Resurrection, First Resurrection and New Birth

[Zao is life]

You didn’t mention Matthew 27:51-53 in the OP. If the first resurrection is still future, do you have to spiritualize the event in Matthew 27?

I never replied to this probably because I could not understand what you were asking - but now I realize it's because you seemed to think those folks rose before Christ's resurrection (which they did not).

Mat 27:52-53

and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose,

and coming out of the tomb after His resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

So no, it was not a spiritual resurrection - it was a bodily resurrection. It was not mentioned by Paul when he said,

1 Cor 15
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

Nevertheless, those who came out of their graves nearly 2,000 years ago, came out after Christ was risen.

 

[Zao is life]

So you are admitting that Christ was the first resurrection? And any resurrection after that can’t be considered the first?

The Bible calls Him the firsfruits of the resurrection and also states that He was the first of the resurrection of the dead:

Acts 26:23 that Christ should suffer, that by a resurrection of the dead, He would be the first, going to proclaim light to the people and to the nations.

So, yes. But those in Rev 20 are only resurrected after having been beheaded and after the return of Christ.

Many have placed too much emphasis on the fact that the Revelation calls the resurrection that will take place when Christ returns "the first resurrection", and build a whole eisegetical doctrine called "spiritual resurrection" on top of that one verse of scripture, without taking what the rest of scripture says into account.

I don't know if that's you. But many do this.

 

[Zao is life]

Denying what the inspired text says does not negate the reality of the fact. You seem to think: if you repeat this enough someone will actually believe you. That is not the way it works! The above texts that have been submitted speak about the believer being raised from death to life by way of spiritual resurrection. We are shown to be buried with Christ in death, and resurrected in the likeness of His glorious resurrection into newness of life. This couldn't be clearer. This is a spiritual reality! Being raised from the grave of our sin and being born from above are 2 analogies that describe the same supernatural spiritual experience.



Acts 26:23 presents Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is evidence! This is corroboration!



Again, your evidence is personal opinion. This is not evidence! This is just personal opinion. You attack the multiple Amil proof-texts, but do you have one to prove your theory?

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+?

Yes - Jesus is the first resurrection and the firsfruits of the resurrection but you have inserted a "spiritual" resurrection into the New Testament and equated it with the new-birth experience.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yes - Jesus is the first resurrection and the firsfruits of the resurrection but you have inserted a "spiritual" resurrection into the New Testament and equated it with the new-birth experience.

I agree! So, if that is so (and we both agree it is), then this locates the beginning of Revelation 20 at the First Advent, not the second coming as Premils argue.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I’m not trying to prove that the first resurrection was spiritual. SG has been making that case and I’m not arguing that.

You are claiming the first resurrection has to be a bodily resurrection. Can you simply answer my question; is the bodily resurrection in Matthew 27 the first resurrection?

No, i believe "the first resurrection" is Jesus' resurrection. What I am saying is that what Rev 20 talks about those who have their "part" in "the first resurrection" are all those who have come to faith in Christ and are now united to Christ in salvation. According to Scripture, these experience spiritual resurrection because He has overcome sin, death, Hades and Satan.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

PS: I was not avoiding your question and have answered it. You have failed to prove anything you say regarding the first resurrection because you keep side-stepping the fact that none of the verses talking about being raised from death (egeiro) or resurrected (apostasia) are not talking about the bodily resurrection from the dead, and none of them are referring to the new birth or calling the new birth "the first resurrection" or "resurrection".

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]

By being born spiritually! Just as Jesus said in JOhn 3:

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

We are not resurrected spiritually at salvation- we are born spiritually at salvation!

Posts 2&3 biblically refute your claims.

 

[Zao is life]

In your theology, Jesus resurrection is ignored/overlooked as if it did not happen. You make man's resurrection the first, rather than Christ's. This is ridiculous, unscriptural and wrong. This is what Premil produces.

TOTALLY FALSE accusation again.

Now that you've stopped machine-gunning me with one long, long post after another in very short periods of time (which you admitted in another thread you have conveniently stored, waiting for you to just copy and paste), I can read what you say.

I have not said that our Lord's resurrection has not happened. In a number of posts I said that the New Testament calls Him the firsfruits of the resurrection,

and in one post you had bombarded me with such long posts one after the other that I said the New Testament calls Him the firstfruts of the resurrection but it does not call His resurrection the first resurrection, which is incorrect - and now that you have stopped machine-gunning me, I saw my error and went back and edited it to correct it.

This still does not mean that the fact that Rev 20:6 also calls the resurrection of martyred saints at the time of Christ's return "the first resurrection", is "proof" of the fact that it's talking about a resurrection that has already taken place and it certainly is not "proof" that what Jesus called birth from above is "the first resurrection".

All the New Testament verses talking about being raised from the dead and resurrection are referring unambiguously to a bodily resurrection from the dead - not a "spiritual" resurrection. You keep side-stepping this fact.

 

[Zao is life]

I agree! So, if that is so (and we both agree it is), then this locates the beginning of Revelation 20 at the First Advent, not the second coming as Premils argue.

Nope.

You can't build a whole thesis on one verse of scripture alone. You have to look at all that the New Testament says about it, otherwise you wind up with the eisegesis that has been the veil over your eyes for who knows how long.

You still have not stopped side-stepping the fact that all the New Testament verses talking of being raised from death and resurrection from death are unambiguously speaking of a bodily resurrection and have nothing to do with the new birth experience.

 

[sovereigngrace]

TOTALLY FALSE accusation again.

Now that you've stopped machine-gunning me with one long, long post after another in very short periods of time (which you admitted in another thread you have conveniently stored, waiting for you to just copy and paste), I can read what you say.

I have not said that our Lord's resurrection has not happened. In a number of posts I said that the New Testament calls Him the firsfruits of the resurrection,

and in one post you had bombarded me with such long posts one after the other that I said the New Testament calls Him the firstfruts of the resurrection but it does not call His resurrection the first resurrection, which is incorrect - and now that you have stopped machine-gunning me, I saw my error and went back and edited it to correct it.

This still does not mean that the fact that Rev 20:6 also calls the resurrection of martyred saints at the time of Christ's return "the first resurrection", is "proof" of the fact that it's talking about a resurrection that has already taken place and it certainly is not "proof" that what Jesus called birth from above is "the first resurrection".

All the New Testament verses talking about being raised from the dead and resurrection are referring unambiguously to a bodily resurrection from the dead - not a "spiritual" resurrection. You keep side-stepping this fact.

Oh, so there are now 'two first resurrections'? Your theology is getting more confusing by the day. It is as clear as mud. This is what Premil produces. That is why many have abandoned it.

The next physical resurrection is the general physical resurrection of all mankind. As your avoidance has proved, Premil has zero corroboration for their 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+. They are forced to attribute a litany of brand-new doctrine to the chapter and invent a brand-new age unknown to the rest of Scripture through their understanding of Revelation 20. We all know that that cannot be true. Premil lacks any corroboration for all its fundamental tenets. It is not just that we have a brand-new era suddenly foisted upon us 3 chapters before the end of Scripture, it is that it contradicts repeated climactic Scripture.

 

[Zao is life]

No, i believe "the first resurrection" is Jesus' resurrection. What I am say is that what Rev 20 talks about those who have their "part" in "the first resurrection" are all those who have come to faith in Christ and are now united to Christ in salvation. According to Scripture, these experience spiritual resurrection because He has overcome sin, death, Hades and Satan.

Right. At last you've stopped equating the New Testament's statements regarding being raised from the dead/resurrection from the dead with new birth, even though all those verses are unambiguously talking about bodily resurrection.

Now you might start getting somewhere.

So.. those people had been beheaded and had refused the mark of the beast, and they were raised from the dead.

When did this happen, bearing in mind that Paul said,

1 Cor 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

When, in your opinion, were those who were beheaded for their testimony to Chris and for the Word of God and for refusing the mark of the beast, resurrected from the dead?

 

[Zao is life]

Oh, so there are now 'two first resurrections'? Your theology is getting more confusing by the day. It is as clear as mud. This is what Premil produces. That is why many have abandoned it.

The next physical resurrection is the general physical resurrection of all mankind. As your avoidance has proved, Premil has zero corroboration for their 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+. They are forced to attribute a litany of brand-new doctrine to the chapter and invent a brand-new age unknown to the rest of Scripture through their understanding of Revelation 20. We all know that that cannot be true. Premil lacks any corroboration for all its fundamental tenets. It is not just that we have a brand-new era suddenly foisted upon us 3 chapters before the end of Scripture, it is that it contradicts repeated climactic Scripture.

The Revelation calls it the first resurrection. I never wrote the Revelation or any part of the Bible.

Clearly, the first resurrection in Rev 20 is not referring to Christ's resurrection.

So whose resurrection is it calling "the first resurrection"?

PS: I did not write the Revelation.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Nope.

You can't build a whole thesis on one verse of scripture alone. You have to look at all that the New Testament says about it, otherwise you wind up with the eisegesis that has been the veil over your eyes for who knows how long.

You still have not stopped side-steeping the fact that all the New Testament verses talking of being raised from death and resurrection from death are unambiguously speaking of a bodily resurrection and have nothing to do with the new birth experience.

It is Premil that does that! Amils lets the rest of Scripture locate and interpret Revelation 20. Premil lets their opinion of Revelation 20 locate and interpret the rest of Scripture. This is troubling allowing for the fact that this chapter if taken literally and chronologically, introduces a brand-new age that is unknown to the rest of the Bible, and which contradicts with numerous Scripture.

The fact is: there is one literal first resurrection where Christ defeated the grave. To think otherwise is absurd, and reveals the duplicity of Premil hermeneutics. The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "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).

The Revelation calls it the first resurrection. I never wrote the Revelation or any part of the Bible.

Clearly, the first resurrection in Rev 20 is not referring to Christ's resurrection.

So whose resurrection is it calling "the first resurrection"?

PS: I did not write the Revelation.

Corroboration is an essential doctrine for proving any major doctrine. Ignoring it and building your belief on obscure language and private interpretation is a false conclusion fallacy. The mode of hermeneutics of any school of thought must perfectly correlate with the consistent and explicit teaching of Scripture. The only sure way to interpret Scripture is with other Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 says, “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Personal interpretation of a Scripture alone is untrustworthy. That is private interpretation. It should be supported by other clear and repeated Scripture. After all, there is a harmony to all truth. Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

And finally, and most importantly, what is the consistent repeated testimony of the rest of Scripture on the said matter. We should always compare Scripture with Scripture and interpret it in the light of the full written counsel of God. The only sure way to interpret Scripture effectively is with other Scripture. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, not the human mind. 2 Corinthians 13:1 highlights a divine evidential imperative, which if ignored will bring Bible students into all forms of strange teaching. It states, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” This important principle is outlined repeatedly both the OT and the NT.

This important principle was decreed of God throughout the Old Testament in order to corroborate evidence in the case of witnesses - to prove matters of evidence. It is also presented in the New Testament time as the criteria for establishing truth. 1 Corinthians 2:13 says, “the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

God expects us to compare Scripture with Scripture – the spiritual with the spiritual. Scripture is the supreme and absolute means for interpreting other Scripture.

 

[Zao is life]

Premil lacks any corroboration for all its fundamental tenets. It is not just that we have a brand-new era suddenly foisted upon us 3 chapters before the end of Scripture, it is that it contradicts repeated climactic Scripture.

Premil blah blah blah but questions you can't answer you won't and don't, and you have still not admitted that all New Testament verse talking about being raised from the dead/resurrected from the dead are talking about a bodily resurrection and not even one is talking about a "spiritual" resurrection or the new birth.

Since Christ is the first resurrection and firstborn from the dead and the firsfruits of the resurrection, then whose resurrection is Rev 20:4-6 speaking about?

 

[Bruce Leiter]

I asked some questions in another thread and received the following correct replies:

1. Would humans be able to be with God in heaven if they are not in Christ?

No, you must be born again to see or enter the Kingdom of God.

2. Do humans have to be born of the Spirit to be in Christ?

Yes.

SCRIPTURES RELATING TO THE RESURRECTION

1 Cor 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit (aparche), and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

The above is referring to a bodily resurrection. Let's see if we can ascertain if any of the verses below are referring to a spiritual resurrection:

(A) BODILY RESURRECTION

John 6:40 (words of Christ): And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him should have everlasting life. And I will raise him up at the last day.

1 Cor 6:14 And God has both raised up the Lord, and also will raise us up by His own power.

NOTE 1:

There is no New Testament verse where the Greek word anastasis (resurrection) is talking about anything other than the bodily resurrection of the dead. See for example:-

Mat 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luk 2:34; Luk 20:27; John 5:29; Acts:- 4:2; 17:18; 17:32; 23:8; 24:15; 2 Tim 2:18).

NOTE 2:

Likewise, there is no New Testament verse speaking about being raised up from death that is not speaking of being raised up bodily - they all refer to the bodily resurrection from the dead, example:-

Matthew:- 11:5; 16:21; 17:23; Mark:- 6:14; 14;28; Luke:- 7:22; 9:22; 20:37; John:- 12:1 & 9 & 17; Acts:- 2:24 & 32; 3:15 & 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30 & 34 & 37; Romans:- 4:24 & 25; 6:4 &9; 7:4; 8:11 & 34; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 1 Cor 15:12-17 & 29 & 32 & 35 & 42-44 & 52-54; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8; 1 Pet 1:21; Rev 1:18.

Romans 8
10 and if Christ is in you, the body, indeed, is dead because of sin, and the Spirit is life because of righteousness,
11 But if the Spirit of the One who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the One who raised up Christ from the dead shall also make your mortal bodies alive by His Spirit who dwells in you.

CHRIST'S RESURRECTION:

Rom 4:22 And therefore (Abraham's faith) was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised (egeiro) up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised (egeiro) again for our justification.

As we can see, the bodily resurrection from the dead is a major theme in the New Testament, and is a major part of the gospel.

(B) BEING BORN FROM ABOVE

John 3:3 KJV
Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again (Greek: anothen), he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Strongs: G509
00509 G509 ἄνωθεν anōthen an'-o-then
From G507; from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew: - from above again from the beginning (very first) the top.

JOhn 3:3 Young's Literal Translation
Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'

John 3:5-7 (Young's Literal Translation)

Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;

that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;

Compare the above with John's statement below:

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,
John 1:13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS
(you can answer them if you like but I'm not demanding you do - I'm placing them here for consideration):-

1. Have we risen from the dead bodily?

2. Does being born from above imply birth, or bodily resurrection from death?

3. Did we die for the sins of the world and rise again from the dead? Or did Christ die for the sins of the world (and our sins) and rise again from the dead?

4. If we are born from above by the Spirit, and the Spirit is Christ's Spirit, are we IN HIM who died and rose again from the dead by virtue of our birth?

5. Are we in Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead positionally by virtue of our having been born of His Spirit and by virtue of His bodily resurrection?

Or is it by virtue of our resurrection?

6. Are those who are born from above and found in Christ found IN HIM due to their works?

Or are they born from above and found in Christ because of Christ's works?

7. Did Christ rise again from the dead spiritually, or did He rise again from the dead bodily?

8. Remember that we are told, regarding the resurrection:

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection;

1 Cor 15
20 And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead--the first-fruits (aparche) of those sleeping he became,
for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again (anastasis, resurrection) of the dead,
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit (aparche), and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

Therefore, bearing in mind that the Greek word anastasis (resurrection) and the concept of being raised from death in the New Testament is always talking about the BODILY resurrection, does the following mean that we are resurrected already?:-

Eph 2:6 and has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you were raised through the faith of the working of God, raising Him from the dead.

Col 3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.

9. Does Eph 2:6 and Col 3:1 mean that we are already resurrected?

Or does it mean that we are not yet resurrected, but we are POSITIONALLY in Christ who is risen?

10. When in time does Paul say we will be resurrected?

11. Does being born from above mean we are resurrected?

AM I WRONG to say the following?

From all that the New Testament says regarding the resurrection, am I wrong to say that:-

1. NOWHERE in the New Testament do we see being born again from above by the Spirit of Christ being called a "resurrection" - we HAVE TO read such a notion INTO the scriptures in order to maintain that belief.

2. By virtue of our birth from above we are found IN CHRIST who died and was raised, and therefore we are now positionally with Him and have been raised with Him - THIS FACT is the guarantee, the deposit, of our coming inheritance in Christ, and our resurrection:

Rom 8:23 And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope; for what anyone sees, why does he also hope for it?

3. By virtue of our birth from above we are NOW positionally in Christ's death and resurrection because for those who have been born from above by the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Christ lives in our spirit, and our spirit lives in our soul, and our soul lives in our body. This is why we cannot die:

John 11: 25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.
John 11:26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?

NOT THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT BUT THE HOUSE THAT GOD BUILT

Christ in us and we in Him (John 15:4). God's Spirit in our spirit, our spirit in our soul and our soul in our body

- but this is not the house that Jack built - it's the house that God built:

1 Cor 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1Cor 3:17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God shall destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.

Therefore we live in the knowledge that because of Christ's resurrection (which is a bodily resurrection), THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN FROM ABOVE will be bodily resurrected when Christ returns - but those who have died in Christ will rise first and those who are still alive will be changed and rise up together with them, to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:16-18).

AM I WRONG TO CONCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

1. Due to the fact that NOWHERE does the New Testament call being born from above either a "resurrection", nor "the first Resurrection", those who read "first resurrection" into a birth of the Spirit from above, are reading INTO the New Testament what is not there?

2. The scriptures show, when using exegesis instead of eisegesis, that the first (protos) resurrection following Christ's, who is the firsfruit (aparche) of the resurrection, is this one:

1 Cor 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit (aparche), and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

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.

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

This is the first (protos) resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years. (Rev 20:3-6).

I thought that you are trying to reject someone's interpretation of Rev. 20:3-6, and I was right.

However, the very passages you have quoted, for example, John 3:3 and Colossians 3:1-4, can be used to interpret the first resurrection of Rev. 20 as the first resurrection. Being born from above and again points to a spiritual resurrection or birth that God through the Holy Spirit makes happen in all true believers.

Also, the context of Colossians 3:1 is 2:13-14: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." Here in verse 13, you have the spiritual rebirth that we as believers all experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "positionally." Colossians 3 says that on the basis of Christians all being "raised" with Christ, God through Paul calls us all to our responsibility to grow to be more like Jesus.

Being raised with Christ means to Paul that we are already in heaven (Colossians 3:2-3): "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God." What does that mean practically? It appears to mean that we now, in a very real sense, are all in God the Father's throne room as his advisors through prayer. What a prayer ministry we have then in God's presence 24/7!

 

[sovereigngrace]

Right. At last you've stopped equating the New Testament's statements regarding being raised from the dead/resurrection from the dead with new birth, even though all those verses are unambiguously talking about bodily resurrection.

Now you might start getting somewhere.

So.. those people had been beheaded and had refused the mark of the beast, and they were raised from the dead.

When did this happen, bearing in mind that Paul said,

1 Cor 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

When, in your opinion, were those who were beheaded for their testimony to Chris and for the Word of God and for refusing the mark of the beast, resurrected from the dead?

Read what I wrote before commenting.

Are we spiritually dead or alive before salvation?

The answer of course is “dead.” We are all “dead in sin” before conversion as a result of the fall. Therefore, we all automatically inherit that fallen nature through our federal head Adam by our first birth. In order to shift from this awful state of death to life we must first experience the quickening or life giving touch of the Lord and then experience the joy of spiritual resurrection. We are born again (or born from above) by being raised from the grave of sin and debauchery. It is the resurrection of the spirit into a state of communion with God that causes the new birth. When resurrected our spirits are brought from death to life, this causes a new birth in our being. We are all body, soul and spirit. It is the spirit that is dead unto God within us that is (1) quickened (2) resurrected from its death that begets life and therefore a new nature or the spiritual man.

The beast, antichrist, the mystery of iniquity, the son of perdition and that Wicked one are the one same evil entity has been about for 2,000 yrs+. The beast therefore has to be a system, kingdom or a spirit. It obviously cannot be a man. Revelation 17:8, Revelation 17:9-13, 1 John 2:18-23, 1 John 4:1-3, 5-6, 2 John 8:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 prove my point. His mark has been around as he has!

When, in your opinion, were those who were beheaded for their testimony to Chris and for the Word of God and for refusing the mark of the beast, resurrected from the dead?

1. Amils do not limit the beast to life and activity of the beast to the end. They look on the beast as being an ongoing entity that was alive and kicking before John and when John was writing Revelation.
2. The prison and chains are spiritual symbols describing the spiritual restraint that Satan and his minions as a result of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3. Also, the mark of the beast is not literal but spiritual.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Premil blah blah blah but questions you can't answer you won't and don't, and you have still not admitted that all New Testament verse talking about being raised from the dead/resurrected from the dead are talking about a bodily resurrection and not even one is talking about a "spiritual" resurrection or the new birth.

I refer you back to posts 2&3 that refute your error.

Since Christ is the first resurrection and firstborn from the dead and the firsfruits of the resurrection, then whose resurrection is Rev 20:4-6 speaking about?

Revelation 20:4 says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be (plural future middle indicative) priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign (plural future middle indicative) with him a thousand years.”

This is speaking from the perspective of the "first resurrection." This can only relate to Christ's glorious victory over the grave that allowed the "souls" of God's people to rise to the heavenly abode during the intermediate state to reign with Christ.

The focus here is what results from the “first resurrection.” It is not just that the elect secure eternal salvation and are saved from the terror of eternal punishment (the second death) but it is that they become kings and priests as a result of this great victory over every enemy that has held man down. It is important to see that the wording here is made in the context of the resurrection. It commenced the millennial period, when Jesus defeated the grave. There is no other first resurrection.

We are reigning now. We are kings and priests on earth now. The "dead in Christ" are kings and priests in heaven now. After we identified with this resurrection we entered into the heavenly reign of Christ in life on earth (in its yet imperfect sense) and in glory (in its more perfect sense) when He comes again.

Acts 17:28 tells us, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”

Through Christ – and what He has secured at Calvary – we now have our standing and inheritance. We possess a spiritual power within us from above since Pentecost that will assure us victory in the many spiritual challenges we face on this earth.

The New Testament respectfully states that we are what we are and we will be what we will be “through Christ” “in Christ” or “by Christ.” Ephesians 5:30 describes the spiritual oneness found in Christ: “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” Our “life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). That means we “are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Col 2:11).

John says in Revelation 1:5-6, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made (aorist active indicative) us kings and priests unto God and his father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.”

We are kings now!!! We therefore reign now!!! This is current and occurs before the second coming of the Lord. This shows what we are now positionally and spiritually “in Christ” – which is reigning in delegated authority will be realized in all its eternal glory physically when we are glorified at Christ’s Coming. The elect of God become kings and priests in salvation when they enter into all the riches of Christ and His glorious power. We become joint-heirs with Him in His current reign and marvelous glory. We become imitators of Him in His humble and contrite earthly ministry. Here again Calvary is given as the transaction that enabled believers to enter into the two spiritual offices described here – kingship and priesthood. Without the cross-work we could never have realized these heavenly privileges.

This dual role of kingship and priesthood is not just restricted to the redeemed in heaven, or does it commence at entry into the heavenly shore, it begins upon this earth at the new birth. The family of God today are positionally reigning as kings and priest in both heaven and on earth. They perform such an awesome function in and through the person of Christ and His impeccable life, His atoning death and victorious resurrection. In fact, 1 Peter 2:9 says of the Church presently – intra-Advent, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal (or kingly) priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

We are kings and priests today. The demand of a priest was to make a sacrifice and intercede for the people. We fulfil that spiritually, not in an Old Testament sense. The responsibility of a king was to reign and exercise authority and power within the kingdom. We fulfil that spiritually, not in an Old Testament sense.

 

[Zao is life]

I thought that you are trying to reject someone's interpretation of Rev. 20:3-6, and I was right.

However, the very passages you have quoted, for example, John 3:3 and Colossians 3:1-4, can be used to interpret the first resurrection of Rev. 20 as the first resurrection.

Even though I disagree with your statement above, and with your statement

Being born from above and again points to a spiritual resurrection or birth that God through the Holy Spirit makes happen in all true believers.

the rest of your post I agree with, and even where I don't agree, your post has a friendly and Christian-like tone to it.

The Bible is very careful and consistent in the terminology it uses, and the New Testament never equates resurrection from the dead with new birth. The one is bodily and the other is spiritual, and comes before any bodily resurrection of those who are in Christ.

Refreshing to have such a Christian-natured exchange coming from another Christian who disagrees with what I say.

I agree with the rest of your post, and where I used the word "positionally", it's not because I don't believe we have risen with Christ and are with Christ now, but because I wanted to ensure that the distinction which the New Testament maintains (yes, indeed, it does) between bodily resurrection and spiritual birth and being risen with Christ, is maintained in the words I choose.

Also, the context of Colossians 3:1 is 2:13-14: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." Here in verse 13, you have the spiritual rebirth that we as believers all experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "positionally." Colossians 3 says that on the basis of Christians all being "raised" with Christ, God through Paul calls us all to our responsibility to grow to be more like Jesus.

Being raised with Christ means to Paul that we are already in heaven (Colossians 3:2-3): "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God." What does that mean practically? It appears to mean that we now, in a very real sense, are all in God the Father's throne room as his advisors through prayer. What a prayer ministry we have then in God's presence 24/7!

 

[Zao is life]

Read what I wrote before commenting.

Are we spiritually dead or alive before salvation?

The answer of course is “dead.” We are all “dead in sin” before conversion as a result of the fall. Therefore, we all automatically inherit that fallen nature through our federal head Adam by our first birth. In order to shift from this awful state of death to life we must first experience the quickening or life giving touch of the Lord and then experience the joy of spiritual resurrection. We are born again (or born from above) by being raised from the grave of sin and debauchery. It is the resurrection of the spirit into a state of communion with God that causes the new birth. When resurrected our spirits are brought from death to life, this causes a new birth in our being. We are all body, soul and spirit. It is the spirit that is dead unto God within us that is (1) quickened (2) resurrected from its death that begets life and therefore a new nature or the spiritual man.

The beast, antichrist, the mystery of iniquity, the son of perdition and that Wicked one are the one same evil entity has been about for 2,000 yrs+. The beast therefore has to be a system, kingdom or a spirit. It obviously cannot be a man. Revelation 17:8, Revelation 17:9-13, 1 John 2:18-23, 1 John 4:1-3, 5-6, 2 John 8:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 prove my point. His mark has been around as he has!



1. Amils do not limit the beast to life and activity of the beast to the end. They look on the beast as being an ongoing entity that was alive and kicking before John and when John was writing Revelation.
2. The prison and chains are spiritual symbols describing the spiritual restraint that Satan and his minions as a result of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3. Also, the mark of the beast is not literal but spiritual.

The Bible does not call the spiritual birth we all must experience by being born from above a "resurrection"

 

[Zao is life]

Edited and deleted. Wrong post quoted. I need to go for a walk. Been here too long.