Our Featured Member Article: Raising Cain and Abel By Dee Dee Warren

[One Bad Pig]

Well again, the timing references in Revelation place that event "a thousand years" - during a special time of restraint of satan and rule of the saints. So it cannot be refering to the final judgment - but Christ judges the dead at other intervals - in this "comng" He was pronouncing judgment on Israel - past and present. He was vindicating Himself and damning those that denied His prophets and forerunners (remember Jesus' woes to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 - that upon them would come the bloodguilt of the ages).

Also "judged" is a bad thing for the unjust but a good thingn for the just - remember in Revelation the dead saints under the altar are praying for vengeance and vindication - they are part of the dead that is "judged" - judged righteous and vindicated.

As Chilton affirmed: this is not the final judgment on the Last Day but rahter the historical vindication and avenging of the martyred saints, those who had suffered at the hands of ungodly Israel as Jesus had foretold.

Okay, I think I understand your point now. I'm still not sure how the timing references work out, though.

[Dee Dee Warren]

There is NO eschatololgical view that does not have problems. I will not say my view has NO problems, but it certainly has the least that I have seen. And when ALL the chronology of the Bible is laid out, it dovetails so perfectly. But we have been "brainwashed" (I am using that colorfully) in a rigidity with terms that is not Biblical - like "coming" must mean the Second Coming and "judgment" in this contexxt must mean the final judgment. It doesn't. Christ is judgment among the nations NOW (Psalm 110:7) - it is part of the Messianic reign.

[Bill the Cat]

Wish I had more time to run with this, but...

Dee Dee, you wrest the very same words out of verse 4-5 that you use to prove a future resurrection of vs. 20. "they came to life" and the "the rest came to life". Gah, wish I had time to expound...

OK, can you tell I had no time to type this?

Now, let's look at the text of vs 4 and 5.

Scripture Verse:

Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

If the "coming to life" in vs 4 is our Spiritual resurrection at salvation, the exact phrase is used of the rest of the dead in vs 5. There is no way around this verse meaning universal salvation if you are consistent with the 2 exact same phrases.

Teach you to use me as a whipping boy...

[Dee Dee Warren]

You don't start with Revelation and use that to overturn the passages I brought forth above. An answer will harmonize them all, so far, you have not provided an answer.

[Bill the Cat]

You don't start with Revelation and use that to overturn the passages I brought forth above. An answer will harmonize them all, so far, you have not provided an answer.

Dee Dee, your whole article does not explain why John would convey two entirely different concepts 15 words apart using exactly the same words. If "coming to life" in vs 4 means coming alive in Christ, then vs 5 is all the rest of the dead coming alive in Christ after. Or (for my view) vs 4 refers to a physical resurrection and vs 5, using the exact same words, refers to the exact same physical resurrection process. The born again experience is not a resurrection because our spirits were NEVER alive in Christ before our conversion. Resurrection is the reanimation of dead flesh. Every time resurrection is used, it is reanimation of a body. It referrs to something that was alive, died, and was raised, not something that was dead from the get go. Immediate context here is blatantly physical for both uses of "came to life".

[Dee Dee Warren]

Bill repeating a point several times only makes it doubly wrong. My WHOLE article did not deal solely with John 5, it harmonized John 5 with other passages (and you missed some large points with John 5) - the whole point of the article was showing how your interpretation of John 5 is impossible using other passages to show this. You must deal with the whole article otherwise you have just caused Scripture to contradict itself. It is a common tactic I find in these kinds of debates (and that is not coming out worded as nicely as I would like) that futurists often piecemeal verses and explain them away without coheriing them synoptically. So until you deal with the entire article's argumentn flow, namely the last day arguments, there is not much sense in responding.

One observation about John 5 though shows you to very flawed. Anyone care to point it out besides me?

[MacG]

DeeDee,
With all due respect, it seems to me that you have ignored the context rule here. If I am not mistaken, you are arguing that these verses in revelation refers to being born again. You go on to state that just because that Greek word never elsewhere refers to anything other than bodily resurrection it does not mean that that is has to here. These verses clearly refer to those who had been faithful to Christ not receiving the mark and were beheaded for it. Their bodies died for their born again witness, not for their spiritually unreformed witness. In other words they were born again before they were beheaded. The resurrection here refers to those dead bodies, does it not? "Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands."
Blessings,
MacG

[Dee Dee Warren]

I would love for a futurist to deal with the whole argument. It does not do to just focus on Rev 20 when that is just a peice (very small in fact in this article) of the argument.

[MacG]

I would love for a futurist to deal with the whole argument. It does not do to just focus on Rev 20 when that is just a peice (very small in fact in this article) of the argument.

Pardon me. I must have misunderstood. I thought your use of Rev 20 was the foundation from which the argument was proposed. I was going on if the foundation is faulty, then the prooftexts are meaningless.
Blessings,
MacG

[Dee Dee Warren]

No I was showing that the foundation of premill using Rev 20 was faulty. Merely pointing back to Rev 20 and saying nuh uh doesn't deal with the arguments I used to dismantle the futurist argument. I am not saying you are doingn that Mac, I am being more general here.

[gsmoluk2002]

It just amazes me that one would think that God would allow the church to go through the tribulation. And then using one or two verses from here and there to back up the claim I can make the Bible say whatever I want if I use one verse here and one verse there and take it out of context but Dee Dee is Entitled to have her own view. I just think she wrong on this one!

I am with you on this one it would seem to me that people only see what they choose to see!
@gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am with you on this one it would seem to me that people only see what they choose to see!
@gsmoluk2002

Does that apply to YOU? Care to do a substantive rebuttal?

[gsmoluk2002]

It amazes me that anyone thinks the Tribulation is future when the Bible clearly says it was a first century event. But that is another thread. We can be amazed by a zillion things.



And it is easy to say, difficult to prove. What I stated above has been the historic position of the church for oh about two thousand years. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that this then is a simple case of pulling things here and there. It may still be wrong, but it certainly isn't a case of using one or two verses here or there unless we think that the Church has been doing that for a few thousand years and we moderns know so much better. I think there is a bit more to it than that.




"My view" at least on this issue is the historic position ofthe Church. Those who wish to change the course of that ship have a large burden of proof. Anyways, I may be wrong on this one. We don't see that from this post.

You are wrong, and I still see "noooooooo" evidence to back up, your "fluft balony." You only see what you want to see, and then you believe it. I dont see it, and I dont belive it. "Prove it!" Were's the "History." @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

THAT is your idea of a substantive rebuttal?



Okay, well futurists, there you go. Surely this is not your champion. I could argue for futurism better than this. Here is a clue buddy, this is a debate board. Debate is not plugging one's ears and going "lalalalalala" but it is actually engaging the points made. Statements like:

You will only see what you to see

And there is no evidence

WITHOUT engaging the points are, well, dumb. You are free to make them, but for the sake of the futurists I respect, please don't. It makes them look bad.

[gsmoluk2002]

Does that apply to YOU? Care to do a substantive rebuttal?

It will be done let me know what you would like me to have done, and it will be ready for everyone to see. As an article!! "Very extsensive." @gsmoluk2002