Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is simply not true as I've proven several times. I believe this is the excuse you have come up with to believe in Premil since you're not able to actually prove Premil with scripture.DavidPT said:Either Amill is Biblical, or NOSAS is Biblical. Both can't be Biblical.
Are you suggesting that you actually have answers to his questions? That would be surprising since I don't see any way you can answer those questions in a convincing way that supports Premil.Sometimes I have other things I'm focusing on and that I'm not good at trying to focus on numerous things at a time, especially in typing. You might be able to type a thousand words a minute, I can't.
You are assuming that one can't have part in the first resurrection and lose their part in the first resurrection even though you do believe that one can be saved and lose their salvation. If the Amil view of the first resurrection is correct, then that just means we who also believe NOSAS believe that losing part in the first resurrection is equivalent to losing salvation. Why is that something you can't accept as a possibility?NOSAS would indeed be irrelevant per this scenario. I fully agree. Except this is not the scenario in question. If one dies in a saved state, they can never lose their salvation ever. But, if one is initially in a saved state, then fall into a falling away state, then die while still in a falling away state, this means they lose their salvation before they even had a chance to enter heaven, thus they don't enter heaven at all, but end up among the rest of the dead who don't live again until the thousand years are finished.
The problem is the Millennium starts with a physical bodily resurrection. All on earth are eternally secure. Only a newborn who is disobedient can experience death. Those resurrected can never disobey God. It is impossible to do so.Eternal life is what Christ promises to whosoever lives and believes in Him. He tells us "they shall never die". I tell you this to remind you that there is a requirement for having eternal life, we MUST believe. This is why I don't like the definition once saved always saved, because it implies no responsibility on the part of the one who is eternally secure. But Scripture tells us we must believe, we must repent, and we must turn to Christ for salvation. And all of this by grace through faith that is not our own but the gift of God.
There is no such thing as an in-between state you present. You are either eternally secure in Christ through faith, or you are in unbelief. We don't have a little bit of eternal life, we either have it forever or we don't.
I do agree the second death is after all of humanity is bodily resurrected on the last day, at the same hour. As I've shown you already, we are bodily resurrected to life, or bodily resurrected to condemnation. Those who have part of the first resurrection of Christ in life are eternally secure through His resurrection life that is the first resurrection from the dead. They will be bodily resurrected to life everlasting, being changed physically from mortal to immortal, and corruptible to incorruptible. Those who have not part of the first resurrection through Christ in life, the rest of the dead, without having eternal life because they never believed on Christ will be bodily resurrected to condemnation. So I can see why you raise the question regarding having eternal life before we physically die.
Don't most Amills insist the first resurrection is meaning to be born again before one dies? No Amill I'm aware of is insisting one is not born again until they die first. Clearly, one is born again first, then they die after that.
And the fact Revelation 20:4 is showing dead ppl living again, thus not showing any ppl living again spiritually via a rebirth while still physically alive, how is it then reasonable to apply the first resurrection spiritually when that would mean one is not born again spiritually until they physically die first?
Either Amill is Biblical, or NOSAS is Biblical. Both can't be Biblical.
Are you suggesting that you actually have answers to his questions? That would be surprising since I don't see any way you can answer those questions in a convincing way that supports Premil.
I guess this proves both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical if Amill is Biblical, since there are those who are Amill who are in the OSAS camp, and there are those who are Amill who are in the NOSAS camp. As to Premill, there are those who are in the OSAS camp, and there are those who are who are in the NOSAS camp, except neither of these doctrines affect that position whatsoever. Per Premill, one is either already eternally saved or eternally lost before anyone ever takes part in the first resurrection. Which means one's salvation has already been determined before one is bodily resurrected, the first resurrection. Which means no one can have part in the first resurrection unless they remained saved up until the moment they died. Thus, no one has part in the first resurrection until they are bodily raised first.
NOSAS combined with Amill teaches that one can have part in the first resurrection then lose part in the first resurrection before they die. That's not what John in Revelation 20 is saying. Once one has part in the first resurrection one can't then lose part in it. That's what John in Revelation 20 is saying. Therefore, it is impossible that Amill is Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical. While it's not impossible that Premill is Biblical if NOSAS is Biblical. No contradiction whatsoever.
If there's still any doubt, then I'll just say plainly now that I believe the rest of the dead refer to the resurrection of all of the unjust dead throughout history.
Look at the Greek words in each verse. The Greek word in verse 4 translated as "lived" (or "did live") is "zaō" (Strong's G2198). That is not a word used to describe the act of rising from the dead, it's a word used to describe people who are alive and are living.
When it refers to the rest of the dead living again after the thousand years, the Greek word used is "anazao" (Strong's G326). That is a word used to describe people being revived or resurrected from the dead.
So, if Revelation 20:4 is meant to be understood as describing people being bodily resurrected, then why was the word "zao" used to describe them instead of "anazao"? That is a question that Premils struggle to answer.
But, what about any believers who die during the thousand years and/or during Satan's little season? They would not have part in the first resurrection based on the historic Premil understanding of the first resurrection. So, I disagree with you that my "counter argument doesn't really impact that position".
I don't really understand this question since I believe He will physically destroy all unbelievers when He returns (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-9, 2 Peter 3:3-13, Rev 19:17-18, Rev 20:9). And it's not like He will just be hanging out up there while giving people a chance to repent. It will all happen quickly if 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 is any indication.
NOSAS would indeed be irrelevant per this scenario. I fully agree. Except this is not the scenario in question. If one dies in a saved state, they can never lose their salvation ever. But, if one is initially in a saved state, then fall into a falling away state, then die while still in a falling away state, this means they lose their salvation before they even had a chance to enter heaven, thus they don't enter heaven at all, but end up among the rest of the dead who don't live again until the thousand years are finished.
not necessarily true. G2198 is also used for living again after being dead:
Where vs 5 the Greek word is translated "lived". ἀναζάω anazáō, an-ad-zah'-o doesn't say anything about a life time of living but implies only that the dead come to life again. Defined - to recover life (literally or figuratively):—(be a-)live
The different Greek words show a vital living person, "they lived" and reigned with Christ in time symbolized a thousand years. Where the Greek word translated "lived" shows only that the dead will recover life, or will live again, but when we read the fate of the dead we understand why the two Greek words were not the same. Because a life time of living as opposed to recovering life to stand in the GWT Judgment is not recovering to live a life time again, but recovering life to die the second death (LOF).
Do you know of any Amils on this forum who believe that it refers to the souls of believers on earth? I'd like to ask them what their understanding is of them being beheaded. Seems like a clear reference to physical martyrdom, even if it's not meant to be understood that he only saw the souls of those who were literally beheaded. Also, if they were still bodily alive on earth, why would he say that he saw their souls? That doesn't really make any sense.I think it depends on the “school of thought” of the Amil. Some Amils believe it refers to believers on earth, while others believe it refers to the souls of believers in heaven.
not In all Greek manuscripts. You’ll have to argue “king James only”.
repeating what i wrote in post #88 in case you didn’t read it:
“I think this argument here is a little more complicated, as it involves textual criticism. You would also have to argue for “king James only”. While the textus receptus has g326 in revelation 20:5, many other Greek texts do not. Instead they contain G2198.
Because of this, I don’t find the argument that vs 4 and vs 5 have different verbs for “to live again”, very convincing. And it still doesn’t answer why the alive in vs 4 are not resurrected but the ones in vs 5 are”
but let’s say the textus receptus is the true Greek manuscript, and g326 is found in revelation 20:5 and not G2198:
Of course the resurrection to “life” is different than the resurrection to “condemnation”
vs 4 is about the physically dead (righteous) living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years.
vs 5 is about the rest of physically dead(unrighteous) living after the 1,000 years to face judgement.
That leaves us with:
1.) both words for “live” in vs 4 and 5 are the same and simple refer to coming to life after being physically dead (whether for life or judgement)
Or
2.) your argument of different verbs isn’t air tight because vs 4 could also be about being made alive to live with Christ, while vs 5 is a different Greek verb to demonstrate being made alive to face judgement. Why would vs 5 use the same verb about being made alive to face judgement?
You misunderstood my point. Yes, it can be used to refer to someone who is living and is alive after previously being dead, but that is not a word used to describe the actual act of someone being resurrected (coming back to life) while anazao is a word that can refer to the actual act of someone being resurrected.not necessarily true. G2198 is also used for living again after being dead:
From Thayers:
“Meyer at the passage equivalent to be no longer dead, to recover life, be restored to life: Matthew 9:18; Acts 9:41; so of Jesus risen from the dead, Mark 16:11; Luke 24:5, 23; Acts 1:3; Acts 25:19; Romans 6:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; opposed to νεκρός, Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; ἔζησεν came to life, lived again, Romans 14:9 G L T Tr WH(opposed to ἀπέθανε); Revelation 13:14; Revelation 20:4, 5 (Rec. ἀνέζησεν)”
I believe the KJV has it right in this case. But, I have no interest in arguing over which original Greek text or which translation of the verse is correct.I think this argument here is a little more complicated, as it involves textual criticism. You would also have to argue for “king James only”. While the textus receptus has g326 in revelation 20:5, many other Greek texts do not. Instead they contain G2198.
Because of this, I don’t find the argument that vs 4 and vs 5 have different verbs for “to live again”, very convincing. And it still doesn’t answer why the alive in vs 4 are not resurrected but the ones in vs 5 are
Obviously, I'm not talking about them. Would no mortal, living unbelievers become believers during the millennium? I don't see how that makes any sense. Surely, some would become believers in that scenario.Why would believers die during the millennium, if they were resurrected/changed in the twinkling of an eye at the 2nd coming?
I'm not sure, either. Maybe some believe that and some don't. If they don't then I'm not sure what the reason would be that some believers are not changed at that point. Paul did say we will ALL be changed at that point (1 Cor 15:50-54). So, that particular argument is one to make more to dispensational Premils, I suppose.Right, you, an Amil, believe he will destroy all unbelievers at the 2nd coming. But I’m not sure or not if that is the position of the historic premil. @DavidPT has quoted Zachariah 14’s “survivors of the nations that came against Israel” in regards to unbelievers during the millennium.
I concur. But thinking out loud does it mean that those who survive the GT in mortal bodies and repopulate the earth during the millennium will not die, but live until the GWTJ?The problem is the Millennium starts with a physical bodily resurrection. All on earth are eternally secure. Only a newborn who is disobedient can experience death. Those resurrected can never disobey God. It is impossible to do so.
Do you know of any Amils on this forum who believe that it refers to the souls of believers on earth? I'd like to ask them what their understanding is of them being beheaded. Seems like a clear reference to physical martyrdom, even if it's not meant to be understood that he only saw the souls of those who were literally beheaded. Also, if they were still bodily alive on earth, why would he say that he saw their souls? That doesn't really make any sense.
Despite your struggles with typing, you still have over 7,000 posts. So, you still post a lot. So, is your struggle with typing really the only reason you haven't responded to that particular post? He asked questions that I can't even imagine that you can answer adequately at all even in person. Please don't take offense by that statement. I don't think any Premil can adequately answer those questions, so I'm not singling you out.If I had a different platform to do it in, such as in person with someone, rather than typing things out, having to try and express my thoughts in typing, I could address a lot of these questions and provide answers for them. I'm not suggesting anyone might find my answers convincing, but at least I could adequetly explain what I'm meaning and why I am concluding what I am. It sometimes gets depressing for me because I already know how to a answer a lot of these questions, except to do that is a bit overwhelming for me when I have to do it in typing. It's not just that I'm a slow typer compared to some of the rest of you, I'm old school, even after all of these years of being on the internet, and that we never expressed our thoughts in typing like that at the time. We always did that in person face to face. Meaning after my years in high school when I then started taking an interest in the Bible rather than continuing to have an interest in drugs.
I can express what I'm meaning, way better like that, than I can by having to type out what I'm trying to express. Before I got in high school I was pretty much on the honor roll at school, which means I got decent grades. But then when I entered high school, I started experimenting with drugs, thus couldn't care less about much of anything other than getting high. But I did manage to get good grades in Algebra since I liked things that challenge the mind.
Maybe that's why I like what we discuss a lot, since I see it challenging to the mind?
But, since I literally hated my English teacher for various personal reasons, for one he lived across the street where I did and he didn't seem to like our dog, always complaining about her, and the fact I was high as a kite all the way through high school, English was the subject I got the worst grades in, meaning a class having to do with verbs, nouns, adverbs, so on and so on. I just didn't care to pay attention in his class, so I mainly didn't. I basically spaced out and drew pictures since I liked drawing things back then. This would have been in the early to mid 70s.
Why can't they be? I'm not really seeing your point here.It makes sense if Premill is the correct posistion, if those who John initially sees in Revelation 20:4 in a disembodied state are in that state because they have been bodily martyred, but it doesn't make sense that they are still in a disembodied state when they are seen living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Why would they still need to be in a disembodied state at that point?
Obviously.Even most Premils agree the souls of the saved enter heaven and are in a disembodied state until they are bodily resurrected.
That does not include me. When you're talking to me I'd prefer you to make comments that relate to my particular beliefs if you don't mind. Your thoughts on what others believe, including other Amils, is not something that interests me very much.Some Amills, which might or might not include you, give the impression, if one disagrees with, to live and reign with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state, this is to then somehow deny that saints go to heaven and live with Christ while in a disembodied state.
I have addressed this with you several times before. Have you forgotten that? Do you understand that we are kings and priests of God and Christ now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9)? Does that require us to literally sit on thrones?No one is denying that. What some of us are denying is this. Going to heaven then resting there while waiting to be bodily raised does not equal going to heaven to reign there on thrones as kings and being priests of God and Christ while waiting to be bodily raised.
None of that is wrong. I'm frankly surprised that you got it right since it seems like you forget a lot of things that I tell you about what I believe.Your doctrine seems to be saying this in regard to the first resurrection. The first resurrection does not initially lead to a bodily immortal state, it initially leads to a disembodied state followed later by a bodily immortal state.
Would any of the following be wrong concerning your doctrine? A person is born. Eventually this same person is saved, thus they now have part in the first resurrection, spiritually. Thus, they are living and reigning with Christ a thousand years while they are still physically alive. And then this person dies for whatever reason. Which means they are now in heaven in a disembodied state, therefore, them reigning with Christ a thousand years has transitioned from them physically reigning with Him, meaning while they were still alive, to that of them now reigning with Him a thousand years in a disembodied state, a spiritual state.
Yeah, I guess that's accurate, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.When we break all of that down it might look like this.
When one is reigning with Christ physically, meaning while they are still physically alive, they are doing that spiritually since Christ isn't physically present at the time. But when one dies, the roles are somewhat reversed. Instead of the former, now this person is reigning in the presense of a bodily present Christ, since Christ is obviously boldily in heaven, except this one is not in a bodily state as well, but is in a disembodied state, a spiritual state, though the former, per this scenario, is showing that, one is in a bodily state when reigning with Christ, not a spiritual state, and that it is Christ that is in a spiritual state to them, since He isn't bodily present at the time.
Despite your struggles with typing, you still have over 7,000 posts. So, you still post a lot. So, is your struggle with typing really the only reason you haven't responded to that particular post? He asked questions that I can't even imagine that you can answer adequately at all even in person. Please don't take offense by that statement. I don't think any Premil can adequately answer those questions, so I'm not singling you out.
You misunderstood my point. Yes, it can be used to refer to someone who is living and is alive after previously being dead, but that is not a word used to describe the actual act of someone being resurrected (coming back to life) while anazao is a word that can refer to the actual act of someone being resurrected.
I believe the KJV has it right in this case. But, I have no interest in arguing over which original Greek text or which translation of the verse is correct.
Would no mortal, living unbelievers become believers during the millennium? I don't see how that makes any sense. Surely, some would become believers in that scenario
I'm not sure, either. Maybe some believe that and some don't. If they don't then I'm not sure what the reason would be that some believers are not changed at that point. Paul did say we will ALL be changed at that point (1 Cor 15:50-54). So, that particular argument is one to make more to dispensational Premils, I suppose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?