The only way Amil can remotely be Biblical is if NOSAS isn't Biblical.

[Keraz]

The prophets were not literally the only ones who believed what they did. So, don't compare yourself to a prophet. You are not a prophet. You are someone who makes scripture say what you want it to say and has delusions that you are someone who God decided to reveal the truth to and no one else, which is a complete joke.

The Prophets were mostly persecuted and reviled and often killed.
I make no claim and never have; to be any kind of Prophet. My task is to promote what the Prophets have told us.
You disagree with them, to your disgrace.

The Revealed Truth is plainly Written for all to read in the Bible.
When I read how the Lord Jesus will Return and then to reign for the next thousand years, then that is my belief and I oppose anyone who has fanciful ideas of going to heaven, or of the End happening at the Return. Those false beliefs are no joke, as those who teach and promote such error, will be more severely judged.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

When taken literally, the above passage says that all of the dead who belong to Christ will be resurrected at the same time at His return. Which you deny. Which is a joke.

1 Cor 15:22 does NOT say 'all'. Revelation 20:4-5 clearly states that only the GT martyrs will be resurrected when Jesus Returns.
Please acknowledge the truth of what is actually Written, or leave the Forum to those who promote the real truths of Prophecy.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Prophets were mostly persecuted and reviled and often killed.
I make no claim and never have; to be any kind of Prophet.

So, stop comparing yourself to them then.

My task is to promote what the Prophets have told us.

You are failing at that task.

You disagree with them, to your disgrace.

No, I disagree with you. You disagree with them, but not on purpose. You're just ignorant.

The Revealed Truth is plainly Written for all to read in the Bible.

I agree. And you're still missing it.

When I read how the Lord Jesus will Return and then to reign for the next thousand years, then that is my belief and I oppose anyone who has fanciful ideas of going to heaven, or of the End happening at the Return. Those false beliefs are no joke, as those who teach and promote such error, will be more severely judged.

In your dreams. You're wrong about Amil and you will find out. We agree that the pretrib rapture theory is false.

1 Cor 15:22 does NOT say 'all'.

LOL. You make scripture say what you want it to say. That's obvious to everyone.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It does say "all" That is a fact. You deny facts to your shame.

Revelation 20:4-5 clearly states that only the GT martyrs will be resurrected when Jesus Returns.

You think it clearly states that, but that interpretation contradicts other scripture which you couldn't care less about. You change the rest of scripture to say what you want it to say to make it line up with your interpretation of Revelation 20:4-5.

Please acknowledge the truth of what is actually Written, or leave the Forum to those who promote the real truths of Prophecy.

LOL. I say the same to you.

You think you are the only one who promotes the real truths of prophecy, so I guess you want everyone to leave the forum so you can talk to yourself? LOL. What a joke.

 

[Keraz]

1 Corinthians 15:For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It does say "all" That is a fact. You deny facts to your shame.

1 Corinthians 15:22 does say all will be made alive, meaning to be given immortality.
That verse does not say when immortality is conferred, but we know when, from Revelation 20:11-15. AFTER the Millennium.

V 26 goes on to give us the correct sequence; First - Christ, then at His Return; those who belong to Him. That is; those who have proved their faith by staying firm unto death. As Revelation 20:4-5 indisputably tells us.

Your determination to have people receive immortality when Jesus Returns, is unbiblical and false teaching.
Your arrogant attitude and persistent promotion of wrong theories, is your shame.

I know you hate Revelation 20, it proves the foolish AMill theory wrong, but you cannot avoid actual Words of scripture and verses 4-6 are there. whether you like them or not...... All the rest of the dead must wait until the thousand years is over.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

1 Corinthians 15:25 does say all will be made alive, meaning to be given immortality.

Verse 22 you mean. You said it didn't say all and it does. Your attention to detail is very lacking, obviously.

Your arrogant attitude and persistent promotion of wrong theories, is your shame.

What a hypocritical statement. Which one of us thinks God gives the truth only to him and no one else? You or me? I'll give you a hint. It's not me.

I know you hate Revelation 20

What a lie. Do you think it helps your case to lie like this?

, it proves the foolish AMill theory wrong, but you cannot avoid actual Words of scripture and verses 4-6 are there. whether you like them or not...... All the rest of the dead must wait until the thousand years is over.

You are not interpreting what it means to have part in the first resurrection correctly. Tell me, does someone need to die and be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to have no power over them? Revelation 20:6 says the second death has no power over those who have part in the first resurrection.

 

[WPM]

I know you hate Revelation 20,

Why do you spread deliberate falsehoods when you know they are lies? Are you not convicted?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why do you spread deliberate falsehoods when you know they are lies? Are you not convicted?

He apparently has no conscience. He has a much more serious problem than believing in his false end times doctrine. He needs to learn that lying is a sin and that he needs to repent of his sin. And how funny is it for the guy who believes God reveals truth only to him to accuse me of being arrogant?

 

[WPM]

He apparently has no conscience. He has a much more serious problem than believing in his false end times doctrine. He needs to learn that lying is a sin and that he needs to repent of his sin. And how funny is it for the guy who believes God reveals truth only to him to accuse me of being arrogant?

Yes, you need the Holy Spirit to be convicted and repent. If he does, he will. If not he will not.

 

[Keraz]

Verse 22 you mean. You said it didn't say all and it does.

Correction made. 1 Cor 15:22.
You avoided my point: It does not tell us when, but Rev 29:11-15 does - AFTER the thousand years is over, the glorious time when King Jesus reigns on earth. When people will live as long as they did in the time of the Patriarchs. Isaiah 65:20
When Satan will be unable to deceive anyone. until he is released for a short time, then Satan and Death are no more..

He apparently has no conscience

The foolish and unpleasant criticisms of my posts and of me personally, are noted. We are Promised that there will come a Day of Reckoning.
My conscience is clear, as what I teach is scriptural. I also use scientific and historical facts.

 

[rwb]

Correction made. 1 Cor 15:22.
You avoided my point: It does not tell us when, but Rev 29:11-15 does - AFTER the thousand years is over, the glorious time when King Jesus reigns on earth. When people will live as long as they did in the time of the Patriarchs. Isaiah 65:20
When Satan will be unable to deceive anyone. until he is released for a short time, then Satan and Death are no more..

The foolish and unpleasant criticisms of my posts and of me personally, are noted. We are Promised that there will come a Day of Reckoning.
My conscience is clear, as what I teach is scriptural. I also use scientific and historical facts.

I realize pointing out certain things to you is pointless, because like my last reply to you in this thread you will simply ignore, just as Davidpt did. I find this a common practice of some Premillennialists. You don't answer when shown how you have NOT rightly divided Scripture, because you at least understand you would be arguing against God's Word.

Hopefully you now understand that ALL who have died shall be resurrected in the same hour coming, but only those who died in Christ shall be resurrected immortal & incorruptible, the rest resurrected for damnation. Those resurrected immortal & incorruptible resurrected to spend eternity with Christ on the new earth after this earth has been utterly burned up and made new again. And yes, this will be after this symbolic time a/the (not one) thousand years have expired. Because NONE shall be bodily resurrected immortal & incorruptible until the seventh angel sounds that this time whereby man must be saved shall be no longer!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correction made. 1 Cor 15:22.
You avoided my point:

No, I did not. Your point was that the verse doesn't say all and it does.

The foolish and unpleasant criticisms of my posts and of me personally, are noted.

Your posts contain nothing more than weak arguments. You are delusional to think otherwise.

We are Promised that there will come a Day of Reckoning.
My conscience is clear, as what I teach is scriptural. I also use scientific and historical facts.

Your conscience is clear despite lying and saying that I hate Revelation 20 even though I absolutely do not? It seems you have no conscience, so how can it be clear?

 

[Keraz]

NONE shall be bodily resurrected immortal & incorruptible until the seventh angel sounds that this time whereby man must be saved shall be no longer!

As we know from Revelation 20:11-15, the Last Trumpet call will raise all the dead for Judgment. Which will happen after the literal thousand years of the rule of King Jesus on earth.
You cannot make the thousand years, repeated six times; into anything other than an exact thousand orbits of the earth around the sun.

No, I did not. Your point was that the verse doesn't say all and it does.

I do not deny; 1 Cor 15:22 does say 'all'.
It does not say when that resurrection will take place. Rev 20:11-15 does.

Your posts contain nothing more than weak arguments. You are delusional to think otherwise.

My post, some time ago now, which adds the given time periods and proves 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, then 2000 years Abraham to Jesus, Then almost another 2000 years from Jesus to now and after Jesus Returns, His reward of reigning for the 7th 'Sabbath' period of 1000 years, is solid truth.
You have never addressed it, just offhandedly dismissed it, because it shows how wrong AMill is.

saying that I hate Revelation 20 even though I absolutely do not?

hate, is inappropriate, I withdraw that comment.
I meant that you and all Amill believers, make that Chapter mean something other than what is plainly stated. Not advisable.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I do not deny; 1 Cor 15:22 does say 'all'.

In another post you said it didn't. Did you mean some other verse?

My post, some time ago now, which adds the given time periods and proves 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, then 2000 years Abraham to Jesus, Then almost another 2000 years from Jesus to now and after Jesus Returns, His reward of reigning for the 7th 'Sabbath' period of 1000 years, is solid truth.
You have never addressed it, just offhandedly dismissed it, because it shows how wrong AMill is.

There's nothing to address. It's total nonsense. You made this doctrine up. Nowhere does scripture teach that Jesus would return in the 6,000th year of the earth's history, followed by a Sabbath period of 1000 years. That's a fact. So, what is there for me to address beyond that? And what bout Satan's little season? You just ignore that because it adds more years to your false 7,000 year theory?

hate, is inappropriate, I withdraw that comment.

Is this an apology for making that comment then?

I meant that you and all Amill believers, make that Chapter mean something other than what is plainly stated. Not advisable.

We don't do that. We interpret it in such a way that doesn't contradict other scripture like you do. Interpreting it the way you do causes you to deny what is plainly stated in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. Tell me, which passage is found within one of the most highly symbolic books in scripture? Is it 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 or Revelation 20?

 

[Keraz]

In another post you said it didn't. Did you mean some other verse?

The verse which does not say 'all', is 1 Cor 15:23.....at His coming, those who belong to Christ.
No 'all' there, because Jesus only brings the GT martyrs with Him at His Return. Rev 20:4

This truth is the downfall of AMill, as ALL the dead are not raised until the thousand years is over.

There's nothing to address. It's total nonsense.

There it is folks, AMill believers reject 47 Bible verses as of no worth or value. Let alone actual historical facts.
AMill is a crock and anyone who believes it is living in lala land.

 

[Davidpt]

Kind of lost focus for this thread though I started it. This is the first time I have been back to since I posted post #8. which was Wednesday and today is now Friday. Well almost Saturday now since it will be midnight here in about 45 minutes. This will also give you an idea how long it takes me to type up something sometimes then hit the send button. I started typing this up at 11:15 PM.

It depends on who you think "them" refers to? Do you believe Gentiles of faith are grafted into natural branches of Israel that were broken off through "unbelief"? Or are Gentiles of faith grafted into natural branches of Israel that were of the election of grace and eternally saved?

I certainly don't think it is former. I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be the former. I didn't even know that was an option. Clearly then, it would be the latter, but I have a feeling, the way you interpret the election isn't how I might interpret it.

The problem I believe you are facing David, is you deny the definition of eternal/everlasting/forever life. There is no such thing anywhere in Scripture that teaches those of saving faith according to God's grace have not already spiritually entered into the Kingdom of God in heaven through the Holy Spirit of Christ in us. And we have this assurance that when we have Christ's Spirit in us, He will be with us until we are bodily changed from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible when the last trumpet sounds and time shall be no longer.

I already said OSAS is Biblical. I'm yet to hear you say that NOSAS is also Biblical. Obviously, if someone dies having not fallen away before they died, it would be impossible for them to lose their salvation at that point, thus OSAS in their case. The same wouldn't be true of someone that is initially saved, but they fall away before they die and if they remain in a fallen away state up until death, it will be impossible that OSAS can still apply to them. The way some of you try and get around this, they were never saved to begin with because only OSAS is Biblical and NOSAS isn't.

Getting ready to send this now and I didn't even address everything I wanted to nor did I say everything I needed to. I started to address other things in your post but it started becoming too tedious because I couldn't say what I wanted to without it involving a whole lot of typing and explaining of things on my part. And it now 11:50 pm where I'm at. It didn't take me 30 minutes to type up what I did here. Some of it involved me starting to type up things and me then changing my mind because it was becoming too tedious.

 

[Davidpt]

This argument has always been and always will be total nonsense. Why can't you understand that? Haven't you noticed that every time you bring up this old, tired argument that no one agrees with you about it? This type of argument is made out of desperation. You want premil to be true, so you go out of your way to try to come up with reasons why it has to be true. Try interpreting scripture objectively for once without your extreme premil bias and see what you discover. Are you afraid to do that?

My argument proves Premil has to be true since NOSAS can't fit Revelation 20:6 if the first resurrection is being applied how Amils are applying it. You're the one arguing nonsense because you have John saying in Revelation 20:6 that some who have part in the first resurrection are not blessed and holy, and some who have part in the first resurrection the 2nd death has power over them.

Here is the text. Show me where it says any of that in the text.

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.


Show me where John ever said what you think he said. Where does it say that anyone in verse 6, that they are not blessed and holy? That the 2nd death has power over them.

Here is what your doctrine of Amil does to the text if you apply NOSAS to it.

Not everyone who has part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy, some are, some aren't: on some the second death hath no power, on others the 2nd death has power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Talk about altering the text big time. Premils don't need to do this. Premils don't have to. The fate of the dead is already determined before they rise from the dead during the first resurrection in the future.


Besides, Revelation 20 only mentions 2 resurrection events, not 3 or more. And Amil has the most important resurrection event of all, 2nd to Christ's, the bodily resurrection of the saints, missing entirely in Revelation 20 and have it replaced with a spiritual resurrection instead. Further proof that Amil can't be the correct position since it is ludicrous that John would neglect to mention the bodily resurrection of saints in Revelation 20.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Logic says that if these don't live again until, this means someone already lived again much earlier. And that no one needs to live again multiple times. A person only needs to do that one time. Jesus proved that fact since He only needed to live again one time not two times. The point I'm making here, one can't also apply verse 5 and this--did not live again until--to those that have part in the first resurrection. They don't need to live again after the thousand years. They already began living again at the beginning of the thousand years. And that they only need to live again once. One time is sufficient.

And besides, where does it ever say in verse 5 that those who have part in the first resurrection, they too don't live again until the thousand years expires? Change that verse as well, right? Why not? You already did a fine job of changing verse 6 to say what you want it to say rather than what it actually says. Why stop there, right?

 

[Douggg]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved always saved.

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.

This is the verse that destroys Amil unless NOSAS is not Biblical.

This verse does not say that those who have part in the first resurrection, some of them are blessed and holy, some of them aren't. This verse does not say that those who have part in the first resurrection, some of them the 2nd death has no power, some of them the 2nd death has power.

Throw Amil into the mix, throw NOSAS into the mix, that it is Biblical, then notice how it alters the text. Instead of there being every single person that has part in the first resurrection being blessed and holy, and the 2nd death having no power over them, exactly like the text plainly, undeniably says, now we have some not being blessed and holy, some not having the 2nd death to have no power, even though they have part in the first resurrection. IOW, the first resurrection is an absolute failure per this scenario.

Granted, there are Amils that don't believe NOSAS is Biblical. Therefore, this is not an issue so why make it an issue? For one, maybe NOSAS is Biblical, and if it is, what then? Just by pretending it is not Biblical when it really is, is not going to somehow make it unbiblical. That's not the way truth works. And for another, what about Amils that agree NOSAS is Biblical? How does that help the doctrine of Amil? How does that help make the doctrine of Amil more believable for those of us that have our doubts about that doctrine? Doesn't their view contradict Amil since the only way Amil can be Biblical to begin with is if only OSAS is Biblical and that NOSAS isn't?

Otherwise, one is adding and removing from the text, since Revelation 20:6 is not conditional. There are no 'ifs' involved in that passage. So, IOW, once one has part in the first resurrection it is then impossible to lose part in it. Amil and NOSAS teach the exact opposite of what the text plainly says, what it plainly means. And for this reason alone, the fact I'm of the NOSAS believing camp, I cannot be Amil since Amil contradicts my belief that NOSAS is Biblical.

There is no way in a million years, that anyone who has part in the first resurrection, that they can somehow lose part in it and be cast into the LOF instead, meaning they weren't blessed and holy after all, though the text plainly says they are. The 2nd death has power over them after all, even though the text plainly says it doesn't. Yet NOSAS is Biblical.

Therefore, Premil is the only position that doesn't contradict Revelation 20:6, is the only position that doesn't need to alter the text, and that NOSAS can still be Biblical. How? Simple. Unlike Amil where they apply the first resurrection every time someone gets saved, per Premil it is already decided in advance who will have part in the first resurrection when it occurs in the future. It will be involving every single person who did not fall away before they died, that they remained in a saved state all the way up unto death. Therefore, totally impossible that they can have part in the first resurrection then the next minute they cant, as Amil and NOSAS teaches.

Unfortunately, since Amil is divided into two camps, those that believe NOSAS is not Biblical, and those that believe it is, they then interpret the OP to mean that I'm trying to pit these Amils against one another when that is not what I'm doing. We have to keep in mind that I am of the NOSAS camp and that I see it as a blatant contradiction to that of what is recorded in Revelation 20:6, that both Amil and NOSAS can be Biblical. Therefore, in my case, I have a choice to make. Do I agree that Amil is Biblical but NOSAS isn't? Or do I agree that Amil is not Biblical but NOSAS is? In my case anyway, it is a no brainer. No way am I going to choose the former over the latter. Because, in my mind, both Amil and NOSAS being Biblical, this is not an option.

Hi David, I disagree with the Amil position. But I am not following the logic of your argument. Have you ever read Hebrews 6:4-6 ? It makes me think of persons who leave Christianity to say for example become a Muslim, such as Yusuf Estes (You Tube).

Anyway, this thread had taken on a lot of back and forth personal accusations and attacks, saturating the posts. So I think I will stay on the side lines for this thread.

 

[rwb]

I already said OSAS is Biblical. I'm yet to hear you say that NOSAS is also Biblical. Obviously, if someone dies having not fallen away before they died, it would be impossible for them to lose their salvation at that point, thus OSAS in their case. The same wouldn't be true of someone that is initially saved, but they fall away before they die and if they remain in a fallen away state up until death, it will be impossible that OSAS can still apply to them. The way some of you try and get around this, they were never saved to begin with because only OSAS is Biblical and NOSAS isn't.

Getting ready to send this now and I didn't even address everything I wanted to nor did I say everything I needed to. I started to address other things in your post but it started becoming too tedious because I couldn't say what I wanted to without it involving a whole lot of typing and explaining of things on my part. And it now 11:50 pm where I'm at. It didn't take me 30 minutes to type up what I did here. Some of it involved me starting to type up things and me then changing my mind because it was becoming too tedious.

You will never hear me say that man is NOT eternally secure in Christ when they have been born again!!! Because that is NOT biblical! Once again you show you have no understanding of what it is to have ETERNAL life. When we have been born again through the Spirit of Christ, the life (SPIRITUAL) we have through Him shall NEVER die! Christ will not lose any who belong to him, PERIOD!

David, as long as you continue to cling to the belief that one who has been born again through the power of the Holy Spirit can be lost again, you will forever be tossed back and forth with the doctrine of the biblical. Lacking belief in eternal security is why you cannot believe there is still life after physical death for those who have been born again. Your refusal to accept the truth of eternal security is why you cannot accept that John saying he saw souls in heaven proves believers are still alive after our body dies and are a spiritual body of Christ in heaven without human form.

Then you cling to the unbiblical belief that there will be two bodily resurrections when Christ returns, one at the beginning of one thousand years, and the other after one thousand years ends. You cling to this belief, knowing full well the Bible very clearly speaks of only ONE bodily resurrection for all that are in the graves in an hour that is coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time will be no longer. Why, can't you believe what is written? Several people posting in these forums have shown you these truths again and again over many years now, but you still refuse to believe, and then you either try to change the subject or simply ignore and forget the truths that have been shown. It's time to let go of this false belief that man is NOT eternally secure through the Spirit of Christ in them. Let the following words of Scripture sink in and open your mind and heart to believe these words are TRUTH!

Romans 8:35-39 (KJV) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

NOTHING can cause those who have been born again from possessing ETERNAL/NEVER ENDING/EVERLASTING LIFE through the power of Christ. If it appears that some who are outwardly members of the body of Christ fall away, it's not because they lost their salvation! It's because they were never born again of the Spirit of Christ who shall never leave us.

 

[Davidpt]

Hi David, I disagree with the Amil position. But I am not following the logic of your argument. Have you ever read Hebrews 6:4-6 ? It makes me think of persons who leave Christianity to say for example become a Muslim, such as Yusuf Estes (You Tube).

My argument pertains to Revelation 20:6 and what John plainly said and meant. He said everyone that has part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy, without exception. He said everyone that has part in the first resurrection, the 2nd death has no power over them, without exception. Throw in Amil here, then add to that that NOSAS is Biblical, we then end up with John lying about what he said in verse 6.

This can't can't happen per Premil. One can be Premil, and one can even be of the NOSAS believing camp, and it will NEVER change what John said and meant in verse 6. As if after someone bodily rises they can somehow end up losing part in the first resurrection eventually. That can only happen per Amil that one can lose part in the first resurrection eventually if we apply NOSAS to that verse.

Think about it, Douggg. Amil insists the first resurrection isn't bodily, that it's something spiritual having to do with being saved in the here and now. And if one applies NOSAS to that, this then means some lose part in the first resurrection, that they weren't blessed and holy after all, and that the 2nd death has power over them after all.

Amil plus the doctrine of NOSAS has some of these being cast into the LOF. Which then contradicts what John said of them, that the 2nd death has no power, meaning it is impossible for anyone that has part in the first resurrection to then be cast into LOF. After all, the 2nd death involves being cast into the LOF.

Anyone that doesn't agree that NOSAS is Biblical is likely going to see my argument as moot, as pointless. That's understandable if that person doesn't agree that NOSAS is Biblical. My argument assumes NOSAS is Biblical. And that Amil and NOSAS are in opposition to what John said in Revelation 20:6, but Premil and NOSAS wouldn't be.

The real problem is with me. I'm of the NOSAS camp and even if I ended up finding Amil convincing eventually, where I might want to change to that position, how would I do that since my position pertaining to NOSAS is in opposition to what John said in Revelation 20:6 if I were to apply the first resurrection in the manner Amils do, that it involves being born again, but that I am convinced some can lose their salvation eventually? It just can't work. It has John saying and meaning things he never said nor meant.

Premil = that the first resurrection is bodily. Therefore, once one has part in it, it means they are in an immortal glorified body forever. Therefore, impossible to ever lose part in it once one has part in it. If NOSAS is Biblical it affects Premil zero. It causes no conflicts whatsoever with this position, period.

It simply means that if one fell away before they died, and remained in an unsaved state all the way up unto death, that when the first resurrection occurs in the future they won't have part in it to begin with. IOW, John is not including them in verse 6. He is only meaning anyone that never falls away. He is only meaning OSAS, and not OSAS and NOSAS. Yet, NOSAS is Biblical, nonetheless. Except NOSAS will have already been decided before the first resurrection event ever takes place.

Amil = that the first resurrection is not bodily. That it is spiritual and involves being saved in the here and now. If NOSAS is Biblical it affects Amil. It causes conflicts with this position. It means that some in Revelation 20:6 will be cast into the LOF. It means John wasn't being truthful to us about that verse though he undeniably implied that anyone who has part in the first resurrection, that they can never lose part in it for any reason. Amil plus NOSAS teaches they can. This alone proves Amil can't be the correct position if NOSAS is indeed Biblical. And surely it is.

What you submitted per Hebrews 6:4-6 is yet another passage that supports NOSAS, thus proves NOSAS is Biblical. Not sure what your point was by bringing that up?

 

[Davidpt]

Then you cling to the unbiblical belief that there will be two bodily resurrections when Christ returns, one at the beginning of one thousand years, and the other after one thousand years ends. You cling to this belief, knowing full well the Bible very clearly speaks of only ONE bodily resurrection for all that are in the graves in an hour that is coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time will be no longer. Why, can't you believe what is written? Several people posting in these forums have shown you these truths again and again over many years now, but you still refuse to believe, and then you either try to change the subject or simply ignore and forget the truths that have been shown. It's time to let go of this false belief that man is NOT eternally secure through the Spirit of Christ in them. Let the following words of Scripture sink in and open your mind and heart to believe these words are TRUTH!

The way I view the resurrections is simple. There are only two of them. The resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust. And that the resurrection of the unjust never precedes the resurrection of the just. In that way alone it makes it the first resurrection even if it involved a hundred different resurrection events taking place at different times. It would still be the first resurrection since no unjust person is going to rise before all of these 100 resurrection events per this scenario are accomplished first. Keeping in mind that there are only two types of resurrection events, one involving the just, the other one involving the unjust. And that the latter never precedes the former no matter what.

For example.

Christ's resurrection. This literally equals the first resurrection. Yet, it is the resurrection of the just.

I'm not certain what to make of the 2Ws in Revlation 11. They appear to rise from the dead before the 7th trumpet even sounds. Assuming that too is a resurrection event, it too equals the first resurrection, since it too is a resurrection of the just.

Then there is the matter of the dead in Christ who rise first. It too equals the first resurrection, since it too is a resurrection of the just.

Thus far, per these examples, not one single unjust person has been raised before any of these resurrection events have taken place first. Though, there are 3 resurrection events here and that they take place at different times, assuming we should count the 2Ws as 1 of these events, all of them mean the first resurrection, the resurrection of the just. Now all we need to do is determine which resurrection event above is involving the first resurrection recorded in Revelation 20. To me the dead in Christ that rise first seems to be the best choice.

Therefore, IMO, the following can maybe be understood like such.

Blessed and holy are the dead in Christ that rise first: 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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. (therefore, implying that the rest of the dead are not also blessed and holy. That the rest of the dead the 2nd death has power over them. Which then obviously means the rest of the dead, their fate is the 2nd death, the LOF)

 

[rwb]

The way I view the resurrections is simple. There are only two of them. The resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust. And that the resurrection of the unjust never precedes the resurrection of the just. In that way alone it makes it the first resurrection even if it involved a hundred different resurrection events taking place at different times. It would still be the first resurrection since no unjust person is going to rise before all of these 100 resurrection events per this scenario are accomplished first. Keeping in mind that there are only two types of resurrection events, one involving the just, the other one involving the unjust. And that the latter never precedes the former no matter what.

Yes, two bodily resurrections. The first resurrection to life from physical death is the resurrection of Christ. Then there shall be the bodily resurrection of all who are in the graves in an hour that is coming, when the last trumpet sounds and time given this earth whereby man must be saved shall be no longer. There is clearly an order to the bodily resurrection of saints from the graves. After saying "all that are in the graves shall hear His voice", John gives us the order of this one and only physical resurrection saying, "they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Paul also gives us the specific order of the same one and only bodily resurrection of the saints who have died before His coming again, but Paul writes only of the saints who shall be bodily resurrected saying, "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first". The dead in Christ, those who have done good according to John are physically resurrected before those who have done evil, who shall be bodily resurrected for damnation.

That which causes you so much difficulty is understanding the "first resurrection" to physical life again is ONE resurrection, and that is the resurrection from death to life again for Christ ALONE. And the only way that mankind may have part in the first resurrection through the physical resurrection of Christ is that man must be born again! When man has part in the first resurrection it is not to obtain physical life themselves, but to share in the resurrection life of Christ through the Spirit of Christ in us when we are born again.

How else can we make any sense of Rev 20:4 since they were martyred in life before they died. And have already lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Surely you don't believe these who have part in the first resurrection are raised to life again just to be martyred for their faith??? That makes no sense! Especially in light of vs 6 where John writes that there will be others who are of the "first resurrection" and they too "shall reign with Christ a thousand years". This isn't a different thousand years, but the same thousand years the martyred saints had already lived and reigned with Christ.

This chapter in the Revelation only makes sense once you understand a/the thousand years are NOT literally ONE thousand years to come after Christ returns. A/the thousand years symbolically represents TIME that runs from the first advent of Christ until the seventh trumpet shall begin to sound. How else could there be saints shall have lived and died in heaven before a thousand years and also saints that shall be alive with Christ during this same time?