Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You never deal with the contradictions in your beliefs, whether it is Premil or NOSAS.

In regards to NOSAS though, that is not a Premil only thing. Clearly there are also Amils who are in that camp. That is what this thread is about. As to contradictions in Premil, I fully realize there are contradictions in that position, where in some cases Amil appears to make better sense, while in other cases Premil appears to make better sense, IMO anyway. Since some of us have the ability to expose numerous holes in Amil, though I realize Amils disagree we do, since Amils apparently think there are no holes in Amil to begin with, how does it benefit someone such as me to switch to another position which appears to have it's own share of problems as well? I already have a position like that, it's called Premil.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Amils are both OSAS and NOSAS. It is not a requirement for Amil, and you know it. Your contrived argument doesn't even make sense. Read what Eric actually wrote.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In regards to NOSAS though, that is not a Premil only thing. Clearly there are also Amils who are in that camp. That is what this thread is about. As to contradictions in Premil, I fully realize there are contradictions in that position, where in some cases Amil appears to make better sense, while in other cases Premil appears to make better sense, IMO anyway. Since some of us have the ability to expose numerous holes in Amil, though I realize Amils disagree we do, since Amils apparently think there are no holes in Amil to begin with, how does it benefit someone such as me to switch to another position which appears to have it's own share of problems as well? I already have a position like that, it's called Premil.

Where are the holes? This is all theological posturing. It is in your partial understanding, not in reality. The whole of Scripture is climactic. Revelation 20 supports what the rest of Scripture teaches. I have repeatedly listed the countless contradictions in Premil that have forced many of us to abandon the belief. You find, partial Premils were taught the doctrine and are unwilling to entertain an alternative. Regardless of what discussion forum you go onto, the open-minded Premils normally end of changing. Talk to Dave T, Eric and Baberean, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
We are more than willing to acknowledge whenever you make a good point. I have done so multiple times before. If you make a valid point that I agree with, I will say so. Did you notice I clicked Agree on one of your posts recently? I'm not unwilling to consider what you're saying. But, please remember that sovereigngrace and I used to be premils once. So, you can't say that we're not willing to consider the premil viewpoint. We have and we know why premils believe what they do, but we have discovered that amil makes more sense to us.

It seems to me I'm the only one trying to be somewhat objective here.
That's nonsense.

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.
And I have responded to you twice already regarding this (before this post). Do you have any thoughts on what I said? You should not make a claim like that without being willing to respond to any challenge made to it.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As to contradictions in Premil, I fully realize there are contradictions in that position, where in some cases Amil appears to make better sense, while in other cases Premil appears to make better sense, IMO anyway.
Why are you committed to believing in either view then? Why is it then that you come across as being fully committed to premil and always defending it as though you believe it 100% without any doubt? You do not come across as being objective the way I would expect of someone who sees amil as making better sense than premil in some cases and vice versa.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.


It shouldn't be odd to you since I think the first resurrection involves a bodily resurrection. Take the dead in Christ who rise first, for example. Clearly, they died still saved, thus never fell away if they are said to be sleeping in Christ, and that they rise first. When they rise first I take that to be meaning the first resurrection, but not just because they rise first, but because it's the type of resurrection they rise in, meaning a resurrection unto bodily eternal life. Anyone that rises in that type of resurrection, a resurrection unto bodily eternal life, they rise in the first resurrection, regardless that they all might not rise at the same time. By that I'm meaning, for example, Christ rose first. He rose in this type of resurrection. And when the dead in Christ rise first in the future, they too rise in this type of resurrection, and that this type of resurrection, in every case, always precedes the other type of resurrection, the resurrection unto damnation.

Per something like this, their salvation has already been determined when they died, and when they have part in the first resurrection, they can never lose part in it. But, per Amil's take on the first resurrection, and if one is also in the NOSAS camp, one can have part in the first resurrection and lose that part, which would mean the following, especially if Amils think saints continue the thousand years reign in heaven after they die.

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.

In light of Amil, plus NOSAS, some of these are only blessed and holy until they fall away. The 2nd death has no power over some of these only up until they fall away. Some of these only reign with Christ until they fall away, thus some of these don't even finish reigning with Christ a thousand years, regardless that the text clearly says that everyone that has part in the first resurrection, they each reign with Christ a thousand years. Per Amil, since this reigning with Christ would be at different starting points for everyone, it should at least end the same time for everyone who has part in the first resurrection. But how can it if some fall away before they die, thus don't go to heaven in order to finish reigning with Christ a thousand years?

Wouldn't it be better to just agree with the text in Revelation 20:6 rather than trying to change what it says instead? Such as---

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection, meaning every single one that has part in the first resurrection, and not just some of them, but all of them that have part in it.

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, meaning every single one that has part in the first resurrection, and not just some of them, but all of them that have part in it.

Per Premil it's impossible to run into a conflict such as this, regardless which camp one might be in, whether OSAS or NOSAS.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Amils are both OSAS and NOSAS. It is not a requirement for Amil, and you know it. Your contrived argument doesn't even make sense. Read what Eric actually wrote.


Guess what? Premils are also both OSAS and NOSAS. It is also not a requirement of Premil either. So, what exactly is your point since I don't disagree with what you stated, well except for the part where you wrote---"Your contrived argument doesn't even make sense".
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It shouldn't be odd to you since I think the first resurrection involves a bodily resurrection. Take the dead in Christ who rise first, for example. Clearly, they died still saved, thus never fell away if they are said to be sleeping in Christ, and that they rise first. When they rise first I take that to be meaning the first resurrection, but not just because they rise first, but because it's the type of resurrection they rise in, meaning a resurrection unto bodily eternal life. Anyone that rises in that type of resurrection, a resurrection unto bodily eternal life, they rise in the first resurrection, regardless that they all might not rise at the same time. By that I'm meaning, for example, Christ rose first. He rose in this type of resurrection. And when the dead in Christ rise first in the future, they too rise in this type of resurrection, and that this type of resurrection, in every case, always precedes the other type of resurrection, the resurrection unto damnation.

Per something like this, their salvation has already been determined when they died, and when they have part in the first resurrection, they can never lose part in it.
You do know that I already know what premils believe, right? You don't need to take the time to explain it to me.

But, per Amil's take on the first resurrection, and if one is also in the NOSAS camp, one can have part in the first resurrection and lose that part, which would mean the following, especially if Amils think saints continue the thousand years reign in heaven after they die.

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.

In light of Amil, plus NOSAS, some of these are only blessed and holy until they fall away. The 2nd death has no power over some of these only up until they fall away.
Yeah, so? Did you not know that you and I are blessed and holy right now because we are part of the royal, holy priesthood of Christ in His kingdom?

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Do you not understand that we reign with Christ as priests in His kingdom right now? The above passages clearly say so!

Therefore, if you ever fall away you will no longer be a blessed and holy priest in the kingdom of Christ. How is that any different than no longer having part in the first resurrection?

You are focused in this thread on the second death not having power over those who have part in the first resurrection. But, what about the rest of the verse?

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Scripture very clearly teaches in passages like 1 Peter 2:9-10 and Rev 1:5-6 that believers are already right now "priests of God and of Christ". So, with that in mind, why do you think that Rev 20:6 will not be fulfilled until some time in the future as if we are not already priests of God and of Christ as scripture says we are?

Some of these only reign with Christ until they fall away, thus some of these don't even finish reigning with Christ a thousand years, regardless that the text clearly says that everyone that has part in the first resurrection, they each reign with Christ a thousand years.
No, it does not say that. Your premil bias tells you that it says that. There's no reason it can't be saying that the souls of believers who die throughout the "thousand years" go to be with Him in heaven and reign with Him there.

Per Amil, since this reigning with Christ would be at different starting points for everyone, it should at least end the same time for everyone who has part in the first resurrection. But how can it if some fall away before they die, thus don't go to heaven in order to finish reigning with Christ a thousand years?
You're just trying too hard here. It does not say that everyone who has part in the first resurrection has to reign with Him for the full thousand years. You are interpreting it that way because you are premil. There's nothing there that says it has to be interpreted that way.

Why is it that you claim that amil has some points that you agree with more and premil has some other points that you agree with more and yet you go out of your way to try to find ways to disprove amil and you don't do the same for premil? You clearly want premil to be true even though you acknowledge that it has flaws that you can't reconcile. Why is that? Since you see flaws with both views, why can't you be objective about it instead of doing whatever you possibly can to try to prove premil to be true?

Wouldn't it be better to just agree with the text in Revelation 20:6 rather than trying to change what it says instead?
Good grief. There's nothing that annoys me more than when someone says something like this. Stop doing that. It's offensive and rude. I am not trying to change what it says at all. That would be dishonest of me to do that. You actually think I would do that to God's holy word? No way. I am just interpreting it differently than you.

I could be rude like you and ask you why you are changing what it says in regards to the ones who have part in the first resurrection being priests of God and of Christ as not referring to those who are currently priests of God and of Christ. But, I don't do that because I wouldn't accuse you of changing what it says. Instead, I would ask why you are interpreting it differently than me despite what 1 Peter 2:9-10 and Rev 1:5-6 say.

Such as---

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection, meaning every single one that has part in the first resurrection, and not just some of them, but all of them that have part in it.

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, meaning every single one that has part in the first resurrection, and not just some of them, but all of them that have part in it.

Per Premil it's impossible to run into a conflict such as this, regardless which camp one might be in, whether OSAS or NOSAS.
It's not a conflict for me and I'm amil and NOSAS. You are trying to create a conflict out of thin air and it's not working.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
Think of it this way. If you believe you can be lost, you cannot have faith in God that he saved you. And salvation is by faith.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Personally I think it's dangerous to get much future history out of the Rev. But if you're going to treat it literally, the people resurrected in Rev 20:6 are beyond the power of death because they're already resurrected. This is like 1 Cor 15:23 ff. Those who are in Christ are resurrected first, then everyone else. Those who are in Christ aren't resurrected a second time. They're already with Christ.

As I read it, 1 Cor 15:23 is the first resurrection, of those in Christ. 24 talks about Christ destroying the powers, which is really much of the contents of the Rev. Around 27 everyone else is resurrected and finally submits to Christ. If you're not a universalist, presumably those who won't be saved are destroyed with the Powers in 24, as they join Satan in the pit in the Rev.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,972
913
Africa
Visit site
✟182,548.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
Yes. This is why I'm working on a pdf document right now containing a list of ALL the verses in the N.T which speak on resurrection/rising again. It's a very long list, and I'm not only quoting each and every reference, but the verses also, showing the context of each one.

There are no verses in the long list or anywhere in the N.T speaking of resurrection/rising again that are NOT talking about the rising of the body from the dead. When Jesus tells us we must be born again of the Spirit from above, the words used are gennao (birth) and anothen (from above).

There is no such concept in the N.T as soul resurrection of spiritual resurrection - resurrection/rising again is always talking about the resurrection of the body, and so I'm working on this long list of N.T verses in order to let the New Testament speak for itself. It's taking me quite long because there are so many verses in the New Testament speaking about rising again/resurrection (and they are all speaking about the rising again/resurrection of the body).

This is what I tried to explain to the other poster who interacted with me in this thread, but all I received in return was insults, telling me I'm not qualified to teach etc, and stopping short of calling me a heretic.

There's no way of showing JW's from the Bible why what they say regarding the Trinity is not true (because they're already so convinced that they are right and you are wrong, and they have a list of scriptures at hand, already interpreted in the "light" of their doctrine).

The people we talk to are not JW's, but they have the same stubborn blockage with regard to certain things, so I'm just going to create the list and refer all who talk of "spiritual" resurrection to the list and ask them to show me where there is a verse in the New Testament talking about resurrection/being raised/rising again etc that is not talking about the resurrection of the body, because in the New Testament, birth from above by the Spirit relates to the human soul, but resurrection relates to the resurrection of the human body from death. The New Testament does not mix the two. The resurrection (which is always of the body) can only take place because of the birth by the Spirit from above.

I also see that some who debate are full of either subtle or sometimes outright insults and verbal bullying and insinuations about your (anyone who disagrees with them) approach to scripture, and your ability to understand, your intelligence, etc - and when you give any of the type of choice of words they use back at them, then they scream and yell about your "nastiness" and "rudeness". They're incapable of taking the beam out of their own eye.

I won't be back to discuss this until I have the list completed.

Here's the uncompleted list if you want to see it. I need to find time to complete it:

I placed it in my Blog

OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS: Resurrection Verses
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Guess what? Premils are also both OSAS and NOSAS. It is also not a requirement of Premil either. So, what exactly is your point since I don't disagree with what you stated, well except for the part where you wrote---"Your contrived argument doesn't even make sense".

David, we obviously disagree on both doctrines, and that is fine. But your attempt to argue that someone cannot be NOSAS and be Amil doesn't add up. I remember you arguing this years ago and it didn't make sense. You have yet to prove your case.

I have many stronger arguments than Rev 20 to prove eternal salvation elsewhere in Scripture that (to me) negates your theology. Rev 20 is only one of hundreds of passages that prove salvation is forever.

If you want to believe you may end up in hell some day that is your prerogative. Those who believe in the doctrines of grace believe God keeps His word that He will never leave us or forsake us.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Personally I think it's dangerous to get much future history out of the Rev. But if you're going to treat it literally, the people resurrected in Rev 20:6 are beyond the power of death because they're already resurrected. This is like 1 Cor 15:23 ff. Those who are in Christ are resurrected first, then everyone else. Those who are in Christ aren't resurrected a second time. They're already with Christ.

As I read it, 1 Cor 15:23 is the first resurrection, of those in Christ. 24 talks about Christ destroying the powers, which is really much of the contents of the Rev. Around 27 everyone else is resurrected and finally submits to Christ. If you're not a universalist, presumably those who won't be saved are destroyed with the Powers in 24, as they join Satan in the pit in the Rev.

I at least agree with you that verse 23 is meaning the first resurrection, yet, this is not what Amils I have been discussing these things with take to be meaning the first resurrection. Since there are only two resurrections total mentioned in Revelation 20, and that Amils I have been discussing things with don't take 1 Corinthians 15:23 to be meaning the first resurrection, that apparently means that they take the 2nd resurrection, when the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years, to be meaning the resurrection meant in 1 Corinthians 15:23.

Let's look at something, then.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
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.

The two resurrections---A) the first resurrection---B) the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished

Let's start with B). Is anyone in that group also in group A)? Does any of the rest of the dead also have part in the first resurrection? Obviously not since that makes zero sense. The same should be true about A) in relation to B), that no one in A) has part in the resurrection in B).
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes. This is why I'm working on a pdf document right now containing a list of ALL the verses in the N.T which speak on resurrection/rising again. It's a very long list, and I'm not only quoting each and every reference, but the verses also, showing the context of each one.

There are no verses in the long list or anywhere in the N.T speaking of resurrection/rising again that are NOT talking about the rising of the body from the dead. When Jesus tells us we must be born again of the Spirit from above, the words used are gennao (birth) and anothen (from above).

There is no such concept in the N.T as soul resurrection of spiritual resurrection - resurrection/rising again is always talking about the resurrection of the body, and so I'm working on this long list of N.T verses in order to let the New Testament speak for itself. It's taking me quite long because there are so many verses in the New Testament speaking about rising again/resurrection (and they are all speaking about the rising again/resurrection of the body).

This is what I tried to explain to the other poster who interacted with me in this thread, but all I received in return was insults, telling me I'm not qualified to teach etc, and stopping short of calling me a heretic.

There's no way of showing JW's from the Bible why what they say regarding the Trinity is not true (because they're already so convinced that they are right and you are wrong, and they have a list of scriptures at hand, already interpreted in the "light" of their doctrine).

The people we talk to are not JW's, but they have the same stubborn blockage with regard to certain things, so I'm just going to create the list and refer all who talk of "spiritual" resurrection to the list and ask them to show me where there is a verse in the New Testament talking about resurrection/being raised/rising again etc that is not talking about the resurrection of the body, because in the New Testament, birth from above by the Spirit relates to the human soul, but resurrection relates to the resurrection of the human body from death. The New Testament does not mix the two. The resurrection (which is always of the body) can only take place because of the birth by the Spirit from above.

I also see that some who debate are full of either subtle or sometimes outright insults and verbal bullying and insinuations about your (anyone who disagrees with them) approach to scripture, and your ability to understand, your intelligence, etc - and when you give any of the type of choice of words they use back at them, then they scream and yell about your "nastiness" and "rudeness". They're incapable of taking the beam out of their own eye.

I won't be back to discuss this until I have the list completed.

Here's the uncompleted list if you want to see it. I need to find time to complete it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19EsxPiC_8VqANM_2N9chDCQ81ve-b84T/view?usp=sharing

Scripture describes salvation in natural and physical terms – like resurrection and birth. Of course, this is not to be taken in a literal sense. It is figurative language. It is describing a supernatural event in broad terms that we can relate to and grasp.

How else can a spiritually dead person move from death to life but resurrection? What better way to depict new life than in terms of birth?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How else can a spiritually dead person move from death to life but resurrection? What better way to depict new life than in terms of birth?

It seems to me, just in general, death can't precede life. One has to first be alive before they can be dead in any sense. When is it that you are proposing one is initially spiritually dead? Before they are even born? Before they even have the ability to fully understand the differnce between right and wrong? Take infants, for instance. Some die before they are physically born, such as through miscarriages, abortions, etc. Per your view, were they spiritually dead when they died? Some infants also die as infants after they are born. Same question---Per your view, were they spiritually dead when they died?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me, just in general, death can't precede life. One has to first be alive before they can be dead in any sense. When is it that you are proposing one is initially spiritually dead? Before they are even born? Before they even have the ability to fully understand the differnce between right and wrong? Take infants, for instance. Some die before they are physically born, such as through miscarriages, abortions, etc. Per your view, were they spiritually dead when they died? Some infants also die as infants after they are born. Same question---Per your view, were they spiritually dead when they died?

It seems like you approach every subject from the perspective of: how can I defend Premil. That is the way it comes across anyway. Those who live outside of the Discussion Forums world seem to have no difficulty grasping this reality. You don't seem to have that ability or liberty, because to acknowledge the same would cause Premil to fall like a deck of cards. Every card depends on the other in Premil. Also, because it enjoys zero corroboration for all its main tenets you cannot concede anything to Amil. I believe this stops you being objective on the subject of eschatology.

Scripture shows that we are born spiritually dead.

The first death that man experienced in the garden after Adam ate of the fruit and consequently sinned was spiritual death. God said to Adam, in Genesis 2:17, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Whilst we know from Scripture that Adam ate of that forbidden fruit, we equally know that he didn't physically die on that same day. This warning wasn’t therefore just talking about bodily death. In fact, Genesis 5:5 tells us, “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” It couldn’t also have been his soul that would die otherwise life would immediately become extinct. The soulish man lived on. This must have been referring to a spiritual death which would separate man from that perfect communion he enjoyed with God. If spiritual death was the first death man experienced, the next death that he experienced, which was a direct result of the first, was physical death. The fall left mankind in a hopeless ruined state facing a certain two-fold death. Left to his own devices, man was destined for “the Lake of Fire” and eternal spiritual and physical death.

Every man since Adam is born with original sin and therefore completely guilty before a righteous God. The Bible says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). When Adam fell his desires automatically changed from being God-ward to being self-ward. Natural man with Adam’s blood is born with that same corrupt aspiration. He is a rebel. In this, he will always go the way of sin. That is his natural inclination. This had to be corrected. That is why Christ (the second Adam) came. In salvation, Christ restores that desire for God and the things of God.

To rescue man from his inevitable doom, he needed God in His sovereign grace to intervene on his behalf.

Ephesians 2:1 reveals how all men “in Adam” are dead in trespasses and sins.” Colossians 2:13 personalises this truth to the individual, saying, you, being dead in your sins.” What man in general therefore required was divine intervention, which would raise him from the wretched repercussions of dual death and correct his inevitable deserved double-sentence. Man inherited that awful sinful nature and is consequently birthed in spiritual death. Moreover, it is this corrupt nature that ultimately separates man from God.

Man – in all generations – inherited Adam’s awful sinful nature, which ultimately separates man from a holy God. The first resurrection therefore that man needed was a spiritual resurrection to expiate the awful spiritual death sentence that he inherits. The second resurrection he required was a physical resurrection to (redeem or) replace the corruptible physical tabernacle that he inhabited. 2 Corinthians 5:14 declares, “if one died for all, then were all dead.” Our Dispensational brethren would do well to consider this; because if all were dead in sin, then they could similarly only be revived in Christ. Romans 7:6 confirms that we were spiritual destitute and dead prior to salvation. Paul testifies of our hopeless pre-conversion state: “that being dead wherein we were held.

Whilst the first death that man enters into by natural birth is spiritual death, the first death that sees its full realization in all men is physical death. The germ of spiritual death – which is eternal in the Christ-rejecter – is found in every man born since Adam, although it doesn’t see its final sentence in this scene of time. The continuation of spiritual death in an unrepentant sinner’s life, whilst beginning before physical death, doesn’t find its ultimate recompense until after natural death, at the final judgment. It is only then that the unregenerate man enters into the awful realization of the penalty of spiritual death – eternal punishment and separation from a holy God – when he is cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death.

It is interesting that Revelation 20 or no other book of the Bible alludes to the ‘second resurrection' or the ‘first death' in such terms. The reason is simple. Every single human (outside of the believers that will be alive and waiting for Christ at His Second Advent) will take part in both. The “first resurrection” and the “second death” are different. Only the righteous experience the “first resurrection” and only the wicked experience the “second death” That’s why much is made of them in Revelation 20. We also no that Revelation beautifully correlates with the rest of Scripture.

Paul says, “she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth (1 Timothy 5:6). It is obvious from this reading that Paul is not speaking of physical death here, but rather of spiritual death. Manifestly, Paul is referring to the woman that still possesses natural life, although she is expressly devoid of spiritual life. Her indulgence in the desires of the flesh separates her from communion with the living God. Christ must therefore first raise her from her sin before she can ever enter into the joy of sins forgiven and therefore true spiritual life. We see the exact same idea presented in Revelation 3:1 where Christ speaks to the Church of Sardis, thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” Again, we are unquestionably dealing a situation of physical life but spiritual death.

When Christ was calling the disciples to give up all and follow Him, one disciple responded, “suffer me first to go and bury my father (Matthew 8:21). Jesus replied unto him, “let the dead bury their dead.” Or paraphrased, ‘let the spiritually dead bury their physical dead’.

Jesus advances the parable of the Prodigal in Luke 15:21-24, and demonstrates how the Son came home in humble petition, crying, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” The father then put a robe upon him “and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.” Then, after killing the “fatted calf” the father testifies, “this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” Once more, this is plainly referring to the spiritual quickening of the son (who was spiritually dead) and his entering into a position of new life within the elect family. Evidently it can’t be talking about physical life as he was very much alive in his sin and rebellion in the far country.

The word rendered “alive” in this verse is the Greek word anézeesen, which is the aorist active indicative of the verb ‘to live’. It is used only 5 times in the New Testament – the passage in view, Romans 14:9, Revelation 2:8 and Revelation 13:14 and significantly Revelation 20:4 – when describing the redeemed that “lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

Romans 6:23 succinctly tells us: For the wages of sin is death.”

Getting a revelation of the sinfulness of sin and the consequence of that sin brings an automatic response to the penitent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Liam Hayden

Member
Nov 4, 2020
21
20
28
Newport Beach, California
✟9,969.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Of course it is. A view of salvation and of eschatology are not necessarily connected. Amil has been the dominant view within the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Traditions, both of which teach that salvation can be lost. Among OSAS like Presbyterians, we have views that include everything from Preterism to Dispensationalism.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why are you committed to believing in either view then? Why is it then that you come across as being fully committed to premil and always defending it as though you believe it 100% without any doubt? You do not come across as being objective the way I would expect of someone who sees amil as making better sense than premil in some cases and vice versa.


The first thing to note, I am me, and you are you. The way your mind might operate in certain circumstances might not be the way my mind might operate per these same circumstances.

To give you a glimpse into how my mind typically works in general, it might be like such.

I already fully realize there are issues with Premil, where in some cases, in my mind Amil appears to be a better solution. But, OTOH, I also see issues with Amil in some cases, where in my mind Premil appears to be a better solution.

What I then set out to do is try and determine if Amil can even work. I do this via my arguments that I submit, IOW, I'm trying to work through these things in order to see what it leads to. Does it still lead to Premil, or does it lead to Amil instead? Thus far I have not seen it leading to Amil in some cases.

Some examples. My arguments concerning Revelation 20:4 and the martyrs killed for refusing to worship the beast, and that they are killed before satan is even out of the pit. Another example, Revelation 12. That ch covers at least the past 2000 years, and then some, the same 2000 years Amils propose are meaning the thousand years. Yet, I can't find a single place in all of Revelation 12 where a 2000 year binding, then a loosing, can possibly fit. Then, another argument is, the fact I'm NOSAS, is that even compatible with Amil? Thus far I'm not seeing how it possibly could be. So, in the meantime I have no choice but to remain Premil, even if that position is wrong, because I have not been fully convinced at this point that Amil can even work.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The first thing to note, I am me, and you are you. The way your mind might operate in certain circumstances might not be the way my mind might operate per these same circumstances.

To give you a glimpse into how my mind typically works in general, it might be like such.

I already fully realize there are issues with Premil, where in some cases, in my mind Amil appears to be a better solution. But, OTOH, I also see issues with Amil in some cases, where in my mind Premil appears to be a better solution.

What I then set out to do is try and determine if Amil can even work. I do this via my arguments that I submit, IOW, I'm trying to work through these things in order to see what it leads to. Does it still lead to Premil, or does it lead to Amil instead? Thus far I have not seen it leading to Amil in some cases.

Some examples. My arguments concerning Revelation 20:4 and the martyrs killed for refusing to worship the beast, and that they are killed before satan is even out of the pit. Another example, Revelation 12. That ch covers at least the past 2000 years, and then some, the same 2000 years Amils propose are meaning the thousand years. Yet, I can't find a single place in all of Revelation 12 where a 2000 year binding, then a loosing, can possibly fit. Then, another argument is, the fact I'm NOSAS, is that even compatible with Amil? Thus far I'm not seeing how it possibly could be. So, in the meantime I have no choice but to remain Premil, even if that position is wrong, because I have not been fully convinced at this point that Amil can even work.

Please list what hermeneutical rules you abide by? I struggle to see any consistency in your mode of interpretation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0