Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

DavidPT · Nov 12, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Why then did Adam live on till near a thousand? You have been taught wrong.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I can see something like this maybe explaining it.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day(one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day) that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam clearly died in the same day he ate thereof, but had he lived more than a thousand years, what God said here would not have been true, since that would contradict 2 Peter 3:8.

I don't even know why even I waste my time like this sometimes? No matter what evidence I produce, some are never going to accept it as valid evidence ever.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 12, 2020

DavidPT said:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I can see something like this maybe explaining it.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day(one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day) that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam clearly died in the same day he ate thereof, but had he lived more than a thousand years, what God said here would not have been true, since that would contradict 2 Peter 3:8.

I don't even know why even I waste my time like this sometimes? No matter what evidence I produce, some are never going to accept it as valid evidence ever.

Didn't Adam become spiritually dead in trespasses and sins the day he ate of the tree? What is your understanding of someone being dead in trespasses and sins?

Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 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,

Timtofly · Nov 12, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
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.

Amil are not even consistent. Some declare the Lord's Day can never exist. Some claim the Lord's Day exist currently.

Pre-mil can only accept the Lord's Day is a future time period. Some claim the Lord's Day is only 24 hrs, but that is beside the point it is still future. Some Amil want it to be a 24 hr. future event while claiming it does not exist or we are in the 24 hr period currently as well. Depending on how literal 24 hours is. Is "24" also symbolic of an indefinite time period? That is the conclusion drawn from amil, many interpretations and none of them correct.

Timtofly · Nov 12, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
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?

Well you can loose something many times if you never had it. Do people realize that they did not die on the Cross literally for themselves? Cause until you can claim to loose it, you have to literally do it yourself, no? Does God give it, and then take it away? Sin was around before birth, so sin cannot take anything away. Either you accept or you don't. It is not loosing it. It is deceiving your self that you thought you accepted it, but in reality never did accept it. Otherwise it would not be loosing it. It would be outright rejecting it. How can you accept it, and reject it later? It is not a physical phenomenon. Can one think they accept it when they have not accepted the Atonement, but a false substitute?

BABerean2 · Nov 12, 2020

Timtofly said:
The resurrection is at physical death.

You cannot remove the bodily resurrection of the dead from the judgment of the dead, based on the words of Christ in John 5:27-30.

Based on the text below, the judgment of the dead has not yet occurred.

Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Mat 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Where do you come up with what you claimed above?
It is not found in the Bible.

.

sovereigngrace · Nov 12, 2020

DavidPT said:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I can see something like this maybe explaining it.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day(one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day) that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam clearly died in the same day he ate thereof, but had he lived more than a thousand years, what God said here would not have been true, since that would contradict 2 Peter 3:8.

I don't even know why even I waste my time like this sometimes? No matter what evidence I produce, some are never going to accept it as valid evidence ever.

Most of us who have abandoned Premil considered the biblical evidence and saw it negated our Premil teaching. This all boils down to biblical interpretation. You have yet to show us what your mode of hermeneutic is. I suspect there's a reason for that. Those of us that of abandoned Premil, interpret Rev 20 in the light of clear and repeated teaching of the rest of Scripture. Premils who refuse to change do the opposite. This is where Premil falls apart in my opinion.

DavidPT · Nov 12, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Most of us who have abandoned Premil considered the biblical evidence and saw it negated our Premil teaching. This all boils down to biblical interpretation. You have yet to show us what your mode of hermeneutic are. I suspect there's a reason for that. Those of us that of abandoned Premil, interpret Rev 20 in the light of clear and repeated teaching of the rest of Scripture. Premil who refuse to change do the opposite. This is where Premil falls apart in my opinion.

Revelation 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

In this verse thousand uses the same Greek word as it does for thousand in Revelation 20.
Anybody with even an elementary understanding of math should know that a literal thousand plus a literal 600, this adds up to a literal 1600.

This verse says---a thousand and six hundred furlongs. How much does that equal? Does it not equal 1600 furlongs? How can one even arrive at that number if a thousand(chilioi) only means an amount more than a thousand, and can never mean exactly a thousand?

For example, using how Amils might understand a thousand(chilioi), does two thousand and six hundred furlongs equal the same thing as a thousand and six hundred furlongs do? Does a literal two thousand plus a literal 600, equal the same thing as a literal thousand plus a literal 600 equals?

It doesn't matter that it doesn't literally mean 1600 furlongs in that verse, what matters is, that it requires the thousand to be literal, in order to end up with 1600 furlongs in the end after you add six hundred to that. After all, only a thousand plus six hundred can possibly equal 1600. Any other number less than or more than a thousand plus six hundred certainly can't possibly equal 1600 unless one wants to argue that 1000 plus 600 does not equal 1600.

So why is it, in this example a thousand(chilioi) can mean a literal thousand, but in Revelation 20 it can't?

sovereigngrace · Nov 12, 2020

DavidPT said:
Revelation 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

In this verse thousand uses the same Greek word as it does for thousand in Revelation 20.
Anybody with even an elementary understanding of math should know that a literal thousand plus a literal 600, this adds up to a literal 1600.

This verse says---a thousand and six hundred furlongs. How much does that equal? Does it not equal 1600 furlongs? How can one even arrive at that number if a thousand(chilioi) only means an amount more than a thousand, and can never mean exactly a thousand?

For example, using how Amils might understand a thousand(chilioi), does two thousand and six hundred furlongs equal the same thing as a thousand and six hundred furlongs do? Does a literal two thousand plus a literal 600, equal the same thing as a literal thousand plus a literal 600 equals?

It doesn't matter that it doesn't literally mean 1600 furlongs in that verse, what matters is, that it requires the thousand to be literal, in order to end up with 1600 furlongs in the end after you add six hundred to that. After all, only a thousand plus six hundred can possibly equal 1600. Any other number less than or more than a thousand plus six hundred certainly can't possibly equal 1600 unless one wants to argue that 1000 plus 600 does not equal 1600.

So why is it, in this example a thousand(chilioi) can mean a literal thousand, but in Revelation 20 it can't?

We are not talking about any other number attached. Most Premils pragmatically accept that "a thousand" normally represents a large indeterminate number. So you are out on a limb with this one.

Could you describe your hermeneutics. Your ongoing avoidance in regards to this fair enquiry would suggest you just wing it. That is why you are inconsistent and all over the place in regards to interpretation on each subject. I think you make it up as you go.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 12, 2020

DavidPT said:
Revelation 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

In this verse thousand uses the same Greek word as it does for thousand in Revelation 20.
Anybody with even an elementary understanding of math should know that a literal thousand plus a literal 600, this adds up to a literal 1600.

This verse says---a thousand and six hundred furlongs. How much does that equal? Does it not equal 1600 furlongs? How can one even arrive at that number if a thousand(chilioi) only means an amount more than a thousand, and can never mean exactly a thousand?

For example, using how Amils might understand a thousand(chilioi), does two thousand and six hundred furlongs equal the same thing as a thousand and six hundred furlongs do? Does a literal two thousand plus a literal 600, equal the same thing as a literal thousand plus a literal 600 equals?

It doesn't matter that it doesn't literally mean 1600 furlongs in that verse, what matters is, that it requires the thousand to be literal, in order to end up with 1600 furlongs in the end after you add six hundred to that. After all, only a thousand plus six hundred can possibly equal 1600. Any other number less than or more than a thousand plus six hundred certainly can't possibly equal 1600 unless one wants to argue that 1000 plus 600 does not equal 1600.

So why is it, in this example a thousand(chilioi) can mean a literal thousand, but in Revelation 20 it can't?

It does mean a literal thousand in Rev 20 in the same sense that it means a literal thousand plus six hundred in Rev 14. But, you acknowledge yourself that the 1000 + 600 "doesn't literally mean 1600 furlongs in that verse", so why does the 1000 in Rev 20 have to literally mean 1000 years?

Look at this verse:

Revelation 17:12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.

Do you think the "one hour" mentioned in this verse is a literal one hour, as in 60 minutes? I sure don't. That would be ridiculous, right? Not sure how much the ten kings could get done in only one literal hour.

The Greek word translated as "one" in this verse is heis and it literally means "one". Yet, it's still used figuratively in this particular verse. So, what that in mind, why can't "one thousand years" not figuratively refer to a long, undefined period of time?

Timtofly · Nov 12, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Where does it say Adam had an incorruptible body? Nowhere. That is your opinion. If he did he would never have sinned or died. Such only comes at the end of the world.

So the image of God is chucked full of sin. You must also believe that God is both sin and perfection. No wonder your post do not make sense sometimes.

Timtofly · Nov 12, 2020

BABerean2 said:
You cannot remove the bodily resurrection of the dead from the judgment of the dead, based on the words of Christ in John 5:27-30.

Based on the text below, the judgment of the dead has not yet occurred.

Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Mat 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Where do you come up with what you claimed above?
It is not found in the Bible.

.

The resurrection of the dead? Why are you using the resurrection of those lost people and claim it is the same as The Cross? The Cross is the resurrection of those in Christ.

Hazelelponi · Nov 12, 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.

I'm going to use the KISS method here.

While many people who are AMIL believe in security in our salvation (OSAS) there are others who are AMIL who don't (the Catholic church for instance, and all Orthodox faiths as well)

So its not one size fits all, it's just all the faiths that came out of the reformation your running into who believe in both.

Zao is life · Nov 13, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
I'm going to use the KISS method here.

While many people who are AMIL believe in security in our salvation (OSAS) there are others who are AMIL who don't (the Catholic church for instance, and all Orthodox faiths as well)

So its not one size fits all, it's just all the faiths that came out of the reformation your running into who believe in both.

That isn't his point, though. His point is that NOSAS runs into trouble with the words "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6).

If the second death has no authority or power over any saints, that = OSAS.

"The first resurrection" (according to Amil) refers to being quickened by the Spirit when someone comes to faith in Christ. @DavidPT's point is therefore that if the millennium is symbolic, you cannot have these saints being part of "the first resurrection" and the second death having no authority or power over them, unless you accept OSAS. Amil is incompatible with NOSAS, because in the thousand years, the second death has no power over those who have been resurrected.

BABerean2 · Nov 13, 2020

Timtofly said:
Why are you using the resurrection of those lost people and claim it is the same as The Cross?

Your argument is with Jesus, in the passage below.

Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

.

Hazelelponi · Nov 13, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
That isn't his point, though. His point is that NOSAS runs into trouble with the words "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6).

If the second death has no authority or power over any saints, that = OSAS.

"The first resurrection" (according to Amil) refers to being quickened by the Spirit when someone comes to faith in Christ. @DavidPT's point is therefore that if the millennium is symbolic, you cannot have these saints being part of "the first resurrection" and the second death having no authority or power over them, unless you accept OSAS. Amil is incompatible with NOSAS, because in the thousand years, the second death has no power over those who have been resurrected.

Oh.... makes sense now... thanks for the heads up on that point.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 13, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
Oh.... makes sense now... thanks for the heads up on that point.

If you read the entire thread you should be able to see that the NOSAS belief is not a problem for amils at all. Premils try to force us to interpret the passage by their rules, but we are not obligated to do so.

DavidPT · Nov 13, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
We are not talking about any other number attached. Most Premils pragmatically accept that "a thousand" normally represents a large indeterminate number. So you are out on a limb with this one.

Could you describe your hermeneutics. Your ongoing avoidance in regards to this fair enquiry would suggest you just wing it. That is why you are inconsistent and all over the place in regards to interpretation on each subject. I think you make it up as you go.

I just think outside the box is all, maybe more than others at times. Not remotely implying others don't think outside of the box as well.

Explain this logic, then. If (chilioi) by itself can mean more than 1000, like Amils propose that it does in Revelation 20, why can't it by itself also mean 1600? Isn't that more than a thousand? Why didn't the verse simply say this instead?

Revelation 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand furlongs.

Let's assume the alleged millennium Amil proposes were to end up being 2004 years total, as an example. Why is it that (chilioi) by itself can mean 2004 years, but in Revelation 14:20 (chilioi) by itself can't also mean 1600? Doesn't this prove that (chilioi) by itself can never mean more than 1000, because if it could, (chilioi) by itself could also mean 1600?

Revelation 14:20 proves (chilioi) by itself means a literal thousand. Amils contradict that by proposing (chilioi) by itself in Revelation 20 does not mean a literal thousand. How can it be both? There is nothing nonsensical about something being a literal thousand years in length. That's not the same as, for example, if I told you once, I told you a thousand times---then taking that thousand in the literal sense. That would be nonsensical if one were to do that.

DavidPT · Nov 13, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
That isn't his point, though. His point is that NOSAS runs into trouble with the words "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6).

If the second death has no authority or power over any saints, that = OSAS.

"The first resurrection" (according to Amil) refers to being quickened by the Spirit when someone comes to faith in Christ. @DavidPT's point is therefore that if the millennium is symbolic, you cannot have these saints being part of "the first resurrection" and the second death having no authority or power over them, unless you accept OSAS. Amil is incompatible with NOSAS, because in the thousand years, the second death has no power over those who have been resurrected.

And this presents a major problem for someone such as me, the fact I am 100% convinced NOSAS is Biblical, and if I were wanting to once again seriously consider switching to Amil at some point, the fact I to think, that in some cases Amil appears to be a better solution. How would I be able to do it unless I denounced NONSAS first? It seems to me then, unless I'm missing something here, the fact NOSAS is not compatible with Amil, this proves I should remain Premil, regardless, even if in some cases Amil appears that it might be a better solution. But that is not true in all cases, though. Not even remotely.

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Amil is incompatible with NOSAS, because in the thousand years, the second death has no power over those who have been resurrected.

Or in any age. Amil cannot explain the physical resurrection of Revelation 20 and make it non physical, but they cannot escape that it is a forever condition, because the second death can have no power both spiritually and physically.

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Your argument is with Jesus, in the passage below.

Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

.

25 "Yes, indeed! I tell you that there is coming a time — in fact, it’s already here — when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who listen will come to life."

Jesus used His voice to bring a most definitely dead man, Lazarus, out of the grave that year.

It is an ongoing phenomenon, not an end time event.

And your argument is with Jesus in the very same chapter.

Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency