[graceandpeace]

The world has been reconciled unto Him, but we have been given the ministry of reconciliation... I believe that we would witness to the fact and people would be brought to God.

yes

You are saying people are forgiven all sins except unbelief. Then how can an unbeliever come to God? If unbelief is unforgivable?The question remains if you are free from sin or just free from the law somehow.

Go back to where I said, 'unbelief unrepented of'....

We are free from sins under moses...through reconciliation of all men. The law of moses is no more. The law of Christ remains.

If we repent, we are free from unbelief. SIMPLE.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by graceandpeace

yes



Go back to where I said, 'unbelief unrepented of'....

We are free from sins under moses...through reconciliation of all men. The law of moses is no more. The law of Christ remains.

If we repent, we are free from unbelief. SIMPLE.

The Law of Moses still exists. It is for those who are not righteous (unbelievers) (1 Timothy 1). Is it for believers (Romans 3:31)?

[JesusFan]

As Apostle john stated, they left us as though they were among us, were not of us!

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by JesusFan

As Apostle john stated, they left us as though they were among us, were not of us!

1 John 2:19 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.

[Tambora]

Originally Posted by graceandpeace

I asked you what you believe it to be...will you answer?

I was hoping the scriptures posted would answer.

Apostasy is not an accidental "opps, I messed up, now I better fix that". It is not about one committing a sin, per se. In other words, it is not about your moral behavior.
One can leave/abandon their house without having any morality involved.
So, even though apostasy CAN involve morality, the basic meaning of the word is not about morality. It is about abandonment (whether any morality is involved or not).

Apostasy is a purposeful and calculated abandonment, despite any facts involved.
It has more to do with relationship, rather than morality.

Divorce is a calculated abandonment, not an accidental "opps".
While they were in a marriage, it was a real and legitimate marriage. It was a contract/covenant relationship.
Divorce is covenant breaking. It severs the covenant relationship.

So, I do not believe (as some do) that one apostatizes their relationship with God because of their behavior or their belief.
Married couples sometimes have bad behavior or different beliefs, but it does not mean they are not married.

Apostasy is a cold, hard, calculated refusal to remain in a covenant relationship with God, despite any behavior or belief. It is a purposeful breaking of your covenant relationship with God.

While it is hard for some to even imagine that one would purposely "divorce" God, scripture tells us it does happen.

[JesusFan]

Originally Posted by Tambora

As a side-note ..................

2 Thessalonians 2 KJV
(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Translating from one language to another can be ambiguous at times.
The apostasy (falling away) in this verse has a definite article, which means it is not just a general falling away, but a specific falling away.
It might have been better to translate: the falling away.

Identifies itself as being THE one happening in Church before the beast/man odf sin comes!

paul refers to "falling way from grace"
NOT to lose of salvation, but trying to get saved by law keeping!

John/peter use it in sense of revealing oneself to NOT being really a christian, as used in hebrews also!

the one that is in last days I link to time when Bible sends upon the lost a strong spirit of delusion, thatcauses them to belive NOT in jesus, but the false one, Anti Christ!

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by S0Z0

The Bible says no such thing. The evidence of a believer is in what they believe, not in what they do.

The works were prepared beforehand, that means they are finished. We partake of His finished works.

Creative exegesis, but wrong.

I used to have head knowledge of biblical Christianity, but was not saved. I still retain that knowledge, but am saved, even when I do not do any works. Some cults have the fruit of works and some right beliefs, but they are not saved. Some Christians have right or wrong beliefs, work or no works, combo of both. Grace/faith in the person and work of Christ does not depend on lack of or excess of works nor theological perfection of beliefs that could be academically held without heart transformation, regeneration, relationship with Christ.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by steko

G646

ἀποστασία
apostasía; gen. apostasías, fem. noun from aphístēmi (G868), to depart. Departure, apostasy. Occurs in Act_21:21 translated "forsake" and in 2Th_2:3, "a falling away"; Sept.: 2Ch_29:19; Jer_29:32. In Act_21:21 the new Christian believers among the Jews, having departed from Moses and coming to Jesus Christ, decided that they should stay apart from Moses, i.e., their Judaistic practices, for they were in a new dispensation. They were not Judaizing Christians, but Christians standing apart from Moses. In 2Th_2:3 the word apostasía does not refer to genuine Christians who depart from the faith, but mere professors who, without divine grace, succumb to the Satanic deception of the Antichrist. If those who are truly Christ's and through the Holy Spirit have become members of His body (1Co_12:13) could be detached, then the assurances Jesus gave that His own will not perish would be made null and void (Joh_10:28-29). See Sept.: 2Ch_29:19.-"Complete Word Study Dictionary"- Spiros Zodhiates

Spiros should be considered, but not apart from his Calvinistic bias. Other scholars would disagree (apostasy is falling away from the faith, not just counterfeiters who never had it).

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by S0Z0

You don't know the meaning of the word "love", so anything you add to the Gospel is meaningless.

The most hypocritical statement of the day goes to..

drum roll

SOZO!!

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by godrulz

but not apart from his Calvinistic bias.

How is predestination not a virtual certainty to an omnipotent being?

Oh yeah, God makes Himself dumber
What an argument.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

How is predestination not a virtual certainty to an omnipotent being?

Oh yeah, God makes Himself dumber
What an argument.

God could predestine and bring to pass everything. In light of evil and suffering and free moral agency (necessary for love, relationship, moral responsibility), it is evident that God predestines some vs all things (decretal Calvinism is a wrong, deterministic paradigm).

[JesusFan]

Moderate version states God has BOTH a determinite and permissive Will, I hold to that...

High/Hyper hold that God directly determines ALL things done...

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by JesusFan

Moderate version states God has BOTH a determinite and permissive Will, I hold to that...

High/Hyper hold that God directly determines ALL things done...

All Calvinistic views ultimately put God as all-determining/causal. Moderates recognize the problem and try to soft-peddle. Only a rejection of determinism in favor of free will theism resolves the problems.

[john w]

Originally Posted by godrulz

All Calvinistic views ultimately put God as all-determining/causal. Moderates recognize the problem and try to soft-peddle. Only a rejection of determinism in favor of free will theism resolves the problems.

Adherents to these general views can and do hold nuanced and even inconsistent ideas. We can and do hold nuanced variations of these views, not a manmade theology, but there is nothing wrong with systematizing biblical concepts for communication purposes (these are academic debates, so like any scholastic discussion)It is a convoluted, confusing, philosophical view. I think credible whateverists have given a reasoned response to it. Too many make wrong assumptions, leading to wrong conclusions down the line. This view is still problematic in other ways, notably inconsistent or syncretistic, and is a logical absurdity based on faulty heurmernetics. This is not a proof text for others views, but a simply idiom , nor is it not reasoning a verse away, but interpreting it in light of other verses, but that still does not make this consistent or defensible. I believe whateverism is based on deductive ideas and requires proof texting and rationalizations leading to weakness and problems. Like any view, there are a variety of nuances held by different people, so we have to be careful to stereotype. I do believe I am on the right track to reject whateverism as unbiblical, and that I have a more coherent, biblical view , based on normative church history, and, of course, rejecting hobby horses, pet doctrines, and wooden literalism.. But this all, of course, begs the question, based on sound exegesis, in consideration of not throwing out the baby with the bath water, which would constitute a logical fallacy.

[godrulz]

jw may not be doctrines of demons, but he is dalliances (non-sexual definition) for dummies.