Skip to comments.Baptist Apostasy [The Cycle of Apostasy]
Posted on 06/14/2013 1:02:47 PM PDT by Colofornian
The Word of God clearly teaches that in the last days just before the return of Christ for the saints there will be a falling away from the Truth...
...The words falling away in this text are old English words for an abandonment, a defection, a desertion or a departure from ones faith. It is a forsaking of something once believed.
An apostasy or falling away is leaving the principles of ones faith as set forth in the Word of God and either compromising them or clearly abandoning them. In the Word of God, the words falling away is the same in the Greek text, the Textus Receptus. We get the word apostasy from that word and the Authorized Version of the Word of God uses the term falling away. The apostle Paul tells the church in Thessalonica that in the last days, preceding Christs return for the saints, there will be a great falling away from the Truth once believed. Many will be affected by that apostasy.
An apostate is one who has rejected Gods Word and no longer accepts it. A truly saved person cannot become a full blown apostate. According to Romans Chapter One, one who continues to reject the Truth can become a reprobate. A reprobate is one who has been rejected by God. In 2 Timothy 3:8, we see...those who did reject the Truth and were finally rejected by God and became reprobate with no hope. In Titus 1:16, we see an example of some who professed to know God but whose works denied Him. A reprobate is one who has rejected the Truth and continued to fall away to a place of no return. The apostate or reprobate is then abandoned by God with no possible chance of ever being saved.
(Excerpt) Read more at baptistpillar.com ...
Yup. West went South.
The pdf version is the first "PPT" listed in this Google search: Cycle of Apostasy pdf among other search listings
Did bashing mormons get too boring for you? Now you have to bash Baptists.
Um, this is a PRO-Baptist site referenced. The "Baptist apostasy" refers to the falling away from Baptist doctrine.
Many true believers are being effected by the apostasy of these last days. It is true they are not apostates, but they are being neutralized by apostate tendencies. They are being swept along in the flood tide of the denials of the age. They are no longer the salt of the earth. They have lost their savor. Many have developed a system of compromise and denial, which sounds very convincing. But apostasy is apostasy.Our forefathers stood by the Truth, and so should we. We must not abandon it for convenience or for temporary peace with the world.
How is this "bashing" Baptists?
How often do you open your keyboard's mouth minus actually reading anything of a posted article, driftdiver?
As FWDude says, this is a Baptist site from which it was pulled. It's trying to pre-empt Baptists from apostasying -- and to recall some of those who have -- yet recognizing some who are "reprobate" are lost forever.
It cites Paul's passage in 2 Thess how many will apostasize in the end times.
So what? Will you accuse the Bible of "bashing" all those who will apostatize?
Will I accuse the Bible? lol
Is that ex-mormon logic?
I have a BA in Bible from an Assembly of God University and MA in Christian Counseling from a Fundamentalist Baptist College. As an ordained Southern Baptist, I consider myself extremely conservative in theology, as well as in the political arena. Many, if not most in the SBC would consider me radical and far right. I see many problems, yes even apostasy in much of the modern day church, and am quick to point it out. With that said, from my personal experience, many who are fanatical in the arena of King James Version only can border on being almost cultic at heart. I am yet to find a KJV only fanatic provide me with chapter and verse which demonstrates the KJV is the only version that can truly defined as the word of God. Are there some poor versions of the Scripture — you bet they are! I also believe there are some versions which are equally divine, and perhaps a couple that are better for those who read modern day English.
The parable of the seed sower is instructive.
Mathew 13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a cropa hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
18 Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.
What? No apology for your ill-founded assumption in your previous post? Instead, what? You launch into a second one? (That I am a former Mormon)
Sorry. But I've never been a Mormon; though am a descendent of one.
Would not such an interpretation of this scripture reference imply that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against Christ’s church?
Would this not break scripture?
The proper interpretation of the phrase from the original Greek reads more like “snatched away” or “caught up”.
The proper interpretation of the passage in question is a reference to the rapture.
The same concept or teaching, namely that the tribulation period does not begin (anti-christ revealed) until the Holy Spirit removes Himself from earth, appears MULTIPLE times in scripture.
The teaching that your scripture reference is somehow a contradiction of Jesus’s promise to Peter relies SOLELY upon this single phrase or passage.
I don’t care how many degrees you got... Your teaching fails the confirmation test. (scripture confirms scripture)
I guess Paul would be considered a "basher" since he (and God) was pretty clear to not accept ANOTHER Gospel...even if an ANGEL (sound familiar) brings it.
IN the early 1900’s, when the Communists began persecuting churches in Russia, the average church fell from 300 attendees to 15. That’s a 95% falling away that was repeated in the persecution of the satellite countries. It will repeat itself here in the USA during Hillary’s administration.
Apparently you jump to conclusions.
You can’t “fall from Grace” when you have been truly saved by God (not of yourself).
Grace is fully dependent upon God, cannot (nor will not) be revoked, and is the opposite of works.
2 Thess. 2 does not say the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, you are reading a pretrib rapture into the scripture.
If “apostasy” is supposed to mean a departure from earth (in a pretrib rapture), instead of a departure from the the faith, why is it nobody in church history interpreted the way you do until the rise of pretribulationism in the early 19th century?
None of the ECF (Early Church Fathers) understood “apostasy” to mean a pretrib rapture. And they knew Greek very well, I would dare say better than you.
Justin Martyr, for instance, said the antichrist would be “the man of apostasy.” The context supports Justin I would say.
>>> If apostasy is supposed to mean a departure from earth (in a pretrib rapture), instead of a departure from the the faith, why is it nobody in church history interpreted the way you do until the rise of pretribulationism in the early 19th century?
Well... maybe because there weren’t many bibles around???
Check your history on that.
Pre-trib rapture is taught best I think through the tradition of Jewish courtship, engagement, and the marriage ceremony.
There are several scriptures which give evidence that when Jesus returns to earth for everyone to see, He does so with the saints. All born again Christians fall into that category.
Yes, grace IS the opposite of works.
Question: Was God ever a gracious Host to Lucifer and angels-turned-demons in heaven? (If so, how then was God's role as a gracious Host ever revoked -- if what you say was "so"?)
You cant fall from Grace when you have been truly saved by God (not of yourself).
Hebrews 6:4-6: 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
What do you all think of Baptists who join known cults?
Nobody said that the apostasy would be total...Jesus did leave the door open to that possibility...but did not outright claim that...and the apostle Paul clearly said that in the last days some -- not all -- would depart from the faith...
So the Scriptures to look at include:
* 4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times SOME will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. (Apostle Paul, 1 Timothy 4:1)
* "...when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth? (Jesus, Luke 18:8)
Interesting question(s), while I don’t know for sure I believe Satan’s sin was so well it was done in much greater knowledge (and turning from God) than our natural death as sinners...however I cannot really answer fully!
Second question. I would say that they may have known the truth, and been drawn by the Holy Spirit, but weren’t really saved. A very dangerous place indeed, as they will never be saved!!
>>> Nobody said that the apostasy would be total
An apostasy as your interpretation of that scripture implies would not HAVE to be total. Keep in mind that a prophetic sign is being revealed here about how to recognize the beginning of the tribulation.
Think about what is being “given” as a sign here according to your interpretation... the failure of Christians? Have we not been failing our lord now for over 30 years??? Where do you draw the line in biblical terms as to what constitutes “apostacy” on a grand scale enough to signify the eminent revealing of the antichrist? If it is supposed to be a sign, don’t you think God would be referring to something just a little more “sudden” and “significant” not to mention recognizable to all??? It is WAY too easy for any christian to look around today, or even 30 years ago, and be able to make strong arguments about the notion that the “apostasy” is allready upon us.
Remember... we are talking about the end of the age of grace here. Does it really fit in God’s character and history of “signs” to use such a subjective and blurred line-in-the-sand about how poorly His bride is doing on earth??? That doesn’t sound like a groom coming back to get His bride back to me... sounds more like God judging the earth because of the christians... so now the tribulation is our fault??? Really?
But tell me... is it really the presence of the Christians who hold back evil? or the Holy Spirit?
Your interpretation would imply the former.
I said >
If apostasy is supposed to mean a departure from earth (in a pretrib rapture), instead of a departure from the the faith, why is it nobody in church history interpreted the way you do until the rise of pretribulationism in the early 19th century?
Your reply >
Well... maybe because there werent many bibles around??? Check your history on that.
My reply >
John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren of England in early 19th century Great Britain was “the rise of pretribulationism” I was speaking about. You seem to be thinking of the middle ages - when Europe, including England, was under the power of the Papacy, when indeed “there weren’t many bibles around.” The common man did not have access to the bible then, only the Catholic priesthood.
After the Protestant Reformation, and by the 19th century, this was no longer the case. You would never know it from today’s British, but the British Empire was at one time very biblical. This was Victorian England, the days of great preachers like Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
Having examined their Bibles, most British Protestants abandoned Roman Catholic Amillennialism, and had became Premillennialists. With Darby’s new theory of the pretrib rapture, a new kind of Premillennialism came on the scene, Dispensationalsm, the pretrib rapture being its main feature.
This caused a major split among Premillennialists between Darby’s new pretrib form of Premillennialism, called “Dispensationalism,” and the “Historic Premillennialists,” “Historic” meaning they held to the “historic” post-tribulation rapture - “historic” as opposed to Darby’s new pretrib view - which has continued to this day. As you might guess, I am the latter.
But not even John Darby nor any of his followers had the temerity to interpret the falling away of 2 Thess. 2 as a pretrib rapture. That notion arose about a century later in America. Most Dispensationalists do not interpret it as you.
John ch 15
The Hatred of the World
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
They could not forgive him for convincing them of their sin, he just told them the truth.
We all make each other mad in the same way, any of us can come up with something some church denomination does that is not scriptural or against scripture and some times just plain stupid but we make people mad by telling them the truth.
Only one way to show some one else you are a believer and that is to do what Jesus said, which is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
By helping people who needs a helping hand we are showing gods love.
Every one has different ideas of how to explain the rapture or to explain how to keep from sinning, how to be Godly, they are nothing but words to some of us.
We are talking about a personal relationship with God, only God knows what is in our hearts unless we do what Jesus says.
If you are standing along the highway in 120 degree heat and some one stops to give you a drink of water who would you give the credit to?
Right, so maybe they believe in him too or they may have driven on by.
Life is just so easy for most people now days that they get no practical experience on such things as compassion which is exactly what the main message of Jesus was.
Religion will not get it.
>>> Most Dispensationalists do not interpret it as you.
I don’t rely upon the interpretations of others. It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been studying the bible. I certainly don’t dismiss any particular interpretations either unless there is significant evidence to do so.
In this case, I find FAR more evidence supporting the interpretation that “falling away” refers to an EVENT... whether it be the Holy Spirit’s removal from the earth or all Christians being removed from the earth.
The evidence I speak of is other scriptures in multiple books of the bible which refer to the same event.
I find two basic reasons to dismiss the interpretation of “falling away” as referring to the TREND of Christians falling from the faith... 1. As it is a TREND, there is no clear definitive point in time anyone can say that it happens. 2. It signifies a catastrophic failure or defeat of the church which Jesus said would not happen.
It simply makes far more sense to me that what is being said in the scripture here is that the antichrist will not be revealed until that which holds him back is taken away.
Heb 6:4-6 doesn't merely say "drawn by the Holy Spirit" but rather "shared in the Holy Spirit."
It also doesn't simply say to know about the truth, but is much more experiential: "tasted the heavenly gift" and " who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age".
(This hardly describes just God-fearers, Christian wannabes, unsaved church members & unbelievers)
Why the false dichotomy here?
Jesus describes Christians as "salt" -- salt was a preservative in the fridgeless era. And who indwells Christians enabling them to be "salt"? (Yes, the Holy Spirit)
2 Thess 2 says: 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way
(This "hinderer" is likely the Holy Spirit of whom Paul speaks)
Think about what is being given as a sign here according to your interpretation... the failure of Christians? Have we not been failing our lord now for over 30 years??? Where do you draw the line in biblical terms as to what constitutes apostacy on a grand scale enough to signify the eminent revealing of the antichrist?
Ya know when Hitler took over, he was not a ruler of nobody! IOW, a demonic-inspired ruler needs minions to do his bidding; and many of those who did Hitler's bidding were church members!
Likewise 2 Thess 2 "the rebellion" led by a "man of lawlessness" -- and that he would be "religious" in setting himself up "in God's temple." (That's hardly merely forming some new isolated Satanic sect out in left field somewhere):
for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in Gods temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2)
Remember... we are talking about the end of the age of grace here. Does it really fit in Gods character and history of signs to use such a subjective and blurred line-in-the-sand about how poorly His bride is doing on earth???[safrguns]
The New Testament was written during this "age of grace" you are talking about. And how did the NT writers describe this world in conjunction with "the evil one" (Mt. 13:19, 38; 1 John 2:13)?
Well, read on...it's time you start integrating these passages into your "age of grace" theology:
* "...the whole world is under the control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)
* "...leads the whole world astray. (Rev. 12:9)
* "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4)
You seem to also neglect all the passages in Psalms & the New Testament which describe God's people as simply pilgrims passing thru; aliens from a foreign kingdom; citizens of heaven. This world is not our home. etc.
If you don't know who the usurping god is of this world; who the god of this age is, then, yes, your theology is going to be rather incomplete.
>>> Why the false dichotomy here?
It’s not a false dichotomy... its a rhetorical question.
I assumed you would agree with me, and you did.
The Holy Spirit is the One who holds back the advances of the anti-christ. It illustrates the focus or object of the scripture in as far as WHO is “falling away”.
I don’t follow your references to the ruler of this world as it relates to this scripture.
Clearly we are taught that Satan is the ruler of the world, while we are also taught that the Holy Spirit limits or “holds back” his scope of power and control.
I believe it is important to focus in on WHO is being referenced in the scripture in question.
I would submit that those translations which use the word apostacy are wrong.
Apostacy is a trend... God would not use it as a prophetic event or sign.
God “stepping back” or “leaving” or “falling away” in order to literally allow “all hell to break lose” makes far more sense and fits with other related scriptures on the same event.
Whether or not Christians are removed WITH the Holy Spirit is a separate argument that is not addressed in this particular passage.
"The apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians:
Unless there shall come A FALLING AWAY first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.
The apostle therefore clearly points out HIS APOSTASY, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.'"
>>> Your is a “Johnny come lately” interpretation...
My interpretation lines up with other scriptures referencing the same EVENT.
>>> The apostle therefore clearly points out HIS APOSTASY, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.’”
The title of the thread points it’s finger at the church... or the bride of Christ as “falling away”... interpreting “falling away” as apostacy.
Now you say that the object of the passage in question is the Anti-Christ himself?
Which is it?
What is Jesus' promise to Peter? Are you speaking of Simon BarJonah? Would you please explain this to me?
Also "falling away" (aphistaymee) In Luke 8:13 bears no relationship to "caught up" (AV) or "taken up" (DRB) (harpadzoh) in six different senses:
(1) They are two different words, verbs that are not related. To fall down is not the same as to be taken up.
(2) The are different in time frame. falling away was/is in the present tense and is continually in progress, caught/taken up will happen sometime yet in the future.
(3) The action is different. The falling away is a slower course, and being of the middle deponent, it means that the person falling away is deliberately withdrawing oneself and actively causing it. In the upper-taking, the catching up, it is a plucking up or away by an agency external to the person who is passively receiving, not actively causing the catching away process.
(4) In the falling away, seekers have been walking away and withdrawing from The Faith over a period of almost two thousand years, to form a cumulative group. In the catching up, the process will happen in one fleeting moment, in the blink of an eye.
(5) The falling away is by individual personal decision by his/her own will. In the taking away, the process will be instituted by the decision of an authority above and apart from any of the ones are being acted upon, the time of occurence not by their own choice.
(6) The terminal location of the one fallen away (apostate) is Hell and the Lake of Fire with eternal agony. The final residence of those caught up/taken away (firmly committed believers) will be in The God's Heaven, to enjoy absolute abumdant etermal Life in His Presence.
Got it ? Capisce?
It’s not that difficult, Safguns.
1. Per 2 Thess. 2, don’t be deceived thinking Jesus comes first, the antichrist comes first. The antichrist obviously has to come first, because when Christ comes he destroys “that wicked,” the antichrist, verse 8.
Pretribs pay no heed to Paul’s warning, they teach Jesus comes first.
2. As to the falling away which must precede the revelation of the antichrist, the context literally bristles with descriptions of what the falling away is, see verse 4.
Take a look at history. One time Christian Europe is no more, America is not far behind. The Christian west has gone socialist. the one time Christian west is increasingly in rebellion against God. Which our text says has to happen first before the man of apostasy can make his grand entrance on the world’s stage.
Which is exactly the way the two witnesses I cited from church history, Justin and Irenaeus, interpreted verse 3. Their take on that passage was transmitted to them from the first century church. You live some two thousand years later, what makes you think your private interpretation is superior to theirs?
Justin and Irenaeus lived some two thousand years closer to Paul, who wrote the passage, than you.
Because society in general is increasingly in rebellion against God, does not mean that God’s elect are. He that endureth to the end tha same shall be saved, Christ said.
The interpretation was well-known at the time it was spoken by the Savior and written by the Apostles. The Institutionalized Church, being devoid of spiritual discernment did not understand nor accept, and deliberately or through disuse, the doctrine was withheld from those seeking salvation truths by those claiming to teach The Faith. (Romans 1:18)
And it is not at all true, as you have mistakenly assumed, that this doctrine has not been lknown throughout history. It simply has been quashed by those whose entire fabrication would have been unraveled by it.
You may look at old hymns prior to Darbyism and Schofield to see that it is taught by psalms and hyms and spiritual songs, under those led by The Holy Ghost, who allowed the Word of The Christ to dwell in them richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another with those hymns.
But never discount that not only has The God progressively revealed more and more of his truths through faithful prophets, but has also continually revealed applications of those revealed truths through Spirit-controlled expositors, according to the times for which they were fitted. Jesus upset a whole institutionalized God-rejecting religios system. So did Peter Waldo. So did John Hus. So did Martin Luther. So did John Nelson Darby. So did Cyrus Ingerson Schofield. That type of preacher is still crying out today, as the love toward The God of the hoi polloi grows ice-cold, through the overspreading of abomination, as told to Daniel, but not understood by him; and sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12).
You will either understand this, or you will reject it. Choose now whom you will serve.
>>> What is Jesus’ promise to Peter?
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Clearly, in contrast to my previous statements, “falling away” IS a reference to apostacy... but apostacy by who?
Apostasia also means rebellion, and may be referring to the ungodly... not necessarily the Christians.
The NLT translates this way:
“Don’t be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness* is revealed”
THIS I can fit with the context of scripture, and I do not find it in conflict with Matt 16:18.
It also means that 2Thes 2:3 is NOT a reference to the rapture. I can concede this point if you can concede that the apostacy is not necessarily a reference to born again christians.
Do I understand you right, are you saying (like Safguns) “apostasy” in 2 Thess. 2:3 means the pretrib rapture?
>>> Do I understand you right, are you saying (like Safguns) apostasy in 2 Thess. 2:3 means the pretrib rapture?
I know you were not asking me... but let me clarify please...
I contend based on several reputable scholars that Apostasia (falling away) is a MIS-TRANSLATION.
If “falling away” is not a mis-translation, then it is NOT a reference to pretrib rapture.
The proper translation should be “...unless “THE Departure” comes first...”
And it isn't just the Southern Baptists, most Baptist groups that have not fallen into liberalism (like the ABC, if it still exists at all, might be an exception, since it isn't clear they see a need for grace).
>>> dont be deceived thinking Jesus comes first, the antichrist comes first.
When Jesus comes for His bride, He is not coming to earth.
We are taken to Him in the sky... so don’t be deceived that pre-trib rapture theology is in conflict with scripture.
There were 6 translations prior to KJV. They all translated the key operative phrase in this verse as “The departure” not “a falling away”
You make an interesting point here... we are living centuries after the first translations went into print.
We pretty much rely upon those translations being perfectly accurate, and they are not. It’s hard enough with the language barriers as they are (inferiority of english) for us to get it right the first time in a single verse. I would argue that as such, we cannot rely solely upon this particular passage as definitive proof either way.
I cannot prove that this passage has been mis-translated.
Neither can I rely upon “apostasia” being the proper translation. We must get confirmation through other scriptures referring to the same events.
As for the “private interpretation” comment, you should already know that it is the Holy Spirit who interprets scripture to us individually... so let us seek the truth of the matter and avoid accusations of pride.
Why else would the only authentic bible (which shows up two thousand years after the founding of the religion) be in seventeenth century English (and in no other language on earth, including the original Biblical languages) and be named after King James? Maybe he was the Davidic monarch, eh?
Apostasy is never about regenerated believer-disciples who persistently commit theirselves and their lives to The Christ Who saved them with His Blood and Righteousness. Neither does it refer to the souls who never took up the offer by The God of salvation by His grace. Apostasy is the act of unregenerated "believers" voluntarily participating in the affairs and activity, often having moments of great enthusiasm, but who in the end cannot sustain and persist in their own perseverance and determined will of the flesh.
An example of this is the 20th Century Charles Templeton, who started in the work of evangelism as a young man; but the more seminary he took, the more he fell away. Look him up.
The passage in Hebrews describes such people:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" (Heb. 6:4-6 AV)
What this says, very somberly, if one gets involved enthusiastically through being enamored, but walks away, never was "saved" to begin with; and perhaps can never go back. Christianity is not something to dabble in.
Ah, what did Jesus mean "this rock" when he was talking with Simon BarJonah? Tell me about this, eh?
You might find this interesting:
To be answered later — preparing for assenbling at this moment —
One must always keep in mind that this section is primarily addressed to the Jewish diaspora who, having operated under the law covenant, met all the conditions--but under the law, could fall aside, and miss the benefit of the first (and only) crucifixion.
No. More later. It's church time for me.