Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
crossnote said:
For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?
Click to expand...
can i still answer? here goes:

yes they are reigning now with Christ and are the ones who die in Christ with His testimony.
the rest of the dead are all those who die outside of Christ
the first resurrection is to the christians. a spiritual resurrection mentioned in ephesians 2:5-6 for example.

note: i dont believe this myself. but thats what i know
 
crossnote said:
Please stick to the topic without ad hominems. People can dig up dirt on nearly everyone, even Jesus was falsely accused.
Click to expand...



Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do :(
 
obedienttogod said:
Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do :(
Click to expand...
Do you understand the concept of staying on topic these days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaylagrl, Angela53510 and eternally-gratefull
obedienttogod said:
Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do :(
Click to expand...
rumors are rumors. this is offtopic, and most baptists arent reformed(calvinists).

@crossnote is my answer of any help? will there be a follow up question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angela53510
crossnote said:
Do you understand the concept of staying on topic these days?
Click to expand...



You put Calvin in the same light as God (Yeshua),in the post of yours I last quoted. No one in their right and sound mind should let that go unnoticed.

And after all, just like the point you are attempting to make in this thread, can also be applied to my posts.

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!!

And you have been shown the TRUTH!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: crossnote
Melach said:
rumors are rumors. this is offtopic, and most baptists arent reformed(calvinists).
Click to expand...


AMEN!!
Rumors are just that, Rumors...

But literal court documents are FACTS, which are everything else but a Rumor!!
 
crossnote said:
Even though vs 25 says after the 1000 years?

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. (Rev 20:5)
Click to expand...
===============================
Cross,
REV. 20:5., at the very END, 'this is the FIRST RESURRECTION, = is a 'mis-statement' to our understanding.
the First Resurrection is CLEARLY explained in 1COR. 15, the whole CHAPTER is about the FIRST RESURRECTION,
it consists of 'those sanctified', but the 'resurrection' mentioned in REV. 20:5, is speaking of 'all humanity',
therefore, YOUNGS Literal Translation, although not exactly 'correct' to our 'English understanding', is
the BEST translation that we have...

the First Resurrection is at the Last-Trumpet, - many Scriptures EXPOUND on this...
 
azamzimtoti said:
Interesting in regards to the 1st resurrection "already taken place", can you expand on what you are saying here (is this from the amill perspective?)

Explain how Young's literal is helping here.
Click to expand...
=================================
No Az,
it's NOT from an amil - when the scripture is speaking in a symbolic manner, it always gives us a
'clear-clue' - 'a 1000 year reign is a 1000 year reign'...

the YLT, although is not a great translation for 'English understanding', is Closer to the 'CORRECT MEANING'..,,
like we shared with Cross; 1COR. 15., is a 'detailed description of the First Resurrection', it only consists
of those that have 'received The Holy Spirit', for this is the guarantee of our 'INHERITANCE'...
there are not TWO FIRST RESURRECTIONS!
the Resurrection mentioned in REV. 20:5., of the Rest of the Dead, is ALL HUMANS that have ever LIVED,
(EXCLUDING those from the FIRST RESURRECTION), so, those called 'the rest of the dead', when they
'arise', it would better be called, to our English Understanding, (The Second Resurrection)...

let us remember, (we have an Hebrew Author, speaking in the Greek language, translated into English -
as it is written:
11TIM. 2:15.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing The Word of Truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tourist
obedienttogod said:
You put Calvin in the same light as God (Yeshua),in the post of yours I last quoted. No one in their right and sound mind should let that go unnoticed.

And after all, just like the point you are attempting to make in this thread, can also be applied to my posts.

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!!

And you have been shown the TRUTH!!
Click to expand...
Actually I put you in the same category as the smut news reporters. All I said was that they even accused Jesus of wrong doing. Of course He was sinless whereas Calvin wasn't. Now please, I'll report you if you keep this off topic stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaylagrl, Angela53510, eternally-gratefull and 1 other person
crossnote said:
Actually I put you in the same category as the smut news reporters. All I said was that they even accused Jesus of wrong doing. Of course He was sinless whereas Calvin wasn't. Now please, I'll report you if you keep this off topic stuff up.
Click to expand...
============================================
this is just to ridiculous - come on Cross, where's your sense of humor???
:):)
 
oldethennew said:
===============================
Cross,
REV. 20:5., at the very END, 'this is the FIRST RESURRECTION, = is a 'mis-statement' to our understanding.
the First Resurrection is CLEARLY explained in 1COR. 15, the whole CHAPTER is about the FIRST RESURRECTION,
it consists of 'those sanctified', but the 'resurrection' mentioned in REV. 20:5, is speaking of 'all humanity',
therefore, YOUNGS Literal Translation, although not exactly 'correct' to our 'English understanding', is
the BEST translation that we have...

the First Resurrection is at the Last-Trumpet, - many Scriptures EXPOUND on this...
Click to expand...
You know, I have heard some amills explain the first resurrection as when we received Christ and the 2nd as everyone.

When you say 'all humanity', I assume you mean 'all unsaved humanity', correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldethennew
crossnote said:
You know, I have heard some amills explain the first resurrection as when we received Christ and the 2nd as everyone.

When you say 'all humanity', I assume you mean 'all unsaved humanity', correct?
Click to expand...
===================================
Absolutey!!!
 
crossnote said:
I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).

Revelation 20:4-5 NASBS
[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. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?
Click to expand...



1. those on the thrones judging are the Bride of Yeshua
2. those beheaded were martyrs from the 7 year Tribulation
3. Both are reigning with Yeshua for 1,000 years
4. Both are part of the First Resurrection

Not sure how being a Calvinist or Amill makes any difference here at all?
In all Biblical versions, what is stated above ^ is found in every other version.
 
obedienttogod said:
1. those on the thrones judging are the Bride of Yeshua
2. those beheaded were martyrs from the 7 year Tribulation
3. Both are reigning with Yeshua for 1,000 years
4. Both are part of the First Resurrection

Not sure how being a Calvinist or Amill makes any difference here at all?
In all Biblical versions, what is stated above ^ is found in every other version.
Click to expand...
Because an Amillennialist wouldn"t hold to #3, as he sees no literal 1000 years even though the Scriptures use that #.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal and eternally-gratefull
crossnote said:
Because an Amillennialist wouldn"t hold to #3, as he sees no literal 1000 years even though the Scriptures use that #.
Click to expand...



I think I need to study both views, or at least the Biblical principals each one stands for. I have never heard of this argument until I joined this site and noticed literally a ton of threads on it. It's hard to believe something like the views of John Calvin, and the views of the Amill's, have caused such a separate between members of the Baptist faith.
 
obedienttogod said:
Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do :(
Click to expand...

You're seriously twisted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back