First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20

Bobby Boland' Fourth 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 Since you have decided not to follow my three affirmatives with three affirmatives of your own, I will make this my final response in this debate. I was hoping you would systematically present a case for your argument that the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is a reference to regeneration, which of course would put the burden of proof on you to make that case, and since I would be in the negative, I would be responsible to point out errors and inconsistencies in your argument. As it stands now, I will simply have to deal with some of your rebuttals concerning my last affirmative, and then deal with what I understand your affirmative position to be and the arguments you have made concerning that. To begin with, I would first comment on a few things in your last response. To begin with you charge me with attempting to argue by means of guilt by association, in equating your preterist  doctrine with the dark ages and with gnosticism. Yet, you are guilty of this yourself when you claim that my approach to interpreting the thousand years is the same approach that led a man to predict the Second Coming in 1988. Never mind the fact that I am not and do not propose as doctrine any particular date for the Lord's return. Second, you assailed my approach to the thousand years as gnostic. But that is false. Gnosticism is a philosophy which says 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 Flesh and physical matter are gross elements that are to be superceded by spiritual or immaterial realities, so that a physical resurrection is to be rejected. Now my approach to the thousand years can hardly be called Gnostic, for 1. All scriptures I referenced in regard to the thousand years have a literal or plain sense meaning. You 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 OT 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 OT events and especially in the ceremonial regulations of the Old Covenant. But I am not Gnostic in my approach for I believe that these types are readily evident to any who simply look at Scripture and see how it has been interpreted within Scripture itself. 2. I do not deny a literal or bodily resurrection or a literal or physical fulfillment 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! Third, you have once again used straw men and red herrings by bringing up futurism. I have already stated before that I am not a futurist, so your references to futurism and dispensationalism  and the mistakes these schemes make do not apply to this debate. You attempted to say that I am a futurist because I believe the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is yet future. But that does not a futurist make. Perhaps you are not aware of the three primary schemes of prophetic interpretation, known as preterism, futurism, and historicism. Preterism postulates that the great bulk of prophecy (especially in the Revelation and Matthew 24 and Daniel) were fulfilled in the past, particularly in the 1st century by AD 70. Futurism postulates that the those same prophecies apply to a short period of time yet future, particularly an imaginary seven year tribulation just before the Second Advent. Historicism postulates that these prophecies cover a long range of time, and have to do with the church age in general. I informed you already that I am more of an historicist than preterist or futurist. I am definitely not a futurist. Continuing to confuse Millennialism or "chiliasm" with futurism is a gross error that indicates a naivete concerning both Millennialism and the three major eschatologies (preterism, historicism, and futurism). Let me also clarify some misconceptions you have concerning my understanding of the Kingdom of God. You erroneously assume that because I believe in a literal thousand year reign upon this earth of Christ and the saints, that therefore I do not believe in a present reign of Christ and the saints. Even dispensational futurists do not fall for this straw man, and an historicist much less so. Christ reigns now, and will in fact reign forever, contrary to the assertions of some who claim there will be a time when Jesus will not reign (after His coming). But Isaiah 9:6 says of the increase of His government and peace there shall be NO END. There will be a change, of course. He reigns now in a certain sense, and He will reign in the Millennium in another sense, and He will reign in yet another sense after the thousand years and the final judgement. 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? But in any event, these things have no bearing on the issue of the Millennium. I do not and never have said Christ does not reign now. And yes, AS GOD He reigns over the nations, even now. 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. And we do reign now in a spiritual sense. But we will reign in a further sense in the Millennium. I will address that momentarily. Now I will address the points you make in support of your argument. To begin with, I will address your points about our reigning now with Christ, and will show how you have an undeveloped view of these things and have neglected certain important promises made to the church, promises made void by preterism. In regard to Revelation 26-27 you said "As we overcome we gain rulership,"  and "And this shows us that we rule now and shall see our enemies dashed to pieces and the wicked destroyed in the future.  We overcome now and spiritually enjoy dominion over the world.  We subdue.  Could it be that the Christ subdues all through the agency of His body the Church, seated with Him on His throne? " and "So there are nations over which we rule now, spiritually, which will be destroyed should they reject the Gospel now." 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. Now when has God made a conditional promise and then granted the promise while the conditions were unmet? This is the same reasoning that allows dispensationalists to posit a regathering of the Jews in Palestine as fulfillment of prophecy, while these same Jews are apostate rejectors of God and therefore are in disobedience! God promised regathering based upon obedience, yet they would have us believe the conditional promise is being fulfilled without the condition being fulfilled. This is exactly similar to what you have asserted in this case. The promise - whatever it may mean - is conditioned upon overcoming to the end. It is not conditioned upon overcoming at present. It is not "he that currently overcomes, will currently rule the nations". But "he that overcomes. to the end, shall be given power over the nations." Regardless of the nature of the power over the nations, it cannot and will not be realized until the condition has beenmet. And if you claim you are currently in fulfillment of this promise, then you just as much claim you have overcome TO THE END. You have "arrived". Is this not the force of your argument, pressed to its logical conclusion? So we see then that your attempt to apply this promise to a current spiritual reign in the present is destructive of the very text itself. Yes we rule now, but not in the sense of this verse as it is written - Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: Rev 2:27 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. This promise is to those who overcome to the end, and as a result cannot be fulfilled in its complete sense in the present by people who have not overcome TO THE END. peace-