ghtan

And just where and how often in the bible is aphistemi used to indicate apostasy that you should say it is the correct word for that meaning?

If once saved always saved, one must wonder why NT writers like that of Hebrews tried so hard to persuade their readers not to fall away. (Btw, parapipto appears only in here in the NT, so one wonders how others can say it is not the word used for apostasy. What then IS the word used for apostasy?) After all, if the readers are saved, they will never be lost. Better to use the time to do more evangelism instead. Hebrews is a long letter and would have taken a long time to write. As they say, actions speak louder than words. So the actions of the NT writers in penning those letters indicate they believed salvation can be lost. And we can testify to it because we see it happening to people around us.

Hi Jeff, sorry for this late reply. I'm interested in what you mean by the above. Please elaborate.

You don’t have another verse to support your case? That means your whole argument is based on the MIS-application of ONE verse! That’s very shaky ground. Judas is a good example and that is why I brought him up. I pointed out that all signs are that there was no discernible difference between him and the other apostles. I won’t re-paste that post here; you can refer to it for yourself. But add to that what Peter said about Judas. He said Judas was “ONE OF OUR NUMBER” (Acts 1:17). Peter obviously did not apply 1 John 2:19 to Judas. On top of that he said Judas was “allotted his share in this ministry”. It implies Judas did what the other apostles did, i.e. heal the sick and cast out demons. Unless you have done miracles, Judas had more claim to be a believer than you do.

What you have drawn is not a principle but an over-generalisation. It is like claiming Jesus’ statement that it would be better if Judas had not been born (Mk 14:21) means that all who fall away should also not have been born. That statement was intended only for Judas. Similarly, 1 John 2:19 is intended only for antichrists. Do you have any other verse to support your claim that those who fall away were never believers in the first place?

"Possible" means it would apply in SOME cases. But you are trying to apply it to ALL cases of believers falling away. That is to misuse the verse.

Sorry for chipping in but that verse applies to antichrists, not ordinary believers who fall away. If every person who drops out of church is an antichrist, then antichrists would be a dime a dozen.

Hi closest friend. I'm sorry but I really do not see how this fits into what we are discussing. But thanks for the reply.

How does Mk 9:38 show that God works through unbelievers? Not following the apostles simply mean he was not one of their band following Jesus. It does not mean he was an unbeliever. I would assume he was a believer. The apostles wanted to be exclusive. That was why they were arguing among themselves who was the greatest just before that. I am glad for your friend that he found Christ at a non-Christian concert. But God the Holy Spirit was working directly ON your friend to help him believe. The miracle did not come through the concert, much less the unbelieving composer.

You forgot that Jesus carried on by saying "You do not have in mind the things of God but the things of MEN." Hardly something Jesus would say to Satan. So, yes, Jesus was addressing Peter. If you cannot show any biblical example of God giving power to unbelievers to do miracles, then even if arguably God CAN give power to unbelievers, the fact remains that he DOES NOT. He was not going to start with Judas.

I wonder how many of us are. So how can we be sure we are saved?

In that case, we must conclude that Peter was also an unbeliever given that Jesus called him Satan in Mk 8:33. But if we do not judge that of Peter, we should not judge that of Judas either. What it indicates is that just as Satan was working on Peter to discourage Jesus from going to the cross, he was also working on Judas to betray Jesus. Jesus could see that Satan would exploit Judas’ weakness but it need not mean that Judas was already an unbeliever at that point. Can you show any biblical example of God giving power to an unbeliever to do miracles?

Sorry for the late reply. There is a difference between miracles done TO a person and miracles done BY a person. The former can happen to anybody but the latter, if done in the name of Jesus, can be done only by a genuine believer. As you say, it is God who actually does the miracle. The bible indicates God listens only to those who are genuine believers. The psalmist said so (Ps 66:18) and even the blind beggar understood that (John 9:31). So Judas could not have been an unbeliever and do miracles. That is why some wish to deny he did miracles. But given Mk 6:13 says they the apostles (without qualification) healed many and cast out many demons, the default interpretation must be that they ALL did so. If you think Judas alone did not, the onus is really on you to provide evidence for it. But picture this: as the other apostles were healing the sick and casting out demons, Judas alone could do none of that. He would have stood out like a sore thumb! Surely they would have noticed the difference and realised he was not a true believer. Then they would have easily guessed that Jesus was referring to Judas when he said at the last supper that someone would betray him. But they did not. So, all signs are that there was no discernible difference between Judas and the other apostles.

Thanks for the replies above but they miss my point: how was Judas able to do miracles and cast out demons if he was not a genuine believer? And this is not peculiar to Judas because Mt 7:21-23, highlighted by Omegaman, means it can apply to church-goers today. Paul tells us that such acts indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:5). Surely the Holy Spirit knows who is a genuine believer and who is not and operates only through the former. Therefore, these people, like Judas, must be genuine believers to start with. But they, like Judas, subsequently stray and choose to follow evil and are consequently lost. But that means once saved is not always saved.

What then do we do with the story of Judas? He was chosen/elect (Lk 6:13). He likely cast out demons in Jesus’ name (Mk 6:13). If he were only pretending, the demons would have called his bluff as they did with the sons of Sceva (Acts 19:15). Sounds like he was a genuine believer to start with. But we know what happened to him in the end. So I have doubts about once saved always saved. Indeed, if our salvation were fixed, it seems pointless to tell us to make our election sure (2 Peter 1:10).

Context is more important.

You mean to say that your view hinges on the difference between the word tribulation and the word wrath?! How disappointing. I agree with you; it is not worth discussing (2 Tim 2:14).

The week of years is a legacy of Dan 9. If we read Rev on its own, we would not look for a 7 year tribulation period. However, tribulation is just another term for suffering and the latter is all over Rev. What seems clear is that there is a period of suffering in the seals, another in the trumpets and another in the bowls. At the same time, there are several 3.5 year periods. I think John wants us to relate the 3.5 years to the seals, trumpets and bowls. The question is: do ALL the references to 3.5 years refer to the SAME period? I think not. I believe one 3.5 years refers to the seals while another refers to the trumpets (=bowls). Then, assuming ch 4-11 is one long sequence, the seals and trumpets add up to 7 years. Therefore, even though we do not start off looking for a 7 year tribulation period, we end up with one.

No scripture whatsoever says that the Trib "occurs in the last part of [Daniel 9's 70th] week." This is pure fabrication of some to support a scripturally-unsupportable doctrine. Why not read Revelation without referring to OT prophecies? I think John's work makes good sense on its own. Then we do not have to worry what Daniel's 70th week mean.

I hope you were not deliberately trying to fool readers with your claim. Although the greek word speudo can mean ‘eagerly desire’, the correct translation must reflect its normal usage in the NT. The word appears 5x elsewhere in the NT and it ALWAYS means ‘to hasten’. I dare you to show where else in the NT it means 'eagerly desire'. Unsurprisingly then that the VAST MAJORITY (I assume rare exceptions) of English bibles also translate it as ‘hasten’ in 2 Peter 3:12. Even your favourite ESV does so. Obviously, translators recognise that this is the correct meaning here. I reiterate: it would be impossible for us to hasten the return of Jesus if the date of his return were already fixed.

Ha! Ha! I like it! (Not saying I agree though)

Who are we to tell God what he should or should not fix? If God wants to leave a major event open, that is his prerogative. In the case of Acts 1:6-7, I have covered that in a separate post. But I do agree with you that God does not let things just come together on their own. He does have targets but his targets need not always be dates. In the case of Jesus' return, he has another type of target in mind. It is when "the full number of Gentiles has come in" (Rom. 11:25). God wants the number of Gentile believers to reach a certain number and then he will turn back to the Jews and bring history to a close. WHEN that target is reached depends on us. That is why no date is fixed for Jesus' return. Hence Peter can tell his readers to "hasten the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter 3:12). You cannot hasten Jesus' return if the date is already fixed!! But the good news implied therein is that it means God has not predetermined who will be saved. It means EVERYONE has a chance to be saved! God is merciful!

So I am right - this is the only text you have to support your case! Well then the choice before us is either: A. We insist the date of Jesus' return was already fixed in Mk 13:32 even though that compromises Jesus' deity for not knowing something that God should know, and it also makes him contradict himself because both in John 5:20 and 16:15 he indicated he knew everything God knew. Or: B. Believe that the date is one of those things God had not fixed - since you admit God has not fixed all future events - and accept the NKJV reading of Acts 1:7, thus upholding Jesus' deity. Which is the better option? I think it is a no-brainer. (Btw, the NKJV reading is also reflected in the Douay Rheims bible and the Darby bible, among others. Those are also quite literal translations.)

I am already in conversation with Shiloh on this. You are most welcome to join in.

Why should I admit that the text reads what you want it to read when it goes against the NKJV translation? I trust the latter is correct. I am surprised that you are defending your reading of this text so vigorously. Is it because it is the only text you can find to support your case? Well, then your claim is based on the disputed reading of one text alone. Rather unwise, I think.