I admire your effort of constructing the Johannine antitheses, but John doesn’t do that. Notice that the effort is yours to avoid the natural reading of Rev 20.

If your definition of Regeneration is correct, then it makes no sense when applied to the martyrs of Rev 20, and then calling it the First Resurrection of which John speaks.

This is how it looks:

1. They were Christians

2. They got beheaded for their testimony

3. Then they came to life

4. And reigned with Christ for 1000yrs

5. This is the First Resurrection, and which by the way, is the Regeneration of John 3, 5 and Eph 2:1-10.

Nope, neither does the adjective “spiritual” have to be there to take it as such either. I think its apparent in the antithesis that John provides:
First Resurrection, Second Death – spiritual, not bodily [hence why John sees ‘souls’ not resurrected bodies.
Second Resurrection, First Death – physcial, bodily.
The first resurrection occurs throughout time, while the second death occurs at the judgment.
The first death (our actual death) occurs throughout time, while the second resurrection (physical, bodily) occurs at the second coming.

I did pay attention to what Peter outlined above. That was what the middle section of my last comment was about. I’m not using regeneration in some crazy new way- regeneration as in the act of the holy spirit changing our nature and making us born again/born again/etc (cf. John 3, 5, Ephes 2.1-10).

Comments on this blog are restricted to team members. You’re currently logged in as xyz. You may not comment with this account.

It’s been a while since I played with Blogger and I currently don’t have an active Blogger blog to see what settings should be changed to allow for commenting.

Again, the fundamental issue there is a person’s hermeneutics.

There have been some scholarly and thoughtful rebuttals, especially from the Reformed community.

I believe that what the Reformers termed analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture, Scripture interpreting itself, it quite true.

When we bring this principle to the promises and prophecies of Scripture, we discover that God means for His promises and prophecies to have literal fulfillment. Consider that all the prophecies of the coming Messiah were fulfilled literally.

The Scripture itself is telling us something. Therefore, I believe that those promises and prophecies unfulfilled will be fulfilled literally.

We’ll see. Setting aside whatever preteristic lens I applied at the end of the Peter post, what was your basic reaction? Most of that post was just restating the argument by Richard Pratt Jr. for the principle of contingent prophecy. Is that too close to open theism (another topic I’d like to investigate)?

As you’ve undoubtedly figured out, I’m pretty much a theological mutt who’s picked up pieces here and there. I’m trying to find an eschatological system that allows contextual/historical importance to be placed on first-century Israel, but not necessarily make it the centerpiece of the interpretation, ala preterism.

I find it quite interesting that your hermeneutics would dissuade you from regarding Rev 20:4 as referring to a bodily resurrection.

Tell me, Do we have to find the adjective “bodily” for a resurrection to be such? This is the first I’ve encountered such.

I think you should pay attention to what Peter Kirk outlined above. You mentioned that this refers to some “regeneration.” What do you mean by that?

Of course John meant for his readers to be encouraged by what he wrote. But is that all to the text? Encouragement?

One nature of prophetic literature is that of double meaning and so on.

Again, I see the fundament problem being one of How we interpret prophetic literature.

Elshaddai, maybe you can start a thread on that one.

Well, I just enabled commenting on my blog. Sorry about that. I read your piece, and it’s quite interesting. Again, the difference continues to be our interpretation of prophetic literature.