Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yet you claim pre-mill is not even Scripture and that is not even the topic.What a surprise that this is now turning out to be a NOSAS vs. OSAS thread. No one could have predicted that, right?
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.Yet you claim pre-mill is not even Scripture and that is not even the topic.
So one wrong is corrected by another wrong? Makes sense to me.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.
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.
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 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.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.
Would not the implied end be personal death in that view?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.
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.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.
Where did Jesus teach; He would never come back to rule the earth?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.
Dave L said: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 said:Where did Jesus teach; He would never come back to rule the earth?
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.
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.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.
Finite: having limits or bounds.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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?