Is NOSAS compatible with Amil?

[BABerean2]

I will have you on ignore also from now onward, because clearly, you are not here to peacefully exchange views with those who disagree with you, but wish to create disharmony (and your post above shows that to be the case, since it was not you who I had been interacting with).

It is my understanding that this forum is open to the comments of all members.

If you want only a conversation between two people, you are on the wrong forum.

Disagreement is not necessarily disharmony.
Paul had to correct Peter in the Book of Galatians.
It is a part of the process of our faith.
The Word of God must be the ultimate standard to which all of us are accountable.

I am amazed at how much I have learned from others on this forum. Sometimes that came from those who did not agree with me.


1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

More questions asking me to state the obvious after I already explained it to you. The tone of your posts have been insulting too. It leads me to believe that there is something wrong with they way you understand the gospel.

One death. One resurrection from death.
Adam's death = mankind's death. Adam's death came to all mankind.
The last Adam's resurrection from the dead = mankind's resurrection from the dead. The resurrection of the last Adam from the dead comes to all mankind. Christ is The Resurrection and the Life.

The 2nd death kicks in after the resurrection of the rest of mankind who had not died in Christ, those who names are not found in the lamb's Book of Life.

The 2nd death will have (future tense) no power of those who died in Christ, so they are already safe in Christ's hands. So in that sense, the 2nd death has no power over them already - but the 2nd death has not kicked in yet.

Your questions, as well as your complaints and protests about my posts when I answer your questions, are becoming beyond bizarre, because first you repeatedly ask me to state the obvious when I've already stated what I have again stated above, then you complain that I state the obvious.

I said that a simple yes or no would suffice but you like to watch yourself type, I guess, so that's too much to ask from you. You did say here that in a sense "the 2nd death has no power over them already". So, with that in mind, why can't it be that they have already had part in the first resurrection? Clearly, if the 2nd death already has no power over the dead in Christ, then their bodily resurrection is not necessary in order to say that the second death has no power over them. Their future bodily resurrection is already guaranteed.

I have you on ignore from now onward because of the insulting tone of your posts, in which you post from a position of doctrinal authority (yet your questions and statements betray the fact that you don't understand the most basic tenets of Christianity. If you did, then you will understand that the 2nd death will have [future tense] no power over those who have already died in Christ, and you would have stopped asking the same ridiculous question over and over) - and then you become insulting in your posts on top of that. So because of this I have you on ignore from now onward.

I have no interest in continuing to discuss things with someone who can't recognize his own insulting style of communication and who tries to claim that I "don't understand the most basic tenets of Christianity". And that's not supposed to be insulting? I have no interest in discussing anything with you any longer, either. It's a complete waste of time.

 

[BABerean2]

If an Amil were to do the exact same things you feel Fullness of the Gentiles has or has not done, would what I quoted above by you equally apply to them as well, or do things like that only apply to Premils, regardless that both Premils and Amils might do things like what you feel Fullness of the Gentiles has or has not done, in particular, what I have underlined above?

That underlined statement applies equally to all of us.
I do not claim to be perfect.

I also have my moments of weakness, in the flesh.
I will have to apologize to you for all of those, if you will accept my apology.

I love you, Brother.

.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Then you miss the whole point about 2 deaths. You seem to be a a nihilist and only one death, without resurrection at all. When a human dies, that is it. They immediately go to eternal life or eternal death. I think the church as a whole would condemn that as a heresy.

That is not at all what he or anyone else here is saying. Nothing he said would indicate that he doesn't believe in the resurrection of the dead. He clearly does and no one else here would say that he doesn't besides you. This is slander. You are lying in order to try to make someone look bad. Why? Are you so unable to back up your own view that you have to resort to blatantly misrepresenting other's views in order to try to make yours look better?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What exactly does it mean to be 100% futurist anyway? Provide some examples. For example, if I read something in any of the 4 gospel accounts, and conclude that some of those things have already been fulfilled, in what way does that make me a 100% futurist?

I'm talking in terms of how you interpret Bible prophecy in particular. Please tell me what part of the book of Revelation that you believe has an ongoing fulfillment during the New Testament era or that has already been fulfilled.

Though you have yet to adopt this position, wouldn't this mean this 42 months and the thousand years are one and the same?

That is correct.

Wouldn't this also mean the beast has to have already ascended out of the pit where you place the beginning of the thousand years, the fact it is unreasonable that there can even be this 42 months in question unless the beast ascends out of the pit first?

No. I already talked about this in the other post I made in response to you today, but you need to show that the beast ascending from the sea is the same as the beast ascending from the pit. Can you do that? Please tell me why it talks about the beast ascending from the sea in Revelation 13 instead of from the pit? In Revelation 11 it has the beast ascending from the pit AFTER the 42 months/1260 days, not before. Please explain how you can reconcile that with your view.

You have claimed in other posts that I'm usually not logical whatsoever about things, and that I only think I am. And here you are proposing things such as I what I have quoted above, while at the same time implying it is never you also that is not being logical about things at times, it's only me that is.

You try to insist that amils need to be futurists like you, so you are trying to insist that the 42 months can only refer to a future time. No, that is not the case. That is your assumption as a literalist and a futurist.

IMO, this 42 months in question is key in determining whether Premil or Amil is the correct position.

I agree, but I would also say it's not quite that simple. Determining whether premil or amil is correct requires the understanding of ALL scripture as it relates to the topics we discuss and not just the book of Revelation.

This 42 months obviously can't parallel the thousand years.

Why not? That is your assumption based on a futurist and literalist mindset. Don't try to tell someone like me who is not a literalist or futurist when the 42 months can or cannot occur.

That obviously means it either has to precede the thousand years or it has to follow the thousand years.

In your mind maybe, but not mine.

If it can be undeniably shown to follow the thousand years, that would undeniably prove Amil, debate is over. Thus far no one has remotely undeniably shown that to be the case.

That's true, but I'm not even saying that. I'm saying it's the same as the thousand years. I believe all of the time periods in Revelation are figurative. You believe they are all literal (except maybe Rev 17:12?). It's no wonder that we disagree in our interpretations.

 

[Zao is life]

While I do tend to still think there are a few things that appear to fit Amil better than it does Premil, how does any of what you submitted here appear to fit Amil better than Premil as well? It doesn't, not even remotely, and everything you have submitted here agrees 100% with the texts involved. I don't know why Amils are in denial of that? Even if they still don't want to agree, at least admit that the beast has to ascend out of the pit before there can ever be these 42 months, and that this 42 months also has to involve the false prophet, and that the false prophet obviously has to be alive and well in the end of this age in order to be cast alive into the LOF. If this false prophet is a human being, the false prophet can't be someone that was already around and alive 2000 years ago. It would have to be someone born in the last century at least. If the false prophet is not a human being, where did it come from, then? It is never said to have ascended out of the pit as well.

If it weren't for the mention of

(a) Souls who had been beheaded for refusal to worship that beast living and reigning with Christ for a thousand years; and
(b) Satan being bound and thrown into the abyss and not being able to deceive the nations until these thousand years have expired; and
(c) The mention of Satan going out to deceive the nations after being released again, and that final Gog-Magog rebellion being destroyed by fire coming down from God out of heaven and destroying them,

then it would be the easiest thing in the world to believe that when Christ returns, the earth and all its works will be burned up and a new heavens and new earth will rise up in its place. I would believe it because then that's what the scriptures would be saying.

By the way, Revelation 20 isn't the only writing that speaks of this thousand years. The extra-Biblical epistle of Barnabus and book of Enoch speak of it too. When all evidence is weighed, It was clearly not a new idea in John's day. Nevertheless I only believe it because it's in the Biblical Canon. If it weren't supposed to be in the Biblical Canon, it wouldn't be there. It cannot be explained away by a theory that makes everything spiritual and symbolic, because such a theory comes up against the very facts which we have mentioned over and over. Either the text must be believed in regard to what it's plainly saying, or disbelieved and explained away using a theory that does not work.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Then you miss the whole point about 2 deaths. You seem to be a a nihilist and only one death, without resurrection at all. When a human dies, that is it. They immediately go to eternal life or eternal death. I think the church as a whole would condemn that as a heresy.

If you claim there is no distinction between the two deaths, then you can not have a distinction between what those deaths represent. Then you interpret all scripture with that mind set. You cannot deny a resurrection, so you pretend to agree with other amil, while privately not accepting resurrection.

The soul is who you are. John has to present it that way. You just deny the literal state of those already resurrected with Christ in Paradise. Since Jesus now has a physical body and not just declared a soul, why would those in Paradise be without a body? You would have to prove that Jesus does not have a body, no?

Once again, you misrepresent Amil. You cannot resist. I have never engaged with a Premil as ignorant of Amil. Please listen and you will learn.

 

[DavidPT]

Clearly, if the 2nd death already has no power over the dead in Christ, then their bodily resurrection is not necessary in order to say that the second death has no power over them. Their future bodily resurrection is already guaranteed.

Assuming Amil, and assuming NOSAS, how can NOSAS not cause a conflict with those having part in the resurrection? How can some of them instead end up having part in the LOF, regardless that the text indicates they dont, the fact the 2nd death has no power over them? Why don't you feel that every single one of them, their bodily resurrection is also guaranteed if they have part in the first resurrection?

Revelation 20:6 is not about someone that had part in the first resurrection, then somehow loses part in it, it is about those that have part in the first resurrection, period. Even though I agree NOSAS is Biblical, this does not contradict Revelation 20:6 in any way whatsoever if the first resurrection is being understood like Premils are understanding it. If someone dies still in Christ when they die, this, like you pointed out, guarantees their future bodily resurrection, therefore, everyone mentioned in Revelation 20:6, they have all physically died, and when they died they were still in Christ when they died, thus none of them ever fell away. But, per Amil and NOSAS, some of them in Revelation 20:6 can still fall away before they die because the first resurrection is being applied to the living before they die, and not to the dead after they had died the first death, physical death.

 

[DavidPT]

If it weren't for the mention of

(a) Souls who had been beheaded for refusal to worship that beast living and reigning with Christ for a thousand years; and
(b) Satan being bound and thrown into the abyss and not being able to deceive the nations until these thousand years have expired; and
(c) The mention of Satan going out to deceive the nations after being released again, and that final Gog-Magog rebellion being destroyed by fire coming down from God out of heaven and destroying them,

then it would be the easiest thing in the world to believe that when Christ returns, the earth and all its works will be burned up and a new heavens and new earth will rise up in its place. I would believe it because then that's what the scriptures would be saying.

By the way, Revelation 20 isn't the only writing that speaks of this thousand years. The extra-Biblical epistle of Barnabus and book of Enoch speak of it too. When all evidence is weighed, It was clearly not a new idea in John's day. Nevertheless I only believe it because it's in the Biblical Canon. If it weren't supposed to be in the Biblical Canon, it wouldn't be there. It cannot be explained away by a theory that makes everything spiritual and symbolic, because such a theory comes up against the very facts which we have mentioned over and over. Either the text must be believed in regard to what it's plainly saying, or disbelieved and explained away using a theory that does not work.

I'm not certain what to make of the book of Enoch myself, but what if Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 was basing that on what is recorded in ch 35 in the book of Enoch? What then? Would Amils, and even some Premils, still be insisting that 2 Peter 3:8 simply means God is outside of time, and not that it means to God, one day is an era of time consisting of a literal thousand years? And in the event someone brings it up, I'm already fully aware that there is also Psalms 90:4 to consider, and that Peter may have been forming his conclusions from there instead? But what if it were both, what then?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Assuming Amil, and assuming NOSAS, how can NOSAS not cause a conflict with those having part in the resurrection? How can some of them instead end up having part in the LOF, regardless that the text indicates they dont, the fact the 2nd death has no power over them? Why don't you feel that every single one of them, their bodily resurrection is also guaranteed if they have part in the first resurrection?

I've already answered this question several times in this thread. So, why are you asking it again? I can only conclude that either you never read anything I say or you never understand anything I say, so why should I say yet again what I've already said several times? Please go back and read what I've already said several times in regards to the topic of this thread. If you don't understand what I've already said several times before then you're not going to understand if I answer it yet again.

Revelation 20:6 is not about someone that had part in the first resurrection, then somehow loses part in it, it is about those that have part in the first resurrection, period. Even though I agree NOSAS is Biblical, this does not contradict Revelation 20:6 in any way whatsoever if the first resurrection is being understood like Premils are understanding it.

Congratulations.

If someone dies still in Christ when they die, this, like you pointed out, guarantees their future bodily resurrection, therefore, everyone mentioned in Revelation 20:6, they have all physically died, and when they died they were still in Christ when they died, thus none of them ever fell away.

Right. So? It is you, as a premil, who assumes they can't have part in the first resurrection until after they die. Amil does not believe that.

But, per Amil and NOSAS, some of them in Revelation 20:6 can still fall away before they die because the first resurrection is being applied to the living before they die, and not to the dead after they had died the first death, physical death.

Uh huh. So? How is that different than NOSAS? As I have told you probably at least 10 times before, I believe having part in the first resurrection occurs when someone is saved. So, can you please answer the following question. If someone can lose their salvation then why can't they also lose their part in the first resurrection is having part in the first resurrection occurs when someone is initially saved?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not certain what to make of the book of Enoch myself, but what if Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 was basing that on what is recorded in ch 35 in the book of Enoch? What then? Would Amils, and even some Premils, still be insisting that 2 Peter 3:8 simply means God is outside of time, and not that it means to God, one day is an era of time consisting of a literal thousand years? And in the event someone brings it up, I'm already fully aware that there is also Psalms 90:4 to consider, and that Peter may have been forming his conclusions from there instead? But what if it were both, what then?

Does God exist in the realm of time and space? He clearly doesn't, right? So, explain to me how it can even be possible that one day would be equal to exactly one thousand years to God? That is impossible if He exists outside of the realm of time and space, which He does because He created time and space.

Since God is not confined to the realm of time then it can be said that one day is like 2000 years, 6000 years, a million years, a zillion years or any amount of years to God because time does not affect God at all since He is outside the realm of time and space.

 

[Timtofly]

That is not at all what he or anyone else here is saying. Nothing he said would indicate that he doesn't believe in the resurrection of the dead. He clearly does and no one else here would say that he doesn't besides you. This is slander. You are lying in order to try to make someone look bad. Why? Are you so unable to back up your own view that you have to resort to blatantly misrepresenting other's views in order to try to make yours look better?

I honestly have no clue what he believes. If the second coming is the end, and those in Paradise are already in their eternal state, what is the point? Take what I say or leave it. If you think I am here to look great, that is slander.

 

[sovereigngrace]

That is not at all what he or anyone else here is saying. Nothing he said would indicate that he doesn't believe in the resurrection of the dead. He clearly does and no one else here would say that he doesn't besides you. This is slander. You are lying in order to try to make someone look bad. Why? Are you so unable to back up your own view that you have to resort to blatantly misrepresenting other's views in order to try to make yours look better?

Every post he writes is like that. It is a testimony that he has nothing on Amil. Therefore he must invent alien beliefs and attribute them to Amil in a futile attempt to discredit it. I don't know how he is not convicted of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DavidPT]

Right. So? It is you, as a premil, who assumes they can't have part in the first resurrection until after they die. Amil does not believe that.

There would be zero problem with this per Amil if NOSAS was not Biblical. It wouldnt matter then, since OSAS would not be contradicting this, but NOSAS would be if NOSAS is Biblical. Until I got more familiar with your view concerning Revelation 20:6, before that I couldn't imagine one single person, regardless whether they are Premil or Amil, that would think anyone that has part in the first resurrection can then somehow lose part in the first resurrection after having part in it. And since you are obviously not the only Amil on the planet that is also in the NOSAS camp, this apparently means every other Amil who are also in the NOSAS camp, they interpret Revelation 20:6 the same as you do. But if some of them don't, yet are in the NOSAS camp, and if they think no one in Revelation 20:6 can ever lose part in the first resurrection, who exactly would it be that they are proposing can lose their salvation, then?


While it's on my mind. 1+1=2, correct? We all agree with that, right? The reason I bring that up is not to insult anyone with the already obvious, but has to do with the following.

The 2nd death. This implies a first death, right? If according to some there is spiritual death and physical death, that already adds up to 2 deaths right there. Does that then mean the physical death we die in this age is meaning the 2nd death? No, correct?

But, if we have spiritual death followed by physical death, shouldn't that mean the 2nd death should be called the 3rd death rather than the 2nd death? Doesn't this at least prove, that in Genesis 2 when God said in the day you eat of the forbidden tree, you shall surely die, that this was not meaning spiritual death but was meaning physical death? This is where 2 Peter 3:8 might help us out here, the fact Adam, nor anyone for that matter, has ever lived an entire thousand years. You likely only see that as a coincidence, and not that it is actually connected with 2 Peter 3:8 in any way.


1(spiritual death)+1(physical death)+1(2nd death) does not equal 2, it equals 3, since that is what 1+1+1 equals. Only 1(physical death)+1(2nd death) equals 2, since that is what 1+1 equals.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not certain what to make of the book of Enoch myself, but what if Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 was basing that on what is recorded in ch 35 in the book of Enoch? What then? Would Amils, and even some Premils, still be insisting that 2 Peter 3:8 simply means God is outside of time, and not that it means to God, one day is an era of time consisting of a literal thousand years? And in the event someone brings it up, I'm already fully aware that there is also Psalms 90:4 to consider, and that Peter may have been forming his conclusions from there instead? But what if it were both, what then?

I also find the book of Enoch "odd" in parts.

I don't believe in the absolute validity of non-Canonical books. My point is only that since ancient books mention the idea, it isn't a new idea that crept in unawares into the church. The Epistle of Barnabas was written between AD 70 and 132. The complete text is preserved in the 4th-century "Codex Sinaiticus". For several centuries it was one of the "antilegomena" writings, which some Christians looked on as sacred scripture, while others excluded them. Eusebius of Caesarea classified it as sacred.

The epistle of Barnabas, chapter 13, mentioning one day is as a thousand years to the LORD:

-------------------------------------------------------------​

That the sabbath of the Jews was but a figure of a more glorious sabbath to come, and their temple, of the spiritual temples of God.

1 FURTHERMORE it is written concerning the sabbath, in the Ten Commandments, which God spake in the Mount Sinai to Moses, face to face; Sanctify the sabbath of the Lord with pure hands, and with a clean heart. 2 And elsewhere he saith; If thy children shall keep my sabbaths, then will I put my mercy upon them. 3 And even in the beginning of the creation he makes mention of the sabbath. And God made in six days the works of his hands; and he finished them on the seventh day, and he rested the seventh day, and sanctified it.

4 Consider, my children, what that signifies, he finished them in six days. The meaning of it is this; that in six thousand years the Lord God will bring all things to an end.

5 For with him one day is a thousand years; as himself testifieth, saying, Behold this day shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be accomplished.

6 And what is that he saith, And he rested the seventh day: he meaneth this; that when his Son shall come, and abolish the season of the Wicked One, and judge the ungodly; and shall change the sun and the moon, and the stars; then he shall gloriously rest in that seventh day.

7 He adds lastly; Thou shalt sanctify it with clean hands and a pure heart. Wherefore we are greatly deceived if we imagine that any one can now sanctify that day which God has made holy, without having a heart pure in all things. 8 Behold therefore he will then truly sanctify it with blessed rest, when we (having received the righteous promise, when iniquity shall be no more, all things being renewed by the Lord) shall be able to sanctify it, being ourselves first made holy.

--------------------------------------------------​

The above could be confirmation of Premil, but it could also be confirmation of Amil (it's not 100% clear).

As I said, though, for me the point is the fact that the idea of a thousand years being to the LORD as one day once again pops up in the epsitle of Barnabas, just as it does in 2 Peter 3:8, but Barnabas actually takes it further and links it to a 6,000 year period which he calls "the season of the wicked one" and states that it will be followed by a sabbath. So these ideas are not new, as Amils of the 21st century like to claim.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not certain what to make of the book of Enoch myself, but what if Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 was basing that on what is recorded in ch 35 in the book of Enoch? What then? Would Amils, and even some Premils, still be insisting that 2 Peter 3:8 simply means God is outside of time, and not that it means to God, one day is an era of time consisting of a literal thousand years? And in the event someone brings it up, I'm already fully aware that there is also Psalms 90:4 to consider, and that Peter may have been forming his conclusions from there instead? But what if it were both, what then?

Extract from the book of Enoch regarding the binding of angels until the judgment:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

10.11 And the Lord said to Michael: "Go, inform Semyaza, and the others with him, who have associated with the women to corrupt themselves with them, in all their uncleanness.

10.12 When all their sons kill each other, and when they see the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them for seventy generations, under the hills of the Earth, until the day of their judgement, and of their consummation, until the Judgement, which is for all eternity, is accomplished.

10.13 And in those days, they will lead them to the Abyss of Fire; in torment, and in prison they will be shut up for all eternity. 10.14 And then Semyaza will be burnt, and from then on, destroyed with them; together they will be bound until the end of all generations.10.15 And destroy all the souls of lust, and the sons of the Watchers, for they have wronged men.

----------------------------------------------
​

The above appears in the book of Enoch in the context of speaking about angels impregnating human woman, the giants that were born from these unions, and the coming judgment of all flesh (the flood).

2 Peter 2:4
"For God did not spare the angels who sinned, but thrust them down into Tartarus, and delivered them into chains of darkness, being reserved to judgment."

Since none of what Peter said above or what Jude said in Jude 1:6 is recorded in the Old Testament, it's clear that both Peter and Jude got this info from other sources, or another source. We have at least one such source - the book of Enoch, which clearly talks about something that occurred in a time that was ancient to Peter's day and Jude's day; and both Peter and Jude write about this in the context of talking about things that took place in a time that was ancient to their own day.

Yet, when you point this out to Amils, they treat you as though what you say makes no difference, and remain determined, through sheer conjecture and ignoring the context of Peter and Jude's references to these angels, to use these verses as "proof" that both Satan and his angels were bound up and placed in the pit at the time of Calvary.

They must do this, because Revelation 20 states clearly that Satan will be bound for a thousand years, and the souls who had been beheaded through refusal to worship the beast, will reign a thousand years.

So all in all, the very fact that there are extra-Biblical writings which were considered sacred by many early Christians which speak about these same things, is something to bear in mind, IMO - no matter how strange the things recorded in the book of Enoch appear to us.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There would be zero problem with this per Amil if NOSAS was not Biblical. It wouldnt matter then, since OSAS would not be contradicting this, but NOSAS would be if NOSAS is Biblical. Until I got more familiar with your view concerning Revelation 20:6, before that I couldn't imagine one single person, regardless whether they are Premil or Amil, that would think anyone that has part in the first resurrection can then somehow lose part in the first resurrection after having part in it. And since you are obviously not the only Amil on the planet that is also in the NOSAS camp, this apparently means every other Amil who are also in the NOSAS camp, they interpret Revelation 20:6 the same as you do. But if some of them don't, yet are in the NOSAS camp, and if they think no one in Revelation 20:6 can ever lose part in the first resurrection, who exactly would it be that they are proposing can lose their salvation, then?

You are asking me to try to speak for other Amils? I don't have any desire to do that. You waste so much time with nonsense like this. I'm tired of it.

While it's on my mind. 1+1=2, correct? We all agree with that, right? The reason I bring that up is not to insult anyone with the already obvious, but has to do with the following.

The 2nd death. This implies a first death, right? If according to some there is spiritual death and physical death, that already adds up to 2 deaths right there. Does that then mean the physical death we die in this age is meaning the 2nd death? No, correct?

But, if we have spiritual death followed by physical death, shouldn't that mean the 2nd death should be called the 3rd death rather than the 2nd death? Doesn't this at least prove, that in Genesis 2 when God said in the day you eat of the forbidden tree, you shall surely die, that this was not meaning spiritual death but was meaning physical death? This is where 2 Peter 3:8 might help us out here, the fact Adam, nor anyone for that matter, has ever lived an entire thousand years. You likely only see that as a coincidence, and not that it is actually connected with 2 Peter 3:8 in any way.


1(spiritual death)+1(physical death)+1(2nd death) does not equal 2, it equals 3, since that is what 1+1+1 equals. Only 1(physical death)+1(2nd death) equals 2, since that is what 1+1 equals.

LOL. Now, you're talking about a third death and a bunch more nonsense. Why do you do this? I have no interest in taking part in ridiculous discussions like this.

 

[Zao is life]

There would be zero problem with this per Amil if NOSAS was not Biblical. It wouldnt matter then, since OSAS would not be contradicting this, but NOSAS would be if NOSAS is Biblical.

So true, and it's such a simple and logical question. If someone believes in NOSAS and is Amil, yet believes those in Revelation 20:6 are those who have been 'spiritually' resurrected, and that not one of them can ever lose their part in the first resurrection (because the 2nd death has no power over them), who exactly would it be that NOSAS Amils are proposing can lose their salvation, then?

The 2nd death. This implies a first death, right? If according to some there is spiritual death and physical death, that already adds up to 2 deaths right there. Does that then mean the physical death we die in this age is meaning the 2nd death? But, if we have spiritual death followed by physical death, shouldn't that mean the 2nd death should be called the 3rd death rather than the 2nd death?

Once again, your post and question makes total sense and is the friend of logic and truth.

 

[Davy]

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.

Because NOSAS is what God's Word teaches has no bearing on why His Word also teaches a Premill return of Christ Jesus with the millennium beginning at His return. The Amill position is actually impossible for one who sticks to the written Word of God.

 

[BABerean2]

The Amill position is actually impossible for one who sticks to the written Word of God.

Really?

Revelation 20: Does your interpretation agree with all other scripture?

(Chronological or Recapitulation?) (Literal vs. Figurative?)

Based on the following scripture, will immortals and mortals both live on earth for 1,000 years after the Second Coming of Christ? Will there be renewed animal sacrifices in earthly Jerusalem for 1,000 years after the Second Coming of Christ? Will Christ conduct funeral services for mortals killed in accidents many years after His Second Coming? Graveyards needed?


Can the following questions be examined without ridicule, and condemnation, based on the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and found fulfilled in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and Hebrews 12:18-24?


Can the number 1,000 be used in a symbolic manner? Psalm 50:10


Does an angel with a key come from heaven and open the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2? Why did the angel have to unlock the pit if it was not locked previously?
Who is the king of the angels in the bottomless pit found in Revelation 9:11?
Are some of the angels “bound” in some manner in Revelation 9:14?
If the beast comes up out of the pit in Revelation 11:7, where is the beast before then?


John sees “souls” at the beginning of Revelation chapter 20.
Are these the same “souls” found in Revelation 6:9-11?


Is the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:5 the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation? (Rev. 11:11) Are there two different types of resurrections in John chapter 5?
John 5:24 (Spiritual) ? Were you dead, and now you are alive?
John 5:27-30 Christ describes the bodily resurrection and “hour” of judgment of “all” the dead.


Who is the “strong man” who is bound in Matthew 12:26-29?
How is Satan “bound” in Revelation 20:3?


How many mortals are left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46?
Isaiah 65:17-25? Are people really dying in verse 20? Context, Context, Context…


Was Paul expecting Christ to return "in flaming fire", taking vengeance on those who do not know God in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10? How would mortals survive this fire?
Does the fire come at the end of Revelation 20?


Did Paul expect both the living and the dead to be judged at the appearing of Christ, in 2 Timothy 4:1?
When is the judgment of the dead in Revelation 20? Is it the same judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:18?


What is the restitution of all things at the return of Christ in Acts 3:20-21?
Will Christ's sacrifice at Calvary also reverse the curse, at His return?


Does death die at the last trumpet in 1 Corinthians 15:50-55?


Why did Jesus correct the woman at the well when she said earthly Jerusalem was the place to worship? See John 4:20-24.
Why did Paul say the Jerusalem above is our “mother” in Galatians 4:24-31?
What is the inheritance of the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?


Is the third temple found in 1 Peter 2:4-10? Is this temple just as real as a temple made of earthly stones?


What was Peter expecting on the day of the Lord when He comes as a thief in 2 Peter 3:10-13?


Do we find the judgment of both the living and the dead at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, in Revelation 11:15-18? Why do most preachers ignore the time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some, and destruction for others in Revelation 11:18? What does it prove about the chronology of the Book of Revelation?


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Is there a correlation between Revelation 20 and earlier passages in the Book of Revelation?

Is Revelation chapter 20 another example of “Recapitulation”?



Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.


Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Rev_18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.


Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Judgment Before the Great White Throne.

Rev_19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.


Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A discussion of the three different Millennial Viewpoints on YouTube:



“An Evening of Eschatology – Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism”


Doctors Jim Hamilton, Sam Storms, Doug Wilson

.