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

[Davidpt]

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.

 

[WPM]

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.

You have repeated this nonsense for years and it has been refuted for years. The only thing is: your modus operandi is to run when your doctrine is refuted. You then resurrect this dead horse years later and try again.

You will not engage with the rebuttals that forbid your error. You will not acknowledge the truth and then change.

Both NOSAS and Premil are unbiblical. So, your whole thesis is built on sand. 2+2=4, not 22. Your reasoning is contradictory. It reminds me of Pretrib. Each argument you present destroys your own reasoning.

First, the Bible says the "life" we possess is "everlasting." How long is everlasting in your estimation?

I do not use the term “once saved, always saved.” I see "predestinate" (Romans 8:29, 30), "election" (Romans 9:11, 11:5, 7, 28, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, and 2 Peter 1:10), “elect” ( Isaiah 42:1, 45:4, 65:9, 22, Matthew 24:22, 24, 31, Mark 13:20, 22, 27, 18:7, Romans 8:33, Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2 Tim 5:21, 2 Tim 2:10, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 2:6, 2 John 1:1, and 13), “eternal life” (Matthew 19:16, Mark 10:17, 30, Luke 10:25, 18:18, John 3:15, 5:39, 6:54, 68, 10:28, 17:2, Acts 13:48, Romans 2:7, 5:21, 6:23, 1 Tim 6:12, 19, Titus 1:2, 3:7, 1 John 1:2, 2:25, 3:15, 5:11, 13, 20, and Jude 1:21), “life eternal” (Matthew 25:46, John 4:36, 12:25, and 17:3), “everlasting life” (Daniel 12:2, Matthew 19:29, John 3:16, 36, 4:14, 5:24, 6:27, 40, 47, Acts 13:46, Romans 6:22), “everlasting salvation" (Isaiah 45:17), "eternal salvation" (Hebrews 5:9), "eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12), "eternal inheritance" (Hebrews 9:16) and "everlasting consolation" (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17) in the Bible. These are all biblical terms that Romanism hates. It exposes their false salvation and their manipulation of the people with their false gospel.

We cannot lose our salvation because (1) it was exclusively and solely secured by Christ (the spotless Lamb of God) and not man (therefore making the transaction acceptable to God an wholly trustworthy), (2) there is absolutely nothing that can be added to it to make it efficacious, (3) it is an "eternal" ("everlasting") gift and (4) Jesus makes clear those who have been given to Him by His father will not be lost.

It is sad that the salvation you posses is temporal. It is sad that the god you possess is a distant unfaithful god with a big stick looking the first opportunity to cast men into hell.

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 an ongoing current reality for the believer in salvation. Experiencing eternal life delivers us from eternal punishment.

You overlook the phrase "hath part." This is the condition to experiencing eternal life. The Greek for “that hath part” is echo méros. The Greek verb echo correctly interpreted “that hath” in the King James Version is written in the present tense and in the active voice. Therefore, we can view the relevance and vitality of “the first resurrection” as being both current and ongoing. Christ’s victory over death is not simply a past event that has no active bearing upon what we are today; it is ongoing reality in the lives of God’s people. The Greek word translated “part” in the text is the word meros meaning share, allotment or portion. This reading tells us that all those that have come to the joy of saving faith in Christ have become partakers in the resurrection life, and through this will escape the horrors of the second death – eternal wrath.

This passage is describing the reality and result of our mystical union with Christ. The expression “in Christ” [Gr. en Christo] is found 216 times in the New Testament and refers to our federal and covenantal standing. It shows us that our spiritual status is totally derived from and dependent upon relationship with Christ. Upon salvation we are united to Christ. He is the head we are the body. The blessing, decisions and authority come through the head.

This is talking about the salvation enjoyed by those who have their part in Christ's glorious first resurrection (the only first resurrection known in Scripture). Revelation 20:6 is conditional. There is an if' involved in that passage. So, IOW, once one has part in the first resurrection it is then impossible to lose part in it. Born again Christians receive the gift of eternal life when they believe. Eternal life is salvation (namely to be "saved"). Christians do not die. We live forever.

Jesus said in 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.”

John 3:16 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Without that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

Jesus said in John 5:24-25, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

John 5:24-25 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Withiout that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

Jesus said in John 6:40, “this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:40 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Withiout that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

Jesus says in John 6:45-47, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

John 6:45-47 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Withiout that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

Jesus said in John 6:48-51, “I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

John 6:48-51 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Withiout that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

Jesus also said in John 8:52, "If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death."

John 8:52 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Withiout that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

Jesus said in John 11:25-26: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

John 11:25-26 parallels Revelation 20:6. Those who exercise faith in Christ have their part in Christ's first resurrection. Withiout that there is no victory over sin and death. Simple!

We assuredly know that the righteous physically die just like the ungodly. So obviously Christ is not speaking of natural death here but rather of soul.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

For those that might not know, NOSAS = not once saved alwaysg 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 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?

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.

So, your argument here is entirely based on there not being any conditional statements in Revelation 20:6. So, using that same type of logic we would have to conclude that someone cannot lose their salvation. I can turn your argument right around on you using the same type of logic you're using in relation to Revelation 20:6.

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.

This says that whoever believes in Jesus will have everlasting life. There's no conditions given here indicating that someone who believes in Jesus can lose their everlasting life, so OSAS must be biblical according to your own logic. So, would you agree with this or would you rather admit that the type of logic you're using in your interpretation of Revelation 20:6 is flawed?

1 John 5:3 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Using your logic, anyone who has been born of God, which is anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, has overcome the world permanently since there are no conditions given here to indicate that someone can later be overcome by the world after overcoming the world. So, is that how you interpret this verse? Or, is the type of logic you're using to interpret Revelation 20:6 flawed?

You always make arguments only from your premil perspective instead of looking at it from the amil perspective. From the amil perspective, the moment that someone initially has part in the first resurrection is exactly the same thing as the moment when someone becomes born again/saved. So, keeping the amil perspective in mind, if someone can lose their salvation, why can't they also lose their part in the first resurrection? There's no reason why not in that case because those things are the same from the amil perspective. So, your argument that someone can't believe in both amil and NOSAS is simply false when you actually look at it from the amil perspective. Of course, it can't be true from the premil perspective, but who cares? That doesn't mean anything from the amil perspective.

 

[Davidpt]

You have repeated this nonsense for years and it has been refuted for years. The only thing is: your modus operandi is to run when your doctrine is refuted. You then resurrect this dead horse years later and try again.

You will not engage with the rebuttals that forbid your error. You will not acknowledge the truth and then change.

Both NOSAS and Premil are unbiblical. So, your whole thesis is built on sand. 2+2=4, not 22. Your reasoning is contradictory. It reminds me of Pretrib. Each argument you present destroys your own reasoning.

Per Premil a person can be OSAS or a person can be NOSAS and it won't have an affect on Revelation 20:6 one way or the other. IOW, per Premil not one single person can lose part in the first resurrection no matter what.


BTW, the most damning doctrine I can think of that's going to send a lot of ppl to hell because they believed it's lies even after they fell away, is not Amil, it is OSAS, meaning that only that is Biblical but NOSAS isn't. My view is that both are Biblical. Your view is that only one of them are Biblical but the other one isn't.

For example. Let's say there is someone named Steve. He gets saved eventually. He remains faithful the entire time, thus never falls away, then dies. This would be an example of OSAS.

Now let's say there is another person named Joe. He too gets saved eventually. He remains faithful fow awhile, then eventually falls away, then dies. This would be an example of NOSAS.

Thus both are Biblical. Thus OSAS is conditional. Per Steve and Joe, only Steve can fit Revelation 20:6. Joe certainly can't nor never could. And the reason why, the first resurrection is meaning once Christ returns, and when He returns, both Steve and Joe will have already been dead, and only Steve, and not Joe as well, will have part in the first resurrection. As you can see per this example, no one that has part in the first resurrection can lose part in it. Joe never has part it to begin with.

If we consider this from the perspective of Amil, that means Joe initially has part in the first resurrection but loses part in it eventually. That alone already contradicts what Amils teach and what Revelation 20:6 plainly says, that those that have part in the first resurrection, they reign with Christ a thousand years. And Amils take this a step further, that when one dies that have part in the first resurrection, they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state.

One is to believe that if Joe fell away before he died, that when he dies he then goes to heaven and continues reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state? Clearly then, just like the title of the thread says, the only way Amil can remotely be Biblical is if NOSAS isn't Biblical.

Amil might have a valid case if every single Amil were of the OSAS believing camp. Except that's not true, and the problem is not the NOSAS doctrine, the problem is that NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6 if Amil is true. And since both doctrines can't be true if they are contradicting each other, only one doctrine can be true, and it's certainly not Amil in this case.

While I can understand how someone of the OSAS believing camp can be Amil, I will never understand the logic in how anyone in the NOSAS believing camp can be Amil when that makes John out to be a liar in Revelation 20:6, the fact he said those that have part in the first resurrection, without exception, are blessed and holy. The fact he said those that have part in the first resurrection, without exception, the 2nd death has no power over them. Amil and NOSAS says John lied about those things.

Amil and NOSAS are doing to the text pertaining to Revelation 20:6 which is forbidden to do, meaning adding or taking away from the text. Amil has to be rejected since NOSAS is Biblical and that it contradicts Revelation 20:6 if Amil is true. Therefore, Amil can't be true. As if both OSAS and NOSAS can work with Amil. Both can work with Premil though, and not cause a single issue with Revelation 20:6. The same can't be said of Amil, that both OSAS and NOSAS can work with Amil and not cause a single issue with Revelation 20:6.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Per Premil a person can be OSAS or a person can be NOSAS and it won't have an affect on Revelation 20:6 one way or the other. IOW, per Premil not one single person can lose part in the first resurrection no matter what.

Who cares? That proves nothing. You're talking about Amil, so address the issue from the Amil perspective instead of Premil. Address my post #3 in the thread where I exposed the flaw in your logic if you want to be taken seriously about this.

BTW, the most damning doctrine I can think of that's going to send a lot of ppl to hell because they believed it's lies even after they fell away, is not Amil, it is OSAS, meaning that only that is Biblical but NOSAS isn't. My view is that both are Biblical. Your view is that only one of them are Biblical but the other one isn't.

Is this the Soteriology forum or the Eschatology forum? I think you are posting on the wrong forum about this topic.

For example. Let's say there is someone named Steve. He gets saved eventually. He remains faithful the entire time, thus never falls away, then dies. This would be an example of OSAS.

Now let's say there is another person named Joe. He too gets saved eventually. He remains faithful fow awhile, then eventually falls away, then dies. This would be an example of NOSAS.

Thus both are Biblical. Thus OSAS is conditional. Per Steve and Joe, only Steve can fit Revelation 20:6.

Using your logic, only Steve can fit John 3:16.

If we consider this from the perspective of Amil, that means Joe initially has part in the first resurrection but loses part in it eventually.

Considering that Amil sees having part in the first resurrection as being exactly the same as becoming saved, why is this an issue? You are not truly looking at this from the perspective of Amil because you are seemingly only able to look at things from the perspective of Premil.

That alone already contradicts what Amils teach and what Revelation 20:6 plainly says, that those that have part in the first resurrection, they reign with Christ a thousand years.

See, you're looking at this from the perspective of Premil, not Amil. That's your problem and why your argument is weak and pointless. In Premil everyone who has part in the first resurrection reigns with Christ for the entire thousand years, but that's not the case in Amil. In Amil, more and more people begin to reign with Christ during the thousand years as that time period goes on (the NT time period in our view), so not everyone reigns with Him for that entire time period.

Using your logic we have to conclude that John 3:16 says that those who believe in Jesus have eternal life and can't lose it because there's nothing in the verse which indicates that someone who believes in Jesus can lose eternal life. So, you either need to believe in OSAS or admit that your logic is flawed. So, which will it be?

And Amils take this a step further, that when one dies that have part in the first resurrection, they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state.

And what is wrong with that? Unless you believe in soul sleep, you should have no trouble with that concept.

One is to believe that if Joe fell away before he died, that when he dies he then goes to heaven and continues reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state?

Obviously not.

Again, you are failing to look at things from the Amil perspective. Do you understand that our understanding of having part in the first resurrection is exactly the same as becoming saved? So, if one can lose their salvation, why can't it also be the case that they can lose their part in the first resurrection since both of those things are exactly the same thing from the amil perspective?

Clearly then, just like the title of the thread says, the only way Amil can remotely be Biblical is if NOSAS isn't Biblical.

Clearly, you are wrong because you're using faulty logic and are only looking at this from the premil perspective and not from the amil perspective.

Amil and NOSAS are doing to the text pertaining to Revelation 20:6 which is forbidden to do, meaning adding or taking away from the text.

This is a very serious allegation you're making here, which you should not do unless you know for sure what you're talking about, which you do not.

You're saying that the following verses apply to me:

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Do you understand that this verse is talking about someone purposely adding or taking away from the book? Is that what someone is doing if they mistakenly misinterpret Revelation 20:6? No! Who are you to make these kinds of accusations without knowing what is in a person's heart? Stop playing God!

Amil has to be rejected since NOSAS is Biblical and that it contradicts Revelation 20:6 if Amil is true.

Total nonsense. You know that you desperately want premil to be true, so you do everything you can to give yourself an excuse to not believe Amil. That is what this is really all about. And it's why you normally take scripture very literally, but somehow throw that approach out the window when it comes to passages like John 5:28-29, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Therefore, Amil can't be true. As if both OSAS and NOSAS can work with Amil. Both can work with Premil though, and not cause a single issue with Revelation 20:6. The same can't be said of Amil, that both OSAS and NOSAS can work with Amil and not cause a single issue with Revelation 20:6.

You have your own issues with Revelation 20:6. Let's discuss them.

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 indicates that one must have part in the first resurrection in order for the second death to have no power over them. So, tell me, does someone need to physically die and later be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to have no power over them?

Does the second death have power over you right now?

Does the second death have power over the dead in Christ who are in heaven right now?

When do believers become priests of God and of Christ? Do we have to die first and wait until our bodies resurrected?

What does the following passage tell us about that?

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

What does this verse tell us about that?

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

[WPM]

Per Premil a person can be OSAS or a person can be NOSAS and it won't have an affect on Revelation 20:6 one way or the other. IOW, per Premil not one single person can lose part in the first resurrection no matter what.


BTW, the most damning doctrine I can think of that's going to send a lot of ppl to hell because they believed it's lies even after they fell away, is not Amil, it is OSAS, meaning that only that is Biblical but NOSAS isn't. My view is that both are Biblical. Your view is that only one of them are Biblical but the other one isn't.

For example. Let's say there is someone named Steve. He gets saved eventually. He remains faithful the entire time, thus never falls away, then dies. This would be an example of OSAS.

Now let's say there is another person named Joe. He too gets saved eventually. He remains faithful fow awhile, then eventually falls away, then dies. This would be an example of NOSAS.

Thus both are Biblical. Thus OSAS is conditional. Per Steve and Joe, only Steve can fit Revelation 20:6. Joe certainly can't nor never could. And the reason why, the first resurrection is meaning once Christ returns, and when He returns, both Steve and Joe will have already been dead, and only Steve, and not Joe as well, will have part in the first resurrection. As you can see per this example, no one that has part in the first resurrection can lose part in it. Joe never has part it to begin with.

If we consider this from the perspective of Amil, that means Joe initially has part in the first resurrection but loses part in it eventually. That alone already contradicts what Amils teach and what Revelation 20:6 plainly says, that those that have part in the first resurrection, they reign with Christ a thousand years. And Amils take this a step further, that when one dies that have part in the first resurrection, they continue reigning with Christ a thousand years in heaven in a disembodied state.

One is to believe that if Joe fell away before he died, that when he dies he then goes to heaven and continues reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state? Clearly then, just like the title of the thread says, the only way Amil can remotely be Biblical is if NOSAS isn't Biblical.

Amil might have a valid case if every single Amil were of the OSAS believing camp. Except that's not true, and the problem is not the NOSAS doctrine, the problem is that NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6 if Amil is true. And since both doctrines can't be true if they are contradicting each other, only one doctrine can be true, and it's certainly not Amil in this case.

While I can understand how someone of the OSAS believing camp can be Amil, I will never understand the logic in how anyone in the NOSAS believing camp can be Amil when that makes John out to be a liar in Revelation 20:6, the fact he said those that have part in the first resurrection, without exception, are blessed and holy. The fact he said those that have part in the first resurrection, without exception, the 2nd death has no power over them. Amil and NOSAS says John lied about those things.

Amil and NOSAS are doing to the text pertaining to Revelation 20:6 which is forbidden to do, meaning adding or taking away from the text. Amil has to be rejected since NOSAS is Biblical and that it contradicts Revelation 20:6 if Amil is true. Therefore, Amil can't be true. As if both OSAS and NOSAS can work with Amil. Both can work with Premil though, and not cause a single issue with Revelation 20:6. The same can't be said of Amil, that both OSAS and NOSAS can work with Amil and not cause a single issue with Revelation 20:6.

You are fighting truth and twisting truth. That is why you cannot address my rebuttal. What are you scared off? You are fixated with an unfaithful Christ. So-be-it. That is all you know and want.

 

[rwb]

Per Premil a person can be OSAS or a person can be NOSAS and it won't have an affect on Revelation 20:6 one way or the other. IOW, per Premil not one single person can lose part in the first resurrection no matter what.

How is that not true if one believes the biblical doctrine of eternal security (OSAS)? All/whosoever having part in the first resurrection has overcome the second death (OSAS). And not one of them after having part in the first resurrection is not already eternally secure (OSAS) in the resurrection life of Christ. IOW all of them having part in the first resurrection have no fear of the second death because in life they believe in Christ and have ETERNAL life (OSAS)!

I think you are confused because you seem to think every person confessing to have part in the first resurrection are actually eternally saved. Then when they prove themselves reprobate, you imagine that one having part in the resurrection life of Christ, who is the first resurrection, have lost eternal life they never possessed. For whatever reason there are many who profess to belong to Christ outwardly without inward change of heart.

 

[Davidpt]

How is that not true if one believes the biblical doctrine of eternal security (OSAS)? All/whosoever having part in the first resurrection has overcome the second death (OSAS). And not one of them after having part in the first resurrection is not already eternally secure (OSAS) in the resurrection life of Christ. IOW all of them having part in the first resurrection have no fear of the second death because in life they believe in Christ and have ETERNAL life (OSAS)!

I think you are confused because you seem to think every person confessing to have part in the first resurrection are actually eternally saved. Then when they prove themselves reprobate, you imagine that one having part in the resurrection life of Christ, who is the first resurrection, have lost eternal life they never possessed. For whatever reason there are many who profess to belong to Christ outwardly without inward change of heart.

First of all let's see if a case can be made that proves NOSAS is Biblical. Let's use the following Scripture to see if a case can be made. Then let's see if you are being honest or dishonest with the text.


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


Do you or do you not agree that verse 17 is meaning a Gentile has been saved once graffed in among them?

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

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? And if a Gentile is cut off for whatever reason, do you think God is going to graff them back in? That they can just play games with God, meaning Gentiles being cut off after having been graffed in among them, then God graffing them back in, then they being cut off again for whatever reason, God once again graffing them back in, so on and so on, that God is going to allow that?

Which is important to you? Your false doctrines that you hold or being honest with the text, therefore, admitting your doctrine that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, that it is a false doctrine? How do you propose that a Gentile can be graffed in among them without this meaning they are saved, then meaning to you if they are ever cut off this means they were never saved to begin with? If they were never saved to begin with how in the world did they get graffed in among them to begin with?

Are you then going to contradict yourself if you agree that being graffed in among them means they are saved, but if they get cut off for whatever reason, this means to you they were never saved to begin with? Which is it then, being graffed in among them means you are saved? Or does it mean you are not saved? It can't be both.

BTW, I don't dispute that OSAS is Biblical. You dispute that NOSAS is also Biblical. Therein lies the problem, not with my doctrine, but with yours.

BTW, even if I'm wrong about Premil, I would much rather be wrong about that than being wrong about, that NOSAS is Biblical. Me being wrong about Premil can't lead anyone to hell. You being wrong about, that NOSAS is Biblical, can certainly lead someone to hell.

 

[WPM]

First of all let's see if a case can be made that proves NOSAS is Biblical. Let's use the following Scripture to see if a case can be made. Then let's see if you are being honest or dishonest with the text.


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


Do you or do you not agree that verse 17 is meaning a Gentile has been saved once graffed in among them?

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

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? And if a Gentile is cut off for whatever reason, do you think God is going to graff them back in? That they can just play games with God, meaning Gentiles being cut off after having been graffed in among them, then God graffing them back in, then they being cut off again for whatever reason, God once again graffing them back in, so on and so on, that God is going to allow that?

Which is important to you? Your false doctrines that you hold or being honest with the text, therefore, admitting your doctrine that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, that it is a false doctrine? How do you propose that a Gentile can be graffed in among them without this meaning they are saved, then meaning to you if they are ever cut off this means they were never saved to begin with? If they were never saved to begin with how in the world did they get graffed in among them to begin with?

Are you then going to contradict yourself if you agree that being graffed in among them means they are saved, but if they get cut off for whatever reason, this means to you they were never saved to begin with? Which is it then, being graffed in among them means you are saved? Or does it mean you are not saved? It can't be both.

BTW, I don't dispute that OSAS is Biblical. You dispute that NOSAS is also Biblical. Therein lies the problem, not with my doctrine, but with yours.

BTW, even if I'm wrong about Premil, I would much rather be wrong about that than being wrong about, that NOSAS is Biblical. Me being wrong about Premil can't lead anyone to hell. You being wrong about, that NOSAS is Biblical, can certainly lead someone to hell.

This is an Israelis covenant tree. Jews participated in this through entering the outward covenant arrangement. Circumstances, obedience and the keeping of the outward demands of the Law. But it was faith that kept them secure. Same today. Many profess, but few possess. Few believe.

 

[rwb]

First of all let's see if a case can be made that proves NOSAS is Biblical. Let's use the following Scripture to see if a case can be made. Then let's see if you are being honest or dishonest with the text.


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


Do you or do you not agree that verse 17 is meaning a Gentile has been saved once graffed in among them?

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?

Romans 11:5-7 (KJV) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

According to Paul there are two types of Jews, both called Israel. One part, those in blindness, and the other part those of the election of grace. Gentiles are grafted in among those of the good olive tree of natural Israel, those of the election of grace, through faith. Paul does not tell the Gentiles of faith they too could fall away and lose the eternal life they possess when they believe. Rather Paul is warning Gentiles, who say they are of faith not to be like Israel which had not obtained that which it was seeking for through obedience to the Law. Because obedience to the Law did not give them eternal life in the Kingdom of God and neither will Gentiles be saved through their good works. Paul says we Gentiles, like the election of grace of Israel will only continue to stand by faith. If Gentiles, like Israel in blindness show themselves unfaithful, then like Israel in blindness, Gentiles too will be blinded.

To read this passage as though it is possible for anyone who has everlasting life through Christ the moment we have been born again, to lose what they have obtained from God by grace through faith is to read a preconceived opinion into the text.

BTW, I don't dispute that OSAS is Biblical. You dispute that NOSAS is also Biblical. Therein lies the problem, not with my doctrine, but with yours.

BTW, even if I'm wrong about Premil, I would much rather be wrong about that than being wrong about, that NOSAS is Biblical. Me being wrong about Premil can't lead anyone to hell. You being wrong about, that NOSAS is Biblical, can certainly lead someone to hell.

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.

 

[Keraz]

That NOT once saved, always saved is correct, is proved by how people can have their names erased from the Book of Life. Exodus 32:33, Psalms 69:28
The Prophecy in Revelation 20:4-6, is for a specific group of people, those martyred by the 'beast', during the final 42 months before Jesus Returns. To apply it to anyone else is wrong.

Regarding the belief of AMll; that we are in the Millennium now, with Jesus as King over the world.
It defies reality and is a gross misinterpretation of the Book of Revelation. I find it hard to figure why some people think AMill is true and why they are so determined to promote it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are both fighting truth and twisting truth.

Edit: Are you talking just about him both fighting truth and twisting truth or were you referring to both him and me fighting truth and twisting truth? I may have misunderstood that, as rwb pointed out.

My point in my posts was to show that it is possible to believe in both amil and NOSAS regardless of whether people agree with NOSAS or not and don't have any intention of debating OSAS vs. NOSAS here.

 

[rwb]

He was talking to me, so by "both" you are obviously talking about him and me. Don't say things like this about me unless you want to debate that topic with me, which I don't think you want to do.

My point is to show that it is possible to believe in both amil and NOSAS regardless of whether people like you agree with NOSAS or not. I thought you've said before that you agree that it's possible to believe both and you know amils who believe both, including me? That's all I'm trying to do is prove him wrong about that so that he can't use that as an excuse to not believe in amil.

"You are both fighting truth and twisting truth." - WPM

I may be wrong SI, but I don't think WPM was referring to the two of you, but rather saying that David is fighting against truth and twisting the truth. IOW without understanding because he fights against truth and twists the truth also.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"You are both fighting truth and twisting truth." - WPM

I may be wrong SI, but I don't think WPM was referring to the two of you, but rather saying that David is fighting against truth and twisting the truth. IOW without understanding because he fights against truth and twists the truth also.

I didn't consider that possibility, but you could be right. I'll let him clarify.

Anyway, my only purpose in this thread is to prove that David's claim is wrong when you look at the verse from the amil perspective regardless of whether OSAS or NOSAS is true. He is using that as an excuse to not believe in amil and it is a very lame excuse. So, that's what I'm showing. Of course, from the premil perspective both amil and NOSAS can't be true, but he needs to look at it from the amil perspective which does not say that everyone has part in the first resurrection at the same time with everyone who has part in the first resurrection all reigning with Christ for the entire thousand years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That NOT once saved, always saved is correct, is proved by how people can have their names erased from the Book of Life. Exodus 32:33, Psalms 69:28
The Prophecy in Revelation 20:4-6, is for a specific group of people, those martyred by the 'beast', during the final 42 months before Jesus Returns. To apply it to anyone else is wrong.

Well, since you believe that then I need to reconsider my view on that.

I'm kidding. I hope you have a sense of humor. I'm not sure if you do. I've never seen any evidence for that. But, here's hoping....

Regarding the belief of AMll; that we are in the Millennium now, with Jesus as King over the world.
It defies reality and is a gross misinterpretation of the Book of Revelation. I find it hard to figure why some people think AMill is true and why they are so determined to promote it.

I find it hard to figure why you think premil is true. At least your version of it, which no one agrees with. I would bet a lot of money that you are the only person in the world who thinks that Jesus comes before the thousand years but also believes that 1 Cor 15:50-56 is fulfilled after the thousand years. So, congratulations on having a doctrine all to yourself.

 

[WPM]

Edit: Are you talking just about him both fighting truth and twisting truth or were you referring to both him and me fighting truth and twisting truth? I may have misunderstood that, as rwb pointed out.

My point in my posts was to show that it is possible to believe in both amil and NOSAS regardless of whether people agree with NOSAS or not and don't have any intention of debating OSAS vs. NOSAS here.

Yes bro. I have just arrived home. I have been driving all day. I was speaking into my cell phone. I was not speaking about you but both things he was doing. I would never let David divide us.

I deleted the word "both" in case anyone else misinterpreted what I said.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes bro. I have just arrived home. I have been driving all day. I was speaking into my cell phone. I was not speaking about you but both things he was doing. I would never let David divide us.

I deleted the word "both" in case anyone else misinterpreted what I said.

Okay. I don't know why that possibility didn't occur to me at the time, but it's all good. I have come to the conclusion that debating things related to salvation on an end times forum isn't worth the time unless it does relate to end times somehow. But, I see no reason to debate it here. David is simply wrong in his claim and this is just another of his attempts to give himself an excuse to not believe in amil.

 

[Keraz]

Well, since you believe that then I need to reconsider my view on that.

It would be good for you to reconsider AMill and NOSAS, as i gave scriptural proofs for my beliefs.
But of course, any scripture that conflicts with your beliefs, is just called 'highly symbolic', which I do treat as a joke.

I find it hard to figure why you think premil is true. At least your version of it, which no one agrees with. I would bet a lot of money that you are the only person in the world who thinks that Jesus comes before the thousand years but also believes that 1 Cor 15:50-56 is fulfilled after the thousand years. So, congratulations on having a doctrine all to yourself.

This is quite incredible!
That Jesus does come; in His glorious Return; before the Millennium, is the sequence as stated in Revelation 19:11 to 20:1-19
People shuffle Revelation at their peril.

As for me being a loner, that's how it was for the Prophets, in fact almost all of the Biblical characters were. But, the truth was; they had a majority, as God was with them.

 

[rwb]

That NOT once saved, always saved is correct, is proved by how people can have their names erased from the Book of Life. Exodus 32:33, Psalms 69:28
The Prophecy in Revelation 20:4-6, is for a specific group of people, those martyred by the 'beast', during the final 42 months before Jesus Returns. To apply it to anyone else is wrong.

Regarding the belief of AMll; that we are in the Millennium now, with Jesus as King over the world.
It defies reality and is a gross misinterpretation of the Book of Revelation. I find it hard to figure why some people think AMill is true and why they are so determined to promote it.

I know that you are aware that there is more than one book written in heaven. Not only is there the Lamb's book of life, but there is also the book of the living, and a book of remembrance, books that record the deeds of all the dead, and the living. When people die their names are blotted out of the book of the living. The Lamb's book of life is the only book that has recorded the names of those who have EVERLASTING life. Since we must be born again of Christ's Spirit to have everlasting life, our names shall NEVER be blotted out of His book. That's why John writes that the dead are judged according to what is found written in the books and the book of life. Those standing before God at the GWTJ whose names are NOT found written there are cast into the lake of fire, this is the second death.

Psalm 69:28 (KJV) Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

Malachi 3:16-18 (KJV) Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

Revelation 20:12-15 (KJV) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Luke 10:20 (KJV) Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

IMO what defies reality are those who profess to be a Christian and appear to have no knowledge of the Kingdom of God they supposedly understand and entered when they were born again of Christ's Spirit. It defies reality that you cannot understand the Kingdom of God came with Her King, Jesus, when Christ walked the earth a man. Even after Christ tells you that His Kingdom is not NOW of this world, cannot be physically seen, and that His Kingdom is within you! Amazing to me how you can profess to know Christ Jesus our Lord and know little to nothing about His Kingdom.

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. Your doctrine turns the Bible into a confused, unharmonious, contradictive mess!!!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It would be good for you to reconsider AMill and NOSAS, as i gave scriptural proofs for my beliefs.

I thought you said you believe NOSAS?

But of course, any scripture that conflicts with your beliefs, is just called 'highly symbolic', which I do treat as a joke.

Wrong. You are completely clueless. Amils interpret symbolic text as symbolic and literal text as literal. Premils often get the two mixed up. The foundation of the Amil doctrine is on literal, straightforward scriptures that you don't accept.

Such as...

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Ephesians 1:19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

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.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Daniel 12:1 At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

When taken literally, these passages above teach that all of the dead will be raised at generally the same time. So, there is only one future resurrection event, not two or more as premils believe.

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.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

If you take the above scriptures literally then it means that all unbelievers will be killed when Jesus returns with no mortal survivors. Premils deny what these scriptures teach.

Matthew 13:40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world....41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels....46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

The passages above teach that all people will be judged at the same time when Jesus comes with His angels at the end of the age. Premils deny this. So much for premils taking scripture literally. Amil is based on literal, straightfoward scripture. Premil interprets scripture literally only when it's convenient for them and they try to hide this by falsely accusing Amils of making everything symbolic when that clearly is not the case. We recognize that the book of Revelation is highly symbolic and interpret it accordingly. Premils, meanwhile, read it no differently than how they would read a news article.

This is quite incredible!
That Jesus does come; in His glorious Return; before the Millennium, is the sequence as stated in Revelation 19:11 to 20:1-19
People shuffle Revelation at their peril.

The book of Revelation is very clearly not all in chronological order, so your comments are ignorant.

As for me being a loner, that's how it was for the Prophets, in fact almost all of the Biblical characters were. But, the truth was; they had a majority, as God was with them.

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.