A spiritual resurrection and OSAS.

[divaD]

There are some who teach one is true, the other is false. The spiritual resurrection being true, OSAS being false. This to me would be a contradiction. What is one passage the spiritual resurrection is based on?

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.

This would be a spiritual resurrection according to some. Some then, but not all I'm sure, then teach OSAS is not Biblical. Let's deal with the alleged spiritual resurrection. Only for the sake of argument, Revelation 20:6 teaches a spiritual resurrection that one undergoes when getting saved, and happens before Christ returns.

Assuming this happens when one is saved, then what else can we know about this alleged spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:6?

For one...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. It also says the 2nd death has no power over them. What I'm wanting to know then, where in any Scripture does it teach that once one undergoes this alleged spiritual resurrection can they ever lose it at anytime? Doesn't the text indicate they reign with Christ 1000 years? For the sake of argument only, the 1000 years is to be understood as now, and not literally exactly 1000 years, wouldn't that then mean they reign this entire time with Christ? So how could they somehow lose this reign with Christ? They can't, right? So why are some of these same people who believe in this spiritual resurrection then teaching OSAS is not Biblical? How can that not be a major contradiction? Personally speaking, if I were to believe the first resurrection is meaning spiritual, then no way could I ever disagree with OSAS. But the fact I do disagree with OSAS, I then cannot conclude the first resurrection is spiritual.

So then, if you've read this far, does one agree or disagree with me that a spiritual resurrection being true and NOSAS being false, is a contradiction? If not, then why not?

The point then is, which one is true, and which one isn't, assuming they are a contradiction? If OSAS is false, then how can a spiritual resurrection be true? But I think I already asked that.

[quiet dove]

I agree that "if" Revelation speaks of a spiritual resurrection(which I don't believe it does-I do, believe it speaks of a type). ....however, IF a spiritual resurrection ....then it would indeed contradict NOSAS.....

but then I am not NOSAS anyway...lol
-------------------------------
I find NOSAS contradictory to being born again...this is a little of my thoughts on someone becoming "unborn" ...."again", in post 7...

[Redeemed by Grace]

There are some who teach one is true, the other is false. The spiritual resurrection being true, OSAS being false. This to me would be a contradiction. What is one passage the spiritual resurrection is based on?

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.

This would be a spiritual resurrection according to some. Some then, but not all I'm sure, then teach OSAS is not Biblical. Let's deal with the alleged spiritual resurrection. Only for the sake of argument, Revelation 20:6 teaches a spiritual resurrection that one undergoes when getting saved, and happens before Christ returns.

Assuming this happens when one is saved, then what else can we know about this alleged spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:6?

For one...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. It also says the 2nd death has no power over them. What I'm wanting to know then, where in any Scripture does it teach that once one undergoes this alleged spiritual resurrection can they ever lose it at anytime? Doesn't the text indicate they reign with Christ 1000 years? For the sake of argument only, the 1000 years is to be understood as now, and not literally exactly 1000 years, wouldn't that then mean they reign this entire time with Christ? So how could they somehow lose this reign with Christ? They can't, right? So why are some of these same people who believe in this spiritual resurrection then teaching OSAS is not Biblical? How can that not be a major contradiction? Personally speaking, if I were to believe the first resurrection is meaning spiritual, then no way could I ever disagree with OSAS. But the fact I do disagree with OSAS, I then cannot conclude the first resurrection is spiritual.

So then, if you've read this far, does one agree or disagree with me that a spiritual resurrection being true and NOSAS being false, is a contradiction? If not, then why not?

The point then is, which one is true, and which one isn't, assuming they are a contradiction? If OSAS is false, then how can a spiritual resurrection be true? But I think I already asked that.

FWIW David, if you took a different look, consider that the 1st resurrection speaks to those in Christ who have had a physical death or rapture, if you see that within your doctrines and is not now but future, for a man's spirit once created does not die, only the body, thus the body is alive as Jesus, being our first fruit; the second resurrection are those not in Christ. Remember, Jesus told His disciples to pray for an early kingdom to come, 'thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven... and when Jesus appeared to the 12 before what we now know as Pentecost, Act 1:6 states Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?.... an in effect he stated... No.

IMHO... don't focus on a doctrine and then search for scriptures in an effort to the support or refute that doctrine, but search the scriptures and let scriptures frame the understandings. So politely, and respectfully. I would say you are misunderstanding Rev 20:6

[divaD]

I would say you are misunderstanding Rev 20:6

I understand that passage to be meaning a bodily resurrection in the future, as in when Jesus returns. You would then conclude I'm misunderstanding that passage? Or are you speaking in general here, and not specifically to me? Kind of hard to tell, since it seems like you support this passage meaning a bodily resurrection in the future. Unless of course I've misunderstood you all the way around.

[Caleb]

There are some who teach one is true, the other is false. The spiritual resurrection being true, OSAS being false. This to me would be a contradiction. What is one passage the spiritual resurrection is based on?

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.

This would be a spiritual resurrection according to some. Some then, but not all I'm sure, then teach OSAS is not Biblical. Let's deal with the alleged spiritual resurrection. Only for the sake of argument, Revelation 20:6 teaches a spiritual resurrection that one undergoes when getting saved, and happens before Christ returns.

Assuming this happens when one is saved, then what else can we know about this alleged spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:6?

For one...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. It also says the 2nd death has no power over them. What I'm wanting to know then, where in any Scripture does it teach that once one undergoes this alleged spiritual resurrection can they ever lose it at anytime? Doesn't the text indicate they reign with Christ 1000 years? For the sake of argument only, the 1000 years is to be understood as now, and not literally exactly 1000 years, wouldn't that then mean they reign this entire time with Christ? So how could they somehow lose this reign with Christ? They can't, right? So why are some of these same people who believe in this spiritual resurrection then teaching OSAS is not Biblical? How can that not be a major contradiction? Personally speaking, if I were to believe the first resurrection is meaning spiritual, then no way could I ever disagree with OSAS. But the fact I do disagree with OSAS, I then cannot conclude the first resurrection is spiritual.

So then, if you've read this far, does one agree or disagree with me that a spiritual resurrection being true and NOSAS being false, is a contradiction? If not, then why not?

The point then is, which one is true, and which one isn't, assuming they are a contradiction? If OSAS is false, then how can a spiritual resurrection be true? But I think I already asked that.

I believe the resurrection is this:

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

I believe it is spiritual in the sense of our flesh will change from mortal to immortal, and from corrupt to incorrupt. When we see Him face to face, we will be like Him.

[divaD]

I believe it is spiritual in the sense of our flesh will change from mortal to immortal, and from corrupt to incorrupt.

I would agree. Also, since there will be those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, they too will be resurrected, since they too will get a new body like those who rise first do. They might not rise from the grave, but they rise from mortality unto immortality, just like the physically dead do.

[ChristianCoffee]

Does that mean I will no longer be vertically or follically challenged???

{Had to inject a touch of humor in this}

[John146]

There are some who teach one is true, the other is false. The spiritual resurrection being true, OSAS being false. This to me would be a contradiction.

I don't see it as a contradiction at all. Does the following not describe a spiritual resurrection of sorts?

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Paul says that we were once dead in sins but then were "raised..up". So, we went from being dead in sins to not being dead in sins any longer. Seems like a spiritual resurrection to me. Do you see any reason why we can't refer to what is described in that passage as a spiritual resurrection?

What is one passage the spiritual resurrection is based on?

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.

This would be a spiritual resurrection according to some. Some then, but not all I'm sure, then teach OSAS is not Biblical.

I believe the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20) but I believe we have part in His resurrection by way of being born again/saved. So, I do believe having part in the first (Christ's) resurrection is a spiritual event.

Let's deal with the alleged spiritual resurrection. Only for the sake of argument, Revelation 20:6 teaches a spiritual resurrection that one undergoes when getting saved, and happens before Christ returns.

Assuming this happens when one is saved, then what else can we know about this alleged spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:6?

For one...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. It also says the 2nd death has no power over them. What I'm wanting to know then, where in any Scripture does it teach that once one undergoes this alleged spiritual resurrection can they ever lose it at anytime?

I believe the following is addressed to people who have been born of the Spirit and saved:

Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

It's easy to see that this is addressed to believers because only believers can "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end". You need to have "confidence" or faith in the first place in order to hold onto it unto the end, right? So, passages like this one show that one can be spiritually raised from being dead in sins but later develop "an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God".

Doesn't the text indicate they reign with Christ 1000 years?

Now, how literal do you want to take that? If you took it completely literally then you would conclude tha they reign with Him for 1,000 years and then the reign ends, right? Yet we know Christ will reign for eternity. So, if you agree that Christ will reign for eternity then that means even you don't take that verse completely literally as if it says the ones who reign with Him only reign with Him for 1,000 years, no more and no less. Neither one of us believe that is what the text is saying. So, in my view, I think someone could be saved and be reigning with Christ but then they could later "depart from the living God". I don't see that it's only speaking of people who only reign with Him for the entirety of the thousand years. I believe it includes people reigning with Him during the thousand years and beyond, so I believe more and more people reign with Him as that time period goes on and they continue reigning with Him for eternity.

For the sake of argument only, the 1000 years is to be understood as now, and not literally exactly 1000 years, wouldn't that then mean they reign this entire time with Christ?

No. I explained why above.

So how could they somehow lose this reign with Christ? They can't, right?

Not according to your logic, but according to mine they can.

So why are some of these same people who believe in this spiritual resurrection then teaching OSAS is not Biblical?

Because of what I described above. Sure, that wouldn't make sense from your perspective, but it does from mine.

How can that not be a major contradiction?

Because not everyone is required to see things the way you do.

Personally speaking, if I were to believe the first resurrection is meaning spiritual, then no way could I ever disagree with OSAS.

But that's just you. I'm not required to think like you.

But the fact I do disagree with OSAS, I then cannot conclude the first resurrection is spiritual.

So then, if you've read this far, does one agree or disagree with me that a spiritual resurrection being true and NOSAS being false, is a contradiction?

Not at all.

If not, then why not?

See above.

[markedward]

This would be a spiritual resurrection according to some. Some then, but not all I'm sure, then teach OSAS is not Biblical. Let's deal with the alleged spiritual resurrection. Only for the sake of argument, Revelation 20:6 teaches a spiritual resurrection that one undergoes when getting saved, and happens before Christ returns.

This 'first resurrection' is something the saints share in, and it results in them reigning with Jesus for the thousand years. The resurrection isn't a spiritual one, and sharing in it does not necessarily lead to OSAS.

Jesus himself is the first resurrection. He is the 'firstfruits of the resurrection' (1 Corinthians 15), and the 'firstborn of the dead' (Colossians 1; Revelation 1). John says that the saints share in his resurrection and in his reign, even though they await their own resurrection in the age to come. Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 2.5-7:

'[God] made us alive together with Christ',
(We share in his resurrection...)

'and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus',
(... and in his present reign...)

'so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.'
(... even though we await our own resurrection in the age to come.)

But 'sharing' in this doesn't make OSAS true. The epistle to the Hebrews makes it pretty clear that a person can 'taste' and 'share' the heavenly gifts of God (including the holy spirit, the word of God, and the powers of the age to come) and still fall away from their salvation. It's NOSAS while we're still alive in this life, it's OSAS after this life (i.e. in death and resurrection). Salvation is conditional to our faithful obedience to Jesus... which makes sharing in the resurrection and reign of Jesus conditional to our faithful obedience to him.

[divaD]

I don't see it as a contradiction at all. Does the following not describe a spiritual resurrection of sorts?

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Paul says that we were once dead in sins but then were "raised..up". So, we went from being dead in sins to not being dead in sins any longer. Seems like a spiritual resurrection to me. Do you see any reason why we can't refer to what isdescribed in that passage as a spiritual resurrection?

Let's go with this then. Once someone undergoes this spiritual resurrection, can they then lose it somehow?

I believe the following is addressed to people who have been born of the Spirit and saved:

Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

It's easy to see that this is addressed to believers because only believers can "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end". You need to have "confidence" or faith in the first place in order to hold onto it unto the end, right? So, passages like this one show that one can be spiritually raised from being dead in sins but later develop "an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God".

But that would be contradicting Rev 20:6 IMO.

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.

First of all, it says Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection..then it goes on to say...and shall reign with him a thousand years. For one thing, I don't see where it implies nor says that anyone of the first resurrection ever loses this 1000 year reign with Christ. And besides, it says they are blessed and holy. It would seem to me then that it would be impossible to depart from the living God, because of an evil heart of unbelief, if the first resurrection is spiritual. If they partook of the first resurrection, and that it's spiritual, then that means they would be blessed and holy, and then reign with Christ this entire 1000 years. The only way to square this then, Heb 3:12 is true, the first resurrection being spiritual, this would be untrue, since each seems to contradict the other.

Now, how literal do you want to take that? If you took it completely literally then you would conclude tha they reign with Him for 1,000 years and then the reign ends, right? Yet we know Christ will reign for eternity. So, if you agree that Christ will reign for eternity then that means even you don't take that verse completely literally as if it says the ones who reign with Him only reign with Him for 1,000 years, no more and no less.

Unfortunately I'm just not seeing your point. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I'm just not seeing it. What difference would it make either way, if this 1000 years were literal or not? Any way you look at it, it would still have a beginning and an end to it.

BTW Eric, as always, I enjoy these discussions with you. Even tho we don't always see things eye to eye, nor end up agreeing with each other after the discussions, it's not like what you are saying is going in one ear and out the other. I truly consider what you have to say. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but who knows, perhaps some day we will find ourselves agreeing with one another when we disagreed with one another in the past. So I didn't want you to think it's a waste of your time to discuss these things, since it seems that we're not as of yet, if ever, coming to a mutual understanding in regards to some things.

[markedward]

One thing to notice is that John is talking about the 'souls' of people who stuck through the persecutions of the beast. His emphasis is on dead, victorious Christians (though we shouldn't think John is systematically excluding living Christians)... or as the writer of Hebrews says, 'the spirits of righteous men made perfect'.

[David Taylor]

Let's deal with the alleged spiritual resurrection. Only for the sake of argument, Revelation 20:6 teaches a spiritual resurrection that one undergoes when getting saved, and happens before Christ returns.

Assuming this happens when one is saved, then what else can we know about this alleged spiritual resurrection

Not wanting to get into the OSAS side of the thread, nor into the variant opinions on the proper interpretation of Rev 20; there are other passages in scripture that liken the new birth to a spiritual resurrection.

Romans 6:4
"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that 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."

Ephesians 2:1,5
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

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. "

[John146]

Let's go with this then. Once someone undergoes this spiritual resurrection, can they then lose it somehow?

Yes. I thought I already addressed this by referring to Heb 3:12-14. That passage talks about saved people "departing from the living God" if we don't "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end".

By the way, I don't see anywhere where you responded specifically to what I said about there being such thing as a spiritual resurrection. So, do you agree or not that there is such thing in the sense of us being raised up to new spiritual life in Christ after previously being dead in sins (Eph 2:1-6)?

But that would be contradicting Rev 20:6 IMO.

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.

First of all, it says Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection..then it goes on to say...and shall reign with him a thousand years. For one thing, I don't see where it implies nor says that anyone of the first resurrection ever loses this 1000 year reign with Christ.

You are making an argument from silence. It also doesn't say that they continue to reign after the thousand years but we both believe they do, right? Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that they don't reign beyond the thousand years since it doesn't specifically say that they do? If not then I don't believe you can conclude that someone can't lose their place of reigning with Christ just because it doesn't specifically say they can.

And besides, it says they are blessed and holy. It would seem to me then that it would be impossible to depart from the living God, because of an evil heart of unbelief, if the first resurrection is spiritual. If they partook of the first resurrection, and that it's spiritual, then that means they would be blessed and holy, and then reign with Christ this entire 1000 years. The only way to square this then, Heb 3:12 is true, the first resurrection being spiritual, this would be untrue, since each seems to contradict the other.

Do you believe you are blessed and part of the "holy priesthood" mentioned here:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

If so then why do you believe you, as a blessed and holy priest of Christ, can lose your salvation? See how I used your own logic against you there?

Read that verse above again (1 Peter 2:5) and then compare it to Rev 20:6. See any similarities? Doesn't Rev 20:6 indicate that a characteristic of someone who reigns with Christ is that they are blessed and holy and are "priests of God and of Christ"? Are we not even now blessed and holy priests of God and of Christ, according to 1 Peter 2:5? If so then don't we fit the description of those who reign with Christ right now? I believe so.

Unfortunately I'm just not seeing your point. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I'm just not seeing it. What difference would it make either way, if this 1000 years were literal or not? Any way you look at it, it would still have a beginning and an end to it.

The point is that even though the text specifically states that they reign with Christ for a thousand years we know that they actually will reign with Christ forever. If we took it completely literally we would conclude that they reign with Christ for the thousand years (whether the thousand years is literal or not is irrelevant to my point) and that's it. So, what I'm saying then is that since it's not saying they reign with Christ for the thousand years and only for the thousand years then I see no reason why it can't be that some could reign for various amounts of time during the thousand years. I don't see that it's saying the only ones who reign with Christ are those who are reigning with Him when the thousand years begins (began). I believe as that time period goes on more and more people are raised up together to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus and we reign with Him in that sense.

BTW Eric, as always, I enjoy these discussions with you.

Same here. Thanks.

Even tho we don't always see things eye to eye, nor end up agreeing with each other after the discussions, it's not like what you are saying is going in one ear and out the other. I truly consider what you have to say.

I appreciate that, and while I'm not sure if you believe it I consider what you have to say as well.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but who knows, perhaps some day we will find ourselves agreeing with one another when we disagreed with one another in the past.

I think that has happened before regarding one thing or another but I can't think of what that was exactly offhand. So, I think we can each learn things from each other. That's what these discussions should be about.

So I didn't want you to think it's a waste of your time to discuss these things, since it seems that we're not as of yet, if ever, coming to a mutual understanding in regards to some things.

No, I don't believe it's a waste of time. We may never agree on some of these things, but there are others who read our discussions who can then take what we say into consideration and hopefully learn something from it.

[John146]

This 'first resurrection' is something the saints share in, and it results in them reigning with Jesus for the thousand years. The resurrection isn't a spiritual one, and sharing in it does not necessarily lead to OSAS.

Jesus himself is the first resurrection. He is the 'firstfruits of the resurrection' (1 Corinthians 15), and the 'firstborn of the dead' (Colossians 1; Revelation 1).

It's nice to see someone who shares my view that Christ Himself is the first resurrection and that we have part in His resurrection. In addition to the verses you quoted there is this one to support that view:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

It's worth noting that the only other verse in scripture besides Rev 20:6 where the Greek phrase protos anastasis (first resurrection) is used is this one and it's used to describe Christ's resurrection in this verse.

John says that the saints share in his resurrection and in his reign, even though they await their own resurrection in the age to come. Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 2.5-7:

'[God] made us alive together with Christ',
(We share in his resurrection...)

'and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus',
(... and in his present reign...)

'so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.'
(... even though we await our own resurrection in the age to come.)

But 'sharing' in this doesn't make OSAS true. The epistle to the Hebrews makes it pretty clear that a person can 'taste' and 'share' the heavenly gifts of God (including the holy spirit, the word of God, and the powers of the age to come) and still fall away from their salvation. It's NOSAS while we're still alive in this life, it's OSAS after this life (i.e. in death and resurrection). Salvation is conditional to our faithful obedience to Jesus... which makes sharing in the resurrection and reign of Jesus conditional to our faithful obedience to him.

I agree. Well said.

[John146]

I would agree. Also, since there will be those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, they too will be resurrected, since they too will get a new body like those who rise first do. They might not rise from the grave, but they rise from mortality unto immortality, just like the physically dead do.

I disagree with your portrayal of what will happen to those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. Paul does not say that they will die and be resurrected, he says they will be changed. Being changed and being resurrected are not the same thing. If they were the same then why does he differentiate between the dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain in 1 Thess 4:14-17? In your view it seems they would all be dead. In order to be resurrected you have to be dead and it does not say those who are alive and remain first die and then are resurrected and then changed. But I can see why you would have a belief like this. You have to include living saints in the first resurrection somehow because it obviously wouldn't make sense to exclude them from reigning with Christ. But I don't think what you're saying here is a viable way to do that since I don't think there's any way to support the idea that believers who are alive at Christ's coming would die and then be resurrected and then changed.