like in Hebrews 4:1-2, For indeed the gospel was preached to US as well as to THEM; but the word which they heard did not profit THEM, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest," although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Obviously, not all of these Hebrews were believers. Notice that verses 2-3 makes a distinction between US who have BELIEVED and do enter that rest and THEM who heard the word but did not mix faith with what they heard and will not enter that rest because of UNBELIEF.

The main purpose of this thread is not really to discuss OSAS vs. NOSAS in a lot of detail (there are plenty of other threads for that), so all I will say in response to your post is that I disagree with you. In order to give a good response to what you said would require a fairly lengthy post and a fair amount of time and I'm not going to do that when that issue is not even the main issue being discussed in this thread. The main purpose of this particular thread is to determine whether or not believing that having part in the first resurrection is a spiritual event supports OSAS and I'd prefer to focus mostly on that in this thread. So, if you have anything to say about that I will be more than happy to read it and respond to it.

[divaD]

Assume for the sake of argument that having part in the first resurrection has to do with believers spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection, which is what I believe. Now, can someone lose their part in His resurrection? If someone can lose their salvation then they can. So, can you see how my view of someone having part in the first resurrection does not support OSAS? Even if the first resurrection was not referring to Christ's resurrection and people having part in it and instead referred to a person's spiritual resurrection in terms of going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ, how do you figure that someone can't lose that when you believe that someone can be saved and go from being dead in sins and alive in Christ but later lose their salvation?

Revelation 20:6 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.

Here's the picture it paints in my mind. Instead of some being blessed and holy, they instead become cursed and unholy, and no longer have part in the first resurrection that declares they are blessed and holy. Where does this passage ever lead one to come to that conclusion about any single person who has part in this first resurrection? If OSAS were Biblical, then that's another story. But OSAS is not Biblical IMO, nor in yours either.

You assume that it's saying that the only ones who can reign with Christ must reign with Him the entire thousand years, but I disagree with that. I believe people have part in the first resurrection throughout the thousand years and therefore the amount of time each person reigns with Christ differs during the thousand years.

If the 1000 years are meaning now, then that would be a reasonable conclusion. But only if the 1000 years are meaning now.

We know that Christ reigns forever and not just for a thousand years so there's no reason to think that people can't reign with Him during the little season after the thousand years as well.

I have addressed this in greater detail via newer posts than the one you are addressing. Definetely want to hear your input on those. So I'll just wait and see how you address those.

I see how it is. Unless something is specifically spelled out for you it can't be so, is that right? I can ask you a question you can't answer as well. Where does it ever say that anyone who does not have part in the first resurrection would reign with Christ? Nowhere, right? Rev 20:6 describes those who reign with Him as being those who have part in the first resurrection. So, if the first resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ then where does that leave those who are alive and remain unto His coming? They would not be able to reign with Him in that case because they will not be bodily resurrected (since they won't be physically dead).

This presents no problem for me, since I would see those that are alive and remaining being resurrected in a sense as well. I can see this, unfortnately others apparently can't. Doesn't make me automatically right or anything.

Ah, I see you already thought of this. What is this box you are referring to? I'm not in a box so why would I need to get outside the box to see what you're seeing? If it's the truth then you should be able to explain so that others can understand. Otherwise, you have your own private interpretation.

In context, I'm not meaning outside the box in general. Clearly you think outside the box. You're just not thinking outside the box in the same manner as I on this one, since you're not seeing it like I. That's all I meant, nothing more.

Of course it does. But if it's the truth then it is something that more than just one person should be able to understand. Do you believe that God has revealed something to you that He hasn't revealed to anyone else? Why would Paul have differentiated in 1 Thess 4:14-17 between the dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain if those who were alive and remain were going to die and be resurrected as well?

I didn't say God revealed anything to me and that He didn't reveal it to anyone else. You're just not looking at it like I am is all. It's a matter of perspective, nothing to do with private revelation.

[John146]

Eric,

Could you please explain Rev. 20 from an amil view?

Well, that's a loaded question! Give me a few months and I'll get back to you.

But, seriously, there's a lot to explaining that view. I would suggest doing some research online to get some information about that view. If you have any specific questions about it, I can answer those, but I can't explain the entire view to you in one post.

What is your current view? Based on what you've been saying it seems that you are already amil, only from the partial preterist perspective (I'm not partial preterist). Am I missing something?

Who are the beheaded martyrs?

Well, that depends on whether John was only seeing believers who had been beheaded up to that point in time or if he was seeing all believers who would ever be beheaded. I would guess he saw those who had been beheaded up to that point in time.

But, it could be speaking figuratively of believers who had been beheaded in a spiritual sense as far as experiencing the renewing of their minds that believers experience. I would guess it is speaking literally of those who were literally beheaded but I think he saw everyone else who didn't worship the beast as well.

Who is the beast?

One thing to remember about the beast is that it "was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit" (Rev 17:8). So, that means the beast was around even before John wrote the book, that it "is not" in some sense at the time he wrote the book (I understand that to mean it didn't have the same amount of power it once had) and then some time in the future it would rise to power again, which is figuratively described as ascending out of the bottomless pit. I see that as being directly related to the binding of Satan. There is a very close relation between the beast and Satan. The beast gets its power from Satan (Rev 13:2-4). So, just as I believe Satan once had virtually unlimited power and reign before Christ came and then was delivered a major blow and was bound and had much power taken away because of Christ's death and resurrection and that he will again be loosed in the future, the same is true of the beast. So, with all that in mind, I have come to the conclusion that the beast is Satan's kingdom which has taken different forms over time depending on which head was in power at the time. The seven heads represent the world kingdoms that are in power at any given time with one being in power at a time. John said regarding them that "five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come", so that shows that one of the heads was in power at the time John wrote that and that was the Roman empire.

So, I don't see the beast as referring to an Antichrist as some do since the beast has already been around a long time and was around even before John wrote the book ("the beast was").

Does Rev. 20:6 imply that the beheaded ones reign the entire 1,000 years (from the beginning of the 1,000 years to the end of the 1,000 years)?

If they were dead at the time he saw the vision then I'd say yes. It's not entirely clear whether he was seeing only those who were dead up to that point or whether he was somehow also able to see those who would be dead in the future (I know you would probably have an issue with that view). What I don't believe is that John intended to say that only those who were beheaded would be able to reign with Christ. I believe in Rev 20:6 he indicated that everyone who had part in the first resurrection would reign with Christ.

Does Rev. 20:6 necessarily extend to ALL believers over the entire 1,000 years?

I believe so, yes. The reason I say that is because I understand having part in the first resurrection as referring to spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection. His resurrection in particular is the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20) and all believers spiritually have part in His resurrection (Eph 2:4-6, Rom 6, etc.).