Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

[Timtofly]

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.

Calling God a liar just like Satan did? Way to go.

If Adam did not die physically that day, how did he get from an incorruptible body to a corruptible body? Are you claiming God created Adam with a corruptible body? Was Adam created in God's image or a corruptible image not like God? His incorruptible body was changed to a corruptible one. We call that death. We go from a corruptible body to an incorruptible body and still call it death, but it should be called a resurrection. We fall asleep in one and immediately rise awake in the next one. We call it death so as to not offend those not in Christ who die into death/sheol. Are we lying to ourselves and so ashamed of the Gospel of Salvation, we dare not offend the lost?

If Adam's incorruptible body did not die, why would he ever die? The only body that can die is a corruptible body.

 

[Timtofly]

Exactly. He is one of the loudest Premils on this board and Bibleforums. He seems fixated with Premil. He is engaged in an ongoing campaign to debunk Amil and promote Premil. That is why I take these comments with a pinch of salt. I do not refuse him the right to be so, but please don't artificially present yourself as Mr Objective or Mr Open-Minded. This thread is just another example of his determination to discredit Amil. None of the rest of us are arguing that we are unconvinced. Many of us have moved a lot in our eschatology over the years. It is is impossible to move David as he is rigid in his beliefs. Until I see genuine movement I remain skeptical.

He has had truth explained to him in as simple and clear a manner as any poster I know but he chooses not to budge on anything. He has no excuse.

Ironic coming from one who's only purpose in life is to debunk pre mill. At least by your thread presentations, and your attacks on my post in general. It does not bother me, but you take a false view of pre mill to debunk it. Instead you should point out the false view, and leave pre mill as it stands in the Bible, not some private interpretation of pre mill. You have yet to prove the resurrection in Revelation 20:4 is spiritual only. It is both, but you totally reject the physical aspect. It is not the resurrection of Jesus Christ in 30AD. If it was, John would have said it was. No private interpretation necessary. It would not have been a future event after Satan was defeated. The only recap would be from the Second Coming to the defeat of Satan. The seals are not historical. The Trumpets are not historical. The Thunders are not historical. The 42 months of Satan, the FP, and the beast are not historical. Neither are the 1000 years.

John did not say any where, "by the way, you all, this is all a jumbled chronological mess, feel free to interpret it as you all see fit". The Holy Spirit wrote nothing to confuse us about the Day of the Lord.

 

[Zao is life]

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?

How about through spiritual birth, the way Jesus said?

 

[Zao is life]

Is there any way you can also set up that PDF for download as well? Currently it seems to be set for view only. While I do have a PDF reader, Firefox is unable to communicate with it, apparently, since it never manages to open the reader.

Yeah, I've done so now - and I also updated it more.

In the process, one of the many, many verses in the New Testament talking about resurrection, stood out for me. It says the following:

Knowing that Christ being [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Rom 6:9

The second death has no power over those who seen living and reigning with Christ.

PS:

1. Like I said, the list of verses is very long, and I will get there to list all of them I find.
2. None of the verses talking about resurrection/being raised, rising again are talking about it in a spiritual sense. None whatsoever. They are all talking about the resurrection of the body from physical death. The concept of "spiritual" resurrection is not found int the New Testament - it's been added by theology (I'm not saying which theology). The only thing Jesus spoke of was spiritual birth from above.

Here's a new link to Microsoft Office Format (.xlsx). It works nicely when downloaded and opened with E-book Viewer. (Easier to read).

@DavidPT

I changed this and put it in my Blog. I've listed enough of the verses. There are still many other verses talking about the resurrection but it's not necessary to include all - by now the picture is made clear just by looking at the Bible in its own context.

https://logos-with-god.blogspot.com/p/resurrection-verses.html

PS: Your OP is still valid, IMO, no matter how much protest there is. If we reign with Christ now as priests and kings (which we do) and the millennium is symbolic for now, then OSAS - the second death has no power over us. Amil cannot be NOSAS and "now" all at the same time.

 

[BABerean2]

The second death has no power over those who seen living and reigning with Christ.

The above would be true for all of those who are truly "born-again" believers of the New Covenant Church, no matter whether they are still alive or if they are souls now in heaven.


Rev_21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


.

 

[sovereigngrace]

How about through spiritual birth, the way Jesus said?

... and spiritual resurrection. You reject this as it forbids your doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Calling God a liar just like Satan did? Way to go.

If Adam did not die physically that day, how did he get from an incorruptible body to a corruptible body? Are you claiming God created Adam with a corruptible body? Was Adam created in God's image or a corruptible image not like God? His incorruptible body was changed to a corruptible one. We call that death. We go from a corruptible body to an incorruptible body and still call it death, but it should be called a resurrection. We fall asleep in one and immediately rise awake in the next one. We call it death so as to not offend those not in Christ who die into death/sheol. Are we lying to ourselves and so ashamed of the Gospel of Salvation, we dare not offend the lost?

If Adam's incorruptible body did not die, why would he ever die? The only body that can die is a corruptible body.

How can an incorruptible body die? Do you know what incorruptible means?

1. 
   in·cor·rupt·i·ble
   /ˌinkəˈrəptəb(ə)l/
   
   adjective: incorruptible
   1. not susceptible to corruption, especially by briber
   2. not subject to death or decay; everlasting.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yeah, I've done so now - and I also updated it more.

In the process, one of the many, many verses in the New Testament talking about resurrection, stood out for me. It says the following:

Knowing that Christ being [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Rom 6:9

The second death has no power over those who seen living and reigning with Christ.

PS:

1. Like I said, the list of verses is very long, and I will get there to list all of them I find.
2. None of the verses talking about resurrection/being raised, rising again are talking about it in a spiritual sense. None whatsoever. They are all talking about the resurrection of the body from physical death. The concept of "spiritual" resurrection is not found int the New Testament - it's been added by theology (I'm not saying which theology). The only thing Jesus spoke of was spiritual birth from above.

For those of us who believe the first resurrection is Christ's bodily resurrection in particular (1 Cor 15:20, Acts 26:23), this isn't of any concern to us. Having part in His resurrection spiritually does not make the first resurrection a spiritual resurrection in this case since it means to spiritually have part in Christ's bodily resurrection (the first resurrection unto bodily immortality).

However, in defense of those amils who see the first resurrection itself as being a spiritual resurrection that occurs when we're saved and go from being spiritually dead in sins to alive with Christ (Eph 2:1-6), I believe that's a viable interpretation as well. I say that because what else is a resurrection except a case of going from death to life, whether it's spiritual of bodily?

What term would you use to describe the act of God raising us up spiritually from being dead in trespasses and sins to alive with Christ?

Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Paul referred to being saved as spiritually being "raised up with Christ". What is the difference between being spiritually "raised up" and spiritually resurrected?

 

[DavidPT]

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.


Premil vs Amil aside for a moment. Does anyone else agree with me, especially if they are Amil and are in the OSAS camp, that it is a contradiction to this verse if any of these that have part in the first resurrection end up in the LOF in the end? Does anyone else agree with me, regardless when this thousand year reign is meaning, that every single person that has part in the first resurrection, they all, without exception, are still reigning with Him when the thousand years expire?

And assuming Amils who are in the OSAS camp answer this, and that they agree with me on both counts, how then can these same Amils not agree that I have a valid point, that NONAS is not compatible with Amil? This of course would not necessarily be a problem if NONAS is not Biblical. But what if it is Biblical? What then? Wouldn't that prove Amil is not Biblical, since both can't be Biblical if they contradict each other?

 

[Zao is life]

... and spiritual resurrection. You reject this as it forbids your doctrine.

The word .. "and" says it all.

Jesus' teaching AND yours. If you have to add to Jesus' teaching with your ... "and" that's your prerogative but don't expect me to "admit" that there is any truth in your Jesus' teaching ".. AND" errors.

 

[Zao is life]

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.


Premil vs Amil aside for a moment. Does anyone else agree with me, especially if they are Amil and are in the OSAS camp, that it is a contradiction to this verse if any of these that have part in the first resurrection end up in the LOF in the end? Does anyone else agree with me, regardless when this thousand year reign is meaning, that every single person that has part in the first resurrection, they all, without exception, are still reigning with Him when the thousand years expire?

And assuming Amils who are in the OSAS camp answer this, and that they agree with me on both counts, how then can these same Amils not agree that I have a valid point, that NONAS is not compatible with Amil? This of course would not necessarily be a problem if NONAS is not Biblical. But what if it is Biblical? What then? Wouldn't that prove Amil is not Biblical, since both can't be Biblical if they contradict each other?

"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"

On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.

= Amils cannot be NOSAS, because it's a contradiction.

According to NOSAS, If anyone falls away, it's impossible to renew him again to repentance (Hebrews 6:4-8).
According to NOSAS, it's possible to get your name blotted out of the Lamb's book of Life:

"The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (and the only way to have our names in the Lamb's book of Life is through repentance and faith in Jesus).

If someone gets his name blotted out of the Lamb's book of life, that would for sure = the second death, both immediately upon his fall, and at the GWT.

So if the millennium = this age, then the second death has power over the people in Revelation 20.

Therefore NOSAS cannot support Amillennialism, and Amillenialism cannot support NOSAS. Simple and straight-forward, and this simple, straight-forward 2+2=4 fact is likely to get NOSAS Amills playing verbal musical chairs trying to get around it.

Well spotted DavidPT!

 

[sovereigngrace]

The word .. "and" says it all.

Jesus' teaching AND yours. If you have to add to Jesus' teaching with your ... "and" that's your prerogative but don't expect me to "admit" that there is any truth in your Jesus' teaching ".. AND" errors.

Jesus taught both. This of course exposes your denial.

 

[sovereigngrace]

"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"

On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.

= Amils cannot be NOSAS, because it's a contradiction.

According to NOSAS, If anyone falls away, it's impossible to renew him again to repentance (Hebrews 6:4-8).
According to NOSAS, it's possible to get your name blotted out of the Lamb's book of Life:

"The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (and the only way to have our names in the Lamb's book of Life is through repentance and faith in Jesus).

If someone gets his name blotted out of the Lamb's book of life, that would for sure = the second death, both immediately upon his fall, and at the GWT.

So if the millennium = this age, then the second death has power over the people in Revelation 20.

Therefore NOSAS cannot support Amillennialism, and Amillenialism cannot support NOSAS. Simple and straight-forward, and this simple, straight-forward 2+2=4 fact is likely to get NOSAS Amills playing verbal musical chairs trying to get around it.

Well spotted DavidPT!

I am glad you both see the truth and veracity of eternal salvation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.


Premil vs Amil aside for a moment. Does anyone else agree with me, especially if they are Amil and are in the OSAS camp, that it is a contradiction to this verse if any of these that have part in the first resurrection end up in the LOF in the end? Does anyone else agree with me, regardless when this thousand year reign is meaning, that every single person that has part in the first resurrection, they all, without exception, are still reigning with Him when the thousand years expire?

And assuming Amils who are in the OSAS camp answer this, and that they agree with me on both counts, how then can these same Amils not agree that I have a valid point, that NONAS is not compatible with Amil? This of course would not necessarily be a problem if NONAS is not Biblical. But what if it is Biblical? What then? Wouldn't that prove Amil is not Biblical, since both can't be Biblical if they contradict each other?

Even I agree that IF you were correct about what you are saying here then NOSAS and Amil would not be compatible. But, you're not correct about this and I have already shown that.

Also, this is a pathetic attempt to turn amils who believe in OSAS against amils who believe in NOSAS. I'm starting to lose a lot of respect for you, David.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

"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"

On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.

= Amils cannot be NOSAS, because it's a contradiction.

According to NOSAS, If anyone falls away, it's impossible to renew him again to repentance (Hebrews 6:4-8).
According to NOSAS, it's possible to get your name blotted out of the Lamb's book of Life:

"The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (and the only way to have our names in the Lamb's book of Life is through repentance and faith in Jesus).

If someone gets his name blotted out of the Lamb's book of life, that would for sure = the second death, both immediately upon his fall, and at the GWT.

So if the millennium = this age, then the second death has power over the people in Revelation 20.

Therefore NOSAS cannot support Amillennialism, and Amillenialism cannot support NOSAS. Simple and straight-forward, and this simple, straight-forward 2+2=4 fact is likely to get NOSAS Amills playing verbal musical chairs trying to get around it.

Well spotted DavidPT!

I already addressed all of this in post #45 and others. No "verbal musical chairs" are required to get around anything you're saying.

 

[DavidPT]

"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"

On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.
On such the second death has no power.

= Amils cannot be NOSAS, because it's a contradiction.

According to NOSAS, If anyone falls away, it's impossible to renew him again to repentance (Hebrews 6:4-8).
According to NOSAS, it's possible to get your name blotted out of the Lamb's book of Life:

"The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (and the only way to have our names in the Lamb's book of Life is through repentance and faith in Jesus).

If someone gets his name blotted out of the Lamb's book of life, that would for sure = the second death, both immediately upon his fall, and at the GWT.

So if the millennium = this age, then the second death has power over the people in Revelation 20.

Therefore NOSAS cannot support Amillennialism, and Amillenialism cannot support NOSAS. Simple and straight-forward, and this simple, straight-forward 2+2=4 fact is likely to get NOSAS Amills playing verbal musical chairs trying to get around it.

Well spotted DavidPT!

I fail to understand how Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp, can't see that Revelation 20:6 is not conditional. You would at least think, the fact that verse says---on such the 2nd death has no power---that that alone settles it. How can it not be a lie if someone has part in the first resurrection, which means the 2nd death has no power over them, thus they can't end up in the LOF, and then in some cases it turns out that it does after all, the fact some of them end up in the LOF? That verse does not say that nor remotely hint at anything like that.

The problem is not that NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, because it clearly doesn't unless it conficts with something else, Amil in this case. How could any of this possibly cause a conflict with Premil? It's impossible. Which seems more likely to be the correct position, in a case like this? A position that is impossible to cause a conflict with? Or a position where it is possible to cause a conflict with?

I simply believe NOSAS is Biblical, and that I believe exactly what Revelation 20:6 states and implies, and that is, not one single person who has part in the first resurrection somehow end up in the LOF instead, and that this does not contradict NOSAS if the first resurrection is being understood like Premils are understanding it, but is a contradiction if the first resurrection is being understood like Amils are understanding it.

Unfortunately, I have no choice but to conclude, Amils who are also in the NOSAS camp, they do not believe what Revelation 20:6 states and implies, and that is, none of them that have part in the first resurrection will ever have part in the LOF, as if there are actually ones, though they are blessed and holy, that still end up in the LOF, regardless.


Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Does it look like any of these here are blessed and holy? Does it look like any of these here, the 2nd death has no power of them?

he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power----vs----shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


How can anyone not see that this is a blatant contradiction if anyone per the former end up among those in the latter?

 

[BABerean2]

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Does it look like any of these here are blessed and holy? Does it look like any of these here, the 2nd death has no power of them?

he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power----vs----shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


How can anyone not see that this is a blatant contradiction if anyone per the former end up among those in the latter?

How many of those in the verse below are also found as the "souls" in the Book of Revelation?



Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


.

 

[DavidPT]

How many of those in the verse below are also found as the "souls" in the Book of Revelation?



Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


.

Are you perhaps in the OSAS camp and attempting to prove OSAS? If only OSAS is Biblical, and not NOSAS as well, then I don't even have a valid argument since it would at least be logical that OSAS could be compataible with Amil. I'm not seeing the logic in how NOSAS can be compatible with Amil, though. And I see that as a problem for both camps in Amil, OSAS and NOSAS, if NOSAS is Biblical, which would mean that Amils who are in the OSAS camp would need to agree with SpiritualJew, that some of those in Revelation 20:6 can end up in the LOF in the end. Not only that, they can't even go to heaven when they die in order to continue the thousand year reign there, which contradicts, in those cases, what Amil teaches concerning that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How many of those in the verse below are also found as the "souls" in the Book of Revelation?



Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


.

If he was consistent with the kind of logic he uses to understand Rev 20:6 from an amil perspective then his answer should be all of them. If he was consistent he wouldn't allow any exceptions in John 5:24 just as he doesn't allow any exceptions in Rev 20:6 even from an amil perspective.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Are you perhaps in the OSAS camp and attempting to prove OSAS? If only OSAS is Biblical, and not NOSAS as well, then I don't even have a valid argument since it would at least be logical that OSAS could be compataible with Amil. I'm not seeing the logic in how NOSAS can be compatible with Amil, though. And I see that as a problem for both camps in Amil, OSAS and NOSAS, if NOSAS is Biblical, which would mean that Amils who are in the OSAS camp would need to agree with SpiritualJew, that some of those in Revelation 20:6 can end up in the LOF in the end. Not only that, they can't even go to heaven when they die in order to continue the thousand year reign there, which contradicts, in those cases, what Amil teaches concerning that.

I said something earlier that you never responded to, so I'll say it again. From my amil and NOSAS perspective, these things are true:

You become saved at the moment you initially spiritually have part in the first resurrection.

If someone loses their salvation then they have spiritually lost their part in the first resurrection.

Do you see how these things go hand in hand from the perspective of someone who believes NOSAS and amil? So, it only follows that if you lose salvation, you also lose your part in the first resurrection. Yet, here you are trying to say that you can lose your salvation, but not your part in the first resurrection. That is simply not true from my perspective.

Can you please address why it can be possible to lose your salvation but not possible to lose your part in the first resurrection if spiritually having part in the first resurrection occurs when you are saved?