Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

[Timtofly]

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

Yet you claim pre-mill is not even Scripture and that is not even the topic.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yet you claim pre-mill is not even Scripture and that is not even the topic.

It related to what he said in his post. He said "Is the solution then, NOSAS is not Biblical, only OSAS is?". He thinks in order to be Amil you have to believe OSAS, which I disagree with. So, I'm saying he doesn't have to conclude that NOSAS isn't biblical in order to be Amil. I believe the solution is for him to conclude that premil is not biblical because you can believe both NOSAS and Amil. Understand? What I said did relate to what he said in that particular post, so there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Timtofly]

It related to what he said in his post. He said "Is the solution then, NOSAS is not Biblical, only OSAS is?". He thinks in order to be Amil you have to believe OSAS, which I disagree with. So, I'm saying he doesn't have to conclude that NOSAS isn't biblical in order to be Amil. I believe the solution is for him to conclude that premil is not biblical because you can believe both NOSAS and Amil. Understand? What I said did relate to what he said in that particular post, so there's nothing wrong with that.

So one wrong is corrected by another wrong? Makes sense to me.

 

[claninja]

And yet he said in his first post: This thread had to do with discussing whether both NOSAS and amil can be true and not whether NOSAS or OSAS are true.

The op's entire argument is built on NOSAS being true, and thus Premil being the correct position because NOSAS is incompatible with Amil.

From the OP:
"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."

From a response by the author of the OP:
"None of this matters unless NOSAS is Biblical."

The OP first has to have a steady foundation of what OSAS vs NOSAS actually means before denouncing it and using NOSAS to bolster an argument that NOSAS and Amil are not compatible, in order prove Premil the correct position.

It's preposterous to make the argument that NOSAS and Amil are incompatible, and thus premil is true, but we can't talk about what NOSAS and OSAS actually mean....

It's like me saying the sky is not blue and no one can convince me otherwise and we are not going to discuss why it's not blue. I believe it is green. So let's discuss why the sky is green. It's an absurd argument.

 

[DavidPT]

The op's entire argument is built on NOSAS being true, and thus Premil being the correct position because NOSAS is incompatible with Amil.

From the OP:
"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."

From a response by the author of the OP:
"None of this matters unless NOSAS is Biblical."

The OP first has to have a steady foundation of what OSAS vs NOSAS actually means before denouncing it and using NOSAS to bolster an argument that NOSAS and Amil are not compatible, in order prove Premil the correct position.

It's preposterous to make the argument that NOSAS and Amil are incompatible, and thus premil is true, but we can't talk about what NOSAS and OSAS actually mean....

It's like me saying the sky is not blue and no one can convince me otherwise and we are not going to discuss why it's not blue. I believe it is green. So let's discuss why the sky is green. It's an absurd argument.

As far as the debate bewteen OSAS vs NOSAS, everyone has already fully made up their mind as to what camp they fit in. Debating it is not going to change a single person's mind whatsoever. It therefore serves no purpose for this particular thread. If you are convinced OSAS is true in every single case, then that's what you have decided is true. Nothing I can say, or that anyone else can say, is going to make you change your mind about that. If I instead think OSAS is not true in every single case, nothing you can say, or that anyone else can say, is going to make me change my mind about that.

If I am convinced NOSAS is Biblical, and let's say I am correct to be convinced of that, and that God Himself knows NOSAS is Biblical, it then comes down to, the fact I see some things fitting Amil better than Premil, is NOSAS even compatible with Amil? And if it isn't, and if NOSAS is Biblical, and the fact NOSAS plus Premil does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but that NOSAS plus Amil does, why wouldn't one conclude Premil is likely the correct position then, in that case?

In this thread I'm not trying to talk anybody out of believing in OSAS if that is what they believe in. If one wants to believe OSAS is true in every single case, then so be it. And if some of the rest of us want to believe OSAS is is not true in every single case, thus NOSAS, then so be it as well.

 

[sovereigngrace]

As far as the debate bewteen OSAS vs NOSAS, everyone has already fully made up their mind as to what camp they fit in. Debating it is not going to change a single person's mind whatsoever. It therefore serves no purpose for this particular thread. If you are convinced OSAS is true in every single case, then that's what you have decided is true. Nothing I can say, or that anyone else can say, is going to make you change your mind about that. If I instead think OSAS is not true in every single case, nothing you can say, or that anyone else can say, is going to make me change my mind about that.

If I am convinced NOSAS is Biblical, and let's say I am correct to be convinced of that, and that God Himself knows NOSAS is Biblical, it then comes down to, the fact I see some things fitting Amil better than Premil, is NOSAS even compatible with Amil? And if it isn't, and if NOSAS is Biblical, and the fact NOSAS plus Premil does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but that NOSAS plus Amil does, why wouldn't one conclude Premil is likely the correct position then, in that case?

In this thread I'm not trying to talk anybody out of believing in OSAS if that is what they believe in. If one wants to believe OSAS is true in every single case, then so be it. And if some of the rest of us want to believe OSAS is is not true in every single case, thus NOSAS, then so be it as well.

Regardless of whether one is OSAS or NOSAS Premil makes no sense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The op's entire argument is built on NOSAS being true, and thus Premil being the correct position because NOSAS is incompatible with Amil.

From the OP:
"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."

From a response by the author of the OP:
"None of this matters unless NOSAS is Biblical."

The OP first has to have a steady foundation of what OSAS vs NOSAS actually means before denouncing it and using NOSAS to bolster an argument that NOSAS and Amil are not compatible, in order prove Premil the correct position.

It's preposterous to make the argument that NOSAS and Amil are incompatible, and thus premil is true, but we can't talk about what NOSAS and OSAS actually mean....

It's like me saying the sky is not blue and no one can convince me otherwise and we are not going to discuss why it's not blue. I believe it is green. So let's discuss why the sky is green. It's an absurd argument.

I wouldn't think that an explanation of the difference between OSAS and NOSAS was necessary since the difference seems obvious. Is that really something that needs to be explained? I wouldn't think so. But, whatever. If you want to debate that with him, go ahead. I'm not interested in doing that in this particular thread.

 

[claninja]

As far as the debate bewteen OSAS vs NOSAS, everyone has already fully made up their mind as to what camp they fit in. Debating it is not going to change a single person's mind whatsoever. It therefore serves no purpose for this particular thread. If you are convinced OSAS is true in every single case, then that's what you have decided is true. Nothing I can say, or that anyone else can say, is going to make you change your mind about that. If I instead think OSAS is not true in every single case, nothing you can say, or that anyone else can say, is going to make me change my mind about that.

If I am convinced NOSAS is Biblical, and let's say I am correct to be convinced of that, and that God Himself knows NOSAS is Biblical, it then comes down to, the fact I see some things fitting Amil better than Premil, is NOSAS even compatible with Amil? And if it isn't, and if NOSAS is Biblical, and the fact NOSAS plus Premil does not contradict Revelation 20:6, but that NOSAS plus Amil does, why wouldn't one conclude Premil is likely the correct position then, in that case?

In this thread I'm not trying to talk anybody out of believing in OSAS if that is what they believe in. If one wants to believe OSAS is true in every single case, then so be it. And if some of the rest of us want to believe OSAS is is not true in every single case, thus NOSAS, then so be it as well.

I believe NOSAS and OSAS and can be equally true, but This all depends on how you define NOSAS vs OSAS.

I was raised in reformed Amil tradition, here is how we defined NOSAS vs OSAS.

NOSAS refers to those who fall away from the faith, never to return.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For 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, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and 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 specifically to those in Christ, foreknown by God, that overcome to the end.

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5he predestined usb for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Romans 8:29-30, 37-39 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. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


I'm pretty sure being beheaded for the testimony of Jesus constitutes as overcoming to the end, and thus OSAS is found in revelation 20:4-6, while NOSAS is not mentioned.

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm pretty sure being beheaded for the testimony of Jesus constitutes as overcoming to the end, and thus OSAS is found in revelation 20:4-6, while NOSAS is not mentioned.

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.

Would not the implied end be personal death in that view?

How can it mean the end of any event?

Especially an event where all die anyway?

Many a martyr had it worse while on the stake, than the decision to be tied to the stake, no? Can you imagine being almost totally consumed of skin and changing your mind then? There were crowds at these events making promises they certainly could not keep, if per chance one did recant.

The martyr still trusted God more than those who could only kill the body. If one recanted they would loose their soul, and would probably die soon physically any way, but pain along with the taunts from the crowd is undoubtedly the hardest way to go.

 

[FredVB]

Martyrdom is hard for any to go through undoubtedly, but what one says in agony is not going to cost their soul anyway. That they ever made up their mind in repentance for Christ will be what matters because in God that works and will last. Those that ever dismiss Christ in just any difficulty later never had that relationship, such that when some stand before the Lord and say, we did such and such serving you, saying you are our Lord, he will say, depart from me, I never knew you. He knows those in relationship with him. So these ones do last to the end, enduring to the end.

The Millennium, that shown in Bible prophecy, must mean something where it is shown, with Christ reigning on earth then. If there is no reason at all for that, it could be dismissed. But I see reason for it. There is such destructiveness to this earth, and it comes from human civilization. Christ would be here reigning on this earth for a needed restoration to it, that humanity has yet never come to, and will not, with continued destructiveness, which God hates, Revelation 11:18. So I see explanation for the Millennium of Christ's reign on earth being needed, for that. Those who are there who persisted in ongoing contribution to destructiveness to this earth will be used in works of earth's restoration justly. Prophecy of the City of Peace will be fulfilled and be true, then. I see this, with also seeing basis that God is not ever deceived, and knows those who are in Christ and have everlasting life in him.

 

[Dave L]

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.

A close study of the gospel of the Kingdom in the gospels shows Jesus taught Amillennialism. The Pharisees taught pre-millennialism. And rejected Jesus on this basis. The Kingdom came when Daniel said it would. But it was Spiritual and not what the Jews expected.

OSAS? God saves us through our having faith he saved us. If you think you can be lost, you cannot have saving faith. But hope only.

 

[Timtofly]

A close study of the gospel of the Kingdom in the gospels shows Jesus taught Amillennialism. The Pharisees taught pre-millennialism. And rejected Jesus on this basis. The Kingdom came when Daniel said it would. But it was Spiritual and not what the Jews expected.

OSAS? God saves us through our having faith he saved us. If you think you can be lost, you cannot have saving faith. But hope only.

Where did Jesus teach; He would never come back to rule the earth?

 

[FredVB]

A close study of the gospel of the Kingdom in the gospels shows Jesus taught Amillennialism. The Pharisees taught pre-millennialism. And rejected Jesus on this basis. The Kingdom came when Daniel said it would. But it was Spiritual and not what the Jews expected.

OSAS? God saves us through our having faith he saved us. If you think you can be lost, you cannot have saving faith. But hope only.

Where did Jesus teach; He would never come back to rule the earth?

I am quite sure Jesus Christ was not teaching that he would not rule on earth for a millenium and that there would not be a millenium for that. He was teaching aspects of the future that was being prophesied, and other prophecies show other aspects of the future as well. That there is the millenium under the rule of Christ, as prophesied, is not contradicting anything.

It will not be the time of perfection, that what is called the new earth in prophecy will be. In the millenium of Christ's rule there will be all the work toward repair and restoration of this world, which those here will be involved in, toward what was meant to be, and prophecies about Jerusalem will be fulfilled.

 

[FredVB]

How would God not know if any one that God saves would get to heaven ultimately? God would know that. And if anyone is not ultimately getting to heaven, God would know that, were such ever saved? God was not fooled. Faith in response to God is with repentance and with love for God in response, which is with love for others. With that God does not lose those coming to God through the way Christ made possible.

 

[FredVB]

Is God all-knowing? Of course, the unlimited necessary and essential being who is the Creator knows all things which includes all that will ever be. There are elect then, who God knows are and will be saved, going to heaven. Are we responsible or not? We certainly are, there is no justice for us or fairness for any if we have no responsibility, with choices we have.

 

[DavidPT]

Is God all-knowing? Of course, the unlimited necessary and essential being who is the Creator knows all things which includes all that will ever be. There are elect then, who God knows are and will be saved, going to heaven. Are we responsible or not? We certainly are, there is no justice for us or fairness for any if we have no responsibility, with choices we have.

Even if He is all knowing, which BTW is not literally true, does that mean He can't choose to not know certain things in advance, but instead waits until after the fact to know certain things? If He already knows in advance what every single person is going to do and think during their lifetimes, then what is the point in any of this since this would indicate no one has free will?

In case you dispute that He is not literally all knowing, this can easily be proved. For example, can God know what the highest number that can be counted to is? Of course not, since there is no such number. So how can He literally be all knowing if He doesn't even know what that number is?

 

[Timtofly]

Even if He is all knowing, which BTW is not literally true, does that mean He can't choose to not know certain things in advance, but instead waits until after the fact to know certain things? If He already knows in advance what every single person is going to do and think during their lifetimes, then what is the point in any of this since this would indicate no one has free will?

In case you dispute that He is not literally all knowing, this can easily be proved. For example, can God know what the highest number that can be counted to is? Of course not, since there is no such number. So how can He literally be all knowing if He doesn't even know what that number is?

The highest number is an arbitrary point. It means an end, at the least. Since creation is finite, by definition numbers do have a finite end, but still arbitrary. No one needs to know the last finite number. God does know, so God is literally still all knowing. God created all things. Creaton is finite, and all things can be known by God.

Omniscience does not negate free will. Finite creation is the limit to free will, not Omniscience. Free will is not the absence of Law. Law is also the limit to free will. Law does not negate free will. What negates free will? Having no choice at all negates free will. Coercion or force negates free will. The free will of others can negate the free will of many. Thus free will can negate free will. Calling free will a notion is the notion free will can be negated. But seriously, if a human binds another human and removes all ability to make choices period, free will can be negated for that person.

A hardened heart and a reprobate mind are examples of such binding.

 

[DavidPT]

The highest number is an arbitrary point. It means an end, at the least. Since creation is finite, by definition numbers do have a finite end, but still arbitrary. No one needs to know the last finite number. God does know, so God is literally still all knowing. God created all things. Creaton is finite, and all things can be known by God.

The first thing you have to keep in mind, God is outside of time. He obviously already knew about numbers before He even created things in the beginning.


No matter what number one comes up with, all one has to do is add 1 to it and it will always be higher than the previous number, every single time. There literally is no end to numbers. There is no such number, that once you reach that number, there are no numbers higher than that one. Totally impossible. Even God can't come up with such a number, and if anyone should know that numbers are endless, He should know since He is the one that created numbers to begin with. How can someone literally be all knowing, yet doesn't know the highest number that can be counted to?

 

[Timtofly]

The first thing you have to keep in mind, God is outside of time. He obviously already knew about numbers before He even created things in the beginning.


No matter what number one comes up with, all one has to do is add 1 to it and it will always be higher than the previous number, every single time. There literally is no end to numbers. There is no such number, that once you reach that number, there are no numbers higher than that one. Totally impossible. Even God can't come up with such a number, and if anyone should know that numbers are endless, He should know since He is the one that created numbers to begin with. How can someone literally be all knowing, yet doesn't know the highest number that can be counted to?

Finite: having limits or bounds.

Sorry. Belive it or not there is a number that 1 cannot be added to. Now the end of time would definitely stop any who tried. So if it was tried, God knows the last number that 1 could not be added to. It is arbitrary what the last number is, even if a person dedicated the rest of time to figure it out. It would take a computer that would handle that much opened/closed bits. Another limit to the last number. Yes in theory the last number cannot be reached. But in practical reality of being able to compute that last number, there is a finite limit. Theory is not reality. Reality cannot limit God's omniscience. Reality is finite.

 

[FredVB]

Even if He is all knowing, which BTW is not literally true, does that mean He can't choose to not know certain things in advance, but instead waits until after the fact to know certain things? If He already knows in advance what every single person is going to do and think during their lifetimes, then what is the point in any of this since this would indicate no one has free will?

In case you dispute that He is not literally all knowing, this can easily be proved. For example, can God know what the highest number that can be counted to is? Of course not, since there is no such number. So how can He literally be all knowing if He doesn't even know what that number is?

This argument is wordplay, you and I are limited creatures. Many may conceive of God as a really big man, or really big superhuman. But I know the Creator is not that, the Creator is unlimited being. You being limited cannot outsmart the unlimited being, and we being limited cannot conceive of the knowledge of unlimited being. You do not know what the Creator doesn't know. When highest number is said, what defines that? The highest number of items, or particles? The highest conceivable number according to probability? God knows all those, but God is unlimited.