A spiritual resurrection and OSAS.

[divaD]

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)?

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.

When John saw this vision, would you then conclude he never saw this including anyone who might be saved during the little season, assuming an amil view? But if it did include them, then how do they reign with Christ a thousand years? What's the point of the 1000 years if it can still be applied to someone after the 1000 years? That would be like saying, when the new heavens and a new earth are here, one is still reigning this 1000 years. This 1000 years would be over, would be the point, especially in regards to the little season.


BTW, I fully understand that His reign would be fiorever. Yet there has to be a rhyme and reason for this 1000 years.

[divaD]

I believe in Rev 20:6 he indicated that everyone who had part in the first resurrection would reign with Christ.

Exactly!. And a thousand years at that, which then presents a problem for those saved during the little season, assuming the 1000 years is meaning now.

[John146]

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.

Why do you say that? I completely disagree. It certainly doesn't specifically say that anywhere in the text.

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.

But not necessarily only with the thousand years. It just so happens that John was focusing on the thousand years because that is the time period during which Satan is bound.

No matter how you look at it, the little season follows the conclusion of this 1000 years.

I agree. At least we agree on something.

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.

Just because they wouldn't reign during the thousand years doesn't mean they couldn't reign at all.

Revelation 20 makes it as clear as clear can be.

LOL. To you, maybe. Yet, you can't make what is clear to you clear to me or anyone else. If it was really so clear I don't know why it wouldn't be clear to me and others as well.

Those of the first resurrection, meaning every last single one of them, they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

That's your assumption because you believe it refers to the bodily resurrection of believers at Christ's second coming. The problem with that assumption is that it leaves out those who are alive and remain. Since they won't be resurrected they would then not have part in the first resurrection. Your solution to that problem (that those who are alive and remain will die and be resurrected) is far less than satisfactory, IMO.

[John146]

Exactly!. And a thousand years at that, which then presents a problem for those saved during the little season, assuming the 1000 years is meaning now.

Why is that a problem? Does Christ reign only for a thousand years? If not then why would people only reign with Him for a thousand years but not after that?

[John146]

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.

That's completely false. Why would that be the case? I'm sure there are plenty of premils who believe people can be saved during the little season. Believing that has nothing to do with whether someone is premil or amil.

[John146]

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.

Is that a view you are comfortable with, believing that over a thousand year period (plus however long the little season is) no one could get saved? That view is repulsive to me and makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[John146]

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?

Does every passage in scripture that speaks of people being saved and born again also mention that they could fall away? No. So, there's no requirement for that to be mentioned in Rev 20 in order for that to be true.

If OSAS were Biblical, then that's another story. But OSAS is not Biblical IMO

I agree.

nor in yours either.

What does that mean?

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

Maybe to you, but not to me.

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.

I'm sorry, but that view is just one of the most mind boggling views I've ever seen on here. In what sense will those who are alive and remain be resurrected at Christ's coming? In order to be resurrected from the dead you have to be dead.

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.

Why do you suppose that no one else believes as you do regarding the belief that those who are alive and remain will be resurrected from the dead at Christ's coming? If that view was true, surely God would reveal it to others as well, wouldn't He? So, has He? Not as as far as I can tell.

[John146]

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.

When John saw this vision, would you then conclude he never saw this including anyone who might be saved during the little season, assuming an amil view?

He specifically mentions the thousand years there, but that doesn't mean no one can reign with Him after that any more than it means He doesn't reign after that. I'm not sure why you can't understand that.

But if it did include them, then how do they reign with Christ a thousand years?

They obviously wouldn't reign during the thousand years since it would be over at that point but that doesn't mean they can't reign with Him.

What's the point of the 1000 years if it can still be applied to someone after the 1000 years?

The thousand years does not mark the entire duration of Christ's reign but rather marks the duration of the binding of Satan. You keep talking as if it marks the entire duration of Christ's reign but it doesn't.

That would be like saying, when the new heavens and a new earth are here, one is still reigning this 1000 years. This 1000 years would be over, would be the point, especially in regards to the little season.

I'm not saying anyone who begins to reign with Christ during the little season could be said to have reigned during the thousand years. Come on.

BTW, I fully understand that His reign would be fiorever. Yet there has to be a rhyme and reason for this 1000 years.

In your current view there appears to be no rhyme or reason for the thousand years since you believe no one will be saved during that time. Primarily, the thousand years marks the time period in which Satan is bound and is not meant to imply that Christ reigns only during that time or that people can't be saved during that time or anything like that.

[tea]

Will Christ be more on the throne in the 1000 years? No
Why is a whole doctrine[millenium] formed from such a few verses in the bible?
Why did Jesus never teach on the millenium?

[divaD]

Why do you say that? I completely disagree. It certainly doesn't specifically say that anywhere in the text.

It's called deductive reasoning. Having part in the first resurrection is directly linked to the 1000 years. You take either of them out of the equation, then you have Rev 20 saying something other than what it is saying.

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.

Let's look at this two different ways, then tell me which way is still meaning what it states in this verse.

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

Blessed and holy is he : 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.

The former, that's what you would have to apply to anyone saved during the little season. The only thing is, that's not what Revelation 20:6 states. That's taking away from what is stated. So then, Revelation 20:6 can't be applied to anyone during the little season, because to do so is to take away from what the passage states. But to apply to them what the passage states, this then leads to an illogical conclusion, because it would be impossible to reign with Christ a thousand years, if the thousand years have already ended, and the little season has begun..

I agree. At least we agree on something.

And it was a major thing we agreed upon on top of that. lol

LOL. To you, maybe. Yet, you can't make what is clear to you clear to me or anyone else. If it was really so clear I don't know why it wouldn't be clear to me and others as well.

I had to go back and look at what I said. I believe the following would be it in context. "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."

Why don't you find that to be clear? Isn't that exactly what Revelation 20 says?

That's your assumption because you believe it refers to the bodily resurrection of believers at Christ's second coming. The problem with that assumption is that it leaves out those who are alive and remain. Since they won't be resurrected they would then not have part in the first resurrection. Your solution to that problem (that those who are alive and remain will die and be resurrected) is far less than satisfactory, IMO.

Yes, and your interpretation leaves out those who might be saved during the little season, since there's no way for them to reign with Christ a thousand years, even tho Revelation 20 says all who have part in the first resurrection reign with Christ a thousand years.

[John146]

It's called deductive reasoning. Having part in the first resurrection is directly linked to the 1000 years. You take either of them out of the equation, then you have Rev 20 saying something other than what it is saying.

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.

Let's look at this two different ways, then tell me which way is still meaning what it states in this verse.

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

Blessed and holy is he : 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.

The former, that's what you would have to apply to anyone saved during the little season. The only thing is, that's not what Revelation 20:6 states. That's taking away from what is stated. So then, Revelation 20:6 can't be applied to anyone during the little season, because to do so is to take away from what the passage states. But to apply to them what the passage states, this then leads to an illogical conclusion, because it would be impossible to reign with Christ a thousand years, if the thousand years have already ended, and the little season has begun..

The problem I see here is that you seem to only be looking at Rev 20 in order to draw conclusions and are not taking the rest of scripture into account. Where does the rest of scripture ever teach that there would ever be a time period in which people could not be saved, which is the conclusion you're coming to because of your understanding of Rev 20. You're expecting Rev 20 to contain every last detail regarding the thousand years and regarding who can reign with Christ when and for how long. Doesn't the rest of scripture have anything to say about it? We need the help of other scripture in order to interpret Rev 20 properly, IMO. But you seem to think that doctrine should be formed from Rev 20 and then all other scripture needs to line up with conclusions you draw only from Rev 20.

I had to go back and look at what I said. I believe the following would be it in context. "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."

Why don't you find that to be clear? Isn't that exactly what Revelation 20 says?

Yeah, that's what it says and everyone would agree with that but are you not aware that people don't always agree on what something means regardless of "what it says"? I believe those who were dead at that time reigned with Christ a thousand years but that doesn't mean no one else could reign with Christ during the thousand years.

Yes, and your interpretation leaves out those who might be saved during the little season, since there's no way for them to reign with Christ a thousand years, even tho Revelation 20 says all who have part in the first resurrection reign with Christ a thousand years.

This is getting tiresome. I think we just need to agree to disagree at this point. We're both starting to get repetitive.

[LookingUp]

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.

I thought the general pre-mill view was that mortals are saved during the 1000 years as well as the little season. Why would the God of life and salvation have mortals go into the mill. kingdom, have babies, populate the earth to thousands or millions and not provide a way of salvation? From what I know of the God of Scripture, that's not even an option. The general consensus (or so I thought) is that people are saved and people can die during the 1000 years (some pre-mill folk believe that only the unsaved die). In either case (whether the saved die or not), they must somehow get an immortal body. Some pre-mill folk speculate that they will have to continually eat from the tree of life to live forever, unlike those of us who were resurrected or changed at the return of Christ. Some speculate that their bodies will be transformed to immortal bodies at the end of the 1000 years & little season (a “change” much like those who remain alive at His return). And some believe the transformation into an immortal body is more like a process as the individual absorbs more and more of God’s glory (sorta like we see when Moses absorbed God’s glory). A lot of speculation regarding this for the pre-mill camp.

Seems to me that amil. is less complicated. As I’ve begun to ease up on the need to interpret every verse in Scripture so rigidly literal, I find myself becoming more open to the amil. view.

By the way, can’t one be amil. and preterist? Wish I knew more about all these views.

[LookingUp]

Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Blessed and holy is the one who drinks coffee; over these sleep has no power, but they will be athletes and run a 1,000 mile race.

From the amil. view, let’s say the 1,000 mile race has already begun. Can’t someone drink coffee, become an athlete and partake in the 1,000 mile race at any point during the race? I think, yes.

OK, for those after the race has ended. Can’t someone drink coffee, become an athlete and not partake in the 1,000 mile race? If the coffee is still offered, it will still have the effect of making one into an athlete. But if the 1,000 mile race is over, then that opportunity is impossible. We know there are other races (i.e. Jesus continues to reign after the 1000 years).

[divaD]

Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Blessed and holy is the one who drinks coffee; over these sleep has no power, but they will be athletes and run a 1,000 mile race.

From the amil. view, let’s say the 1,000 mile race has already begun. Can’t someone drink coffee, become an athlete and partake in the 1,000 mile race at any point during the race? I think, yes.

OK, for those after the race has ended. Can’t someone drink coffee, become an athlete and not partake in the 1,000 mile race? If the coffee is still offered, it will still have the effect of making one into an athlete. But if the 1,000 mile race is over, then that opportunity is impossible. We know there are other races (i.e. Jesus continues to reign after the 1000 years).

Why is everyone missing the point? Let's try it like this. 1970 rquals the beginning of the 1000 years. 1980 equals the end of it. Let's try that with the passage in Rev 20, keeping in mind, only to try and illustrate the point.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years IN 1970,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled IN 1980: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 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 FROM 1970 TO 1980.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished IN 1980. This is the first resurrection.
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 FROM 1970 TO 1980.
7 And when the thousand years are expired IN 1980, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


If it isn't clear after this, then there's no getting thru to some of you, because I don't know how to make it any clearer.


Let's start with verse 6. What can we determine about those that hath part in the first resurrection? That they shall reign with him a thousand years FROM 1970 TO 1980.

Now let's look at verse 7. And when the thousand years are expired IN 1980, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. First of all when did he get put into his prison? And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years IN 1970. In 1970 is when he was cast into his prison. In 1980 he is let out. That then means we are no longer in the time period of 1970 to 1980, but we are in 1980 and beyond, as time goes on.

Let's say then that 10 people are saved in 1981. In the amil view this would mean they partake of the first resurrection I guess. So that should mean, according to verse 6 that they're blessed and holy. It should also mean on such the second death hath no power. Plus they shall be priests of God and of Christ. Let's stop there for a moment. Would any amil argue with that so far? I would say probably not. So then, to be consistent, if all those things apply to the 10 new saved people in 1981, then so must this part as well...and shall reign with him a thousand years FROM 1970 TO 1980. Totally impossible. Totally illogical. Like I pointed out earlier, this is taking away from what Scriptures plainly say here, when one takes the 1000 years out of verse 6, yet applies the rest of the verse to the 10 saved in 1981. Somewhere in this book it says we're not to add nor to take away from this prophecy. Whether this constitutes as taking away from, I don't know, but I'm not planning on finding out, since my Bible clearly says ALL who have part in the first resurrection shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. Nowhere does it say some would and some won't. No way anyone saved in the little season could reign
with Christ a thousand years. That then means the first resurrection being spiritual, it is an illogical conclusion. The little season proves it so.

[divaD]

I thought the general pre-mill view was that mortals are saved during the 1000 years as well as the little season.

I'm not your typical premil. I think I'm a cross between premil and amil, since I find a lot of the amil conclusions to be logical. Until yesterday, I was seriously thinking that perhaps this first resurrection being spiritual, maybe there's really something to it. But as I was discussing with you, it's like this lightbulb out of nowhere turned on, meaning what I've been arguing here lately. The little season in relation to the reigning for a thousand years. I had never looked at it from that perspective before. And now that I have..well you know the rest, as in my latest posts specifically focusing on this.


If you want to undertand premil, you have to be willing to go to the OT to search for clues. It is mainly the OT that convinces me amil is incorrect. In ETC I started a thread about timezones. Would love to hear your input in relation to that. The thread is here I think it could make for an interesting discussion. The point of that thread is to see whether the millennial kingdom can be traced to the first advent, or to the 2nd advent. That's what my goal was.