When does apostasy begin? And, end?
What about Balaam?
Sampson?
Maybe I do not understand apostasy?
Some think it is only a desiring false teaching and living it...
Isn't apostasy is a falling away - departure?
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
When does apostasy begin? And, end?
What about Balaam?
Sampson?
Maybe I do not understand apostasy?
Some think it is only a desiring false teaching and living it...
Isn't apostasy is a falling away - departure?
*Some* arguments will never (in time) be resolved.
Appearing before the Lord will be where the buck stops for all.
Right now we can only speak what we believe to be true, for whatever reason we may have concluded it.
In regard to Matthew 10:32-33, the broader context of this passage relates to the fact that the Pharisees had continuously denied Jesus while the disciples spoke about Him everywhere they went. We might paraphrase His teaching this way: "Whoever confesses me before men (such as you disciples), I will confess him before my Father in heaven. But whoever denies me before men (like these Pharisees do on every occasion they get), I will deny him before my Father in heaven.
Those who confess Jesus are those who recognize Him as being the true Messiah and trust in Him as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. Those who deny Jesus (and those who give mere lip service confession) but refuse to trust in Him alone for salvation place themselves beyond any possibility of salvation, since salvation is found only in Him (John 3:18; 10:9; 14:6).
The word for "deny" is an aorist tense. This points to the fact that Jesus is not talking about a single instance of denial (as was the case with Peter, who actually denied Him three times - Luke 22:34), but is referring to life in its entirety. Hence, the person who throughout his life denies Christ (as was typically the case with the Pharisess and includes unbelievers who may even give mere "lip service confession" - Matthew 7:21-23, but lack saving faith in Christ) will be denied by Christ before the Father.
Verse 13? "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot * deny Himself."
Why is that?
A clue is to be found here...
Saul (Paul) had been persecuting Christians.
How does the Lord see a Christian in relation to Himself?
He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. Acts 9:4-5
What means He can not deny Himself?
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
Himself? That spoke of the body of Christ!
For that's who Paul had been persecuting.
And the Lord sees Himself and His Bride as being one flesh!
As far as faith itself?
He remains faithful to the achievement of the absolute completeness of the atonement,
no matter how hard a person may try to tempt him to toss him away.
Still, we work at it. Never know what we may learn from respectful discussions. I've seen some things looking more deeply into some issues because of discussions here or looking at things being discussed by others.
We may also learn that were correct.
For the Holy Spirit sometimes communicates in a matter of fact way that is unassuming.
No strong sense of emotional conviction.
Just that it is so...
Yet they will fight back as if you are the worst heretic, and must be disproved.
He works in mysterious ways.
Jesus prophesied that just like Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3 days and nights, so also Jesus would be "in the heart of the earth".
If in fact we are meaning sheol when we say "hell", "the heart of the earth" refers to the center.
Much love!
Discussion gives us the opportunity to test our views, and to learn better the support or lack thereof for the same.
Much love!
It is a departure, which is part of the argument being put forth by the many who say it's Scriptural.
We tend to generalize with the word apostasy (apostasia), and I'm doing so as well, in part because it's simply a word many of us are used to in regard to falling away, or departing, or withdrawing, but it's not the only word or even the main word used to speak of the topic.
So, it's normally better to discuss the specific Scriptures. For example, I laid out in brief and very generally the process discussed in Heb5-6 that results in the the mention of falling away (parapiptō) in Heb6:6 that was being discussed.
Dropping the arguments about 6:6 and 6:9 for a moment, you asked where falling away starts & ends; there it begins at least with being rebuked for laziness and lack of advance to maturity, then proceeds to a command to advance and then a warning that God may not allow the advance at some unstated point, and then goes into what happens for falling away. There is a process involved here that begins with laziness and ends in falling away.
The issue is that there are different warnings and lessons about falling away for different reasons and each one needs to be discussed in context to build the more comprehensive teaching to answer you more completely.
We get so bogged down in the disagreements over security, that the entire lesson is usually lost and even turned 180 from what is said. For example, how do we begin with a rebuke for failing, end with a statement about falling away, and turn that into a positive? The whole rebuke gets turned on its head.
You mentioned no resolution. That's not the best case, but it's better IMO if we go through the contextual lesson, reach the falling away part, simply agree that it doesn't sound good, and then be honest that we can or cannot accept loss of salvation at that point for whatever reason(s).
Okay but what about the OP.
So where do people such as those who once sincerely confessed Jesus as Lord but later rejected Him fit into this understanding?
Sometimes it can take us right to the spot where we find the footprints of those who there millennia ago and diverged at that spot. When there and understanding their thinking and diverging, we can make our own decision where we side and for what reason(s) instead of spending all our time at the surface haggling at that level.
apostasia, transliterated apostasy, is from apo - away from, and stao - I stand, so, "away from standing", that is, to depart from your location, departure.
In Classical Greek, this was the set meaning. Aristophanes, in his play "The Birds", used the word to describe the departure of two men to the bird city in the sky, as they planned their "apostasia".
By the time of the Septuagint, it had taken on the usage of "rebellion".
The only two places it appears in the NT are 2 Thessalonians 2 and Acts 21. The first references the end times, the second references the people's accusation against Paul, that he teaches departure from Moses.
Acts 21:21 KJV
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
When you look at the construction of the verse, you can see that "rebellion" doesn't fit, while "departure" does. "From Moses" You don't "rebel from", you "depart from", while you "rebel against".
The verb form is used a number of times, with a clear usage of "departing".
So then while there is LXX usage that points to rebellion against authority, the actual Biblical evidence points to departure from something, with the context needed to show more.
As for when it begins and ends, I'd have to answer it begins with the decision to leave. Ends? I don't know. When does "leaving" end?
Much love!
I said IMO it does include people (and likely more things), but it's corporate in the sense of a finished group (a thing instead of a man or individual men) like the finalized Body of Christ.
IOW it's the completed package of what God wants raised and Jesus will have lost nothing from it pursuant to God's parameters, which [arguably] allows men the choice to depart - so they either were part and left before completion, or never were part - both of which could be applied.
I'm also going to ask you to look at the Vine and the Branches analogy in John15 and say who's removing non-producing branches from the Vine/Jesus and letting them dehydrate and having them thrown into fire and burned - Jesus or the Father - the farmer/vine-dresser.
IMO and the opinion of those who see individual departure (or more) as actual potential, there's a reason Jesus speaks of this completed package (6:37a with 6:38-39) vs. individuals (6:37b-38 with 40) who come toward/to Him and He assures them He will not force them to leave, or force them out.
I think things like this also present us with timing issues to consider - when is this talking about? The main focus of the Father's will is the raising in the last day as was Jesus' statement in John12:48-50 about judgment. IOW, but Lord, I thought it was OSAS and one & done and you promised me life even if I didn't obey you and did decide to leave you! Who told you my Word says that?
Let me say first off (and maybe you disagree) that salvation from the penalty and presence of sin is a once off and is not something we can succeed or fail. Salvation from the power of sin requires our utmost attention to detail and co-operation with the will of God and we can fail that miserably or succeed wonderfully and all the levels in between.
I have given what you have said here some thought and I've tried to look at it from as many angles as I can but at the end of the day what I hear is a Father, having spent His greatest treasure to give a gift, gives it to those He knows don't really want it, and gives to His Beloved Son, people He knows don't really want Him, all so He can "honour" man's volition?
I'm reminded of 1Tim.3:12. How can the Lord expect pastors to rule their own households well if He will allow those who belong in the lake of fire to walk in and out of His house just so they can be seen to be free to choose what they want?
I'm sorry studier but I just don't buy it.
To my mind, I don't see a God who should be glorified but a God who is weak and wasteful. It's all well and good to look at just the last day of it's application but we cannot ignore all the days leading up to it with it's comings and goings, literally.
If you have another way of looking at it without, what I see as elevating man's volition to heights it was never intended to have, I'm all ears.
To fall away, one had to be someplace to begin with, to fall away from it.
The grace that is given at salvation, saves.
Then God desires that grace power to increase as we mature.
They fall away from the supernatural enabling grace power that would have enabled one to continue on into maturity.
That doesn't mean they were not saved.
Only that they refused to fight the good fight after they were saved.
How sincere could these people have been if they end up rejecting Him later?
It was only a moment ago (about 45mins to be exact), in citing it, that I'd wished that someone might elaborate the substance of 2Cor 3:18. This does well in that. Thank you!
While there is substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew, I don't see the words confession or denial of Jesus used to speak of the Pharisees even once.
In Matt10, Jesus is having a discussion with His disciples about sending them out on a dangerous mission. Confession and denial are being used in contrast to one another. There is no reason to import the Pharisees into Matt10 to explain confession vs. denial.
You're preloading this with your Faith-Alone theology.
Jesus is speaking to His disciples about a dangerous mission that may even result in their death. In context the confession and denial is primarily instruction to them to confess and not deny Him even if they are threatened with physical death.
Secondarily confession vs. denial of Jesus as Christ will be dividing even families and He makes love of Him even more important than love between parents and children.
This is very high-stakes ministry and not some simplistic message about a Faith-Alone gospel.
The aorist does not mean a life in entirety and again, the Pharisees are not in view.
The disciples are being sent out in a mission to evangelize in hostile conditions.
I'm going to have to get into this tomorrow if I can. There is verb tense switching and use of indefinite pronouns taking place, plus a mixture of focus on the evangelists and the evangelized in these hostile conditions where there will be divisions in families with our Lord specifying love for Him will have to be above love even for family. He's speaking to His disciples about themselves and those they will evangelize and the future and aorist tense verbs are doing specific and important things.
If you have time in the meantime, would you tell me where you're getting this description of the aorist tense?