The rest of the dead live not again

[DavidPT]

NM

 

[rwb]

Do you believe the Bible teaches NOSAS or not? The fact you do, and if you are applying that to the here and now, meaning before one dies, that the 2nd death has no power over them, how can that remain true if they end up falling way instead?

Once someone that has been saved, and then physically dies, obviously the 2nd death has no power over them at that point. But the same can't be said if NOSAS is Biblical, because it would be pointless for the 2nd death to have no power over someone one minute, and the next minute it does. When I see the text saying the 2nd death has no power over those that have part in the resurrection, I take it to literally mean what it says, that not one single person who has part in the first resurrection, are excluded from the 2nd death having no power over them.

Amill and NOSAS throws a monkey wrench into that. Premill and NOSAS doesn't. The latter means one's eternal salvation has already been fully decided about them before the even have part in the first resurrection. Therefore, there is no such thing as anyone who has part in the first resurrection, that some of them can fall away after having part in it, that some of them, the 2nd death has no power over them one minute, but the next minute it does, meaning if they fall away after already having had part in the first resurrection.

How anyone of the NOSAS camp can think NOSAS is compatible with Amill, is still a mystery to me. And I even started a thread on the topic in the past.

David, I believe in eternal security. But I'm wondering about this direction or perhaps deflection you are taking this discussion??? And for what its worth, I believe eternal security is completely compatible with Amill.

 

[DavidPT]

NM

 

[DavidPT]

I did some edits, meant to say 2nd death rather than death, except it's not saving my changes. Never had that problem before, where it won't save any edits. Nevermind. There is apparently a lag somewhere. It looks like it saved them after all

 

[claninja]

Amill and NOSAS throws a monkey wrench into that.

In post 49, @Spiritual Jew implied revelation 20:4 refers to believers who have “physically died”. His position appears to be that the souls of believers, who overcame til the end of their individual lives, go to heaven to reign and live. Therefore, your counter argument of “NOSAS” doesn’t really work in this case.

 

[DavidPT]

And for what its worth, I believe eternal security is completely compatible with Amill.

That's my point. Eternal security would be completely compatible with Amill, but NOSAS wouldn't be. It is then a matter of, is NOSAS Biblical? Of course it's Biblical and that it also allows for eternal security plus the losing of one's salvation. While OSAS only allows for eternal security.

OSAS = eternally saved in all cases, without exception. It doesn't matter what one does or does not do, good or bad, after being saved. It is impossible to lose one's salvation after having been saved.

NOSAS = eternally saved in some cases, thus not all cases, thus, not once saved always saved. It does matter what one does or does not do, good or bad, after being saved. It is possible to lose one's salvation after having been saved.

But not to get into a debate about OSAS vs NOSAS. I'm just trying to show, since Eric asked me, do I think the 2nd death can only have no power over anyone until they are bodily raised first, that it doesn't make sense to apply that to the here and now if NOSAS is Biblical. Thus I saw NOSAS being relevant here.

 

[DavidPT]

In post 49, @Spiritual Jew implied revelation 20:4 refers to believers who have “physically died”. His position appears to be that the souls of believers, who overcame til the end of their individual lives, go to heaven to reign and live. Therefore, your counter argument of “NOSAS” doesn’t really work in this case.

You are not understanding my argument then. For example. For one, if the millennium is now, followed by satan's little season, followed by the 2nd coming, this means that some of the saved during the final days of the millennium are still going to be alive when Christ comes after satan's little season, which means, in the meantime, some of them initially having part in the first resurrection, but never died during the thousand years, that some of them could fall away away before Christ returns. Thus, they had part in the first resurrection one minute, the next minute they don't. One minute the 2nd death has no power over them, the next minute it does, meaning when they fall away. This is what happens if one tries to combine NOSAS with Amill. Amill only makes sense if only OSAS is Biblical and NOSAS isn't.

 

[rwb]

That's my point. Eternal security would be completely compatible with Amill, but NOSAS wouldn't be. It is then a matter of, is NOSAS Biblical? Of course it's Biblical and that it also allows for eternal security plus the losing of one's salvation. While OSAS only allows for eternal security.

OSAS = eternally saved in all cases, without exception. It doesn't matter what one does or does not do, good or bad, after being saved. It is impossible to lose one's salvation after having been saved.

NOSAS = eternally saved in some cases, thus not all cases, thus, not once saved always saved. It does matter what one does or does not do, good or bad, after being saved. It is possible to lose one's salvation after having been saved.

But not to get into a debate about OSAS vs NOSAS. I'm just trying to show, since Eric asked me, do I think the 2nd death can only have no power over anyone until they are bodily raised first, that it doesn't make sense to apply that to the here and now if NOSAS is Biblical. Thus I saw NOSAS being relevant here.

Eternal life is what Christ promises to whosoever lives and believes in Him. He tells us "they shall never die". I tell you this to remind you that there is a requirement for having eternal life, we MUST believe. This is why I don't like the definition once saved always saved, because it implies no responsibility on the part of the one who is eternally secure. But Scripture tells us we must believe, we must repent, and we must turn to Christ for salvation. And all of this by grace through faith that is not our own but the gift of God.

There is no such thing as an in-between state you present. You are either eternally secure in Christ through faith, or you are in unbelief. We don't have a little bit of eternal life, we either have it forever or we don't.

I do agree the second death is after all of humanity is bodily resurrected on the last day, at the same hour. As I've shown you already, we are bodily resurrected to life, or bodily resurrected to condemnation. Those who have part of the first resurrection of Christ in life are eternally secure through His resurrection life that is the first resurrection from the dead. They will be bodily resurrected to life everlasting, being changed physically from mortal to immortal, and corruptible to incorruptible. Those who have not part of the first resurrection through Christ in life, the rest of the dead, without having eternal life because they never believed on Christ will be bodily resurrected to condemnation. So I can see why you raise the question regarding having eternal life before we physically die.

 

[DavidPT]

Eternal life is what Christ promises to whosoever lives and believes in Him. He tells us "they shall never die". I tell you this to remind you that there is a requirement for having eternal life, we MUST believe. This is why I don't like the definition once saved always saved, because it implies no responsibility on the part of the one who is eternally secure. But Scripture tells us we must believe, we must repent, and we must turn to Christ for salvation. And all of this by grace through faith that is not our own but the gift of God.

There is no such thing as an in-between state you present. You are either eternally secure in Christ through faith, or you are in unbelief. We don't have a little bit of eternal life, we either have it forever or we don't.

I do agree the second death is after all of humanity is bodily resurrected on the last day, at the same hour. As I've shown you already, we are bodily resurrected to life, or bodily resurrected to condemnation. Those who have part of the first resurrection of Christ in life are eternally secure through His resurrection life that is the first resurrection from the dead. They will be bodily resurrected to life everlasting, being changed physically from mortal to immortal, and corruptible to incorruptible. Those who have not part of the first resurrection through Christ in life, the rest of the dead, without having eternal life because they never believed on Christ will be bodily resurrected to condemnation. So I can see why you raise the question regarding having eternal life before we physically die.

Roger, how can everyone be eternally secure if NOSAS is Biblical? I know you disagree that NOSAS is Biblical, but let's assume you changed your mind eventually, agreeing it is Biblical. Could you still get it to work with Amill? Why this matters, I am 100% convinced NOSAS is Biblical and that I can't see any way this view could possibly work with Amill. Which then means I have one of two choices to make. Either continue to conclude NOSAS is Biblical, therefore, Amill can't be Biblical because when combined with NOSAS it makes nonsense IMO out of the first resurrection recorded in Revelation 20:4-6, for example. Or I can conclude that it is Amill that is Biblical not NOSAS, thus abandon NOSAS and accept Amill instead. IOW, I find it unreasonable, though Eric obviously disagrees, to hold both positions simultaneously, NOSAS and Amill.

 

[rwb]

Roger, how can everyone be eternally secure if NOSAS is Biblical? I know you disagree that NOSAS is Biblical, but let's assume you changed your mind eventually, agreeing it is Biblical. Could you still get it to work with Amill? Why this matters, I am 100% convinced NOSAS is Biblical and that I can't see any way this view could possibly work with Amill. Which then means I have one of two choices to make. Either continue to conclude NOSAS is Biblical, therefore, Amill can't be Biblical because when combined with NOSAS it makes nonsense IMO out of the first resurrection recorded in Revelation 20:4-6, for example. Or I can conclude that it is Amill that is Biblical not NOSAS, thus abandon NOSAS and accept Amill instead. IOW, I find it unreasonable, though Eric obviously disagrees, to hold both positions simultaneously, NOSAS and Amill.

Since you are 100% convinced that our eternal security in Christ is not really eternal at all, it stands to reason why you fight so hard against the doctrine of Amill. I can't help but believe you are bringing eternal security into the discussion because you want to be right about your doctrine of Premill. It seems like maybe you are struggling against Amill, and no matter what you are shown regarding Amill, you will simply bring in other doctrines so you don't have to deal with what myself and others have already shown you.

 

[DavidPT]

Since you are 100% convinced that our eternal security in Christ is not really eternal at all, it stands to reason why you fight so hard against the doctrine of Amill. I can't help but believe you are bringing eternal security into the discussion because you want to be right about your doctrine of Premill. It seems like maybe you are struggling against Amill, and no matter what you are shown regarding Amill, you will simply bring in other doctrines so you don't have to deal with what myself and others have already shown you.

You are missing something though, Eric (SpiritualJew) is an Amill and that his position is not OSAS, his position is NOSAS. I don't see him doing what you are insisting I'm doing, fighting so hard against the doctrine of Amill. Are you going to equally apply to him everything you are applying to me? Probably not, right?

 

[rwb]

You are missing something though, Eric (SpiritualJew) is an Amill and that his position is not OSAS, his position is NOSAS. I don't see him doing what you are insisting I'm doing, fighting so hard against the doctrine of Amill. Are you going to apply to him what you are applying to me?

I believe Scripture affirms the doctrine of eternal security....PERIOD. There is no such thing as having eternal life today and not have it tomorrow. That really defies the definition of eternal.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe Scripture affirms the doctrine of eternal security....PERIOD. There is no such thing as having eternal life today and not have it tomorrow. That really defies the definition of eternal.

I guess this proves both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical if Amill is Biblical, since there are those who are Amill who are in the OSAS camp, and there are those who are Amill who are in the NOSAS camp. As to Premill, there are those who are in the OSAS camp, and there are those who are who are in the NOSAS camp, except neither of these doctrines affect that position whatsoever. Per Premill, one is either already eternally saved or eternally lost before anyone ever takes part in the first resurrection. Which means one's salvation has already been determined before one is bodily resurrected, the first resurrection. Which means no one can have part in the first resurrection unless they remained saved up until the moment they died. Thus, no one has part in the first resurrection until they are bodily raised first.

NOSAS combined with Amill teaches that one can have part in the first resurrection then lose part in the first resurrection before they die. That's not what John in Revelation 20 is saying. Once one has part in the first resurrection one can't then lose part in it. That's what John in Revelation 20 is saying. Therefore, it is impossible that Amill is Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical. While it's not impossible that Premill is Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical. No contradiction whatsoever.

 

[claninja]

This is what happens if one tries to combine NOSAS with Amill. Amill only makes sense if only OSAS is Biblical and NOSAS isn't.

“Location, location, location!” As the phrase goes.

If revelation 20:4 refers to spiritual rebirth of believers ON EARTH , then your counter argument of “nosas” has some value.

If revelation 20:4 refers to the souls of believers IN HEAVEN, then “NOSAS” is irrelevant. Unless of course you would like to argue that the souls of believers (those who overcame til the end of their individual lives) in heaven can lose salvation?

 

[DavidPT]

“Location, location, location!” As the phrase goes.

If revelation 20:4 refers to spiritual rebirth of believers ON EARTH , then your counter argument of “nosas” has some value.

If revelation 20:4 refers to the souls of believers IN HEAVEN, then “NOSAS” is irrelevant. Unless of course you would like to argue that the souls of believers (those who overcame til the end of their individual lives) in heaven can lose salvation?

Don't most Amills insist the first resurrection is meaning to be born again before one dies? No Amill I'm aware of is insisting one is not born again until they die first. Clearly, one is born again first, then they die after that.

And the fact Revelation 20:4 is showing dead ppl living again, thus not showing any ppl living again spiritually via a rebirth while still physically alive, how is it then reasonable to apply the first resurrection spiritually when that would mean one is not born again spiritually until they physically die first?

Either Amill is Biblical, or NOSAS is Biblical. Both can't be Biblical.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

We seem to agree that the rest of the physically dead that lived not until after the 1,000 years refers to the resurrection of unjust.

If there's still any doubt, then I'll just say plainly now that I believe the rest of the dead refer to the resurrection of all of the unjust dead throughout history.

How then does the “rest of the dead lived not until after the thousand years”, equaling the resurrection of the unjust, not imply the physically dead, that did live and reign with Christ, equal the resurrection of the just?

Look at the Greek words in each verse. The Greek word in verse 4 translated as "lived" (or "did live") is "zaō" (Strong's G2198). That is not a word used to describe the act of rising from the dead, it's a word used to describe people who are alive and are living. When it refers to the rest of the dead living again after the thousand years, the Greek word used is "anazao" (Strong's G326). That is a word used to describe people being revived or resurrected from the dead.

So, if Revelation 20:4 is meant to be understood as describing people being bodily resurrected, then why was the word "zao" used to describe them instead of "anazao"? That is a question that Premils struggle to answer.

I think your point in post 33 reflects and argument more geared against dispensational premil, which I agree with in that context, and not necessarily historical premil. I typically have no interest in debating against dispensational premil because it’s so inconsistent in interpretation (imho), however, historical premil is much more reasonable and consistent in interpretation. That being said, historical premil tends to agree that those who partake in the first resurrection are all believers throughout history, while the rest of the dead judged after the 1,000 years are all unbelievers throughout history. They have the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust separated by 1,000 years plus Satan’s little season. So your counter argument doesn’t really impact that position.

But, what about any believers who die during the thousand years and/or during Satan's little season? They would not have part in the first resurrection based on the historic Premil understanding of the first resurrection. So, I disagree with you that my "counter argument doesn't really impact that position".

however, I think the historical premil position on revelation 20 does raise more questions than answers:

1.) why don’t the gospels and epistles mention a large period separation between resurrection of just and unjust? Why does the parable of the sower mention the destruction of the wicked first, opposite of revelation 20?

Great question. They have no reasonable answer for it.

2.) the people that are deceived once Satan is released, were they unbelievers? Or do they include those from the resurrection of the just? If they include the latter, there is no hope for us in the bodily resurrection to be able to fight of temptation.

Another good question that I don't think they have a reasonable answer for.

3.) how can one witness the descending of Christ and resurrection of the just and remain an unbeliever? If an unbeliever believes after witnessing that event are they immediately transformed into a new body, and are they not the included with the rest of the dead later?

I don't really understand this question since I believe He will physically destroy all unbelievers when He returns (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-9, 2 Peter 3:3-13, Rev 19:17-18, Rev 20:9). And it's not like He will just be hanging out up there while giving people a chance to repent. It will all happen quickly if 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 is any indication.

I asked @DavidPT some of these questions, but got no response.

That is not surprising.

 

[DavidPT]

If revelation 20:4 refers to the souls of believers IN HEAVEN, then “NOSAS” is irrelevant. Unless of course you would like to argue that the souls of believers (those who overcame til the end of their individual lives) in heaven can lose salvation?

NOSAS would indeed be irrelevant per this scenario. I fully agree. Except this is not the scenario in question. If one dies in a saved state, they can never lose their salvation ever. But, if one is initially in a saved state, then fall into a falling away state, then die while still in a falling away state, this means they lose their salvation before they even had a chance to enter heaven, thus they don't enter heaven at all, but end up among the rest of the dead who don't live again until the thousand years are finished.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Do you believe the Bible teaches NOSAS or not? The fact you do,

Why ask that question when you already know the answer? Please don't be offended by this, but I find your way of communicating to be very strange.

and if you are applying that to the here and now, meaning before one dies, that the 2nd death has no power over them, how can that remain true if they end up falling way instead?

It doesn't remain true in that case as I've already explained to you several times in the past when you've brought this up. Are you somehow not aware that I've been over this with you several times before? Do you remember anything I've said to you before about this? If not, why should I bother explaining it to you again? To me, this argument is completely desperate. You can't support Premil with scripture, so you resort to arguments like this out of desperation.

Here's something frustrating about you. I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. And then you expect me to answer yours. How is that fair?

So, let me try again. As you know, Revelation 20:6 says that those who have part in the first resurrection are "blessed and holy" and the second death has no power over them. Do you believe that someone has to be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to not have power over them? Yes or no.

If your answer to the question is no, then at what point is it true that the second death has no power over someone? The answer to that question should tell you the timing of Revelation 20:4-6.

 

[DavidPT]

[/B]That is not surprising.

Sometimes I have other things I'm focusing on and that I'm not good at trying to focus on numerous things at a time, especially in typing. You might be able to type a thousand words a minute, I can't.

 

[Timtofly]

1.) why don’t the gospels and epistles mention a large period separation between resurrection of just and unjust? Why does the parable of the sower mention the destruction of the wicked first, opposite of revelation 20?

Because no one can discern between those alive and those waiting in sheol.

Just like no one takes Revelation 20:4-6 at face value.

Most add so much theological baggage and doctrine to Revelation 20:4-6 that is should make Joseph Smith blush.

Those unjust in sheol are not expecting eternal life as living in righteousness. Why would they even be considered candidates for the resurrection and the life? Of course the Apostles, the early church fathers, and the Gospels did not teach universalism. That is what you are trying to propose even if not meaning to.

There was one resurrection out of sheol, Abraham's bosom. It happened at the Cross. Yet no one here seems to recognize that fact.

Men are so bent on theology and hundreds of years of man's doctrine and opinion, they simply reject God's Word without a second thought.

The tares are removed first, because when they are pulled up, they bring the wheat along with them. Obviously a reaper does not pull up the wheat and cast it into the fire. A reaper pulls up the tares, separates the wheat, and puts each in a separate destination. I am sure the angels know the difference. The point about Matthew 13 is that both types of people are being harvested at the same time and after the Second Coming. It is not even a resurrection. It is the end of Adam's dead flesh.

The destruction of the living should never be confused with a resurrection from sheol.