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

[rwb]

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.

We take part in the first resurrection during our life times. Every time someone has been born again through the Spirit sent from Christ in us, we have part in the first resurrection. How? By having part in the resurrection life of Christ, who is the first resurrection of the dead!

Nowhere in Scripture will you find the unjust, who in life have no part in the first resurrection, bodily resurrected to life again before the hour coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time shall be no longer. Only SAINTS of Christ having part in His resurrection life are in life participants of Christ's "first resurrection". This is accomplished through spiritual re-birth, not a bodily resurrection that shall not be until Christ comes again.

 

[rwb]

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)

The blessed and holy are NOT blessed and holy because they are first to be physically resurrected. They are blessed and holy because in life before they died (a/the thousand symbolic years) they had part in the first resurrection, that is they became partakers in the resurrection life of Christ when they were born again through the Spirit sent from Christ in them. The rest of the dead that do not live again, having no part in the first resurrection shall be bodily resurrected in the hour coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time shall be no longer.

There's this common saying among some Christians, "To live and die in Christ is to live twice and die once." Because when we live in Christ, we shall be made bodily alive at His coming again. And we have been made spiritually alive when we are born again of His Spirit. Twice alive, (spiritually and physically) once we shall die. Since the second death has no power over believers, the one death destined for all mankind is physical death.

 

[Davidpt]

The blessed and holy are NOT blessed and holy because they are first to be physically resurrected. They are blessed and holy because in life before they died (a/the thousand symbolic years) they had part in the first resurrection, that is they became partakers in the resurrection life of Christ when they were born again through the Spirit sent from Christ in them. The rest of the dead that do not live again, having no part in the first resurrection shall be bodily resurrected in the hour coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time shall be no longer.

There's this common saying among some Christians, "To live and die in Christ is to live twice and die once." Because when we live in Christ, we shall be made bodily alive at His coming again. And we have been made spiritually alive when we are born again of His Spirit. Twice alive, (spiritually and physically) once we shall die. Since the second death has no power over believers, the one death destined for all mankind is physical death.

Roger, you do have a valid point since it would be relevant to be holy in the here and now. Hadn't really thought about it like that before. It does make sense.

Here's my problem though. The way to try and convince me that Amil is Biblical is not by trying to convince me that NOSAS isn't Biblical. But is by trying to convince me that NOSAS can work with Amil, that it doesn't contradict what John plainly said and meant in Revelation 20:6, for example.

To give you an idea of what you are up against here. It would be a big waste of time on their part, thus would be in vain, for anyone to try and convince me that NOSAS is not Biblical. And the reason why is because I am 100% convinced of that, therefore, leaving no room for doubt.

It would be like someone trying to convince me Jesus is not God, not that anyone might try to do that. It too would be a big waste of time on their part, thus would be in vain, for anyone to try and convince me that Jesus is not God. And the reason why is because I am also 100% convinced of that, therefore, leaving no room for doubt.

Therefore, obviously I can never be an Amil because not one single person is going to be able to convince me that NOSAS can work with Amil, because for one, it contradicts what John plainly said and meant in Revelation 20:6.

For example, how could Amils that disagree that NOSAS is Biblical possibly convince me that NOSAS can work with Amil? Where's the logic in that? That someone is going to try and convince me of something they don't believe to be true to begin with, that NOSAS is Biblical, but that it can still work with Amil, though? Pretty funny, right? :)

I think Amils need to be honest about their position, that only OSAS can work with it and quit pretending NOSAS can also work with it.

For example. I might be Premil and there might be Premils that insist animal sacrificing resuming post the 2nd coming can work with Premil, but I'm certainly not going to look the other way and pretend that can work with Premil. Therefore, I'm being honest about this position called Premil, since I'm not pretending something that can't work with it, that it can, since I'm not afraid to take on any Premil that is making this position look like it for sure can't be Biblical.

And if other Premils presume I'm doing the same at times, such as when I'm agreeing with Amil that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming, therefore making the thousand years be meaning the first thousand years of the NHNE, but that Premils don't see that fitting Premil, they should challenge me on it, and sometimes they do. Which is expected. Premils are not afraid to challenge their peers but Amil apparently is unless the Amil in question is so far out in left field that they don't count that person as an Amil even though that person insists they are. Those type of Amils, other Amils will challenge them if they disagree with them about something. But I don't see any Amils challenging Amils that insist NOSAS works just fine with Amil, as if NOSAS causes no issues at all with Amil's interpretation of the first resurrection.

Initially I said it wasn't my intention to pit any Amils against each other. I have had a change of heart about that. Why is it ok for Premils to do that when Premils are not agreeing with Premils about something, but not ok for Amils to do that when Amils are disagreeing with each other about things? Let's just turn our head instead and pretend these Amils are not doing anything we might disagree with, such as giving the impression that NOSAS works just fine with the doctrine of Amil.

And something else that caused me to have a change of heart is what @Spiritual Israelite said to me per this post below. Is it true then that Amils such as yourself agree that NOSAS can work with Amil? Isn't that the point he is making, that no one agrees with me that NOSAS can't work with Amil? Keeping in mind, it's about being transparent here if nothing else. It's about being brutally honest here if nothing else. But it takes someone with a backbone to be brutally honest about something, though.

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.

 

[rwb]

Roger, you do have a valid point since it would be relevant to be holy in the here and now. Hadn't really thought about it like that before. It does make sense.

Here's my problem though. The way to try and convince me that Amil is Biblical is not by trying to convince me that NOSAS isn't Biblical. But is by trying to convince me that NOSAS can work with Amil, that it doesn't contradict what John plainly said and meant in Revelation 20:6, for example.

To give you an idea of what you are up against here. It would be a big waste of time on their part, thus would be in vain, for anyone to try and convince me that NOSAS is not Biblical. And the reason why is because I am 100% convinced of that, therefore, leaving no room for doubt.

It would be like someone trying to convince me Jesus is not God, not that anyone might try to do that. It too would be a big waste of time on their part, thus would be in vain, for anyone to try and convince me that Jesus is not God. And the reason why is because I am also 100% convinced of that, therefore, leaving no room for doubt.

Therefore, obviously I can never be an Amil because not one single person is going to be able to convince me that NOSAS can work with Amil, because for one, it contradicts what John plainly said and meant in Revelation 20:6.

For example, how could Amils that disagree that NOSAS is Biblical possibly convince me that NOSAS can work with Amil? Where's the logic in that? That someone is going to try and convince me of something they don't believe to be true to begin with, that NOSAS is Biblical, but that it can still work with Amil, though? Pretty funny, right? :)

I think Amils need to be honest about their position, that only OSAS can work with it and quit pretending NOSAS can also work with it.

For example. I might be Premil and there might be Premils that insist animal sacrificing resuming post the 2nd coming can work with Premil, but I'm certainly not going to look the other way and pretend that can work with Premil. Therefore, I'm being honest about my position, since I'm not pretending something that can't work with it, that it can, since I'm not afraid to take on any Premil that is making my position look like it for sure can't be Biblical.

David, it is not my intention to try to convince anyone of any particular doctrine. Why would I be so foolish to try to convince anyone since I am not the Holy Spirit. My purpose for posting in these forums is to prove truths from the Scriptures. I did NOT bring my understanding of Amillennialism to the Word of God. Rather I learned the doctrine Amil espouses is confirmed true from the Word of God. The same cannot be said for Premillennialism, because the Word of God does NOT confirm your doctrine. Rather Premillennialism causes contradiction and confusion upon the Word of God. That's because it MUST be read INTO the Bible rather than taken from WITHIN the Bible.

I'm baffled as to why you would think Rev 20:6 somehow disproves eternal security.

In Rev 20 John's vision gives us a glimpse of all of humanity. Showing us both the fate of those who are martyred for their faith, those who are not martyred but shall also be called blessed and holy who are also in Christ, and the dead who live and die without being born again. Only the faithful saints have part in the resurrection life of Christ, the "first resurrection" during this time symbolized a thousand years. All of them by partaking of Christ in life (a thousand yrs) shall NEVER die! Why? Because having part in the first resurrection through Christ means they are born again of the Spirit of Christ in them. That means the life they have is EVERLASTING, and as vs 4 shows us, even physical death cannot take away the eternal spiritual life they received when they were born again.

OTOH, the dead, who live once and die twice, are not made spiritually alive in Christ through His Spirit by being born again. So, no of the dead shall be made alive until the hour coming when the last trumpet sounds that time given this earth whereby man must be saved shall be no longer. ALL, without exception shall be among the physically dead who are called to stand before God at the GWTJ to give account according to what is found written in the books and the book of life, and they shall ALL be cast into the lake of fire, that is the second death.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

The context of verse 23 is obviously related to verse 22. Paul said that ALL who are in Christ will be made alive and the order to bodily resurrections unto immortality is Christ's first and next in order are those at His coming. He makes no mention of anyone else being resurrected at any other time, so that's how we know all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at the same time, which will be at the second coming of Christ. You deny what 1 Cor 15:22-23 clearly teaches. You change it to make it fit your false interpretation of Revelation 20:4.

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

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.

Your doctrine is very weak which is why you are not able to make any coherent arguments. You just list verses, take them out of context, and then claim you have proven something while you actually have proven nothing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

That is not true, as I have shown. But, you won't address my arguments about this. You just repeat the same things you always say without addressing anything I say. How can I take you seriously when that's the case?

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.

I am not saying that at all. You are not even trying to understand what I'm saying because you are only able to look at all of this from the premil perspective and not from the amil perspective. Do you understand that having part in the first resurrection from the amil perspective occurs when someone becomes saved? Looking at it from that perspective, would you agree that those who are currently saved are blessed and holy? Let's say a saved person loses their faith and their salvation. Is that person still blesed and holy at that point? No, right? So, that's how an amil who agrees with NOSAS sees someone who had part in the first resurrection as no longer having part in the first resurrection. It's no different than someone being saved and no longer being saved. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm trying to help you stop wasting so much of your time making strawman arguments. You are not disproving anything that anyone actually believes because you're not putting yourself in the position of an amil and looking at it from the amil perspective. You do that often.

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.

This is not a valid argument unless you agreed that the following was a valid argument.

Show me where the following verse indicates that someone who believes in Jesus would end up not having everlasting life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Show me where the following verse says that someone who believes in Jesus and is saved could ever lose their salvation.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

These verses, in and of themselves, don't indicate that someone can lose their salvation. Using the kind of logic you use to interpret Revelation 20:6, we can use these verses to prove that OSAS is true. So, can you see how faulty your logic is? You either need to admit OSAS is true or admit that your approach to this is faulty and change your whole approach to how you look at all this. So, what will it be?

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.

This is a ridiculous argument and does not reflect how I interpret the verse. What good does it do for your to waste all your time misrepresenting how I interpret the verse? For whatever reason, you cannnot understand what I believe. So please do me a favor and stop trying to argue against what I believe since you clearly do not understand what I believe at all. That's a waste of time. I don't know why you can't see that. I could make a similar argument about you doing this to the following text:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that some who believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life and some who believeeth in him will perish and not have everlasting life.

Do you think it would be fair to accuse you of changing John 3:16 to what I showed above? I'm sure you would not think so. But that's exactly what you're doing by misrepresenting what I believe Revelation 20:6 says.

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.

Another lame argument! You have the MOST important resurrection event missing entirely in Revelation 20! I'd say that's worse than having the SECOND most important resurrection event missing from it. Thes types of arguments are worthless and prove nothing. It's no wonder you have to try to resort to these types of arguments since you can't back up your view with scripture itself.

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.

Logic, and scripture, says that Jesus's resurrection was the first resurrection. But, that seemingly isn't important to you.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Also, Jesus said that a singular hour is coming when both the saved and lost would be resurrected. How do you reconcile that with your view?

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

You change the above to say the HOURS are coming when all of the dead will be raised, but Jesus said the HOUR is coming when all of the dead will be resurrected. Not only that, but you have those two hours occurring 1,000+ years apart. You are changing that passage to say what you want it to say.

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.

You miss that verse 4 talks about the souls of the dead in Christ living and reigning with Christ. The Greek word translated as "lived" in verse 4, zao, is not a word used to refer to a resurrection. That's why a different word, anazao, is used to describe the rest of the dead living again after the thousand years. That word is used to describe a resurrection. Why wouldn't the word anazao have also been used to described those who have part in the first resurrection if it was talking about their bodily resurrection? Instead, a word is used to describe them that means to be alive and to live.

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?

You are being ridiculous here. You are the one changing all kinds of scripture to say what you want it to say. The list is long. I showed John 5:28-29 above. You do the same thing with Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46, 2 Peter 3:10-12, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and many other scriptures.

A major weakness in your view of Revelation 20:6 is the FACT that being bodily resurrected is not what is required in order to avoid the second death. Yet, the verse indicates that having part in the first resurrection is a requrement for avoiding the second death. Another major weakness in your interpretation of Revelation 20:6 is the FACT that we are NOW priests of God and of Christ, as Revelation 1:5-6 and 1 Peter 2:9 indicates. You don't use those FACTS to help you interpret Revelation 20:6 becacause you don't want to allow scripture to interpret scripture in this case since you know that by doing so it disproves your premil doctrine.

 

[Keraz]

The context of verse 23 is obviously related to verse 22.

Yes, they both relate to the Promise of Eternal life.
V22 says; correctly- that ALL those in Christ will receive immortality,

Then; v 23 says: there is a proper order for their resurrection. First Jesus, then at Hs Coming, other Christians. Who will only be those people killed for their faith during the 42 month period of world Satanic control. Rev 20:4

Then much later, 1 Cor 15:50-56, describes what happens at the GWT Judgment, at the very Last Trumpet call, when ALL the faithful people from Abel to the end of time, will have their names found in the book of Life and will live with God forever, Rev 21:1-7

Despite your rude and overbearing attacks on me, the idea of every Christian being raised when Jesus Returns is wrong. it contradicts Rev 20:4 and is simply illogical.
You are opposing Bible Truth, to believe it.

You miss that verse 4 talks about the souls of the dead in Christ living and reigning with Christ. The Greek word translated as "lived" in verse 4, zao, is not a word used to refer to a resurrection. That's why a different word, anazao, is used to describe the rest of the dead living again after the thousand years. That word is used to describe a resurrection. Why wouldn't the word anazao have also been used to described those who have part in the first resurrection if it was talking about their bodily resurrection? Instead, a word is used to describe them that means to be alive and to live.

The right Greek word is used in Rev 20:4-6, because those martyrs are not yet given immortality. They simply come back to mortal life. As Lazarus did. Proved by how they can die again. But their second death cannot affect their eventual reward of immortality. AFTER the Millennium.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, they both relate to the Promise of Eternal life.
V22 says; correctly- that ALL those in Christ will receive immortality,

Then; v 23 says: there is a proper order for their resurrection. First Jesus, then at Hs Coming, other Christians. Who will only be those people killed for their faith during the 42 month period of world Satanic control. Rev 20:4

So, verse 22 says all in Christ will be resurrected, but somehow verse 23 says only some of them will be resurrected. That makes no sense. Clearly, Paul's understanding of the order of resurrections does not match yours, but it matches mine because I accept what Paul taught.

Then much later, 1 Cor 15:50-56, describes what happens at the GWT Judgment, at the very Last Trumpet call, when ALL the faithful people from Abel to the end of time, will have their names found in the book of Life and will live with God forever, Rev 21:1-7

That passage is not a continuation from verse 23. That passage is talking about the very same resurrection of the dead in Christ that 1 Cor 15:22-23 is talking about, but gives the added detail that it will happen at the last trumpet and that not only will the dead in Christ be resurrected, but they, along with those who are alive at the time, will all be changed to have immortal bodies. Your attempt to make 1 Cor 15:22-23 and 1 Cor 15:50-56 completely separate events is clearly a case of doctrinal bias on your part. Paul gave no such indication that they are completely separate events. Especially when you consider that in 1 Cor 15:22-23 he said that all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at His second coming. You have to make it as if he didn't reference the resurrection of all the dead in Christ in verse 23 since that doesn't fit your false doctrine, so you resort to trying to say that verses 50-56 are referring to an entirely different event, which is not the case.

Despite your rude and overbearing attacks on me

LOL. Get serious. You are such a hypocrite. You are one of the most rude people on this entire forum, so save me the sob story. Who do you think you're fooling with this?

, the idea of every Christian being raised when Jesus Returns is wrong. it contradicts Rev 20:4 and is simply illogical.

It is exactly what Paul taught in 1 Cor 15:22-23. And, in 1 Thess 4:14-17 he simply refers to the dead in Christ being resurrected at that time without any indication that he was only talking about some of the dead in Christ.

You are opposing Bible Truth, to believe it.

I oppose your false doctrine. When you word things like that, you come across as if you're saying I deliberately oppose Bible truth. You take no care in how you come across and the way you word things. But, you accuse me of being rude. Ridiculous! You are the one who said I hate Revelation 20 the other day. But, I'm the rude one! You have no self awareness whatsoever.

The right Greek word is used in Rev 20:4-6, because those martyrs are not yet given immortality. They simply come back to mortal life. As Lazarus did. Proved by how they can die again. But their second death cannot affect their eventual reward of immortality. AFTER the Millennium.

You're not making any sense here at all. Your belief that anyone will be resurrected to mortal life in the future may be the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous things that you believe.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you think God is bluffing here, thus lying, when He says--take heed lest he also spare not thee---but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Do you think no Gentile can get cut off for any reason after having been graffed in among them--thus OSAS not NOSAS?

These doctrines of men can only work under certain conditions, and both claim to be biblical, but are not, in their entirety.


You say OSAS cannot work, because God reserves the right to "unsave" a person.

I say NOSAS cannot work, because Gentiles as a whole are not grafted into and made natural branches.

The natural branches had a conditional Covenant with two sides.

The wild branches only have the second birth that is unconditional and nothing the human can do to break the agreement. One cannot unbirth themselves, any more than they can birth themselves to begin with.

There are millions who have claimed to birth themselves into the tree, and these are the ones who you view as being unbirthed at some point. The point being that God never grafted them in because He knows the heart.

You do understand that Salvation is not of works, nor by works, which was the condition placed on those under the OT Covenant? The only way to know if a wild branch is grafted in, is by their fruit. But even deceived people, not grafted in, can show certain fruit.

As for the topic of the the thread, Amil have the wrong view of the first resurrection to begin with. The second birth is not the first resurrection. That is about as plausible as saying the first birth is the second resurrection. That is utter confusion.

The first resurrection is not an exercise in spiritual thought, just like the first birth is not an exercise in spiritual thought. The first birth, and first death, and first resurrection are all physical. The second birth, and second death are the spiritual conditions. In fact God can place the physical body into the LOF.

The second birth is not even about our God given spirit, it is about being in the family of God, which is more than physical, but includes the aspect of God into our daily lives that has been missing since Adam disobeyed God. The second birth is the spiritual resurrection out of death, but not the first resurrection, as that is only related to a physical body.

Having said that, both the second birth and first resurrection are permanent. God will not reverse either one, although God has the right to remove one from existence at any point, both physically and spiritually.

The first resurrection is into a permanent incorruptible physical body. Any other definition would mean the physical resurrection would have to include another thought process altogether. Amil deny the first resurrection as being physical, because they deny any resurrection at all until the GWT Judgment. They deny Lazarus was given the first resurrection. They deny those in Matthew 27, coming out of their graves as being the first resurrection. They deny every single person with the second birth, a first resurrection upon physical death, because they deny the first resurrection as being physical at all. Perhaps to them, the "second resurrection" is the only physical resurrection, and people have to die twice to obtain the physical resurrection?

 

[Timtofly]

Amillennialism is the only doctrine of end times that does not approach the Word of God with preconceived opinions that force contradictions into God's Word.

Oh really? Then there is no Amil perspective, as that is the definition of a preconceived opinion.

Some posters are constantly complaining because others cannot see the Amil perspective. If you said that Scripture only teaches Amil, then no one would have an Amil perspective at all, only a biblical perspective. That is not the case. People who have studied the Bible all their life, have to be taught the human opinion called Amil, because it is not biblical, but only human opinion, which is a preconceived notion, when reading the Bible.

Amil does force contradictions into Scripture. Amil forces the point that Revelation 19 cannot happen just prior to Revelation 20:1-4, in direct contradiction to what is written. Amil forces the point that the first resurrection is not physical. A direct contradiction to the physical resurrection of Lazarus and all the OT redeemed out of Abraham's bosom.

The human doctrine of premill is not entirely correct. But the Second Coming is prior to the Millennial reign of Christ.

 

[Timtofly]

If you take passages like the above literally, as Amils do, then it means that Christ has been reigning since His resurrection. You deny this because He doesn't reign the way you want Him to.

Revelation 20 is not about any other reign than these verses teach.

Revelation 20 is about those beheaded in the prior 42 months joining this everlasting reign as living physically on earth for a thousand years. No one is limiting the reign of Christ. Amil miss the point it is possible for humans to live on the earth physically and never die, in Revelation 20.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

People only need Jesus to say the second death has no power over them.

They do not have to change the definition of biblical terms to prove a point.

Both the second birth and the first resurrection equally prevent one from having the second death placed on them.

And not all of humanity will be made alive in Christ. Are you a universalist? Of course not. We know what you mean.

You also cannot accuse me of being an universalist if I accept that some at the GWT Judgment, after being in sheol for thousands of years, can be given both the second birth and the first resurrection.

Do you not understand that the second birth was not understood until Jesus taught it in John 3, and opened wide to all humans the free gift of Salvation? They understood the first resurrection, as that was physical after physical death.

Misappropriation of biblical terms is not cool.

 

[Timtofly]

This alone proves Amil can't be the correct position if NOSAS is indeed Biblical. And surely it is.

Just because Amil is wrong, and your logic is wrong, does not make NOSAS right.

Your logic is correct that one can never be saved and then given a first resurrection after rejecting the Gospel.

That logic would mean no one is physically resurrected at the GWT Judgment either. The first resurrection is physically to eternal life.

Amil claim there is a physical resurrection, but have no title for that phenomenon, especially not the title "first resurrection". They think there is also a resurrection to death. Which is not a resurrection at all, as resurrection has always implied life, not death. I mean, that is why they call the "first resurrection" "spiritual", as it is out of death into life. One's baptism is symbolic of being raised to walk in newness of life, leaving death behind. But we already have a title for the spiritual restoration, and that is the second birth.

Obviously Amil don't say Revelation 20 should say second birth instead of first resurrection. They just think Revelation 20 means the second birth, instead of the physical resurrection mentioned which is the first resurrection.

If a person is beheaded and given life, that is not the moment of the second birth, when they receive their life back. A beheaded person given life is a physical resurrection. The moment of the second birth was the point of their head being chopped off. But they had to wait until they stood as dead before those thrones and judged. After they were judged they were given life, physically, the first resurrection.