Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

sovereigngrace · Nov 21, 2020

Timtofly said:
This is what I do not understand. We do not have to prove Revelation 20 says 1000 years. You have to prove the text does not say 1000 years.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

BABerean2 · Nov 21, 2020

Timtofly said:
You have killed God’s Word. Nice job.

Did quoting the rest of the passage kill "God's Word", or did it kill your man-made doctrine?

.

Timtofly · Nov 21, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

We are not talking about other uses of 1000, we are talking about a Day with the Lord. You have to prove that those in Revelation 20 do not spend a Day with the Lord. That 1000 years.

Timtofly · Nov 21, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Did quoting the rest of the passage kill "God's Word", or did it kill your man-made doctrine?

I was pointing out the Word of God. I do not know what doctrine you are referring to.

BABerean2 · Nov 22, 2020

Timtofly said:
I was pointing out the Word of God. I do not know what doctrine you are referring to.

That would be any doctrine which must quote only part of a passage to work.

.

sovereigngrace · Nov 22, 2020

Timtofly said:
We are not talking about other uses of 1000, we are talking about a Day with the Lord. You have to prove that those in Revelation 20 do not spend a Day with the Lord. That 1000 years.

Rev 20 is now. It is a figurative term representing a long period of time.

Timtofly · Nov 22, 2020

BABerean2 said:
That would be any doctrine which must quote only part of a passage to work.

Since no examples presented, then just hot air on your part.

Timtofly · Nov 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Rev 20 is now. It is a figurative term representing a long period of time.

That is your interpretation taken out of context. You split the context of chapter 19, and claim John went back into History.

That logic means you accept the Holy Spirit failed John and it should have said 2000 instead of 1000. Your "indefinite" is your own smokescreen.

John experienced the beginning and end of the 1000 years, and did not make a mistake in his time frame. The time just after the dragon, the beast, and the FP are defeated at the battle of Armageddon. The FP and the beast go to the lake of fire. Satan is bound in sheol for 1000 years. That is the context.

It is not me quoting part of a text and making a doctrine out of it. Amil take Revelation 20 out of context and form their own theology. This is private interpretation at it's worse.

sovereigngrace · Nov 22, 2020

Timtofly said:
That is your interpretation taken out of context. You split the context of chapter 19, and claim John went back into History.

That logic means you accept the Holy Spirit failed John and it should have said 2000 instead of 1000. Your "indefinite" is your own smokescreen.

John experienced the beginning and end of the 1000 years, and did not make a mistake in his time frame. The time just after the dragon, the beast, and the FP are defeated at the battle of Armageddon. The FP and the beast go to the lake of fire. Satan is bound in sheol for 1000 years. That is the context.

It is not me quoting part of a text and making a doctrine out of it. Amil take Revelation 20 out of context and form their own theology. This is private interpretation at it's worse.

Again: more false allegations. That is your pattern.

Satan is not "bound in sheol for 1000 years." Where does it say that? It is the spiritual abyss, a spiritual place of restraint.

Timtofly · Nov 22, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Again: more false allegations. That is your pattern.

Satan is not "bound in sheol for 1000 years." Where does it say that? It is the spiritual abyss, a spiritual place of restraint.

That is your interpretation, not necessarily the correct one.

claninja · Nov 24, 2020

DavidPT said:
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.

OSAS doesn't mean that once you are truly saved, you can go on to sin and fall away, and do whatever, because you've already been saved and will still be saved. Those who fall away, were never truly saved in the first place.

Romans 6:1-4 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Hebrews 6:4-6 or it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

OSAS refers to those that were truly saved and overcome till the end. OSAS refers to those who will overcome till the end as God has foreknown and predestined.

ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

DavidPT · Nov 24, 2020

claninja said:
OSAS doesn't mean that once you are truly saved, you can go on to sin and fall away, and do whatever, because you've already been saved and will still be saved. Those who fall away, were never truly saved in the first place.

Romans 6:1-4 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Hebrews 6:4-6 or it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

OSAS refers to those that were truly saved and overcome till the end. OSAS refers to those who will overcome till the end as God has foreknown and predestined.

ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

As far as this thread goes, all of that is irrelevant. What is in question here, does anyone agree with those who are Amil and also in the NOSAS camp, that anyone mentioned in Revelation 20:6 don't remain blessed and holy for forever, that some of them end up in the LOF instead, and that some of them never finish the thousand year reign they began? That's what Amil plus NOSAS proposes. But that's not what Premil plus NOSAS proposes. Premil plus NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but Amil plus NOSAS does.

None of this matters unless NOSAS is Biblical. Some of us are convinced NOSAS is Biblical, the fact the arguments used by those in the OSAS camp are preposterous when they argue that anyone who falls away, they were never saved to begin with. As if someone can fall away from something they were never part of to begin with. That is backwards. One can only fall away from something they had part in, not something they never had part in. The latter is illogical, thus a contradiction. But, if the latter is not illogical, how about providing a few analogies to illustrate this concept of falling away from something one never had part in to begin with?

John never finished high school because he dropped out when he was 16 instead.

Does this analogy prove the concept of falling away from something one was never a part of to begin with?

BABerean2 · Nov 24, 2020

DavidPT said:
Premil plus NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but Amil plus NOSAS does.

Your presuppositions are not necessarily accepted by those with a different point of view.

John saw "souls" in heaven.

This fact makes your assertion nonsensical in my humble opinion.

.

DavidPT · Nov 24, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Your presuppositions are not necessarily accepted by those with a different point of view.

John saw "souls" in heaven.

This fact makes your assertion nonsensical in my humble opinion.

.

I think I grasp your point. Even though John initially sees the souls of them that were martyred, that doesn't mean once they live again, that they remain in this disembodied state. But if they did, that would make my assertion nonsensical, I agree. Premils think the first resurrection is meaning bodily, Amils think it's not. But still, Amil plus NOSAS would be contradicting Revelation 20:6 no matter how you look at it. Is the solution then, NOSAS is not Biblical, only OSAS is? I don't see how myself.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 24, 2020

DavidPT said:
I think I grasp your point. Even though John initially sees the souls of them that were martyred, that doesn't mean once they live again, that they remain in this disembodied state. But if they did, that would make my assertion nonsensical, I agree. Premils think the first resurrection is meaning bodily, Amils think it's not.

That is the difference in how we understand having part in the first resurrection, but I and many other amils believe Christ's bodily resurrection itself is the first resurrection. So, it's not correct to say that amils like myself believe that the first resurrection is not a bodily one.

In my view having part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) is by being saved/born again (born from above, born of the Spirit). I've tried to explain to you before that losing one's salvation and losing their part in the first resurrection would be the same thing and happen the same way, but to no avail.

But still, Amil plus NOSAS would be contradicting Revelation 20:6 no matter how you look at it.

This is not true.

Is the solution then, NOSAS is not Biblical, only OSAS is? I don't see how myself.

The solution in my view is that premil is not biblical.

claninja · Nov 24, 2020

DavidPT said:
As far as this thread goes, all of that is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. Your entire understanding of OSAS vs NOSAS is seemingly built on a misunderstanding of OSAS.

DavidPT said:
What is in question here, does anyone agree with those who are Amil and also in the NOSAS camp, that anyone mentioned in Revelation 20:6 don't remain blessed and holy for forever, that some of them end up in the LOF instead, and that some of them never finish the thousand year reign they began? That's what Amil plus NOSAS proposes. But that's not what Premil plus NOSAS proposes. Premil plus NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but Amil plus NOSAS does.

A lot of hypotheticals here. Revelation 20 does not address if any of those that partake in the first resurrection "fall away".

IMHO, those that truly partake in the first resurrection don't fall away. They are of those that God foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

DavidPT said:
None of this matters unless NOSAS is Biblical. Some of us are convinced NOSAS is Biblical, the fact the arguments used by those in the OSAS camp are preposterous when they argue that anyone who falls away, they were never saved to begin with. As if someone can fall away from something they were never part of to begin with. That is backwards. One can only fall away from something they had part in, not something they never had part in. The latter is illogical, thus a contradiction. But, if the latter is not illogical, how about providing a few analogies to illustrate this concept of falling away from something one never had part in to begin with?

Your first sentence has OSAS vs NOSAS as being very relevant, otherwise your argument doesn't matter. So it would be important to first establish a strong foundation of what OSAS actually means.

1.) Judas was one of the 12, but he was lost, as predestined by God to fulfill scripture. Jesus even states it would have been better for him to not have been born:

john 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Matthew 26:24-25 Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

2.) Those that left the church in the 1st century, were not actually of the church, otherwise they would have continued with the church, according to John.

1 john 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

3.) If I go through a trama, and abandon God, and renounce my faith, then My Faith in the promises of God, in the first place, was never real faith.

DavidPT said:
John never finished high school because he dropped out when he was 16 instead.

Does this analogy prove the concept of falling away from something one was never a part of to begin with?

yes. John was never a part of the group of students known as highschool graduates.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 24, 2020

What a surprise that this is now turning out to be a NOSAS vs. OSAS thread. No one could have predicted that, right? :sigh:

claninja · Nov 24, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
What a surprise that this is now turning out to be a NOSAS vs. OSAS thread. No one could have predicted that, right?

Not actually that surprising when the OPs argument relies on NOSAS:

DavidPT said:
None of this matters unless NOSAS is Biblical.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 24, 2020

claninja said:
Not actually that surprising when the OPs argument relies on NOSAS:

And yet he said in his first post:

DavidPT said:
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.

This thread had to do with discussing whether both NOSAS and amil can be true and not whether NOSAS or OSAS are true.

Timtofly · Nov 25, 2020

DavidPT said:
That's what Amil plus NOSAS proposes. But that's not what Premil plus NOSAS proposes. Premil plus NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but Amil plus NOSAS does.

Revelation 20 is not about the church at all, so pre-mill cannot even touch this chapter in regards to being in Christ, much less dropping out of Christ.

Those who drop out will never even be a sheep or goat. They may not even be wheat, or a tare. They may decide to take the mark, as they rejected being in Christ 100%

Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads