First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20


Bobby Boland's Second Affirmation

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


This is the third post in my second affirmation in which I will address the meaning of resurrection in Scripture. In my Third affirmation, I will simply summarize the case so far. Then, either brother Blume can state his position and prove it, or I can respond to what appears to be the same thing (an affirmation of his position) in his last post to me.

But before I do that, I would like to ask you, brother, are you going to take the affirmative side in the proposition "the first resurrection of Rev 20 refers to regeneration"? Or are you affirming "the first resurrection of Rev 20 is not bodily"? The reason I ask is because it will determine what you actually intend to demonstrate.

......

Much has been made in this discussion concerning the word resurrection. I shall now address the meaning of the word in Scripture, and show that the first resurrection mentioned in Rev 20 should be understood to mean a bodily resurrection.

The word "resurrection" in Rev 20 is "anastasis". This word occurs 42 times in the new testament. There is also the word "exanastasis" which occurs once in Phillipians 3:11. This word exanastasis means "out - anastasis" or "out-resurrection". There is no major difference in the two words, as exanastasis simply implies "resurrection out from among the dead".

The occurrences of this word are as follows:
Mat 22:23
Mat 22:28
Mat 22:30
Mat 22:31
Mar 12:18
Mar 12:23
Luk 2:34
Luk 14:14
Luk 20:27
Luk 20:33
Luk 20:35
Luk 20:36
Jhn 5:29
Jhn 11:24
Jhn 11:25
Act 1:22
Act 2:31
Act 4:2
Act 4:33
Act 17:18
Act 17:32
Act 23:6
Act 23:8
Act 24:15
Act 24:21
Act 26:23
Rom 1:4
Rom 6:5
1Cr 15:12
1Cr 15:13
1Cr 15:21
1Cr 15:42
Phl 3:10
Phl 3:11 (exanastasis)
2Ti 2:18
Hbr 6:2
Hbr 11:35
1Pe 1:3
1Pe 3:21
Rev 20:5
Rev 20:6

In no cases of the occurrence of the word anastasis or exanastasis as used in Scripture can it be said to refer to anything but a bodily resurrection. This is important. I refer you to my earlier post on foundations for interpreting Scripture, where I pointed out that we must be careful to use Scriptural terms in Scriptural ways, as the Bible itself uses those terms. And how does the Bible use the term "anastasis"? To refer to the bodily resurrection.

Since all other uses of the term anastasis in the Bible refer to bodily resurrection, it is foolhardy and unwarranted to inject a new meaning into the occurrence of the word at Revelation 20:5 (the passage in dispute). Amillenialism asserts "the word anastasis always refers to bodily resurrection, except here in Rev 20:5." This is a case of eisegesis. It is also irrational to claim a new and otherwise unheard of (in Scripture) meaning for a word, precisely where the amillenial doctrine needs it. No one who simply studied the Bible, with no preconceived notions about eschatology, and who allowed the Bible itself to define its terms, would conclude that, of all the places in the Bible where this word occurs, here it must have a different, special, allegorical, metaphorical, "spiritualised" meaning, at odds with all its other, previous uses. The only way one can conclude that Rev 20:5 speaks of a first resurrection that is NOT a bodily resurrection, is if one comes to this passage with a preconceived idea that the word resurrection can and DOES mean something it nowhere else means!

(I anticipate several objections, and I will address them shortly.)

Now, since the word resurrection means a bodily returning from death from to life, it follows that when John explains his vision of Rev 20 as "the first resurrection", it means he is saying "this is the first bodily coming to life of the dead". And the vision he had matches the explanation. He sees those whom he describes as dead, living. And then says "this is the first resurrection". The divinely inspired interpretation of this vision as the "first resurrection" corresponds perfectly with the fundamental element of the vision itself. But if he meant to say "this is the regeneration experience", then the explanation would not match the fundamental element in the vision of dead SAINTS living AGAIN. Keep in mind these are dead SAINTS, who then live again. Thus, if this resurrection were a regeneration only, they were regenerated again - or born again, again!

This is further corroborated by the fact that John says "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished". And we see that at the end of the thousand years, there is the final judgement. Therefore, the "living again" these "rest of the dead" experience is a physical, bodily resurrection. Since it contrasts the dead saints "living" with the rest of the dead who do not live again, it must be speaking of the concept of bodily resurrection, not regeneration.

I will now anticipate some of my brother's objections on the subject of the word anastasis.

The first would probably be Luke 2:24. And Simeon blessed them , and said unto Mary his mother , Behold , this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel ; and for a sign which shall be spoken against ;

The phrase "rising again" is anastasis. It may be objected that here the word is not used of bodily resurrection. But I would answer that one would have to prove such. The Lord is said to be "set" (established) for the fall and "anastasis"... That is saying He is the Judge, who will determine who will "rise" in the resurrection unto life and who will "fall" into damnation. It cannot be proven that anastasis here does NOT mean bodily resurrection. And to base a doctrine concerning the word resurrection on an obscure verse who's meaning is not entirely clear would be unsound.

It may also be objected that the word anastasis need not be mentioned in order to mention a resurrection. That the word expresses a concept of "from death to life", and that anything equivalent to "from death to life" is equivalent to "resurrection". I answer that while it is true that one may express resurrection by other words or terms than "anastasis", it does not follow from that possibility that one may express other things by that same term. Consider that one may speak of an escalator as a conveyance, but that doesn't mean one can speak of ANY conveyance as an escalator (cars are conveyances, too, but they are not escalators).

So, the word resurrection is used in Scripture everywhere else to speak of the bodily resurrection. Therefore there is no reason not to believe that is what it is speaking of in Revelation 20. Further, that is reason enough to believe that IS the intended meaning in Rev 20. Whenever you read "resurrection", you can be sure you are reading "bodily resurrection", because that is what God meant by the term. And so should we.

I will address some of brother Blume's objections to my case in the next post. I appreciate your patience with me, brother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You claim my take on a resurrection at the great white throne is without foundation, or at least I did not prove it to be true. I did state, if you read my first rebuttal again, that the rest of the dead will live again after the thousand years. This is when the great white throne occurs. That refers to resurrection.

Ah, but you failed to show from the text in Rev 20 that this is a bodily resurrection. Now, if the rest of the dead "live again", and if this living again is the bodily resurrection, then it follows that the ones excluded from "the rest" were bodily resurrected. You can not have it both ways - "live" meaning regeneration in one part of the chapter and "live" meaning bodily resurrection in the other. You are inconsistent in your interpretation. To be consistent, either the phrase "live again" means a spiritual resurrection like the first, or the first is a bodily resurrection like the second. It says those righteous dead "lived...but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished". There is nothing in the text that warrants equivocation on the term "live". It is obvious the rest of the dead did not live in contrast to the righteous dead who lived and reigned for the thousand years. Thus, the term "lived" means the same in essence in both cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I am saying that the bible states the Lord coming on wings of the wind, riding cherubims, very similarly to the poetic picture we read about in Rev 19 where the Lord rides a white horse with banners across his thigh, etc, and indicated that such pictures are shown to be invisible comings, based upon 2 Samuel 22. In short, the text of the Lord "coming" does not necessarily mean it must be visible. Is there a visible coming of the Lord in our future? Yes indeed! But Rev 19 is not it.

Showing that the phrase "coming of the Lord" can refer to a non "personal" or visible appearing of the Lord does not PROVE that Rev 19 is not talking about a visible, personal coming of the Lord. There is no scripture I know of that describes a non visible coming of the Lord in the form of a personal, visible coming the way the passage in Rev 19 does.

You will have to do more than assert that Rev 19 does not depict the glorious and visible coming (appearing) of our Lord, you must demonstrate that it is not. Just because the phrase "coming of the Lord" can mean a non visible coming in judgement, does not mean that Rev 19 is not describing a visible coming of the Lord. Here you commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, for you are saying "Some comings of the Lord are non visible. Rev 19 is a coming of the Lord. Therefore it is a non visible coming." But this is the same as saying "Some cats are skinny. Garfield is a cat. Therefore Garfield is skinny." Now we all know that Garfield is famous for being a fat cat, just as all Bible students who do not allow their theology to cloud their Bible study, know that the Coming in Revelation 19 is none other than the glorious appearing of our Lord. It is also strange that where you have the actual, glorious appearing and coming of the Lord, at the great white throne judgement, there is no mention of a coming or appearing at all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
And all of that in light of the judgement Jerusalem would experience, as related to us in the latter half of Matthew 23, knowing it is wrath meted forth due to the cursings mentioned in Deuteronomy's last few chapters, and knowing revelation's judgments parallel all these cursings, lets me know that a return of the Lord in Revelation amidst those wrathful elements is the one referred to in these references in the New Testament I just listed.

Unfortunately, the coming in Rev 19 does not match at all with what happened in 70 AD. It can hardly be said the armies which followed Him in heaven were the Roman legions, for these are said to be clothed in fine linen, white and clean - a clear reference to SAINTS. The Romans were idolatrous heathens. There was no army in 70 AD gathered against Christ. The world was not gathered in war against Christ in that day. Rather the Romans were gathered against the apostate Jews of Jerusalem. The beast is said to be cast into the lake of fire, which we know is the second death. Whatever fate the wicked suffer on the final Judgement Day, it is the same fate the beast and the false prophet suffer. Nothing like that happened in 70 AD unless you wish to allegorise the second death as well. Those Christians who had been martyred before 70 AD did not come back to life in 70 AD. Therefore, the Rev 19 coming does not depict at all what happened in 70 AD, by any rational stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You question my assertion that Revelation 20 does not follow chapter 19 chronologically. I say this because we know there are chapters in Revelation that do not chronologically follow the preceding ones. And I agree it must be proven that this example does not as well. Therefore I base these thoughts upon the idea that, once again, Revelation only can reflect what the Bible explicitly teaches. In other words, I cannot find something unique in Revelation and claim it as doctrine, that is not found in the rest of the Bible, because nothing in Revelation is explicit teaching. And since the argument I supplied above indicated why I believe Revelation 19's coming of the Lord is not visible, it also shows how Rev 19 cannot be chronologically preceding Revelation 20. In short, same argument..

First, you need to show that Revelation can only reflect what the Bible explicitly teaches. Is not Revelation Bible? Then it can teach explicitly.

Second, you say you cannot find something unique in Revelation, that is not found elsewhere in the bible, because nothing in Revelation is explicit teaching. Here you are begging the question. "There is no explicit teaching in Revelation because there is no explicit teaching in Revelation." That is circular reasoning, not evidence.

Third, you say that Rev 19 does not precede chapter 20. As proof of this, you say "since the coming in ch 19 is not visible, it also shows why ch 19 cannot be chronologically preceding Revelation 19." I just showed how your argument for the "in"visible coming of the Lord in chapter 19 is a logical fallacy. Also, even if chapter 19 does not depict a visible coming, that does not prove chapter 20 does not occur chronologically after chapter 19.

But let us look at the flow of events in the two chapters, and see if the vision is a continuous whole, or if there is any reason to suspect a disjunction.

19:11-14 Heaven opens, and the Lord appears in the heavens with His heavenly army.
19:15 speaks of Him treading the winepress of God's wrath - this is a coming in wrath.
19:17-18 speaks of the impending supper of the great God.
19:19 the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies are arrayed to fight Him.
19:20 the beast and false prophet are "taken" and cast into the lake of fire (the second death). This is said to be the same false prophet who deceived the inhabiters of the earth who had taken the mark and who worshipped his image.
19:21 the rest of the rebels are slain.
20:1-3 the dragon (which had given authority to the beast) is taken and bound in the bottomless pit for 1000 years so he can't deceive the nations any more, after which he will be lossed for a little while.
20:4 thrones are seen and people are sitting on them, and "judgement is given to them" (ie they are victorious, similar to what we read in Daniel). Also, to the martyrs who had not worshipped the beast's image or received his mark, and these saints - including previously dead saints, lived and reigned with Christ for the thousand years.
20:5 But the [B]rest of the dead stay dead for the thousand years.
20:6 This (just described) is the first resurrection, and they shall live and reign for 1000 years.
20:7-9 At the end of the 1000 years satan is loosed and we have the Final Battle.
20:10 The beast is cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet are currently
20:11-15 the Final Judgement and resurrection of "the rest of the dead" who weren't part of the first resurrection.

There is nothing in the text to suggest a break in continuity. IF we allegorize chapter 19, then we have to conclude all of 20 is part of the same allegory as well, and there goes any mention of the final resurrection at all. But it is plainly obvious to anyone who just reads it as written, that ch 20 follows on the heels of ch 19. Anyone can assert it does not, but that doesn;t change the plain reading of the text. There is no need to insert between ch 19 and 20 a verse that says "now, the next verses follow chronologically the verses just written." You say that if the ch 19 coming is invisible, it follows that ch 20 is disjointed from it as far as chronology is concerned. How so? Only to support the amil / preterist eschatology. If we take it like it is, it destroys the amil position.

The people in view in ch 20 include primarily the saints who suffered under the beast, and the ones slain at the comin at the end of ch 19. So it must of necessity, as per the plain grammar, follow chronologically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
So, then, you believe the entire vision is symbolic. That means you believe the vision of the city is entirely symbolic as well. I need to know this because it affects my overall outlook on your position, obviously.
How one affects the other I cannot tell. Regardless of whether the New Jerusalem is a visionary symbol representing something or whether it is John actually seing a real city that will one day fall from the sky to the earth, the coming in ch 19 precedes the resurrection in ch 20, which (as I showed) is bodily. Let's stick to the subject at hand, brother.

uote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You claimed "If the second death is spiritual, it does not follow that the first resurrection must of necessity be spiritual." I disagree. The contrast is not between the first and second resurrection, but the first resurrection and second death. To answer this more perfectly, let me refer to the next point you present....But to your point. There is a resurrection of the body before the great white throne. And you agree Christ's words refer to the second death. However, did the body die in the second death or not? I suggest not. The first death is obviously preceding the second death. And these bodies that are cast into the lake of fire, as you correctly have revealed (!!), did not die in the second death. In fact, I claim they remain animate! The bodies "died" in the first death that occurred giving demand for a resurrection to raise them to the white throne judgment, that they might live again. It is only appointed unto man once to die. And the physical death is implied in that statement. So if the people died in the preceding death, then it is not a death of the body in the second death, although the body is destroyed. But it must be is a spiritual death. You need to address the idea of the body dying. yes, there is a physical element involved in the second death, but the physical element is not described as dying in this second death, for it already died once beforehand. And since the people in the first resurrection do not taste of the second death, my assertion of this interpretation is confirmed, as the rest of the Bible states that the souls who are saved will not suffer the lake of fire. And the white throne judgment context reads that the ones whose names are not in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. John 5:24-25 mentions a resurrection of salvation, not including any sinners. AND it reflects perfectly the same thought presented in revelation concerning the first resurrection.

Brother, I failed to see in this lengthy speech any proof that if the second death is spiritual, it follows of necessity that the first resurrection is also spiritual. If the first resurrection is spiritual, and therefore not bodily, then the second death, being "spiritual", per your definition must also not be bodily. But you claim, bodies are raised in the second event. Why? If the second event is spiritual, and bodies can be present, then that results in a spiritual first resurrection with the admission on your part that bodies can be present in that event!

The most you have done here is try to demonstrate that the second death is spiritual. You did not show why that fact would necessitate a bodiless "spiritual" resurrection in the first resurrection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Those in the first resurrection of Rev 20 shall not taste of the second death. I propose that the resurrection noted in John 5 is spiritual and is salvation, and the condemnation noted there is the second death noted in Revelation 20.

A wonderful proposal. Now for the proof...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You agree we cannot determine that there is a time delay between the two, nor can we determine there is NOT a time delay between the two.

No, that is not what I agreed to. I said we cannot determine a time sequence, either subsequent or simultaneous, from this text alone Here is what I actually said : "We cannot determine that there is a time delay between the two, nor can we determine there is NOT a time delay between the two, from this passage alone,..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
So I state that if there are two resurrections in verses 28-29, then this makes three resurrections altogether, since verses 24-26 is a resurrection as well. So without taking this into consideration, I believe you do harm to your own understanding.

You may believe it, but it is not true, I assure you, brother! How this does harm to my understanding, I cannot tell, since you did not tell...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I do so on the basis of the information given about the preceding resurrection in verses 24-25.

Those verses do not say "there shall only be two resurrections, and this is the first one, and in the next verses I shall talk about the second one." You are simply reading into the text what is not there. The fact that Jesus says the dead shall hear his voice and live, does not require that the resurrection unto life and the resurrection unto damnation be the same resurrection, or that they need to happen simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
However, that does not mean there is no simultaneous resurrection of the damned when the one of 1 Cor 15, at the time of the end, occurs.

That is begging the question about whether Paul is speaking of two or three events. Please demonstrate how 1 Cor 15 cannot be speaking of three events given in sequence. Paul said "but every man (that includes the just and the unjust) in his own order." He then says first Christ, then those who are Christ's at His coming. But that is not "every man" who will be resurrected. Paul established the context when he said "as in Adam all die, so shall in Christ all live." That is, as Adam causes everyone to die, Christ will cause very one to live - ie resurrect. So the context is all men. But Paul omits the majority of men by saying "those who are Christ's at His coming". There must, therefore, be another resurrection to follow, since all must rise. And Paul then says "the end" and ties this with the destruction of death itself. This event is at the great white throne judgement. So Paul has a resurrection of the saints at His coming, then a resurrection of all the rest after He has reigned. The very concept of "reigning" is one of the most prominent themes of the Millenium passage. In Rev we have Christ coming, the first resurrection, the reigning, the "end" when death is abolished, in that order. Same as in 1 Cor 15.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
But the following verse indicates the resurrections you noted in John 5:28-29 are actually considered ONE resurrection.

Acts 24:15 KJV And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

I could just as easily say that John 5:28-29 indicates the "one" resurrection here in Acts is actually two. Which is consistent with Rev's mentioning of a "first" resurrection (implying a second to come later), and Paul's speaking of the saints resurrecting at his coming, the reigning, and the "end" with the Final Judgement and the lake of fire that destroys death itself. You need to do more than assert that Acts clarifies John, and not the other way around, especially since the rest of Scripture clarifies Acts, in conformity with John.

But consider this : You are saying "a resurrection... both of the just and the unjust" means only one event. This can be shown to be an irrational assumption. Suppose I say "I will give a prize, to both Peter and to Paul", is it the exact same actual prize? Am I saying I will give one single prize, and that Peter and Paul will have to share it? No, it could very well be that I am saying "I will give a prize to Peter, and I will give a prize to Paul." Notice, he did not say "a resurrection of both the just and the unjust", but "a resurrection, both of the just and the unjust." Let us be careful not to unintentionally alter the Scripture to make it say what we think it ought to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You did not show how the resurrection in John 24-26 is not a spiritual one.

I do not need to show how it is not a spiritual one. You assert it is, therefore you have the burden of proof there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
And so, the first resurrection involving only the saved people is the spiritual one as per John 5:24-26.

Perhaps I am dense but I never saw the proof that the Rev 20 first resurrection is spiritual and not bodily. You took great pains to assert that John 5:24-26 is a spiritual resurrection, and that the next resurrections spoken of in that text are really one, physical resurrection, and then conclude the first resurrection of Rev 20 is a spiritual resurrection. But you did not show how that is necessarily the case. I guess you are claiming that the John 5:24-26 resurrection is the first resurrection of Rev 20 because Jesus mentions it first before the physical resurrections in John 5:28-29? Funny, Jesus didn't say the "dead shall hear and live, and this is the first resurrection, then the next resurrection will be about how all the dead in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth..." You haven't even established that the John 5:24-26 resurrection is a non bodily resurrection! He is very probably using the typical Hebraism known as parallelism, where vs 24-26 are expanded upon in verses 28-29.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
. So the first resurrection is spiritual and the second is physical, based upon the very implication of Acts 24:15. He says there is not another resurrection of dead saints before this.

I seem to be unable to find where he says "there is not another resurrection of dead saints before this" or anything close to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
We read Acts state nothing about a possible additional resurrection outside the single one both for saints and sinners.

An argument from silence is no proof. We notice that in John 5"24-29 there is no mention of a coming of the Lord either. Does this therefore mean there will be none? Of course not. How do we know? From the aggregate of scriptural teaching. However it seems you are desperately trying to argue from the silence of one verse!

I will continue my response in the next post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
But then you refer to 2 Thess 1:6-10. I propose this is not the resurrection whatsoever. Nothing is said about resurrection. And, on the contrary, we only read about the Thessalonians suffering in their day from persecution, and Christ's coming in wrath against the persecutors which would be impossible if this coming is in our future.

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,


2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Jesus was not REVEALED from heaven with his mighty angels, nor did Jesus bring a flaming fire on them that know not God, in 70AD. Rather, the Romans brought the sword upon the Jews in Jerusalem. It is preposterous to place this verse at 70 AD.

2Th 1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;


2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

This simply says that Jesus will recompense tribulation to them who trouble the Thessalonians, and also to recompense rest to the Thessalonians when Jesus shall come in glory and power with all the holy angels. It does not say that the tribulation here will be meted out at the same time as the "rest". That is an assumption on your part, brother.

Also, the coming of the Lord in 70AD was not judgement on the Thessalonian believers persecutors, for we read :

1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they [have] of the Jews:

Thus, the ones persecuting the Thessalonians were their own countrymen. Now, you will have to show that the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem was a tribulation visited by God upon the pagan Thessalonians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Does the Lord come when the rest of the dead live again? I must ask this of you before you proceed, because it has bearing on a thought that you might have two second comings.

Brother, how is this relevant to whether the first resurrection is bodily? Besides, the Bible never mentions a "second coming". It does say the Lord shall appear the secodn time, but no term as "Second Coming" is in the Bible. To be strict, the "second" coming was Pentecost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
The thousand years is noted in many other places, indicating simply a very long time.

Unfortunately you did not provide a quote of a thousand years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
And it would be irrelevant for the Lord to tell the Thessalonians that the fiery wrath poured out in the earth upon people, as well as hell to follow, will fall upon people in our day or our future, while discussing their ancient persecutors who would get punishment by only hellfire, if you are correct.

It may be irrelevant to amil theology, but every word of God is pure, and thus important. If Paul taught it, it can't be irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Ray Strange notably stated that thousand simply indicates an incomprehensible number. He said, "Your mind cannot conceive of a thousand years no more than it can a jillion but only as an abstract concept." I agree.

Well, perhaps you and Mr. Strange cannot conceive of a Millenium, but I sure can!  (pun intended)

I would now like to ask you brother a few questions. I hope you will answer them.

1.If the apostles never used the word anastasis for regeneration, why do you?

2. Does the Revelation depict the glorious appearing of our Lord at all? If so, where?

3. You say only explicit teaching of the apostles can be taken as doctrine. You also say "Revelation has no explicit teaching, and can't be used for doctrine." Okay, where did the apostles ever teach that?

4. Does Romans 6 actually say anything about Christians being resurrected, or raised up from death, or "living" as opposed to being "dead"? If so, could you point out the specific verses?

Thank you for taking part in this discussion, brother Blume. This has been really enjoyable, and I look forward to your responses and hopefully also a clear and affirmative presentation of your case that the First Resurrection of Rev 20 is regeneration.