Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

[DavidPT]

David, we obviously disagree on both doctrines, and that is fine. But your attempt to argue that someone cannot be NOSAS and be Amil doesn't add up. I remember you arguing this years ago and it didn't make sense. You have yet to prove your case.

I have many stronger arguments than Rev 20 to prove eternal salvation elsewhere in Scripture that (to me) negates your theology. Rev 20 is only one of hundreds of passages that prove salvation is forever.

If you want to believe you may end up in hell some day that is your prerogative. Those who believe in the doctrines of grace believe God keeps His word that He will never leave us or forsake us.

It's simple. I simply believe NOSAS is Biblical. What I do not believe, not even remotely, is that anyone who has part in the first resurrection can somehow end up in the LOF instead. This might sound like a contradiction, then. It all depends, though. If coming at this from Premil, there is no contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning bodily after they had already died. But, if coming at this from Amil, there is a contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning before they had already died.

Once someone is bodily resurrected, that can't be reversed, thus why NOSAS does not conflict with Premil. But, if the first resurrection is meaning what Amils take it to mean, and if one holds the position NOSAS, this would indicate this first resurrection can be reversed after having taken part in it.

You might suggest, that in my case, this is easily resolved, simply denounce NOSAS and embrace OSAS instead, now there is no contradiction pertaining to Amil and Revelation 20:6. But, if I did that though, I would be lying to myself and others, because I already full well know that the Bible supports NOSAS.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It's simple. I simply believe NOSAS is Biblical. What I do not believe, not even remotely, is that anyone who has part in the first resurrection can somehow end up in the LOF instead. This might sound like a contradiction, then. It all depends, though. If coming at this from Premil, there is no contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning bodily after they had already died. But, if coming at this from Amil, there is a contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning before they had already died.

Once someone is bodily resurrected, that can't be reversed, thus why NOSAS does not conflict with Premil. But, if the first resurrection is meaning what Amils take it to mean, and if one holds the position NOSAS, this would indicate this first resurrection can be reversed after having taken part in it.

You might suggest, that in my case, this is easily resolved, simply denounce NOSAS and embrace OSAS instead, now there is no contradiction pertaining to Amil and Revelation 20:6. But, if I did that though, I would be lying to myself and others, because I already full well know that the Bible supports NOSAS.

I have already showed you various Scripture texts that say the same as Revelation 20:6 (in post #2). All show the eternal nature of salvation. Once again, you avoided these and persisted to argue your lame argument. This is frustrating, but it is how you normally debate. You avoid anything that cuts across your reasoning. This does not promote your argument but undermines it.

Please address post #2.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It's simple. I simply believe NOSAS is Biblical. What I do not believe, not even remotely, is that anyone who has part in the first resurrection can somehow end up in the LOF instead. This might sound like a contradiction, then. It all depends, though. If coming at this from Premil, there is no contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning bodily after they had already died. But, if coming at this from Amil, there is a contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning before they had already died.

Once someone is bodily resurrected, that can't be reversed, thus why NOSAS does not conflict with Premil. But, if the first resurrection is meaning what Amils take it to mean, and if one holds the position NOSAS, this would indicate this first resurrection can be reversed after having taken part in it.

You might suggest, that in my case, this is easily resolved, simply denounce NOSAS and embrace OSAS instead, now there is no contradiction pertaining to Amil and Revelation 20:6. But, if I did that though, I would be lying to myself and others, because I already full well know that the Bible supports NOSAS.

Please list what hermeneutical rules you abide by? I struggle to see any consistency in your mode of interpretation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The first thing to note, I am me, and you are you. The way your mind might operate in certain circumstances might not be the way my mind might operate per these same circumstances.

To give you a glimpse into how my mind typically works in general, it might be like such.

I already fully realize there are issues with Premil, where in some cases, in my mind Amil appears to be a better solution. But, OTOH, I also see issues with Amil in some cases, where in my mind Premil appears to be a better solution.

What I then set out to do is try and determine if Amil can even work. I do this via my arguments that I submit, IOW, I'm trying to work through these things in order to see what it leads to. Does it still lead to Premil, or does it lead to Amil instead? Thus far I have not seen it leading to Amil in some cases.

But my question is why you heavily favor premil over amil despite seeing flaws in both? Nothing you said here explains that. You come across as though you are bent on proving premil right and amil wrong. You come across as though you have a premil bias despite seeing flaws with both. Why? Again, nothing you're saying here seems to answer that question.

Some examples. My arguments concerning Revelation 20:4 and the martyrs killed for refusing to worship the beast, and that they are killed before satan is even out of the pit. Another example, Revelation 12. That ch covers at least the past 2000 years, and then some, the same 2000 years Amils propose are meaning the thousand years. Yet, I can't find a single place in all of Revelation 12 where a 2000 year binding, then a loosing, can possibly fit. Then, another argument is, the fact I'm NOSAS, is that even compatible with Amil? Thus far I'm not seeing how it possibly could be. So, in the meantime I have no choice but to remain Premil, even if that position is wrong, because I have not been fully convinced at this point that Amil can even work.

This just makes no sense. You said "I have no choice but to remain Premil, even if that position is wrong". What?? How does that statement make any sense?

Is this just a case where you have determined that you agree with premil just a bit more than amil and therefore you feel obligated to pick one or the other without staying neutral? If so, what is wrong with being neutral about it and approaching everything objectively rather than with premil bias if you don't yet feel like you see really strong overall evidence to support either view? It's hard to believe you when you say that you see good points in favor of each view over the other while you come across as being strongly in favor of premil and you are constantly trying to disprove amil like you're doing in this thread.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's simple. I simply believe NOSAS is Biblical. What I do not believe, not even remotely, is that anyone who has part in the first resurrection can somehow end up in the LOF instead.

Of course that is impossible if the first resurrection was the mass resurrection of all believers at Christ's second coming. But, amils obviously don't see it that way. Your basis for thinking one can't be both NOSAS and amil is based on a premil perspective and premil assumptions rather than on the amil perspective. That does not make any sense.

This might sound like a contradiction, then. It all depends, though. If coming at this from Premil, there is no contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning bodily after they had already died. But, if coming at this from Amil, there is a contradiction since the first resurrection would be meaning before they had already died.

What contradiction are you talking about? You're seeing contradictions because you're trying to force amil to be understood from a premil perspective, which isn't reasonable.

Once someone is bodily resurrected, that can't be reversed, thus why NOSAS does not conflict with Premil. But, if the first resurrection is meaning what Amils take it to mean, and if one holds the position NOSAS, this would indicate this first resurrection can be reversed after having taken part in it.

So what? Since amils believe that having part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) occurs when we become saved then how is someone losing their part in the first resurrection any different than someone losing their salvation? It's the same thing in this case. Why can't you see that?

For you to have no problem with the idea of someone losing their salvation but at the same time have a problem with someone losing their part in the first resurrection (which amil believes occurs when we're saved) simply does not make any sense at all because in each case something is being lost due to someone losing their faith and turning away from God.

It is so hard to get things across to you. I'm trying to think of other ways to spell this out to you.

How about this:

Becoming saved = spiritually having part in the first resurrection

Losing salvation = spiritually losing 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 the amil perspective. Period. I've done all I can to show you this. If you still don't get it then I give up.

 

[sovereigngrace]

But my question is why you heavily favor premil over amil despite seeing flaws in both? Nothing you said here explains that. You come across as though you are bent on proving premil right and amil wrong. You come across as though you have a premil bias despite seeing flaws with both. Why? Again, nothing you're saying here seems to answer that question.

This just makes no sense. You said "I have no choice but to remain Premil, even if that position is wrong". What?? How does that statement make any sense?

Is this just a case where you have determined that you agree with premil just a bit more than amil and therefore you feel obligated to pick one or the other without staying neutral? If so, what is wrong with being neutral about it and approaching everything objectively rather than with premil bias if you don't yet feel like you see really strong overall evidence to support either view? It's hard to believe you when you say that you see good points in favor of each view over the other while you come across as being strongly in favor of premil and you are constantly trying to disprove amil like you're doing in this thread.

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.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

Right. Despite being supposedly objective and open-minded, he goes far out of his way to try to find any excuse to not believe Amil.

He really went out of his way this time and he thought he came up with a great excuse not to be amil (due to the supposed impossibility of being both NOSAS and Amil), but once again his excuse has not turned out to be valid.

 

[DavidPT]

But my question is why you heavily favor premil over amil despite seeing flaws in both? Nothing you said here explains that. You come across as though you are bent on proving premil right and amil wrong. You come across as though you have a premil bias despite seeing flaws with both. Why? Again, nothing you're saying here seems to answer that question.

This just makes no sense. You said "I have no choice but to remain Premil, even if that position is wrong". What?? How does that statement make any sense?

But how is it my fault if I set out to try and determine if Amil will work or not, that it then turns out in some cases that it doesn't? I'm going by what Scriptures are revealing, for example, according to Revelation 20:4, there are saints that are martyred when the beast and false prophet are working together, this being before satan is even out of the pit after the thousand years. Therefore, the beast has to have already ascended out of the pit, and that satan can't be in the pit at the time either, this being before satan is loosed after the thousand years. So, will this will work with Amil? Apparently not, so how is that my fault if that is what the evidence leads me to conclude?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

But how is it my fault if I set out to try and determine if Amil will work or not, that it then turns out in some cases that it doesn't?

That's fine, but are you using the same amount of scrutiny in examining premil? It doesn't seem like it. That is my point.

I'm going by what Scriptures are revealing, for example, according to Revelation 20:4, there are saints that are martyred when the beast and false prophet are working together, this being before satan is even out of the pit after the thousand years.

I don't think you thought this one through carefully. Don't you believe that the beast and false prophet work together before Satan is bound IN the pit since you believe the beast and false prophet work together only for a short time before Christ comes and Satan is then bound in the pit?

Therefore, the beast has to have already ascended out of the pit, and that satan can't be in the pit at the time either, this being before satan is loosed after the thousand years. So, will this will work with Amil? Apparently not, so how is that my fault if that is what the evidence leads me to conclude?

This is one of the most nonsensical arguments you've ever made. Can you please try again and be more clear? I can't make any sense out of what you're saying here.

 

[DavidPT]

Of course that is impossible if the first resurrection was the mass resurrection of all believers at Christ's second coming. But, amils obviously don't see it that way. Your basis for thinking one can't be both NOSAS and amil is based on a premil perspective and premil assumptions rather than on the amil perspective. That does not make any sense.

What contradiction are you talking about? You're seeing contradictions because you're trying to force amil to be understood from a premil perspective, which isn't reasonable.

This has nothing to do with me looking at this from a Premil perspective, in this particular case anyway. The contradiction is this, per Amil and NOSAS, that contradicts Revelation 20:6. I thought Amils believed that when those that have part in the first resurrection die, they go to heaven in order to continue and finish the thousand year reign there? Doesn't NOSAS throw a monkeywrench into that idea? Can you point out anywhere in Revelation 20:6 where it even hints that not everyone who has part in the first resurrection reign with Christ a thousand years? It only stands to reason that all of them would at least finish this reign with Him. Some of them can't do that, now can they, if they fall away before they die, thus don't make it to heaven in order to continue reigning a thousand years? This assuming Amil.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This has nothing to do with me looking at this from a Premil perspective, in this particular case anyway. The contradiction is this, per Amil and NOSAS, that contradicts Revelation 20:6. I thought Amils believed that when those that have part in the first resurrection die, they go to heaven in order to continue and finish the thousand year reign there?

Sure. But, that only applies to those who keep their faith until their death and would not apply to anyone who does not keep their faith until their death.

Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. 11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

Doesn't NOSAS throw a monkeywrench into that idea?

Not whatsoever.

Can you point out anywhere in Revelation 20:6 where it even hints that not everyone who has part in the first resurrection reign with Christ a thousand years?

Does every verse contain every detail related to what the verse is talking about? Of course not. That's why we need to draw conclusions from scripture as a whole rather than isolated verses.

Allow me to show you how flawed the logic is that you're using here.

Can you point out anywhere in the following passage that says anyone who is born of God can lose their salvation?

1 John 5:4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

Nope, this passage definitely does not say that anyone who is born of God can ever get to the point of not being born of God (not saved) anymore. So, using the kind of logic you're using with Rev 20:6, we can only conclude that 1 John 5:4-5 proves that OSAS is true since it doesn't say that anyone who is born of God (saved) can ever not be born of God (not saved) anymore once they've been born of God (saved). I hope you are seeing my point because I'm honestly getting a bit tired of having to spell everything out to you.

It only stands to reason that all of them would at least finish this reign with Him. Some of them can't do that, now can they, if they fall away before they die, thus don't make it to heaven in order to continue reigning a thousand years? This assuming Amil.

Right. And how is this different than the NOSAS view that someone can be saved and have Jesus as their King and be in His kingdom now, but then at some point in the future no longer be in His kingdom and then not go to heaven when they die?

 

[DavidPT]

That's fine, but are you using the same amount of scrutiny in examining premil? It doesn't seem like it. That is my point.

I see no reason to have to do that, though. I already acknowledge that Premil has issues. I therefore am on a quest to find a position that doesn't have issues, and if I find a position such as that, I no longer need to remain Premil. If Amil is that position, I'm finding too many issues with that position thus far, therefore preventing me from finally saying after all of these years, I finally found the position with no issues I have been looking for.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I see no reason to have to do that, though. I already acknowledge that Premil has issues. I therefore am on a quest to find a position that doesn't have issues, and if I find a position such as that, I no longer need to remain Premil. If Amil is that position, I'm finding too many issues with that position thus far, therefore preventing me from finally saying after all of these years, I finally found the position with no issues I have been looking for.

I have no problem with any of that. What I don't understand is why you would identify as premil when you admit that it has a number of issues that you can't reconcile? How do you explain that? Do you feel, for some reason, that you have to be either premil or amil and that being neutral is not allowed?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Right. Despite being supposedly objective and open-minded, he goes far out of his way to try to find any excuse to not believe Amil.

He really went out of his way this time and he thought he came up with a great excuse not to be amil (due to the supposed impossibility of being both NOSAS and Amil), but once again his excuse has not turned out to be valid.

I agree. Thankfully, Amil is a broad family.

The argument does not carry any weight that i can see.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I see no reason to have to do that, though. I already acknowledge that Premil has issues. I therefore am on a quest to find a position that doesn't have issues, and if I find a position such as that, I no longer need to remain Premil. If Amil is that position, I'm finding too many issues with that position thus far, therefore preventing me from finally saying after all of these years, I finally found the position with no issues I have been looking for.

Just be transparent like the rest of us. It is obvious to all watching that you are on a mission at every turn to promote Premil and discredit Amil. You have been doing that for years on different boards. You refuse to listen to reason on this subject. Stop portraying yourself as objective and open minded. I don't believe you are.

Multiple holes have been shown in your position, the lack of corroboration has been repeatedly highlighted to you and countless climactic Scriptures have been presented to you over the years, but you refuse to budge an inch. You will not even explain your mode of hermeneutics - as it is totally fluid, depending on the subject. This changes according to each discussion.

 

[hedrick]

Let's start with B). Is anyone in that group also in group A)? Does any of the rest of the dead also have part in the first resurrection? Obviously not since that makes zero sense. The same should be true about A) in relation to B), that no one in A) has part in the resurrection in B).

Right. The people in the first resurrection are already reigning with Christ. There's nothing left to do. Look at Rev 20:5. The first group came to life. The second group hadn't come to life yet. It looks like the same thing, just at different times.

Note that the syntax in 20:3 is apparently ambiguous. In English it looks to me like only the martyrs are in the first resurrection, but some interpreters say it's all Christians. The two commentators I checked seemed to take opposite positions.

This has implications for the final judgement. In one case it include just non-Christians, in the other everyone except the martyrs. The description of the final judgement at the end of chapter 20 seems to include both saved and damned. That seems to make it more likely that the first resurrection is just martyrs.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right. The people in the first resurrection are already reigning with Christ. There's nothing left to do. Look at Rev 20:5. The first group came to life. The second group hadn't come to life yet. It looks like the same thing, just at different times.

Note that the syntax in 20:3 is apparently ambiguous. In English it looks to me like only the martyrs are in the first resurrection, but some interpreters say it's all Christians. The two commentators I checked seemed to take opposite positions.

This has implications for the final judgement. In one case it include just non-Christians, in the other everyone except the martyrs. The description of the final judgement at the end of chapter 20 seems to include both saved and damned. That seems to make it more likely that the first resurrection is just martyrs.

If the first resurrection refers to the mass resurrection of the dead in Christ that Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 that occurs at the second coming of Christ, as premil believes, then how does your particular interpretation line up with what is taught in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54?

 

[hedrick]

If the first resurrection refers to the mass resurrection of the dead in Christ that Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 that occurs at the second coming of Christ, as premil believes, then how does your particular interpretation line up with what is taught in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54?

This going to get complex. Let's look at the consequences of the two possibilities: Rev 20:5 being all Christians or a few martyrs.

In theory all Christians would allow for a match with 1 Cor 15. Rev 20:5 would match 1 Cor 15:23. 1 Cor 15:27 would then describe the final judgement at the end of Rev 20.

But I see no sign of 1000 years of tribulation on earth in the middle of 1 Cor 15. Both Jesus and the prophets see tribulation as being before the judgement, not in the middle of it.

So I think Rev 20 is most consistent with the rest of the Bible if we regard the second resurrection at the end of Rev 20 as being the traditional Biblical final judgement, basically all of 1 Cor 15. What happens in Rev 20:3 is then a special reward for the martyrs. They are with Christ immediately, and don't have to wait for the final judgement.

That would allow for the usual amillennial understanding, in which the 1000 years is a non-literal reference to the time between the 1st Cent and the final judgement, with those who are martyrs being resurrected immediately.

 

[Timtofly]

You're just trying too hard here. It does not say that everyone who has part in the first resurrection has to reign with Him for the full thousand years. You are interpreting it that way because you are premil. There's nothing there that says it has to be interpreted that way.

It is rather simple. We are priest now, they will be priest then. No one should argue over the priest part, and the when does not matter. It does not even matter in death. Why the big fuss that there will be a future reign of priest?

 

[Timtofly]

It seems to me, just in general, death can't precede life. One has to first be alive before they can be dead in any sense. When is it that you are proposing one is initially spiritually dead? Before they are even born? Before they even have the ability to fully understand the differnce between right and wrong? Take infants, for instance. Some die before they are physically born, such as through miscarriages, abortions, etc. Per your view, were they spiritually dead when they died? Some infants also die as infants after they are born. Same question---Per your view, were they spiritually dead when they died?

All are spiritually dead, yes. That is why rejection is a conscious and understood condition. So is accepting God. God does not force any to be saved against their will. Most just see the accepting side. The rejection of salvation is more viable. Can a person be saved who does not know they are lost? Can a person be saved, who does not reject God?

Can a person be totally in the dark about God and sin?