First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20
Blume's Fourth Rebuttal
| FOURTH REBUTTAL TO Bobby Boland Proposition : The Bible teaches that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final judgement. affirm - Bobby Boland deny - Mike Blume Thank-you for your final submission to this discussion. For starters, you remarked about my unwillingness to follow your three affirmations with three of my own. I do wish to repeat I noted to you that time was the problem with me, since going over three more affirmations of my own with three rebuttals from you would take a long time, as evidenced by the time we took to get this far as it is. I cannot spend that much more time in a discussion like this. You then pointed out that I spoke of guilt by association in your methods of refuting preterism, and commented that I did the same when I stated your methodology is similar to what caused one writer to write the book about Christ's coming in 1988. Good point! I will bear that in mind. Then you remark about my accusation of your thoughts as being gnostic in regards to the manner in which you concluded the millennium doctrine to be valid using types and shadows. This greatly concerns me, for the more you argue for this method, the more I must speak against it. I am increasingly shocked at this sort of foundation you choose for determining your doctrines. In your assessment, your doctrine does not have to be stated explicitly in scripture for you to believe it. You merely have need of finding a type and determining a doctrine by it "all by your little lonesome", without the verification of such things to be explicitly stated as doctrines by the apostles. This is very dangerous. In your defence you said Gnosticism is essentially two things. 1. The texts of Scripture are not to be understood literally or according to their plain meaning at all, but according to an esoteric allegorical meaning known only to those who have received a special infusion of divine revelatory knowledge, or gnosis; and 2. Flesh and physical matter are gross elements that are to be superceded by spiritual or immaterial realities, so that a physical resurrection is to be rejected. I continue to claim your gnostic mannerisms based upon elements of the first definition. The first point says that divine revelatory knowledge is the foundation for gnostic doctrine, albeit it is a revelation of the meaning of symbols that are not stated in scripture as having that interpretation. However your thoughts are very similar. You do not have an explicit statement in the bible that the thought of the “three days” is basis for “three thousand years” for the specific foundation of believing in the millennium teaching. In short, the apostles did not state anything similar to your words. And you are basing a doctrine upon a type that is not scripturally stated to be a type valid enough for faith in such a conclusion for it to be called a valid “doctrine”. You seemingly do not require such explicit statements in the bible in order to believe something to be a doctrine, though. Your manner is that you feel if you can comfortably see a type to be had here or there, whether or not the apostles stated it, it is good enough grounds to determine such a thought to be "apostolic" doctrine. That is incredibly terrifying. But let me clearly point out that the second definition is what I understand neither of us adhere to. I wholeheartedly reject the thought of the physical being evil, and bad. There will indeed indeed be a physical resurrection. However, your bases upon which you determine doctrine is far too gnostic in my estimation. You claim it is not gnostic since you say "1. All scriptures I referenced in regard to the thousand years have a literal or plain sense meaning." That is not altogether correct. Revelation is a book of SIGNS, as indicated so by the first verse in the book. A message is relayed by SIGNS when it is said to be "signifying." That means that although the sign, for example, of “seven horns” holds within the sign a reference to "horns" which have a clear plain sense meaning of actual horns, we know very well that Christ is not actually a lamb with seven horns. I have worn this argument out trying to explain how the reference to one thousand years can also be considered a SIGN. Since the horns are a sign of something else that is true and actual, representing that something else, the thousand years can be the same thing. But you have no foundation to claim your reference to three days is to be understood as three thousand years. Therefore, you claim your proof is derived through spiritual understanding not necessarily found in many readers’ hearts. Onlky the “enlightened” will be able to know these doctrines, because someone not spiritual enough would never conclude three days means three thousand years. However, doctrine is never left to such conclusions. Doctrine is stated in way in the Bible in which anybody could understand and perceive it. They do not require your “spirituality” you claim you have in being able to validly state the “three days” is actually “three thousand years” and is thereby valid proof of the existence of a future millennium. You then state I, “...confuse interpretation with application. There is a single interpretation, but many applications, for scripture texts. In using the various three and seven day periods mentioned in scripture, I was pointing out the typology clearly evident in the Old Testament. This type of approach is standard in identifying TO types and shadows of Christ and the New Covenant era. If this is Gnostic then so is practically all Christian doctrine which sees types in TO events and especially in the ceremonial regulations of the Old Covenant. " I completely disagree with your use of the genuine evidence of types claimed to be the basis of doctrine by the apostles. Yes, the apostles saw types. And yes these types were part of their basis for doctrines, but these men were infallibly inspired of God to state the nature of the type and antitype. They were not subject to error when they stated such and such is a type of something we need to found our salvation upon as doctrine. Our conclusions of personal thoughts about types can only agree with something they explicitly stated as doctrines, and cannot regard doctrines they did not explicitly propose. In other words, we cannot add something additional to what they said as far as doctrines are concerned, nor can we believe something contrary to what they said. You err in the first point of adding. My good brother, no offense intended towards you, but neither you, nor myself, are one of those apostles who were divinely inspired of God to lay the foundation for what and what is not to be determined as doctrine based upon our assessment of types. If either one of us claim a doctrine based upon a type that neither Jesus nor the apostles reflected in their writings, using the same type and antitype, then we are in extreme error. What other wild flights of the imagination can we contrive and claim to result in doctrine that the apostles and the Lord never claimed in explicit terms to be doctrines? There would be possibly millions of such varying doctrines. Two people can see the same picture in the Old Testament and conclude two completely different doctrines from it. Who is right? Who is wrong? What is the standard to determine who is right or wrong? I claim the standard is whether or not the Lord and the Apostles explicitly and perfectly related the same thought based upon the same type or not. If they did not, then it is false doctrine. It is not apostolic. You have no teaching in the Bible about a millennium, and no verification of one using the example you claimed is “proof”. That is no “proof” at all. One may assume such a belief as a mere theory or mere opinion, but one is simply outrageously proposing false and dangerous doctrine when one claims it is “doctrine”. Doctrine is foundational. It is too serious a thing to leave to mere opinion of the meaning behind a certain type. Unless we have explicit reflection of the precise same conclusion using the precise same type, then we are so far out into flights of imagination and standing upon a foundation of sand that I cannot describe it. We have to leave such thoughts alone and NEVER determine them as doctrines if the Bible does not explicitly state the same conclusions using the same types. You believe "these types are readily evident to any who simply look at Scripture and see how it has been interpreted within Scripture itself." That is not true. They may be evident to you, but here is the travesty of your reasoning: You have no doctrine in explicit language in a teaching setting in the bible that states there will be one thousand years after the church is "raptured" until the final judgment occurs. You are using the Book of Revelation Chapter 20 for your foundation. And that is a book where we are not told what and what not is symbolic, except in a few instances regarding the seven mountains being kings in Chapter 17 and the City in Chapter 21 being the Bride. “Horns” are not told to be representative of anything, although we both agree they are. Yet we cannot form a doctrine out of what WE feel they imply. And without a justifiable statement in the book that states the thousand years are not a sign of an actuality, you cannot claim they are actual years to be deemed as a doctrine of faith upon which the church is built. Now, the teachings in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles DO include explicit statements upon which we build doctrines. Revelation is not like that, though. It's too apocalyptic. All we can conclude is that it reflects in SIGN form what the explicit teachings elsewhere in the New Testament state in clear words. And nothing in the bible explicitly teaches what you claim to be doctrine. You claim there is a thousand years based upon no explicit teaching, and are [b][i]proving[/b][/i] that groundless doctrine but leaping into flights of fancy as to how one can validly take a reference to three days and consider it three thousand years, when not one writer in the Bible took those same references and claimed them to indicate three thousand years. You thereby prove a groundless doctrine by flights of fancy. You then build what I consider a dishonest strawman by saying, " 2. I do not deny a literal or bodily resurrection or a literal or physical fulfilment of prophecy. If anything, preterism and amillenniallism are Gnostic on this ground for they say the first resurrection is not physical, and the thousand years is not an actual thousand year time frame on this earth!" You misrepresent preterism by stating there will be no physical resurrection. That is a falsity. Partial Preterists wholeheartedly believe and teach a physical resurrection in our future. And just because we state the first resurrection is spiritual and not physical, does not negate the fact that we teach the final resurrection in our future to be physical. That is horrendous reasoning on your part. I am saddened this fine discussion saw you use such unfair tactics in debate. The bible clearly gives forth the meaning of resurrection to apply to regeneration in Romans 6 and Colossians 2. And the physical resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 remains faithfully adhere to in partial preterism as well. You refer to my accusations of your beliefs as “futurism”, and forget that I distinctly noted that your thoughts, historicist as you call them, are futurist COMPARED TO PRETERISM. Some tenets of your beliefs are future in contrast to them being in the past by myself. However, if you insist on being called “historicist” instead, I have no problem with that, and will stand corrected on that issue, and respect your wishes. I also understand that you agree that Christ presently rules in the Kingdom of God over the earth. I will admit I did not know what you believed about that issue when we started, since you did not affirm it in your discussions with me. However, after I erringly assumed you did believe otherwise, you then, and not beforehand, mentioned it. So I stand corrected here as well. I agree with your statement as follows: "Surely you admit this - that after His Coming He will yield the kingdom up to the Father, and will no longer reign AS THE SON, but will continue to reign AS GOD forever and ever?" Yes I do admit this. Thank-you for clarifying your point. I had not heard of a belief that Christ rules now and will rule as well in the millennium, and had only discussed the thought of His rule as not yet initiated until millennium when I spoke to Millennialists. As I said, you did not state your belief to the contrary until I spoke of such aberrant beliefs by the Millenialists I formerly spoke with. I know that is no basis to assume anything of you, but I honestly never thought of the variation of this belief in the manner you propose your beliefs. For that, I apologize. But since you mention the following, I do wish to raise an objection to your views. "BUT, the nations have not been submitted to Him as CHRIST - the Son of David, the Monarch of the monarchs. This will take place in the Millennium." The teachings in 1 Corinthians 15 deny such a thought. Nowhere in that chapter do we read of a time period in which a millennium will commence after the church age has ended, if you distinguish the period before the millennium as the “church age”. (I do not want to put words in your mouth when it comes to labels for ages). Whatever the case, you believe there is an age now and a following age called the Millennium. 1 Corinthians says nothing about that. The bible says nothing about that anywhere. It cannot be proven to be “doctrine” that Revelation 20 is proposing, without the reflection of the same thought elsewhere in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15:23-29 KJV But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. (28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? All we read above about is Christ's resurrection at the start, after the cross, and another one at "the end" when Christ comes. And we read"then" the “end” comes. If there is a millennium, one must assume a GAP in Paul's words between verses 27 and 28. Paul does not mention the events you ascribe to the millennium there, obviously, since you must be default claim there is a gap in his writings. We just read about an END. And we read at that end point, the Son delivers up the kingdom to God. Death is destroyed. Nothing is noted about a change of the nature of His dominion before this “end” occurs, as you suggest. Nothing states a change in OUR ruling either. We do read about submission of all nations to Him, but we read that does not occur until the end, when we consider there is no GAP as you must assume there is in this chapter. All things are beneath His feet now (v. 27). That is past tense. And verse 28 says that all things will be subdued unto Him afterwards -- future tense. You claim there is millennium to occur when the saints are resurrected physically. However, we only read of reference to the resurrection and the end and the submission of all nations to Christ, we can only conclude that “the end” is when the resurrection occurs, with none beforehand since the resurrection of Christ, and the nations are subdued at that same time. And then the Son of God turns the Kingdom over to the Father. Anything more than that is adding to the Word. Partial Preterism, therefore, is the only valid teaching that does not add to the scriptures regarding this issue, nor does it detract from them, as evident in this case, in claiming the end is when the resurrection occurs and the Son ceases rulership. You claim we will reign “in a further sense” in the millennium in contrast to our present reign which you admit is occurring, but hesitate, seemingly, to say “in a physical sense”. You simply contrast our spiritual reign now with whatever reign we will know in the millennium. I take note of the absence of the term “physical”. I have long held that historicism and futurism err terribly in thinking of a physical nature of a future kingdom. The Bible never alludes whatsoever to the thought of a physical throne on earth and a physical palace in which Christ rules, as though the throne of David, amongst futurists, is a separate and distinct throne from the one on which he presently sits and from which He now rules. You are not futurist, and I do not know your thoughts on the nature of the throne of David, whether it is physical or not, as I do know how the futurists believe. However, you claim Christ's rule and, now, our rule will change when millennium occurs. What scriptures do you use? I can only assume which ones, because you have not stated any. However, from past experience I learned that the reference to Christ’s words about the twelve apostles sitting on thrones judging Israel is perhaps what you may claim. I claim that this is already occurring as the church is “ruled” by the doctrine of the apostles. And therein lies somewhat of my reasoning about the dangerous nature of your conclusions concerning the millennium and your "three day" doctrine. You are not one of the apostles, and they did not say anything about that so-called "doctrine". You claim I "have an undeveloped view" of reigning presently with Christ, "and have neglected certain important promises made to the church, promises made void by preterism." After I stated we rule as we overcome, according to Rev 2:26-27, you state, "You are in essence saying the promise for us to rule and 'shepherd' the nations is fulfilled now, in the church age. However, it is impossible that should be the case. Pay close attention to what I am about to say, lest you miss my actual point. It matters not what the 'ruling' of Rev 2:26-27 consists of, it matters not how we understand the 'power over the nations', the plain fact is the promise is made to those who overcome 'to the end'. Receiving the promise is conditioned upon overcoming to the end. That is, one must first overcome to the end, then the condition is fulfilled, and therefore the promise is realized. Yet you are saying that as we overcome now, we enjoy the promise now. That is to say, the promise is fulfilled while the condition has not yet been met." The text reads as follows, once again... Revelation 2:26-27 KJV And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: (27) And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. Brother, this was written to an actual church. They were heading towards an actual end from their perspective, not our own. I thinkt he “end” is found in the context of their issue at hand. We have no grounds to take this as a message to the church today in our time, as some spiritually say the churches depicts seven distinct ages throughout history, a doctrine I wonder about as to whether or not you espouse due to your "historicist" belief. (You can clarify that one for me. ) We cannot say their “end” is an “end” we are concerned with. Should you claim these seven churches do depict church ages, then I forewarn you that I will jump all over that and accuse you of further gnosticism. No offense intended. We must ask ourselves the nature of "the end" from their perceptive. It cannot be the "end" of our church age, for they have not survived their human lives until our day, obviously. Nevertheless you can respond saying it matters not, since they are promised rule after the end. The "end" refers to their particular trouble and particular period of problems in which they were involved, giving rise to the warnings of Jezebel in their midst. This would agree with my original thoughts, saying we rule as we overcome. And after overcoming THIS particular issue, regarding Jezebel and her teachings, they would mature to rulership. So the condition fulfilled is simply dealing with Jezebel adequately and removing the false doctrine from their midst that she inspired, hence, the end of the issue. Should you claim this statement is a general one speaking of a general end, then that would ignore their particular situation as being the entire point of their need to overcome. All in all, I do not wish to continue in the affirming position, because, as I stated, the time element is too great. However, a main concern now, which has been confirmed by reading your final submission, is your gnostic manner of proving doctrines. We are on two different planets in regards to what is valid proof for doctrines and what is not. Therefore, we have no commonality from which to reason together about this issue. What else do you believe that does not require an explicit teaching from the apostles, that you derive based upon gnostic reasonings that your flights of fancy in interpreting types are valid for doctrine? Who knows? The sky is the limit in such flights of fancy! I thank you for your submissions as they are a wonderful addition to my website studies. And appreciate your zeal and sincerity in all of this, although I tremendously disagree with your conclusions. May the Lord continue to lead us all into all truth! |
