Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

[DavidPT]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved always saved. OSAS = once saved always saved.

As to me, I'm currently Premil, yet, Amils raise certain points at times that make me wonder if it is perhaps them that are correct rather than me.

As to the debate between OSAS and NOSAS, I fall into the NOSAS camp. The purpose of this thread is not to debate which position is Biblical in here. That doesn't matter, because I have already fully made up my mind ages ago that the Bible teaches NOSAS is the correct position to take, and that no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. That's how convinced I am that NOSAS is the correct position to take. So let's try and refrain from debating OSAS vs NOSAS in this thread. I'm not wanting this thread to go in that direction. If you are of the OSAS camp instead, and are Amil, that's fine. Your input is welcome as well, but try and keep it focused on the question at hand, is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

If NOSAS is not compatible with Amil, why would anyone choose to hold a position that contradicts another position they hold?


To get an idea of some of my thinking here, consider the following.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There could not possibly be one single person who has part in the first resurrection, that fail to remain blessed and holy for forever. This part proves it---on such the second death hath no power. The 2nd death has to do with the LOF, which then means every single person who has part in the first resurrection, none of them will ever have part in the LOF ever.

What does NOSAS clearly teach? Does it not teach that some can lose their salvation in the end? Does it look like anyone in Revelation 20:6 can lose their salvation in the end? Of course not. This presents a major problem for Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp. The fact this person agrees NOSAS is Biblical, yet also embraces Amil, and the fact no one in Revelation 20:6 can remotely lose their salvation in the end, who exactly is it that that this person, meaning any Amil that is also in the NOSAS camp, proposing can lose their salvation in the end? It for sure can't be meaning anyone who has part in the first resurrection.

I myself am also in the NOSAS camp, yet this presents zero problem for my position involving Premil. Even if I were in the OSAS camp instead, it would still present zero problem for my position involving Premil.

For someone such as me, in order to even switch to Amil I would first need to denounce NOSAS, thus admit OSAS is Biblical instead. I don't think so, no way am I ever going to denounce NOSAS, the fact I am 100% convinced that is the position the Bible teaches in many cases.

 

[sovereigngrace]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved always saved. OSAS = once saved always saved.

As to me, I'm currently Premil, yet, Amils raise certain points at times that make me wonder if it is perhaps them that are correct rather than me.

As to the debate between OSAS and NOSAS, I fall into the NOSAS camp. The purpose of this thread is not to debate which position is Biblical in here. That doesn't matter, because I have already fully made up my mind ages ago that the Bible teaches NOSAS is the correct position to take, and that no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. That's how convinced I am that NOSAS is the correct position to take. So let's try and refrain from debating OSAS vs NOSAS in this thread. I'm not wanting this thread to go in that direction. If you are of the OSAS camp instead, and are Amil, that's fine. Your input is welcome as well, but try and keep it focused on the question at hand, is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

If NOSAS is not compatible with Amil, why would anyone choose to hold a position that contradicts another position they hold?


To get an idea of some of my thinking here, consider the following.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There could not possibly be one single person who has part in the first resurrection, that fail to remain blessed and holy for forever. This part proves it---on such the second death hath no power. The 2nd death has to do with the LOF, which then means every single person who has part in the first resurrection, none of them will ever have part in the LOF ever.

What does NOSAS clearly teach? Does it not teach that some can lose their salvation in the end? Does it look like anyone in Revelation 20:6 can lose their salvation in the end? Of course not. This presents a major problem for Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp. The fact this person agrees NOSAS is Biblical, yet also embraces Amil, and the fact no one in Revelation 20:6 can remotely lose their salvation in the end, who exactly is it that that this person, meaning any Amil that is also in the NOSAS camp, proposing can lose their salvation in the end? It for sure can't be meaning anyone who has part in the first resurrection.

I myself am also in the NOSAS camp, yet this presents zero problem for my position involving Premil. Even if I were in the OSAS camp instead, it would still present zero problem for my position involving Premil.

For someone such as me, in order to even switch to Amil I would first need to denounce NOSAS, thus admit OSAS is Biblical instead. I don't think so, no way am I ever going to denounce NOSAS, the fact I am 100% convinced that is the position the Bible teaches in many cases.

I agree that Revelation 20 supports eternal salvation. But there is multiple other Scripture that supports that great truth, not just Revelation 20, as you allege. The challenge is therefore applied to the whole NOSAS camp - regardless of their millennial stance. Repeated Scripture teaches what Revelation 20 does.

Jesus said in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (present active particle) in him should not perish, but have (present active subjunctive) everlasting life.”

Currently believing carefully corresponds with currently experiencing “everlasting life." It is a present reality for the elect, not merely a future hope. That is so because God lives within us now.

John 3:36 says, “He that believeth on the Son hath (present active indicative) everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God (the second death) abideth on him.”

If you don't possess eternal life now you will not possess it in the life to come. Only those who possess it now will never die.

Jesus said in John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath (present active indicative) everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death (or experience the second death) unto life.”

He continues in the next verse (John 5:25): “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”

The transition from death to life both spiritually and physically occurs by way of resurrection. There is no other way. This is demonstrated many times in Scripture in regard to both spiritual and physical resurrection.

Jesus said in John 6:47: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath (present active indicative) everlasting life.”

The word “hath” here is a present tense word which means now or at this present time.

Jesus said in John 6:50-51, 54&58: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life … he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

John 8:51-52 Christ said to the Pharisees, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death (or experience the second death) … If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.”

Jesus said in John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give (present active indicative) unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (or experience the second death), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth (present active particle) and believeth (present active particle) in me shall never die (or experience the second death)."

These bodies are not eternal or immortal. Our spirits are. That is 101 Christianity. These bodies die. What is more we experience eternal life upon salvation. The Christian will live for and never die because the Spirit of God within.

John 17:3: “And this is (present, active, indicative) life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

I John 5:11-13 says, “God hath given (aorist active indicative) to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath (present active particle) the Son hath (present active particle) life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have (present active indicative) eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

To have Christ is to have eternal life. That simple! Not to have Christ is not to have eternal life. That simple!

John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is supported by Revelation 2:11, which similarly says: “He that overcometh (present active particle) shall not be hurt of the second death.”

 

[Zao is life]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved always saved. OSAS = once saved always saved.

As to me, I'm currently Premil, yet, Amils raise certain points at times that make me wonder if it is perhaps them that are correct rather than me.

As to the debate between OSAS and NOSAS, I fall into the NOSAS camp. The purpose of this thread is not to debate which position is Biblical in here. That doesn't matter, because I have already fully made up my mind ages ago that the Bible teaches NOSAS is the correct position to take, and that no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. That's how convinced I am that NOSAS is the correct position to take. So let's try and refrain from debating OSAS vs NOSAS in this thread. I'm not wanting this thread to go in that direction. If you are of the OSAS camp instead, and are Amil, that's fine. Your input is welcome as well, but try and keep it focused on the question at hand, is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

If NOSAS is not compatible with Amil, why would anyone choose to hold a position that contradicts another position they hold?


To get an idea of some of my thinking here, consider the following.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There could not possibly be one single person who has part in the first resurrection, that fail to remain blessed and holy for forever. This part proves it---on such the second death hath no power. The 2nd death has to do with the LOF, which then means every single person who has part in the first resurrection, none of them will ever have part in the LOF ever.

What does NOSAS clearly teach? Does it not teach that some can lose their salvation in the end? Does it look like anyone in Revelation 20:6 can lose their salvation in the end? Of course not. This presents a major problem for Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp. The fact this person agrees NOSAS is Biblical, yet also embraces Amil, and the fact no one in Revelation 20:6 can remotely lose their salvation in the end, who exactly is it that that this person, meaning any Amil that is also in the NOSAS camp, proposing can lose their salvation in the end? It for sure can't be meaning anyone who has part in the first resurrection.

I myself am also in the NOSAS camp, yet this presents zero problem for my position involving Premil. Even if I were in the OSAS camp instead, it would still present zero problem for my position involving Premil.

For someone such as me, in order to even switch to Amil I would first need to denounce NOSAS, thus admit OSAS is Biblical instead. I don't think so, no way am I ever going to denounce NOSAS, the fact I am 100% convinced that is the position the Bible teaches in many cases.

Very interesting. For the sake of those reading your thread, please tell me if you believe that what I say below is correct (I'm doing this because I don't think everyone understands what is meant by "first resurrection" and "second death"). It's confusing to a lot of Christians, and goes over the heads of many:

In the Bible, it starts at the very beginning, with Adam's death - the first death, which came to all men. The curse of death was removed by Christ through His death and resurrection from the dead, and the removal of the curse is in Christ and in Christ alone, whose resurrection from the dead is the first resurrection from the dead.

When we look in the New Testament for all the verses talking about the resurrection, we find that In each and every one of the many, many verses where mention of the resurrection is found, it's always referring to the resurrection of the body from the dead, without exception. It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. It is sown in corruption. It is raised in glory. The resurrection is never referring to a "spiritual" resurrection, because it's not the same as spiritual birth from above, but the spiritual birth from above is a prerequisite to being raised from the dead with [Greek: synegeiro] Christ's resurrection from the dead. This is why Jesus said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the Life!".

Till now there has only been one death - Adam's death, which came to all men; and there will always only be one resurrection - in Christ, and it's the first resurrection. There is no 2nd, 3rd or 4th resurrection.

But there is a 2nd death. The 2nd death can only come to any individual human being after the first resurrection from the dead.

Please say if there is something in the above that you think is in error or does not accurately reflect what the Bible teaches about death, resurrection from death, and the second death, so that all Christians can understand what these concepts are about.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Very interesting. For the sake of those reading your thread, please tell me if you believe that what I say below is correct (I'm doing this because I don't think everyone understands what is meant by "first resurrection" and "second death"). It's confusing to a lot of Christians, and goes over the heads of many:

In the Bible, it starts at the very beginning, with Adam's death - the first death, which came to all men. The curse of death was removed by Christ through His death and resurrection from the dead, and the removal of the curse is in Christ and in Christ alone, whose resurrection from the dead is the first resurrection from the dead.

When we look in the New Testament for all the verses talking about the resurrection, we find that In each and every one of the many, many verses where mention of the resurrection is found, it's always referring to the resurrection of the body from the dead, without exception. It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. It is sown in corruption. It is raised in glory. The resurrection is never referring to a "spiritual" resurrection, because it's not the same as spiritual birth from above, but the spiritual birth from above is a prerequisite to being raised from the dead with [Greek: synegeiro] Christ's resurrection from the dead. This is why Jesus said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the Life!".

Till now there has only been one death - Adam's death, which came to all men; and there will always only be one resurrection - in Christ, and it's the first resurrection. There is no 2nd, 3rd or 4th resurrection.

But there is a 2nd death. The 2nd death can only come to any individual human being after the first resurrection from the dead.

Please say if there is something in the above that you think is in error or does not accurately reflect what the Bible teaches about death, resurrection from death, and the second death, so that all Christians can understand what these concepts are about.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have showed you the error of your position several times, yet you choose to dismiss the sacred text. Clearly your fight is with Scripture. The Bible repeatedly shows that the Christian experiences two resurrections - spiritual and physical.

So if a Christian was spiritually dead before salvation and they are now spiritually alive, by what means does Scripture say we are brought from death into newness of life?

The only way that we can transition from death to life (both spiritually and physically) is by way of resurrection. There is no other way! This is demonstrated many times in Scripture in regard to both spiritual and physical resurrection.

Two resurrections result for the believer from Christ’s one resurrection. Man needs both spiritually redeemed and physically redeemed. When one gets saved they are spiritually redeemed. But they are not physically redeemed until resurrection day. His “first resurrection” secured both resurrections for those who will put their faith in Christ.

Romans 6:3-6 says, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (or) anastasis (Strong’s 386): Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

There are two Greek words used in Romans 6:3-10 that are used to describe the resurrection of Christ, and that are significantly in turn purposely equated to the believer and the new birth experience; they are egeiro (Strong’s 1453) and anastasis (Strong’s 386). Such a correlation between these two diverse types of resurrection (physical and spiritual) is only secured through Christ’s sinless life, atoning death and glorious resurrection, enabling the believer to walk in resurrection power and “newness of life.” The believer here is therefore supernaturally transferred from a condition of death into one of life. This undoubtedly relates (1) to a spiritual state, and, (2), to the here in now. It cannot relate to the physical resurrection which is still future and which occurs at the second coming of Christ.

The first word egeiro (Strong’s 1453) is used many times throughout the New Testament to describe the Lord’s physical resurrection. These references are found in Matthew 14:2, 16:21, 17:9, 23, 20:19, 26:32, 27:63, 64, 28:6, 7, Mark 14:28, 16:6, 14, Luke 1:69, 9:22, 24:6, 34, John 2:19, 20, 22, 21:14, Acts 3:15, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 37, Romans 4:24, 25, 6:4, 9, 7:4, 8:11, 34, 10:9, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 15:4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 5:15, Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 1 Peter 1:21.

Similarly, the other Greek word anastasis (Strong’s 386), which is identified several times in Scripture with the new birth spiritual resurrection is also used several times to describe the Lord’s physical resurrection. It is derived from the root word anistemi (Strong’s 450). These are outlined in Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, 16:9, Luke 18:33, 24:7, 26, John 20:9, Acts 2:24, 31, 32, 3:26, 4:2, 33, 10:41, 13:33, 34, 17:3, 18, 26:23, Romans 15:12, Philippians 3:10 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 Peter 1:3, 3:21.

The same two Greek words that are repeatedly employed to describe Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead are also used in Ephesians 5:14 to describe the new birth experience of the believer. The sinner being commanded: “Awake (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) thou that sleepest, and arise (or) anistemi (Strong’s 450) from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light” (Ephesians 5:14).

The resurrection portrayed here is again not a physical resurrection, but, a spiritual resurrection in which the recipient (the sinner) receives the joy of salvation. Through this spiritual resurrection, the believer receives the “light” of God and is therefore spared the awful sentence of eternal wrath. The verb “arise” in this text specifically relates to salvation and is a metaphor describing the spiritual resurrection that Christians undergo when they are lifted from the grave of sin. It also demonstrates the blessing that follows this resurrection. The true child of God receives the blessed light of God’s dear Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord Himself declared in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world, he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” It is worth noting, Paul is speaking to first century Ephesian citizens in this reading, who lived at least 1,950 years away from the actual return of the Lord. He is offering them the opportunity of walking in the fullness of the resurrection life then. Moreover, this resurrection life is still available today to sinners that humbly bow their knee to Christ.

If the Premillennialist can see that there is a resurrection in the New Testament, pertaining to the believer, which precedes the physical resurrection, which releases a man from the punishment of the second death (eternal wrath) – involving the new birth experience, then he should be able to accept the fact that it is the “first resurrection.”

Luke 2:34 also records, “Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again anastasis (or resurrecting, Strong’s 386) of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.”

Matthew Henry explains in relation to this passage, “He (Jesus) is set for the rising again of many in Israel, that is, for the conversion of many to God that are dead and buried in sin, and for the consolation of many in God that are sunk and lost in sorrow and despair. Those whom he is set for the fall of may be the same with those whom he is set for the rising again of. He is set eis ptosin kai anastasin - for their fall, in order to their rising again; to humble and abase them, and bring them off from all confidence in themselves, that they may be exalted by relying on Christ; he wounds and then heals, Paul falls, and rises again”

The believer is raised from the grave of his sin and spiritual death at conversion, which of necessity must be a spiritual resurrection. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:8-10, “For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) the dead: Who delivered us (past tense) from so great a death, and doth deliver (present tense): in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us (future tense).”

This whole passage is concentrated upon the great eternal provision of spiritual deliverance. The word “raiseth” in this reading is a present active verb, therefore it is talking about a resurrection that is happening now, rather than the future physical resurrection. This is obviously speaking of spiritual resurrection, because it alone has been ongoing since Christ’s first (physical) resurrection. This will, of course, culminate with the general physical resurrection at His return.

Paul goes on then to emphasise the victorious ongoing hope that the risen saints have through salvation, regardless of what is arrayed against them. He is reminding the believer of the security that exists “in Christ.” Whilst justification is an act (when we are spiritually redeemed) and glorification also an act (when we are physically redeemed), sanctification is a process of making us more like Christ. In all three experiences Christ holds a firm grip upon His people. He looks after them, and sustains them along the way. Christ therefore has “delivered,” (past tense) “doth deliver” (currently) and “will yet deliver” (future tense) Hi sheep.

So the allusion to “God which raiseth the dead” is talking in a broad sense about the day of salvation (the here-and-now). It describes the ongoing spiritual process secured through Christ’s glorious resurrection from the dead. For someone to move from death and the grave (in either the natural or the spiritual) to life (natural or spiritual) requires resurrection.

The same word repeatedly applied to Christ’s physical resurrection in the New Testament – egeiro – is here again used spiritually to describe the spiritual resurrection of the believer from the reality of spiritual death. It shows a present realisation and victorious triumph over that state in this testimony of Paul. This reading does not at all indicate that the believer will not experience natural death, no, but rather, that he wouldn’t experience spiritual death. It positively outlines that through the spiritual (or first) resurrection the believer is rescued from entering into the awful realisation of the second death (eternal punishment).

Colossians 2:10-14 says, “ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ‘ye are risen with him’ (or) sunegeiro (Strong’s 4891) through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised (or) egeiro (Strong’s 1453) him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened (or) suzoopoieo (Strong’s 4806) together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

This explicit passage describes the act of salvation as a resurrection feat. Moreover, the raising of the forgiven child of God in resurrection power in salvation is in turn carefully identified with, and connected to, Christ’s glorious resurrection. It confirms that our hearts “are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” in salvation, and likens this supernatural work to a death, burial and resurrection. This reading shows how the child of God is “buried with him,” “quickened together with him,” and finally “risen with him.”

Before salvation we are carnally alive, but spiritually dead. Our natural man is alive and kicking but our spiritual man is totally unresponsive. So in order to shift from death to life our spiritual man must first experience the quickening power (or life giving touch) of the Holy Spirit in which our blind spiritual eyes are opened in order for us to see as God sees. In this he sees sin for what it is, putrid, ugly and destructive. He see that sin is an offence to God and that it must be punished. The Holy Spirit then shows the penitent sinner the way out – Jesus Christ and His shed blood at Calvary. He then trades His sin for Christ’s righteousness in salvation whereupon he is raised from the grave of his sin.

Salvation is a supernatural act in which God breathes spiritual life into the sinner through regeneration. He quickens the corpse through the work of the Spirit, enabling the sinner to recognise his plight and cry out for mercy. The sinner surrenders all confidence in self (he dies to self) and acknowledges his need of Christ. Spiritual resurrection results.

 

[Zao is life]

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have showed you the error of your position several times, yet you choose to dismiss the sacred text. Clearly your fight is with Scripture. The Bible repeatedly shows that the Christian experiences two resurrections - spiritual and physical.

A proper and thorough study of all the scriptures talking about resurrection, shows the following:-

(i) There is a very long (very long) list of scriptures referring to the resurrection - and there isn't even one that is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body.

(II) Looking at the words of Jesus, we should notice that after saying, “That which is born (Greek: gennao) of the flesh is flesh", Jesus did not say,

"and that which is spiritually resurrected from death is spirit.”

What Jesus said was,

"That which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit".

And then He said,

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (γεννάω gennáō] from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν ánōthen)." (John 3:7)

Adam had a body and a soul:

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed [ nâphach ] into his nostrils the breath [ neshâmâh ] of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh]."

When Adam sinned, he died, spiritually. He lost his connection to the Spirit of God, and we are told that he was prevented from eating from "the tree of life" and therefore would not live forever - but man (Adam) still had a body and a soul.We can compare this fact with Jesus words:

John 3:7
"That which is born (γεννάω [gennáō]) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (Greek: γεννάω [gennáō]) from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν [ánōthen]). "

THE RESURRECTION​

ALL references to the resurrection in the New Testament are references to the resurrection of the body (Greek: σῶμα sōma) from the dead, without exception.

(The noun): ἀνάστασις (anástasis) It's found in many passages (for example):-

Matthew 22:23 & 28 & 30 & 31; Matthew 27:53; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 2:34; Luke 14:14; Luke 20:27 & 33 & 35 & 36; John 5:29; John 11:24 & 25; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:31; Acts 4:2; Acts 4:33; Acts 17:18 & 32; Acts 23:6 & 8; Acts 24:15 & 21; Acts 26:23; Romans 1:4; Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Philippians 3:10, 11; 2 Tim 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 3:21; Revelation 20:5 & 6.

VERBS frequently used in reference to the resurrection:-​

(i) ἐγείρω (egeírō)
probably akin to the base of G58 (through the idea of collecting one's faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), i.e. rouse (literally, from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively, from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence):--awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-)rise (again, up), stand, take up.

There is a very long list of New Testament verses which use the word ἐγείρω (egeírō) in reference to the resurrection, and in each and every case, the verse is a reference to the resurrection of the body from the dead (not to spiritual birth).

(ii) ἀνίστημι anístēmi
to stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right)

Again, whenever the word ἀνίστημι anístēmi is found in reference to the resurrection, the verse is a reference to the resurrection of the body from the dead.

EXAMPLES​

An example where the verb [ ἀνίστημι (anístēmi) ] and the noun (ἀνάστασις anástasis) are both found in the same passage, where the context is the resurrection of the body from the dead:

John 11:23-26
"Jesus said to her, Your brother shall rise again [ἀνίστημι anístēmi]. Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] in the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anastasis] at the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anastasis] and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Remember: Those who who are born from above by the Spirit of Christ are spiritually alive in Christ. This is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

Examples where the verb [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] and the noun (ἀνάστασις anástasis) are both found in the same passage, where the context is the resurrection of the body from the dead:-

1 Cor 15:12-15
"Now if Christ be preached that he rose [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection [ ἀνάστασις (anastasis) ] of the dead?

But if there be no resurrection [ ἀνάστασις (anastasis) ] of the dead, then is Christ not risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ].

And if Christ be not risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] Christ: whom he raised [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] not up, if so be that the dead rise [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] not."

1 Corinthians 12:20-23
“But now is Christ risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] from the dead, and become the fristfruits [ ἀπαρχή (aparchē) ] of them that slept (koimaō)

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection (anastasis) of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive [ ζωοποιέω, ( zōopoieō) ].

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (aparchē); afterward (epeita) they that are Christ’s at his coming (perousia).”

PAUL'S TEACHING ON THE RESURRECTION:​

1. NOT A "SPIRITUAL" RESURRECTION, BUT THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.

2. NOT THE SAME AS THE NEW BIRTH

In the passage below, the New Testament teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that it is the body (σῶμα sōma) that will be raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

1 Corinthians 15:35-38 & 42-57
"But someone will say, How are the dead (νεκρός nekrós) raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) up, and with what body (σῶμα sōma) do they come? Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive (ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō) unless it dies..

.. And what you sow, you do not sow the body (σῶμα sōma) that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest)..

..And God gives it a body (σῶμα sōma) as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body (σῶμα sōma)."

"So also the resurrection (ἀνάστασις anástasis) of the dead (νεκρός nekrós)..

..It is sown in corruption, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in power;..

..it is sown a natural (ψυχικός psychikós) body (σῶμα sōma), it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

There is a natural (ψυχικός psychikós) body (σῶμα sōma), and there is a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living (ζάω dzah'-o) soul (ψυχή psychḗ)," the last Adam was a life-giving (ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō) Spirit (πνεῦμα pneûma)..

..But not the spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) first, but the natural (ψυχικός psychikós); afterward the spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós).

The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven. Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones..

..And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man..

..And I say this, brothers, that flesh (σάρξ sárx) and blood (αἷμα haîma) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet..

..For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead (νεκρός nekrós) shall be raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality..

..But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death (νεκρός nekrós) is swallowed up in victory.

O death (νεκρός nekrós), where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"

The sting of death (νεκρός nekrós) is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Risen with Christ (Greek) συνεγείρω synegeírō

When syn appears prefixed to egeírō (synegeírō), it shows that the resurrection of the individual believer in Christ is something which occurs with Christ's resurrection. It's the same prefix we get with words like synthesis and synchronize.

Colossians 3:1
"If ye then be risen with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

Compare this with Romans 6:5:
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

This is also why Jesus' resurrection is called the first resurrection:

First (Greek) πρῶτον prōton:-

Acts 26:23
"That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (πρῶτον prōton) that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first (πρῶτον prōton) resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

1. Christ is the first (πρῶτον prōton) to have risen from the dead; and

2. those who have been birthed (γεννάω gennáō) by the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] from above (ἄνωθεν ánōthen), are

3. spiritually in Christ, and have therefore risen with (συνεγείρω synegeírō) Him; and

4. He is therefore the firstborn (πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) from the dead; and

5. the firstborn (πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) among many brothers; and

6. the first-fruits (ἀπαρχή aparchḗ') of the resurrection, which is a resurrection from death.

The word resurrection implies that something had died - as the apostle Paul stated:

Romans 8:10-11
"And if Christ is in you, indeed the body [σῶμα sōma] is dead because of sin, but the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] is life because of (Christ's) righteousness

- but if the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] of the One who raised up [ἐγείρω egeírō] Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the One who raised up [ἐγείρω egeírō] Christ from the dead shall also vitalize [ζωοποιέωby zōopoiéō] your mortal [θνητός thnētós] bodies [σῶμα sōma] by His Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] who dwells in you."

Adam had become a living soul when the Spirit of God breathed spiritual life into him, but he died spiritually when he sinned - yet he still had a body and a soul. Jesus is the last Adam and the Son of man - meaning that He, like Adam, represents all of us before God - because just as we are born of the flesh into the first Adam, so we are born of the Spirit into the last Adam, if we believe in Him and yield to Him:

1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit."

There is 100% consistency in the teaching of the New Testament regarding this: The apostle Peter wrote about God "begetting us again" through the resurrection of Jesus:

1 Peter 1:3
"Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget (Greek: ἀναγεννάω anagennáō) us again to a living hope, through the resurrection (Greek: ἀνάστασις anástasis) of Jesus Christ out of the dead."

The word anagennáō (ἀναγεννάω) and the word gennáō (γεννάω) are quite clearly related, and here Peter's words refer to birth, not resurrection. This is why Jesus is also called the "firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos] among many brethren":

Romans 8:29
"because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos] among many brethren"

Revelation 1:5
"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood"

It is clear that because Christ is the first to have risen from the dead, and is therefore the first-fruits of the resurrection and the firstborn from the dead, that those who are in Christ by virtue of having been born from above by the Spirit of Christ, are risen with Him, and we wait in hope of the resurrection, the adoption, to wit, of our own mortal bodies from death:

Romans 8:23
"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

1 Corinthians 15:20
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits (Greek: ἀπαρχή aparchḗ) of those who slept."

Ephesians 5:14
"Wherefore he saith, Awake [ἐγείρω egeírō] thou that sleepest, and arise [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

There is only one death, until now - Adam's death, which came to all mankind. Christ IS the resurrection from death. Adam's death is the first death, and there is only one resurrection - and it's in Christ. There is no 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc resurrection.

The second death can only take place after the first resurrection - and "resurrection" in the entire New Testament always and only refers to the resurrection of the body - there is no such thing as a "spiritual" resurrection in scripture. It's an Amil invention. There is only a spiritual birth from above.

 

[Zao is life]

I agree that Revelation 20 supports eternal salvation. But there is multiple other Scripture that supports that great truth, not just Revelation 20, as you allege. The challenge is therefore applied to the whole NOSAS camp - regardless of their millennial stance. Repeated Scripture teaches what Revelation 20 does.

Jesus said in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (present active particle) in him should not perish, but have (present active subjunctive) everlasting life.”

Currently believing carefully corresponds with currently experiencing “everlasting life." It is a present reality for the elect, not merely a future hope. That is so because God lives within us now.

John 3:36 says, “He that believeth on the Son hath (present active indicative) everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God (the second death) abideth on him.”

If you don't possess eternal life now you will not possess it in the life to come. Only those who possess it now will never die.

Jesus said in John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath (present active indicative) everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death (or experience the second death) unto life.”

He continues in the next verse (John 5:25): “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”

The transition from death to life both spiritually and physically occurs by way of resurrection. There is no other way. This is demonstrated many times in Scripture in regard to both spiritual and physical resurrection.

Jesus said in John 6:47: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath (present active indicative) everlasting life.”

The word “hath” here is a present tense word which means now or at this present time.

Jesus said in John 6:50-51, 54&58: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life … he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

John 8:51-52 Christ said to the Pharisees, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death (or experience the second death) … If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.”

Jesus said in John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give (present active indicative) unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (or experience the second death), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth (present active particle) and believeth (present active particle) in me shall never die (or experience the second death)."

These bodies are not eternal or immortal. Our spirits are. That is 101 Christianity. These bodies die. What is more we experience eternal life upon salvation. The Christian will live for and never die because the Spirit of God within.

John 17:3: “And this is (present, active, indicative) life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

I John 5:11-13 says, “God hath given (aorist active indicative) to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath (present active particle) the Son hath (present active particle) life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have (present active indicative) eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

To have Christ is to have eternal life. That simple! Not to have Christ is not to have eternal life. That simple!

John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is supported by Revelation 2:11, which similarly says: “He that overcometh (present active particle) shall not be hurt of the second death.”

There are those of us who are Premil who will believe in OSAS from the time of our spiritual birth in Christ (which is not the same as the resurrection of the body which we will experience when He comes).

There are those of us who are Premil who believe in NOSAS between the time of our spiritual birth until He comes, and in OSAS following the resurrection of the body which we will experience when He comes.

Amils who equate spiritual birth with resurrection from death, calling it "spiritual" resurrection, have to accept OSAS in order not to have a conflict with the statement in Revelation 20 that the second death will have no power over those who are part of the first resurrection.

Therefore if any Amil finds himself in the NOSAS camp, he will need to either drop NOSAS in favor of OSAS, OR drop Amil in favor of Premil in order to hold onto NOSAS.

 

[sovereigngrace]

A proper and thorough study of all the scriptures talking about resurrection, shows the following:-

(i) There is a very long (very long) list of scriptures referring to the resurrection - and there isn't even one that is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body.

(II) Looking at the words of Jesus, we should notice that after saying, “That which is born (Greek: gennao) of the flesh is flesh", Jesus did not say,

"and that which is spiritually resurrected from death is spirit.”

What Jesus said was,

"That which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit".

And then He said,

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (γεννάω gennáō] from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν ánōthen)." (John 3:7)

Adam had a body and a soul:

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed [ nâphach ] into his nostrils the breath [ neshâmâh ] of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh]."

When Adam sinned, he died, spiritually. He lost his connection to the Spirit of God, and we are told that he was prevented from eating from "the tree of life" and therefore would not live forever - but man (Adam) still had a body and a soul.We can compare this fact with Jesus words:

John 3:7
"That which is born (γεννάω [gennáō]) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (Greek: γεννάω [gennáō]) from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν [ánōthen]). "

THE RESURRECTION​

ALL references to the resurrection in the New Testament are references to the resurrection of the body (Greek: σῶμα sōma) from the dead, without exception.

(The noun): ἀνάστασις (anástasis) It's found in many passages (for example):-

Matthew 22:23 & 28 & 30 & 31; Matthew 27:53; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 2:34; Luke 14:14; Luke 20:27 & 33 & 35 & 36; John 5:29; John 11:24 & 25; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:31; Acts 4:2; Acts 4:33; Acts 17:18 & 32; Acts 23:6 & 8; Acts 24:15 & 21; Acts 26:23; Romans 1:4; Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Philippians 3:10, 11; 2 Tim 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 3:21; Revelation 20:5 & 6.

VERBS frequently used in reference to the resurrection:-​

(i) ἐγείρω (egeírō)
probably akin to the base of G58 (through the idea of collecting one's faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), i.e. rouse (literally, from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively, from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence):--awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-)rise (again, up), stand, take up.

There is a very long list of New Testament verses which use the word ἐγείρω (egeírō) in reference to the resurrection, and in each and every case, the verse is a reference to the resurrection of the body from the dead (not to spiritual birth).

(ii) ἀνίστημι anístēmi
to stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right)

Again, whenever the word ἀνίστημι anístēmi is found in reference to the resurrection, the verse is a reference to the resurrection of the body from the dead.

EXAMPLES​

An example where the verb [ ἀνίστημι (anístēmi) ] and the noun (ἀνάστασις anástasis) are both found in the same passage, where the context is the resurrection of the body from the dead:

John 11:23-26
"Jesus said to her, Your brother shall rise again [ἀνίστημι anístēmi]. Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] in the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anastasis] at the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anastasis] and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Remember: Those who who are born from above by the Spirit of Christ are spiritually alive in Christ. This is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

Examples where the verb [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] and the noun (ἀνάστασις anástasis) are both found in the same passage, where the context is the resurrection of the body from the dead:-

1 Cor 15:12-15
"Now if Christ be preached that he rose [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection [ ἀνάστασις (anastasis) ] of the dead?

But if there be no resurrection [ ἀνάστασις (anastasis) ] of the dead, then is Christ not risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ].

And if Christ be not risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] Christ: whom he raised [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] not up, if so be that the dead rise [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] not."

1 Corinthians 12:20-23
“But now is Christ risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] from the dead, and become the fristfruits [ ἀπαρχή (aparchē) ] of them that slept (koimaō)

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection (anastasis) of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive [ ζωοποιέω, ( zōopoieō) ].

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (aparchē); afterward (epeita) they that are Christ’s at his coming (perousia).”

PAUL'S TEACHING ON THE RESURRECTION:​

1. NOT A "SPIRITUAL" RESURRECTION, BUT THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.

2. NOT THE SAME AS THE NEW BIRTH

In the passage below, the New Testament teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that it is the body (σῶμα sōma) that will be raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

1 Corinthians 15:35-38 & 42-57
"But someone will say, How are the dead (νεκρός nekrós) raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) up, and with what body (σῶμα sōma) do they come? Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive (ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō) unless it dies..

.. And what you sow, you do not sow the body (σῶμα sōma) that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest)..

..And God gives it a body (σῶμα sōma) as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body (σῶμα sōma)."

"So also the resurrection (ἀνάστασις anástasis) of the dead (νεκρός nekrós)..

..It is sown in corruption, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in power;..

..it is sown a natural (ψυχικός psychikós) body (σῶμα sōma), it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

There is a natural (ψυχικός psychikós) body (σῶμα sōma), and there is a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living (ζάω dzah'-o) soul (ψυχή psychḗ)," the last Adam was a life-giving (ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō) Spirit (πνεῦμα pneûma)..

..But not the spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) first, but the natural (ψυχικός psychikós); afterward the spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós).

The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven. Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones..

..And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man..

..And I say this, brothers, that flesh (σάρξ sárx) and blood (αἷμα haîma) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet..

..For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead (νεκρός nekrós) shall be raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality..

..But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death (νεκρός nekrós) is swallowed up in victory.

O death (νεκρός nekrós), where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"

The sting of death (νεκρός nekrós) is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Risen with Christ (Greek) συνεγείρω synegeírō

When syn appears prefixed to egeírō (synegeírō), it shows that the resurrection of the individual believer in Christ is something which occurs with Christ's resurrection. It's the same prefix we get with words like synthesis and synchronize.

Colossians 3:1
"If ye then be risen with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

Compare this with Romans 6:5:
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

This is also why Jesus' resurrection is called the first resurrection:

First (Greek) πρῶτον prōton:-

Acts 26:23
"That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (πρῶτον prōton) that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first (πρῶτον prōton) resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

1. Christ is the first (πρῶτον prōton) to have risen from the dead; and

2. those who have been birthed (γεννάω gennáō) by the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] from above (ἄνωθεν ánōthen), are

3. spiritually in Christ, and have therefore risen with (συνεγείρω synegeírō) Him; and

4. He is therefore the firstborn (πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) from the dead; and

5. the firstborn (πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) among many brothers; and

6. the first-fruits (ἀπαρχή aparchḗ') of the resurrection, which is a resurrection from death.

The word resurrection implies that something had died - as the apostle Paul stated:

Romans 8:10-11
"And if Christ is in you, indeed the body [σῶμα sōma] is dead because of sin, but the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] is life because of (Christ's) righteousness

- but if the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] of the One who raised up [ἐγείρω egeírō] Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the One who raised up [ἐγείρω egeírō] Christ from the dead shall also vitalize [ζωοποιέωby zōopoiéō] your mortal [θνητός thnētós] bodies [σῶμα sōma] by His Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] who dwells in you."

Adam had become a living soul when the Spirit of God breathed spiritual life into him, but he died spiritually when he sinned - yet he still had a body and a soul. Jesus is the last Adam and the Son of man - meaning that He, like Adam, represents all of us before God - because just as we are born of the flesh into the first Adam, so we are born of the Spirit into the last Adam, if we believe in Him and yield to Him:

1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit."

There is 100% consistency in the teaching of the New Testament regarding this: The apostle Peter wrote about God "begetting us again" through the resurrection of Jesus:

1 Peter 1:3
"Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget (Greek: ἀναγεννάω anagennáō) us again to a living hope, through the resurrection (Greek: ἀνάστασις anástasis) of Jesus Christ out of the dead."

The word anagennáō (ἀναγεννάω) and the word gennáō (γεννάω) are quite clearly related, and here Peter's words refer to birth, not resurrection. This is why Jesus is also called the "firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos] among many brethren":

Romans 8:29
"because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos] among many brethren"

Revelation 1:5
"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood"

It is clear that because Christ is the first to have risen from the dead, and is therefore the first-fruits of the resurrection and the firstborn from the dead, that those who are in Christ by virtue of having been born from above by the Spirit of Christ, are risen with Him, and we wait in hope of the resurrection, the adoption, to wit, of our own mortal bodies from death:

Romans 8:23
"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

1 Corinthians 15:20
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits (Greek: ἀπαρχή aparchḗ) of those who slept."

Ephesians 5:14
"Wherefore he saith, Awake [ἐγείρω egeírō] thou that sleepest, and arise [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

There is only one death, until now - Adam's death, which came to all mankind. Christ IS the resurrection from death. Adam's death is the first death, and there is only one resurrection - and it's in Christ. There is no 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc resurrection.

The second death can only take place after the first resurrection - and "resurrection" in the entire New Testament always and only refers to the resurrection of the body - there is no such thing as a "spiritual" resurrection in scripture. It's an Amil invention. There is only a spiritual birth from above.

No one disagrees as to a future physical resurrection, apart from the heretics. What multiple Scripture shows is that there is also spiritual resurrection. Instead of acknowledging that you go off on a tangent.

Once again, you ignore the evidence, you ignore the Scriptures submitted and ignore the arguments and just deviate onto other passages that we all agree on refers to the resurrection when Jesus comes. That is because biblical facts are stubborn things. It is Scripture that refutes your argument.

I refer you back to my last avoided post.

 

[Zao is life]

No one disagrees as to a future physical resurrection, apart from the heretics. What multiple Scripture shows is that there is also spiritual resurrection. Instead of acknowledging that you go off on a tangent.

Once again, you ignore the evidence, you ignore the Scriptures submitted and ignore the arguments and just deviate onto other passages that we all agree on refers to the resurrection when Jesus comes. That is because biblical facts are stubborn things. It is Scripture that refutes your argument.

I refer you back to my last avoided post.

I did not avoid your post.

Find me a verse in the New Testament where the noun anastasis ("The Resurrection") appears which is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body from the death.

The word egeírō (rise/raised etc) is not always talking about resurrection from death, but sometimes is used in reference to leaders being raised up for a purpose, or in reference to rising from sleep where the "sleep" is not talking about death, etc - but find me a verse in the New Testament where the verb egeírō (rise/raised) appears where the word is (a) referring to the resurrection and where it (b) is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body from death.

Likewise, find me a verse in the New Testament where the verb anístēmi (rise/raised) is referring to the resurrection where the verse is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body from death.

Not only will you not find any verse referring to the resurrection, where the words are NOT used in reference to the resurrection of the body from death (because there isn't one), but you will also discover there is such very long list of New Testament verses using the above words which are referring to the resurrection of the body from death, that it becomes abundantly clear just how central the resurrection of the body is to the gospel.

Lastly, find me a verse in the New Testament referring to the resurrection which is talking about a "spiritual" resurrection. Again, you will discover there isn't one - but there is one passage which talks about spiritual birth from above.

Then you will realize that I did answer your post, and if you are honest with yourself, you will finally realize that unlike birth, resurrection relates to resurrection of the body from death because we are naturally born into Adam, spiritually dead, and through being born of the Spirit from above, we will also be resurrected in the body from death - but it is not a "spiritual" resurrection (because there is no such concept in any of the many, many New Testament verses which talks about resurrection/being raised/rising again - they are all talking about the resurrection of the body. There is a spiritual birth, but there is NO spiritual resurrection. It's the body being resurrected from death.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I did not avoid your post.

Find me a verse in the New Testament where the noun anastasis ("The Resurrection") appears which is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body from the death.

The word egeírō (rise/raised etc) is not always talking about resurrection from death, but sometimes is used in reference to leaders being raised up for a purpose, or in reference to rising from sleep where the "sleep" is not talking about death, etc - but find me a verse in the New Testament where the verb egeírō (rise/raised) appears where the word is (a) referring to the resurrection and where it (b) is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body from death.

Likewise, find me a verse in the New Testament where the verb anístēmi (rise/raised) is referring to the resurrection where the verse is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body from death.

Not only will you not find any verse referring to the resurrection, where the words are NOT used in reference to the resurrection of the body from death (because there isn't one), but you will also discover there is such very long list of New Testament verses using the above words which are referring to the resurrection of the body from death, that it becomes abundantly clear just how central the resurrection of the body is to the gospel.

Lastly, find me a verse in the New Testament referring to the resurrection which is talking about a "spiritual" resurrection. Again, you will discover there isn't one - but there is one passage which talks about spiritual birth from above.

Then you will realize that I did answer your post, and if you are honest with yourself, you will finally realize that unlike birth, resurrection relates to resurrection of the body from death because we are naturally born into Adam, spiritually dead, and through being born of the Spirit from above, we will also be resurrected in the body from death - but it is not a "spiritual" resurrection (because there is no such concept in any of the many, many New Testament verses which talks about resurrection/being raised/rising again - they are all talking about the resurrection of the body. There is a spiritual birth, but there is NO spiritual resurrection. It's the body being resurrected from death.

I did. You just avoided it. You have to sustain your error.

 

[Marilyn C]

I think the difficulty has arisen in not understanding what `first resurrection` means. the word `first refers to the type of resurrection.

`Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.` (John 5: 28 & 29)

Two TYPES of resurrections.

1. Resurrection of life.
2. Resurrection of condemnation.

For those NOT in the graves, (the Body of Christ and the spirits of just men, OT saints) they are already in the General Assembly in the third heaven. (Heb. 12: 22 & 23) and are thus not judged on their works for the Lord has taken their judgment. They have the first type of resurrection, of life.

Different times, but the same type of resurrection - of life, or of condemnation.

 

[Zao is life]

I did. You just avoided it. You have to sustain your error.

You're too mad at the fact I disagree with you to see what I tried to help you to understand. You quoted Matthew Henry just because Matthew Henry speaks of a 'spiritual' resurrection and relates the word resurrection, to spirit.

In the New Testament - without exception - birth from above relates to the human soul; and resurrection from death relates to the human body. In every single verse where the concept of resurrection/being raised/rising again pops up, it NEVER relates to spirit or soul - it's always speaking only of the resurrection of the human body from death.

In the New Testament scriptures, birth from above relates to the human soul being given life from above by the Spirit of God.

Resurrection relates to the human body rising again from death.

The two are never mixed in the New Testament. Not even ONCE does the New Testament speak of resurrection/The Resurrection in relation to spirit. You'll never find the words spiritual resurrection or the words anastasis/egeiro/anistemi being used in relation to "the resurrection" of spirit or the human soul - it's always talking about the resurrection of the human body from death.

The fact that Matthew Henry and other commentators related resurrection (which always speaks of the resurrection of the human body from death whenever it's found in the New Testament ) to spiritual birth shows to what extent the underlying theology has permeated the minds of many Christians (probably most Christians) since who-knows-when 1,500+ years ago.

I realize you become angry when I disagree with something you hold as part of Christian doctrine, but that fact does not mean I have to keep quiet about it - because this very thing is one part of the underlying theology which forms the foundation for Amillennialism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You're too mad at the fact I disagree with you to see what I tried to help you to understand. You quoted Matthew Henry just because Matthew Henry speaks of a 'spiritual' resurrection and relates the word resurrection, to spirit.

In the New Testament - without exception - birth from above relates to the human soul; and resurrection from death relates to the human body. In every single verse where the concept of resurrection/being raised/rising again pops up, it NEVER relates to spirit or soul - it's always speaking only of the resurrection of the human body from death.

In the New Testament scriptures, birth from above relates to the human soul being given life from above by the Spirit of God.

Resurrection relates to the human body rising again from death.

The two are never mixed in the New Testament. Not even ONCE does the New Testament speak of resurrection/The Resurrection in relation to spirit. You'll never find the words spiritual resurrection or the words anastasis/egeiro/anistemi being used in relation to "the resurrection" of spirit or the human soul - it's always talking about the resurrection of the human body from death.

The fact that Matthew Henry and other commentators related resurrection (which always speaks of the resurrection of the human body from death whenever it's found in the New Testament ) to spiritual birth shows to what extent the underlying theology has permeated the minds of many Christians (probably most Christians) since who-knows-when 1,500+ years ago.

I realize you become angry when I disagree with something you hold as part of Christian doctrine, but that fact does not mean I have to keep quiet about it - because this very thing is one part of the underlying theology which forms the foundation for Amillennialism.

There is no one angry apart from you. You cannot help throwing false charges at those who oppose you. That is because Scripture forbids your teaching. I will take your avoidance of #4 as proof that you realize your beliefs conflict with the inspired pages.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I think the difficulty has arisen in not understanding what `first resurrection` means. the word `first refers to the type of resurrection.

`Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.` (John 5: 28 & 29)

Two TYPES of resurrections.

1. Resurrection of life.
2. Resurrection of condemnation.

For those NOT in the graves, (the Body of Christ and the spirits of just men, OT saints) they are already in the General Assembly in the third heaven. (Heb. 12: 22 & 23) and are thus not judged on their works for the Lord has taken their judgment. They have the first type of resurrection, of life.

Different times, but the same type of resurrection - of life, or of condemnation.

Not true. There is only one "first resurrection." Anything after that cannot be the "first." There is one literal first resurrection where Christ defeated the grave. The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). This totally negates the who Premil theory.

 

[Timtofly]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved always saved. OSAS = once saved always saved.

As to me, I'm currently Premil, yet, Amils raise certain points at times that make me wonder if it is perhaps them that are correct rather than me.

As to the debate between OSAS and NOSAS, I fall into the NOSAS camp. The purpose of this thread is not to debate which position is Biblical in here. That doesn't matter, because I have already fully made up my mind ages ago that the Bible teaches NOSAS is the correct position to take, and that no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. That's how convinced I am that NOSAS is the correct position to take. So let's try and refrain from debating OSAS vs NOSAS in this thread. I'm not wanting this thread to go in that direction. If you are of the OSAS camp instead, and are Amil, that's fine. Your input is welcome as well, but try and keep it focused on the question at hand, is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

If NOSAS is not compatible with Amil, why would anyone choose to hold a position that contradicts another position they hold?


To get an idea of some of my thinking here, consider the following.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There could not possibly be one single person who has part in the first resurrection, that fail to remain blessed and holy for forever. This part proves it---on such the second death hath no power. The 2nd death has to do with the LOF, which then means every single person who has part in the first resurrection, none of them will ever have part in the LOF ever.

What does NOSAS clearly teach? Does it not teach that some can lose their salvation in the end? Does it look like anyone in Revelation 20:6 can lose their salvation in the end? Of course not. This presents a major problem for Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp. The fact this person agrees NOSAS is Biblical, yet also embraces Amil, and the fact no one in Revelation 20:6 can remotely lose their salvation in the end, who exactly is it that that this person, meaning any Amil that is also in the NOSAS camp, proposing can lose their salvation in the end? It for sure can't be meaning anyone who has part in the first resurrection.

I myself am also in the NOSAS camp, yet this presents zero problem for my position involving Premil. Even if I were in the OSAS camp instead, it would still present zero problem for my position involving Premil.

For someone such as me, in order to even switch to Amil I would first need to denounce NOSAS, thus admit OSAS is Biblical instead. I don't think so, no way am I ever going to denounce NOSAS, the fact I am 100% convinced that is the position the Bible teaches in many cases.

Amil do not take anything in Revelation 20 literal. The OSAS is not defined in Revelation. You cannot apply OSAS to resurrected humans. They already died once. The physical death was the point of salvation, not the point of resurrection. If they "lost it", then God choosing them when they were alive would be the point. They certainly would not be resurrected. Since God chose them, they cannot ever be lost. They were lost prior to God choosing them. IMO, the second God "pointed his finger at them", was the point an angel took their soul from sinful flesh, and they physically died. The harvest is the harvest of souls. It is not about keeping the physical flesh going in a dead and dying world. Those chosen by God do not live in Satan's 42 months, what is the point? God chose them and an angel transported the soul to some place immediately.

OSAS can only apply to the church. We chose and trust God by Faith, His Atonement. Do we have the free will to reconsider that choice? Some posters here changed their mind about Revelation 20. They once accepted it as written, now they reject it as written. Does one have free will to change their mind, or did fate change their mind for them. Can circumstances take away Faith in God? All of Adam's descendants are saved by the Atonement. Most just choose to forgo the Atonement and rely on their own works to "save them". Salvation is not based on one's choice to receive it, as much as it cannot apply to them if they reject it past a certain point, and the choice is taken away.

This is another reason why Revelation 20 is not an historical recap from 30AD to now. Not one amil can prove resurrected humans have been reigning with Christ in physical Jerusalem for the last 1990 years. While they do not apply to OSAS, because obviously if one is resurrected from death, God does not demand they die again, they are given an incorruptible body. Why would God give one eternal life in a sinful body full of death and decay? That is nonsense. It is also nonsense to say eternal life cannot include 1000 years on earth. There are many living on the new earth. It is not an end to the concept of an earth. Eternal life is behind OSAS. It still baffles me why the Lord's Day is so rejected by many. Many believe this body is eternal (it is not, the incorruptible body is), so eternity in that logic has already started at the Cross. The last 1990 years has been part of eternity. Any last day is a mute point to amil, yet they claim a future last day, in contradiction of their view on Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved always saved. OSAS = once saved always saved.

As to me, I'm currently Premil, yet, Amils raise certain points at times that make me wonder if it is perhaps them that are correct rather than me.

As to the debate between OSAS and NOSAS, I fall into the NOSAS camp. The purpose of this thread is not to debate which position is Biblical in here. That doesn't matter, because I have already fully made up my mind ages ago that the Bible teaches NOSAS is the correct position to take, and that no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. That's how convinced I am that NOSAS is the correct position to take. So let's try and refrain from debating OSAS vs NOSAS in this thread. I'm not wanting this thread to go in that direction. If you are of the OSAS camp instead, and are Amil, that's fine. Your input is welcome as well, but try and keep it focused on the question at hand, is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

If NOSAS is not compatible with Amil, why would anyone choose to hold a position that contradicts another position they hold?


To get an idea of some of my thinking here, consider the following.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There could not possibly be one single person who has part in the first resurrection, that fail to remain blessed and holy for forever. This part proves it---on such the second death hath no power. The 2nd death has to do with the LOF, which then means every single person who has part in the first resurrection, none of them will ever have part in the LOF ever.

What does NOSAS clearly teach? Does it not teach that some can lose their salvation in the end? Does it look like anyone in Revelation 20:6 can lose their salvation in the end? Of course not. This presents a major problem for Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp. The fact this person agrees NOSAS is Biblical, yet also embraces Amil, and the fact no one in Revelation 20:6 can remotely lose their salvation in the end, who exactly is it that that this person, meaning any Amil that is also in the NOSAS camp, proposing can lose their salvation in the end? It for sure can't be meaning anyone who has part in the first resurrection.

I myself am also in the NOSAS camp, yet this presents zero problem for my position involving Premil. Even if I were in the OSAS camp instead, it would still present zero problem for my position involving Premil.

For someone such as me, in order to even switch to Amil I would first need to denounce NOSAS, thus admit OSAS is Biblical instead. I don't think so, no way am I ever going to denounce NOSAS, the fact I am 100% convinced that is the position the Bible teaches in many cases.

Since I believe that having part in the first resurrection occurs when we're saved, can you tell me what the difference would be between losing your salvation and losing your part in the first resurrection in this case?

I see no difference, so that means if you can lose your salvation then you can lose your part in the first resurrection. Therefore, as one who believes NOSAS and Amil, I have no problem with anything you're saying here. Your declaration that one can't be both NOSAS and Amil is 100% false.

I believe this is just the latest in your long line of arguments over the years that you think are foolproof and can't be refuted when that is not the case.

It's odd to me that you can believe that becoming saved doesn't guarantee you will stay saved until you die, and yet for some reason you assume that having part in the first resurrection means you can't ever lose your part in the first resurrection even from an amil point of view. That would only be true from a premil point of view if having part in the first resurrection referred to our bodily resurrection. But, it's not true from an amil point of view.

 

[DavidPT]

There are those of us who are Premil who will believe in OSAS from the time of our spiritual birth in Christ (which is not the same as the resurrection of the body which we will experience when He comes).

There are those of us who are Premil who believe in NOSAS between the time of our spiritual birth until He comes, and in OSAS following the resurrection of the body which we will experience when He comes.

Amils who equate spiritual birth with resurrection from death, calling it "spiritual" resurrection, have to accept OSAS in order not to have a conflict with the statement in Revelation 20 that the second death will have no power over those who are part of the first resurrection.

Therefore if any Amil finds himself in the NOSAS camp, he will need to either drop NOSAS in favor of OSAS, OR drop Amil in favor of Premil in order to hold onto NOSAS.

You understood the OP perfectly. Your last paragraph sums up things rather nicely. It seems to me then, if NOSAS is Biblical, Amil can't be Biblical as well unless there is an alternative way to understand the first resurrection, per Amil, that doesn't conflict with NOSAS. Revelation 20:6 is not conditional, and would be a lie if anyone who has part in the first resurrection somehow ends up in the LOF instead.

Per Premil this is not even an issue whatsoever, even if one were in the OSAS camp instead. Per Premil the first resurrection is meaning after one has already physically died first. Per Amil it apparently means while someone is still yet physically alive. But, if that same person were to fall away before they die, thus lose their salvation in the end, that means, though they initially had part in the first resurrection, now they no longer do, which then means the 2nd death has power over them after all, though John clearly stated that it doesn't if one has part in the first resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You understood the OP perfectly. Your last paragraph sums up things rather nicely. It seems to me then, if NOSAS is Biblical, Amil can't be Biblical as well unless there is an alternative way to understand the first resurrection, per Amil, that doesn't conflict with NOSAS. Revelation 20:6 is not conditional, and would be a lie if anyone who has part in the first resurrection somehow ends up in the LOF instead.

Even though I'm NOSAS as well, I can disprove NOSAS using your type of logic.

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Using the same kind of logic you're using to conclude that you can't be NOSAS and have an amil interpretation of Rev 20:6 at the same time, that would mean the above verse is saying that anyone who overcomes "shall not be hurt of the second death" and there's no possibility of any exceptions to that.

1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

This says that anyone who is born of God (that would include you and I) has overcome the world. That means, using the type of logic you're using regarding Rev 20:6, that anyone who is born of God (including you and I) has overcome the world and can never be hurt of the second death. But, that would not support NOSAS. So, now what do you do? You can either change to OSAS or change the way you interpret verses in isolation without taking all of scripture into account. It's up to you.

 

[DavidPT]

I agree that Revelation 20 supports eternal salvation. But there is multiple other Scripture that supports that great truth, not just Revelation 20, as you allege. The challenge is therefore applied to the whole NOSAS camp - regardless of their millennial stance. Repeated Scripture teaches what Revelation 20 does.

Jesus said in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (present active particle) in him should not perish, but have (present active subjunctive) everlasting life.”

Currently believing carefully corresponds with currently experiencing “everlasting life." It is a present reality for the elect, not merely a future hope. That is so because God lives within us now.

John 3:36 says, “He that believeth on the Son hath (present active indicative) everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God (the second death) abideth on him.”

If you don't possess eternal life now you will not possess it in the life to come. Only those who possess it now will never die.

Jesus said in John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath (present active indicative) everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death (or experience the second death) unto life.”

He continues in the next verse (John 5:25): “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”

The transition from death to life both spiritually and physically occurs by way of resurrection. There is no other way. This is demonstrated many times in Scripture in regard to both spiritual and physical resurrection.

Jesus said in John 6:47: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath (present active indicative) everlasting life.”

The word “hath” here is a present tense word which means now or at this present time.

Jesus said in John 6:50-51, 54&58: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life … he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

John 8:51-52 Christ said to the Pharisees, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death (or experience the second death) … If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.”

Jesus said in John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give (present active indicative) unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (or experience the second death), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth (present active particle) and believeth (present active particle) in me shall never die (or experience the second death)."

These bodies are not eternal or immortal. Our spirits are. That is 101 Christianity. These bodies die. What is more we experience eternal life upon salvation. The Christian will live for and never die because the Spirit of God within.

John 17:3: “And this is (present, active, indicative) life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

I John 5:11-13 says, “God hath given (aorist active indicative) to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath (present active particle) the Son hath (present active particle) life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have (present active indicative) eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

To have Christ is to have eternal life. That simple! Not to have Christ is not to have eternal life. That simple!

John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is supported by Revelation 2:11, which similarly says: “He that overcometh (present active particle) shall not be hurt of the second death.”

While you can indeed submit numerous Scriptures which appear to support OSAS, one can also submit numerous Scriptures which appear to support NOSAS as well. But then we end up debating OSAS vs NOSAS, something I'm hoping to avoid in this thread if possible.

While Revelation 20:6 indeed supports eternal salvation, per Premil this would not cause a conflict with NOSAS though, like it would per Amil if one were in the NOSAS camp.

I can see the logic in a person that is in the OSAS camp also being Amil. I cannot see the logic in a person that is in the NOSAS camp also being Amil. Per the former that person simply believes OSAS is true in every single case, therefore would be compatable with Amil, but only if OSAS is actually true in every case. I for one don't believe it's true in every single case, thus in some cases NOSAS. Which then presents a problem, if true, even for Amils in the OSAS camp, since this would mean that some who have part in the first resurrection, some of them end up having part in the LOF instead, which then contradicts Revelation 20:6.

 

[sovereigngrace]

While you can indeed submit numerous Scriptures which appear to support OSAS, one can also submit numerous Scriptures which appear to support NOSAS as well. But then we end up debating OSAS vs NOSAS, something I'm hoping to avoid in this thread if possible.

While Revelation 20:6 indeed supports eternal salvation, per Premil this would not cause a conflict with NOSAS though, like it would per Amil if one were in the NOSAS camp.

I can see the logic in a person that is in the OSAS camp also being Amil. I cannot see the logic in a person that is in the NOSAS camp also being Amil. Per the former that person simply believes OSAS is true in every single case, therefore would be compatable with Amil, but only if OSAS is actually true in every case. I for one don't believe it's true in every single case, thus in some cases NOSAS. Which then presents a problem, if true, even for Amils in the OSAS camp, since this would mean that some who have part in the first resurrection, some of them end up having part in the LOF instead, which then contradicts Revelation 20:6.

You never deal with the contradictions in your beliefs, whether it is Premil or NOSAS. You just paper over them. Little do you realize you just push observers into the opposite camp by your avoidance. Your reasoning above doesn't prove anything apart from your argument doesn't make sense.

 

[DavidPT]

You never deal with the contradictions in your beliefs, whether it is Premil or NOSAS. You just paper over them. Little do you realize you just push observers into the opposite camp by your avoidance. Your reasoning above doesn't prove anything apart from your argument doesn't make sense.

I don't think you will ever understand me, and what motivates me. In the OP I already admitted that in some cases, points Amils raise, especially points SpiritualJew raises, literally makes me wonder if it is he(Amils) who is correct about some of these things rather than me(Premils). Why admit something like that when Amils never admit things like that when it comes to what Premils are concluding? It seems to me I'm the only one trying to be somewhat objective here. But the fact I'm in the NOSAS camp, regardless that you might disagree that NOSAS is Biblical, I'm then left wondering if NOSAS is even compatible with Amil? And if it is, how exactly would it be? That's what this thread is trying to determine.