Is Revelation 20:1-6 really a recap?

[Davidpt]

Man can be wrong regarding understanding of Biblical doctrine. But can a man be saved who denies Christ came to give ETERNAL life to whosoever believes on Him?

The question is not whether or not OSAS is Biblical. The question is, is only OSAS Biblical but NOSAS isn't? Which then would mean, in some cases OSAS is indeed true. But in other cases NOSAS is indeed true. Rather than, in all cases OSAS is indeed true. Or, in all cases NOSAS is indeed true. The former denies that NOSAS is also Biblical. The latter denies that OSAS is also Biblical. What then is the solution where nothing that is Biblical is being denied? Obviously this, both are Biblical.

 

[WPM]

He who alleges must prove--one of your favorite quotes. Except, in your mind, this probably means anyone but you must prove what you allege.

But here's an idea, regardless. Keeping in mind readers can see what you are avoiding or not avoiding. So the challenge is then this. Prove what you allege by using the following to prove it. Prove that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Then prove that Amil and NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6 while you are at it.

Romans 11:21 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.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

Are you going to accept the challenge and prove what you allege? Or are you going to deflect instead and maybe attempt to prove it another way rather than this way? Or perhaps keep on insisting you are correct without bothering to prove what you allege? If what you allege is true, you would then be able to convincingly prove it via the passage above, obviously. If you won't take the challenge it undeniably proves you are being intellectually dishonest, no doubt. The reason why is because you know this passage debunks what you allege, otherwise you shouldn't be afraid of this passage disproving what you allege. This passage would be supporting it if what you allege is true, that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't.

Of course!!!

Let us start off with a couple of very basic questions: do you currently possess eternal life? How long is "eternal"? How long is "everlasting"?

 

[rwb]

The question is not whether or not OSAS is Biblical. The question is, is only OSAS Biblical but NOSAS isn't? Which then would mean, in some cases OSAS is indeed true. But in other cases NOSAS is indeed true. Rather than in all cases OSAS is indeed true. Or in all cases NOSAS is indeed true. The former denies that NOSAS is also Biblical. The latter denies that OSAS is also Biblical. What then is the solution where nothing that is Biblical is being denied? Obviously this, both are Biblical.

David, think about what you're implying. Why would the Word of God teach both eternal security then contradict that by teaching man is not eternally secure in Christ? How do you reconcile the contradiction you're forcing upon the Word of God?

 

[WPM]

Romans 11:21 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.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

Are you going to accept the challenge and prove what you allege? Or are you going to deflect instead and maybe attempt to prove it another way rather than this way? Or perhaps keep on insisting you are correct without bothering to prove what you allege? If what you allege is true, you would then be able to convincingly prove it via the passage above, obviously. If you won't take the challenge it undeniably proves you are being intellectually dishonest, no doubt. The reason why is because you know this passage debunks what you allege, otherwise you shouldn't be afraid of this passage disproving what you allege. This passage would be supporting it if what you allege is true, that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't.

The good olive tree in Romans 11 symbolized the nation of Israel as God's covenant people. It represents the visible "professing" people of God. In the Old Testament, men entered it into covenant with God upon circumcision. In the New Testament, professing Cristians are grafted into this visible "professing" tree through their acceptance of Christ. But only those who continue in faith (the "real and fruitful") were/are true Israel. Unbelieving branches were/are broken off due to lack of faith. Natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were/are broken off, and wild branches (believing Gentiles) were/are grafted in by faith. requiring ongoing fruitfulness and reliance on the nourishing root (Christ). Only the elect persevere to the end and remain part of this covenant tree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is exactly the resurrection Christ is speaking of!

No, it is not! And you are noticeably making ZERO effort to actually address what I said.

You say you believe we are in the spiritual Kingdom of God now, but how can you believe that since you deny we are eternally saved?

Very easily. And what does this have to do with anything I said about Luke 20:34-36? Nothing!

You and whosoever denies eternal security can't seem to grasp the fact that none can belong to the eternal Kingdom of God without possessing eternal/everlasting life through the Spirit of Christ within us!

If we already have eternal life now then why does scripture speak in terms of inheriting eternal life in the future when Jesus returns (Matthew 25:46)? How can we inherit something we already have?

That's why you will not believe belonging to the eternal Kingdom of God is to have spiritually entered into the age Christ said was coming with the resurrection that would not be before His cross and resurrection to life again.

So, is it your view that any reference to "the end of the age" in scripture, like we see in Matthew 13:40-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 24:3 is a reference to the end of what I would assume you call the old covenant age since you have the age to come beginning when the new covenant was established by Christ's death and resurrection? Do you think passages like Matthew 13:40-43 and Matthew 13:47-50 were already fulfilled long ago when Jesus rose from the dead?

It could not be an eternal Kingdom of God if one could be there today then decided they don't really belong there through unbelief. Christ makes it abundantly clear that when a man is born again of the Spirit of Christ they are spiritually ETERNALLY SAVED, because they have partaken of Christ, Who is THE RESURRECTION that man must partake of to overcome the second death

What you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about in Luke 20:34-36. It's amazing how little discernment you have about certain topics.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is a matter of one's interpretation of Scripture. Premil Arminianists are doubly wrong. Amil Arminianists are partially right. But (I believe) Scripture teaches Amil and the doctrines of grace.

I think your motive to to try and divide Amils. To like to stir the pot.

Of course that's his motive. He gets entertainment from that. He is just here to play games. He is the only Premil in the world who tries to make the argument that it's not possible to believe NOSAS and also be an Amil. Of course it's possible, depending on how someone interprets the text. It's only impossible from his flawed Premil way of interpreting the text. Amils are not obligated to interpret Revelation 20 the way he does. Obviously, if the first resurrection was the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ at His return then it wouldn't be possible for someone to fall away after that, but Amils don't have that understanding of what it means to have part in the first resurrection. He thinks we're obligated to see that how he does as a Premil, but, obviously, we're not.

If you would only get back to church, and submit to godly authority, we might take your writings more serious.

Right. And, if he would stop wasting time making ridiculous arguments that no one else in the world tries to make, we might take him more seriously as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The question is not whether or not OSAS is Biblical. The question is, is only OSAS Biblical but NOSAS isn't? Which then would mean, in some cases OSAS is indeed true. But in other cases NOSAS is indeed true. Rather than, in all cases OSAS is indeed true. Or, in all cases NOSAS is indeed true. The former denies that NOSAS is also Biblical. The latter denies that OSAS is also Biblical. What then is the solution where nothing that is Biblical is being denied? Obviously this, both are Biblical.

You make some of the most contradictory, ridiculous arguments that anyone has ever made. How are you defining OSAS and NOSAS? They can't both be true based on how everyone but you defines those. The term OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) means that when someone becomes saved they can't lose their salvation. And NOSAS (Not Once Saved Always Saved) means that someone can lose their salvation after they are saved. How can both be true? That's not possible if you define the terms the way I did here. So, how are you defining them? Why should anyone even care what you are saying about this if you are not going to define terms the same way everyone else does? Are you saying you believe there are some people who can't possibly lose their salvation and others who can? I doubt that, but we can only guess as to how you are defining your terms here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've said it before. Only OSAS and Amil make sense. NOSAS and Amil certaintly doesn't. Not even remotely. Thus why I can't be Amil if if I wanted to be. No way am I going to abandon that NOSAS is also Biblical in order to be Amil. So the problem is this. NOSAS is also Biblical. Therefore, though OSAS and Amil make sense, it is not Biblical, the fact NOSAS has to fit as well. But it can't fit Amil, though. Nor can---only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't---fit any view---including Amil, Premil, etc. Yet--- OSAS is Biblical and so is NOSAS--can fit Premil but it can't fit Amil as well. And the reason why is simple. If one falls away, they fall away before the time of the first resurrection. Therefore, they never have part in the first resurrection to begin with. Which means absurd nonsense can't happen to them like the next paragraph below demonstrates.

OTOH, Amil plus NOSAS means they have part in the first resurrection first. Then if they fall away they lose part in the first resurrection. Totally absurd that one can be blessed and holy one minute by having part in the first resurrection, then the next minute they lose part in the first resurrection and now are no longer blessed and holy because they fell away. Or, one minute the 2nd death has no power over them because they have part in the first resurrection. Then the next minute the 2nd death once again regains power over them because they fell away.

You are not even thinking here.

Do you believe that you are blessed and holy right now because of what Jesus did for you? I do. I believe that is true of all believers right now. But, what if someone loses their faith? Is that still true of them after that?

Do you believe that the second death has power over you right now? I know it does not. The second death has no power over any believer right now. But, what if someone loses their faith? Does the second death have power over unbelievers? Yes, it does.

Or, one minute they are reigning with Christ a thousand years. The next minute they are no longer reigning with Christ 1K years because they fell away. But I thought Amil 100% insists that when one who has part in the first resurrection dies, they then continue reigning a thousand years with Christ in a disembodied state in heaven? But how is that supposed to logically work if they fell away before they died--thus NOSAS, Total unbelievable nonsense is what all of this in this paragraph adds up to.

How in the world Amils think NOSAS is compatible with Amil is beyond me? How can Amil be true if NOSAS is also Biblical? How can Amil be true if it is not true that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't? Therefore, no matter how you look at it Amil can't be true, because it contradicts something no matter what. It contradicts Revelation 20:6 if NOSAS is also Biblical. It contradicts that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, if NOSAS is also Biblical.

And so what if @Spiritual Israelite thinks my argument is lame, that no way in a million years can both Amil and NOSAS be true? And equally, no way in a million years can Amil be true if NOSAS is also Biblical, rather than only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Therefore, Amil isn't true to begin with. But if it was somehow true, like maybe if meaning in the Twilight Zone, not reality, it's crystal clear NOSAS would contradict it even then.

In this case I'm being intellectually honest @Spiritual Israelite isn't. Nor are any Amils that insist only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't, and that Amil is still true, regardless.

LOL! You're not being intellectually honest. You're being delusional and foolish. No way in a million years will anyone take you seriously about this nonsense. No way in a million years will we ever see anyone else but you try to make this kind of argument.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly. And I'm not arguing otherwise. Yet only per Premil can OSAS and NOSAS both be Biblical and not contradict Revelation 20:6.

LOL. Only per NO ONE but you can OSAS and NOSAS both be biblical.

 

[soberxp]

LOL. Only per NO ONE but you can OSAS and NOSAS both be biblical.

Sorry, what's NOSAS?

 

[Davidpt]

David, think about what you're implying. Why would the Word of God teach both eternal security then contradict that by teaching man is not eternally secure in Christ? How do you reconcile the contradiction you're forcing upon the Word of God?

If there is this alleged contradicton if both are true, debunk the alleged contradiction per the following. Which BTW can't be debunked since it's impossible to debunk the truth = Check mate.

Romans 11:21 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.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He who alleges must prove--one of your favorite quotes. Except, in your mind, this probably means anyone but you must prove what you allege.

But here's an idea, regardless. Keeping in mind readers can see what you are avoiding or not avoiding. So the challenge is then this. Prove what you allege by using the following to prove it. Prove that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Then prove that Amil and NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6 while you are at it.

This is so incredibly stupid. Of course, according to his Calvinist perspective, OSAS and Amil go hand in hand and NOSAS and Amil don't, but he also understands that not all Amils interpret Revelation 20:6 the same way that he does. It's not a requirement to interpret the verse exactly as he does (from a Calvinist perspective) in order to be an Amil and he will tell you that as well. How can you not understand that?

He doesn't believe Amil because of being a Calvinist. He believes Amil regardless of his Calvinist beliefs because you don't have to be a Calvinist to see that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection with His followers being priests in His kingdom and that Satan has been bound/restrained since then. You don't have to be a Calvinist to see that scripture teaches that all of the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time/hour and that all people will be judged at the same time and that all unbelievers will be killed when Jesus returns with all believers inheriting eternal life and bodily immortality in the new heavens and new earth at that point. It is those things which I mentioned, not OSAS, that convince people that Amil is true.

Romans 11:21 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.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

Are you going to accept the challenge and prove what you allege? Or are you going to deflect instead and maybe attempt to prove it another way rather than this way? Or perhaps keep on insisting you are correct without bothering to prove what you allege? If what you allege is true, you would then be able to convincingly prove it via the passage above, obviously. If you won't take the challenge it undeniably proves you are being intellectually dishonest, no doubt. The reason why is because you know this passage debunks what you allege, otherwise you shouldn't be afraid of this passage disproving what you allege. This passage would be supporting it if what you allege is true, that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't.

LOL. I, of course, agree with you that being grafted into the good olive tree is a figurative representation of someone being saved. But, what is going on here? You obviously purposely decided to start a OSAS vs. NOSAS debate in a thread that you created that is supposed to be about whether or not Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap of things previously written in the book. When did you decide that you wanted to derail your own thread?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sorry, what's NOSAS?

OSAS is "Once Saved Always Saved", so NOSAS is "Not Once Saved Always Saved". It's a major debate topic on soteriological forums, but Davidpt likes to debate it on this eschatological forum as often as he possibly can for some reason.

 

[rwb]

If there is this alleged contradicton if both are true, debunk the alleged contradiction per the following. Which BTW can't be debunked since it's impossible to debunk the truth = Check mate.

Romans 11:21 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.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

Why were some broken off from the natural olive tree David?

Romans 11:20 (KJV) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

These natural branches of the good olive tree were NOT saved, because even though they appeared to belong to the good olive tree according to flesh, they did NOT believe.

The same is true with Gentiles who merely outwardly appear to belong to the church of Christ. According to the flesh they look no different than faithful saints. But in fact they are tares among the wheat, and shall also be broken off if they remain in unbelief.

Here are just four of the many verses of Scripture that prove the life we receive in Christ is eternal, never ending, forever life!

John 6:47 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 3:16 (KJV) 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 10:28 (KJV) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

1 John 5:11 (KJV) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

It seems you want to ignore these verses and cling only to the verses that show some within the church of Christ outwardly do indeed fall away from church. Ignoring the fact that they like the natural branches in the good olive tree are broken off, not because they lost their salvation, but because they were never eternally, everlastingly, forever saved, because they did not have faith of Christ or through Christ to eternally save them.

Being among those who have eternal life does not guarantee eternal life. Eternal life through Christ is according to grace through faith alone, and you know this but ignore this fact. One of the saddest passages in all of Scripture proves there will be many standing before God in judgment outwardly appearing to be saved who will hear the Lord say "I never knew you"!

Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 13:25-28 (KJV) When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Many professing Christ outwardly are among the children of God who are of faith. When the Lord returns, He will send His angels to gather out of His Kingdom those that only outwardly appear to belong to Him, but are inwardly children of the wicked one, who has sown them in among the faithful children of God to offend and do iniquity.

Matthew 13:37-43 (KJV) He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The only way to reconcile the contradiction you force into the Word of God by saying children of God (believers) can lose their salvation is by understanding that God throughout His Word warns us of those who are of the evil one among us seeking to draw the children of God into sin. For that reason if we are not careful we may read the warnings of falling away as being to faithful saints. But when we use ALL that is written we discover we can have joy and peace in Christ, knowing He has given us eternal life and nothing in this world or heaven can take us from Him. Only those who are in fact of antichrists shall be cast away from faithful children of God because we who are of saving faith have the Holy One of Christ within us teaching us all things.

1 John 2:18-20 (KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I've shown you how the contradiction you force upon the Word of God may be reconciled, will you now embrace the truth and realize the spiritual life we have when we have been born again through the Spirit of Christ in us shall NEVER END?

 

[rwb]

If we already have eternal life now then why does scripture speak in terms of inheriting eternal life in the future when Jesus returns (Matthew 25:46)? How can we inherit something we already have?

Because children of God are not eternally saved together. The Bible is written that they might come to know there is eternal life for whosoever among the human race shall believe on Christ.

This verse affirms this truth. Not only is the life the believer possesses spiritually eternal, but when Christ comes again bringing our eternal spirit with Him, we shall also be physically immortal & incorruptible body of flesh resurrected to life again.

Matthew 25:46 (KJV) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Do you think passages like Matthew 13:40-43 and Matthew 13:47-50 were already fulfilled long ago when Jesus rose from the dead?

Matthew 13:39 (KJV) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 13:49 (KJV) So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

 

[WPM]

He who alleges must prove--one of your favorite quotes. Except, in your mind, this probably means anyone but you must prove what you allege.

But here's an idea, regardless. Keeping in mind readers can see what you are avoiding or not avoiding. So the challenge is then this. Prove what you allege by using the following to prove it. Prove that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Then prove that Amil and NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6 while you are at it.

Romans 11:21 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.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

Are you going to accept the challenge and prove what you allege? Or are you going to deflect instead and maybe attempt to prove it another way rather than this way? Or perhaps keep on insisting you are correct without bothering to prove what you allege? If what you allege is true, you would then be able to convincingly prove it via the passage above, obviously. If you won't take the challenge it undeniably proves you are being intellectually dishonest, no doubt. The reason why is because you know this passage debunks what you allege, otherwise you shouldn't be afraid of this passage disproving what you allege. This passage would be supporting it if what you allege is true, that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't.

Of course!!!

Let us start off with a couple of very basic questions: do you currently possess eternal life? How long is "eternal"? How long is "everlasting"?

 

[Davidpt]

Thinking outloud here.

Even Daniel 7 proves Premil. Verse 21 is involving saints being persecuted big time, verse 22 is involving a coming , and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom is undeniably meaning Revelation 20:4-6. Which then means Daniel 7:21 precedes the beginning of the millennium. Good luck Amil getting that to work with their view. Which would mean they would have to place Daniel 7:21 during the days Christ walked the earth since that verse is meaning before the millennium according to Daniel 7:22 and Revelation 20:4-6.

Compare Daniel 7:21 with Revelation 13:7. Compare Daniel 7:25 with Revelation 12:14, keeping in mind this---a time, and times, and half a time--- is obviously paralleling when this is meaning in verse 17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I've mentioned the following numerous times already. In the KJV, other translations though might obscure this fact, the following exact phrase is found in only 2 passages in the entire Bible, one time in the OT, a 2nd time in the NT---and judgment was given.

Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

One is being blatantly dishonest if they chalk this up as a mere coincidence. It's absurd that it is merely a coincidence. Both involve judgment being given to the saints. Both involve the saints taking possession of the kingdom. And that Daniel 7 proves that Daniel 7:21 precedes Revelation 20:4-6. Until Daniel 7:21 is fulfilled first, followed by verse 22, in the meantime it is absurd that Revelation 20:4-6 can already be fulfilled.

If Amil insists Amil is the correct view regardless, then they need to convincingly prove, in spite of the undeniable fact Daniel 7:21 is before the millennium, why it still fits Amil. What will Amil do instead of dealing with the texts involved? They will continue to twist things and have us naively believe that Daniel 7:22 and Revelation 20:4-6 are not involving the same events, are not involving the same era of time.

And the reason why is simple. Amil knows that Daniel 7:21 can't fit before the beginning of their proposed millennium. So let's just twist the texts in order to make them conform to our view, by insisting Daniel 7:22 and Revelation 20:4-6 are not meaning the same events, are not meaning the same era of time. Only someone defending a system would do dishonest things like that. No one defending the texts would.

 

[Davidpt]

The good olive tree in Romans 11 symbolized the nation of Israel as God's covenant people. It represents the visible "professing" people of God. In the Old Testament, men entered it into covenant with God upon circumcision. In the New Testament, professing Cristians are grafted into this visible "professing" tree through their acceptance of Christ. But only those who continue in faith (the "real and fruitful") were/are true Israel. Unbelieving branches were/are broken off due to lack of faith. Natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were/are broken off, and wild branches (believing Gentiles) were/are grafted in by faith. requiring ongoing fruitfulness and reliance on the nourishing root (Christ). Only the elect persevere to the end and remain part of this covenant tree.

You are still not addressing everything. What does it mean if a Gentile is grafted into the good olive tree, but doesn't continue in His goodness, thus God cuts him or her off? What does that equal since there are only 3 possible answers?

1) That Gentile lost their salvation, thus NOSAS?

2) That Gentile was never saved to begin with?

3) That Gentile remains saved regardless, thus OSAS?

Only 1 of these answers can be correct. And I will make it simple for you. If the answer is 2) this means to be grafted into the good olive tree does not equal salvation. If the answer is 3) this means that the unbelieving Jews that were cut off remain saved, regardless. Otherwise, God is a respecter of persons if He treats Gentiles differently than He does Jews. But I'm pretty sure that Peter said in Acts that he perceived God is not a respecter of persons. What does that leave left remaining then? Option 1), obviously

And now that you can no longer deny the truth unless you want to reveal yourself as being blatantly dishonest, that NOSAS is also Biblical, are you still going to keep insisting Amil is the correct view when Amil plus NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, while Premil plus NOSAS doesn't?

 

[WPM]

You are still not addressing everything. What does it mean if a Gentile is grafted into the good olive tree, but doesn't continue in His goodness, thus God cuts him or her off? What does that equal since there are only 3 possible answers?

1) That Gentile lost their salvation, thus NOSAS?

2) That Gentile was never saved to begin with?

3) That Gentile remains saved regardless, thus OSAS?

Only 1 of these answers can be correct. And I will make it simple for you. If the answer is 2) this means to be grafted into the good olive tree does not equal salvation. If the answer is 3) this means that the unbelieving Jews that were cut off remain saved, regardless. Otherwise, God is a respecter of persons if He treats Gentiles differently than He does Jews. But I'm pretty sure that Peter said in Acts that he perceived God is not a respecter of persons. What does that leave left remaining then? Option 1), obviously

And now that you can no longer deny the truth unless you want to reveal yourself as being blatantly dishonest, that NOSAS is also Biblical, are you still going to keep insisting Amil is the correct view when Amil plus NOSAS contradicts Revelation 20:6, while Premil plus NOSAS doesn't?

Many belong to the visible church, but not the invisible church. They profess to be "in Christ" but do not know Him. Outwardly they look the part, but inwardly they belong to the devil.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, I did not! I have repeatedly now said that Christ's victory over sin and death was fulfilled at the cross, and that why John writes of a celebration in heaven taking place when Christ ascended there with His Old Covenant faithful saints. Then I said John is shown a vision of all that has come and is coming to pass during this age of time, symbolized a thousand years, as the gospel of the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed to all the nations of the earth. The vision ends with John seeing Christ and His saints winning the battle as all the forces of evil are cast into the eternal flames!

You openly stated Revelation 19 isn't future, your claim is "False"!

In Revelation Chapter 19 we see the second coming of Jesus Christ and final judgment of all, these are "Future" events unfulfilled

(Quote Below: rwb post #41)

"David, I'm Amillennial but I don't believe Rev 19 is future."