Maybe it's time to define, "Fall Away". Is it always the same meaning/use?

[Freth]

No they are not. There’s no biblical support for this.

The Bible is full of types and anti-types. You can agree to disagree then, that's fine. My statement has been made. On to other threads. God bless!

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, they were once in "ownership" but became lost. Also, God can and will disinherit His own if they will not obey, Numbers 14:12.

Disinherited is NOT disowned. Was Esau disowned, or only disinherited. (probably a poor example) Jacob tricked him out of what was rightfully his.

And isn't a claim that God owned everyone in the first place an argument in favor of UR? Welcome to the club. - lol

Saint Steven said: ↑
Perhaps from a Damnationist perspective. It could just as easily be viewed from a UR perspective.

The sheep already belonged to the Shepard. The coin already belonged to the woman. The son already belonged to the Father.

Did the son lose his sonship? Only in his own eyes. (no longer worthy to be called your son) The father would have NONE of that. Bring the ring and robe.

Even as it turned out for the sheep. Everything was in sheep-shape. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

Will the OSASers agree that one can turn from a godly Christian life to living in sin spending money on prostitutes as the prodigal and die in that sinful state and yet still be saved?

One's physical father will always be one's fleshly father whether one is saved or not, but spiritually one's father can change. Before one becomes a Christian he is lost in sin, a reprobate, unforgiven, a child of the devil but upon obeying the gospel and becoming a Christian spiritually his father changes from the devil to God through adoption. Under the OT law Israel was God's children and God was their Father but because of their rejection of Christ the devil became their father, John 8:44.

This gets back to what I wrote earlier. We cannot, by an act of our own will, undo what only God can do in the first place. Even an apostate cannot make himself reprobate. That is God's decision and exceedingly rare from my perspective. In fact, I believe that we are promised by God that anyone who confesses (agrees with God about) their sin and repents (turns away) from it will be saved.

 

[Hammster]

The Bible is full of types and anti-types. You can agree to disagree then, that's fine. My statement has been made. On to other threads. God bless!

The types and anti-types have biblical support. Your view doesn’t.

 

[Saint Steven]

@Hammster your sidebar says "Getting whiter." What does that mean? Might be a grey area? - lol

 

[Freth]

The types and anti-types have biblical support. Your view doesn’t.

Revelation 2:7 is clearly talking to all churches in all generations. Jesus repeats this seven times for emphasis.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
​

Various commentaries, not one of them my denomination:

From my own library

Pulpit Commentary on Revelation, page 56, The epistles to the seven churches.

Once more we have to consider rival interpretations. Of these we may safely set aside all those which make the seven letters to be pictures of successive periods in the history of the Church. On the other hand, we may safely deny that the letters are purely typical, and relate to nothing definite in history. Rather they are both historical and typical. They refer primarily to the actual condition of the several Churches in St John's own day, and then are intended for the instruction, encouragement, and warning of the Church and the Churches throughout all time.
​

William Henry Commentary, page 1971

A call to attention. What is said to one church concerns all churches, in every place and age.
​

Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible Second Edition, page 1902

The seven letters of chapters 2 and 3 may be interpreted various was:

1. Historical—the letters should be understood historically, with no prophetic significance.
2. Historo-prophetic—the letters are addressed to seven historical churches, but each church also represents a successive phase or period in history of professing Christendom.
3. Representative—Each church contains characteristics that can be found to some degree in most churches throughout church history. These letters represent the "things which are" (Revelation 1:19). Thus, they are historical and representative [types], rather than prophetic.

Vincent Word Studies of the New Testament, pages 411-412

Seven churches. The seven churches are to symbolize the whole church (Revelation 2:7). Seven being the number of the covenant, we have in these seven a representation of the church universal.
​

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 1504

[Regarding Laodicea] It seems that lukewarmness and indifference will mark the church at the end of the age, particularly indifference as to the great doctrines of the faith and unwillingness to defend them.
​

From websites

​

Blue Letter Bible Commentary: Clarence Larkin

The Book is addressed to the "seven churches which are in Asia." By Asia is not meant the great Continent of Asia, or even the whole of Asia Minor, but only its western end. Neither were the seven churches named the only churches in that district, for there were at least three other churches: Colosse, Col. 1:2; Hierapolis, Col. 4:13; and Troas, Acts 20:6,7. These Seven Churches then must be representative or "typical" churches, chosen for certain characteristics typical of the character of the Church of Christ from the end of the First Century down to the time of Christ's return for His Church, and descriptive of clearly defined in Church History.
​

Zondervan Academic: The Seven Churches of Revelation

That the letters to the seven churches often betray characteristics of the cities in which these churches flourished reminds us how easily churches can reflect the values of their culture if we do not remain vigilant against those values.​

Not all commentaries agree, but there is a general consensus on the seven churches also being types. Therefore, Laodicea is indeed indicative of the modern church, which clearly is lukewarm, but we don't need types to see that plain as day.

God bless!

 

[Hammster]

Revelation 2:7 is clearly talking to all churches in all generations. Jesus repeats this seven times for emphasis.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
​

Various commentaries, not one of them my denomination:

From my own library

Pulpit Commentary on Revelation, page 56, The epistles to the seven churches.

Once more we have to consider rival interpretations. Of these we may safely set aside all those which make the seven letters to be pictures of successive periods in the history of the Church. On the other hand, we may safely deny that the letters are purely typical, and relate to nothing definite in history. Rather they are both historical and typical. They refer primarily to the actual condition of the several Churches in St John's own day, and then are intended for the instruction, encouragement, and warning of the Church and the Churches throughout all time.
​

William Henry Commentary, page 1971

A call to attention. What is said to one church concerns all churches, in every place and age.
​

Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible Second Edition, page 1902

The seven letters of chapters 2 and 3 may be interpreted various was:

1. Historical—the letters should be understood historically, with no prophetic significance.
2. Historo-prophetic—the letters are addressed to seven historical churches, but each church also represents a successive phase or period in history of professing Christendom.
3. Representative—Each church contains characteristics that can be found to some degree in most churches throughout church history. These letters represent the "things which are" (Revelation 1:19). Thus, they are historical and representative [types], rather than prophetic.

Vincent Word Studies of the New Testament, pages 411-412

Seven churches. The seven churches are to symbolize the whole church (Revelation 2:7). Seven being the number of the covenant, we have in these seven a representation of the church universal.
​

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 1504

[Regarding Laodicea] It seems that lukewarmness and indifference will mark the church at the end of the age, particularly indifference as to the great doctrines of the faith and unwillingness to defend them.
​

From websites

​

Blue Letter Bible Commentary: Clarence Larkin

The Book is addressed to the "seven churches which are in Asia." By Asia is not meant the great Continent of Asia, or even the whole of Asia Minor, but only its western end. Neither were the seven churches named the only churches in that district, for there were at least three other churches: Colosse, Col. 1:2; Hierapolis, Col. 4:13; and Troas, Acts 20:6,7. These Seven Churches then must be representative or "typical" churches, chosen for certain characteristics typical of the character of the Church of Christ from the end of the First Century down to the time of Christ's return for His Church, and descriptive of clearly defined in Church History.
​

Zondervan Academic: The Seven Churches of Revelation

That the letters to the seven churches often betray characteristics of the cities in which these churches flourished reminds us how easily churches can reflect the values of their culture if we do not remain vigilant against those values.​

Not all commentaries agree, but there is a general consensus on the seven churches also being types. Therefore, Laodicea is indeed indicative of the modern church, which clearly is lukewarm, but we don't need types to see that plain as day.

God bless!

I can’t see where any of that says the we are the church of Laodicia.

 

[Freth]

I can’t see where any of that says the we are the church of Laodicia.

I said types, then I used Laodicea as a type for the church of today.

"The seven churches actually existed in John's day, but they are also types of churches throughout history, from the time of John to present day. The church of today is clearly Laodicea, being lukewarm. The church of today is clearly Laodicea, being lukewarm."​

Saying the church is Laodicea doesn't make sense. There was only one Laodicea. My sentence can only be interpreted as a type—but just so there's no confusion, I edited the sentence to say , "a type of Laodicea".

 

[Hammster]

I said types, then I used Laodicea as a type for the church of today.

"The seven churches actually existed in John's day, but they are also types of churches throughout history, from the time of John to present day. The church of today is clearly Laodicea, being lukewarm. The church of today is clearly Laodicea, being lukewarm."​

Saying the church is Laodicea doesn't make sense. There was only one Laodicea. My sentence can only be interpreted as a type—but just so there's no confusion, I edited the sentence to say , "a type of Laodicea".

There’s nothing that said the Laodicean church was like the church today.

 

[Butterball1]

That is not the definition of apostasy, which is:
the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

Strong's Greek: 646. ἀποστασία (apostasia) -- defection, revolt
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."

apostasia......apo = away from......stasia = leave from previous standing. It literally means to move away from one's previous standing. The word "fall" refers to the same idea. If I fall from a tree to the ground then my positon has obviously chnged from being up in the tree to now down on the ground.

Acts of the Apostles 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake (apostasia), saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."
Paul is attacked for preaching to Jews to forsake Moses (ie, forsake the law of Moses). The law of Moses was given to the Jews to keep, to circumcise, offerer sacrifices, etc. Paul was telling those Jews to leave, defect from, abandon that OT law to the NT gospel. The idea is the Jews would have to leave, abandon, forsake, "move away" from their old position in keeping the law, leave that previous standing to now following the NT gospel. Those Jews could not "move away" from, forsake, abandon the law of Moses if they never had it to believe and fwalk after to begin with.

Above you cite "abandonment or renunciation" as to what apostasia means. How can one abandon what he never had/possessed? How can one abandon the faith of the NT if he never had it to begin with?

James 5:19-20 "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
A couple of observation from James 5:
--"err FROM the truth" how can one err from the truth, abandon the truth if he never had or never was in the truth to begin with?
--those called "brethren" are now called "sinners" who need to be converted again back to the truth he forsaked, abandoned, apostatized away from.
--

 

[Butterball1]

I specifically asked if God gives sheep to Christ. Does He?

I cited John 6:37 so yes, God does give men to Christ.

I simply gave further explanation as to why God gives certain men to Christ and not others. And gave the necessary cinditions that must be met so they may have everlasting life.

 

[Butterball1]

Disinherited is NOT disowned. Was Esau disowned, or only disinherited. (probably a poor example) Jacob tricked him out of what was rightfully his.

And isn't a claim that God owned everyone in the first place an argument in favor of UR? Welcome to the club. - lol

Saint Steven said: ↑
Perhaps from a Damnationist perspective. It could just as easily be viewed from a UR perspective.

The sheep already belonged to the Shepard. The coin already belonged to the woman. The son already belonged to the Father.

Did the son lose his sonship? Only in his own eyes. (no longer worthy to be called your son) The father would have NONE of that. Bring the ring and robe.

Even as it turned out for the sheep. Everything was in sheep-shape. - lol

Disinherit (Numbers 14:12) means to dispossess, expel, castout.

The sheep belonged to the shepherd and the coin belonged to the woman but they became lost. Again, if OSAS were true, then becoming lost is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

 

[Butterball1]

This gets back to what I wrote earlier. We cannot, by an act of our own will, undo what only God can do in the first place. Even an apostate cannot make himself reprobate. That is God's decision and exceedingly rare from my perspective. In fact, I believe that we are promised by God that anyone who confesses (agrees with God about) their sin and repents (turns away) from it will be saved.

AGAIN, salvation is not monergistic and unconditional. Salvation is conditional upon man having faith therefore man's role in his own salvation is to have faith and keep that faith unto death (Revelation 2:10). Those that do God will save for certain. Yet those who cast aside their faith no longer meet the conditions God placed upon salvation therefore those men lose that promise of salvation. So losing the promise of salvation is not about God undoing anything but about man abandoning the necessary conditions God placed upon salvation.

 

[Freth]

There’s nothing that said the Laodicean church was like the church today.

The lukewarm attribute (Revelation 3:14-17) is what I am applying, not the actual church itself. The other attributes could equally be applied—idolatry, spiritual deadness, false doctrine, lack of patience, not looking for the second coming, etc. Any of these attributes could be applied to various churches in history since John's day, which makes them relevant for the church to recognize and correct.

I chose lukewarmness to compare it to the church today, because it is the primary issue of today (NOTE: that's my opinion, based on my own observations).

Is it an Old Testament/New Testament "Jesus is a type of Adam" type? No.

Is lukewarmness, for instance, typified (Google: "be characteristic or a representative example of") in the church today? Yes.

 

[Butterball1]

I was going to respond with the letters to the seven churches in Revelation, but Butterball beat me to it. I'll flesh it out a bit more.

The angels of the seven churches are their messengers.

Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
​

Jesus goes on in chapters 2 and 3, to write to the angels of the churches. Jesus rebukes five of the seven.

• Ephesus
  • Left its first love.
• Smyrna
• Pergamos
  • Idolatry, holding fast to false doctrine.
• Thyatira
  • Jezebel, fornication, eating things sacrificed to idols.
• Sardis
  • Remember, hold fast to what you have received and heard. Watch, or I will come as a thief.
• Philadelphia
• Laodicea
  • Lukewarmness (neither hot nor cold), poor, blind and naked.

Jesus includes details on how to take corrective action and makes promises if corrective action is taken. He also details consequences for not taking corrective action.

For Laodicea, in particular, Jesus says He will spue them out of His mouth.

The seven churches actually existed in John's day, but they are also types of churches throughout history, from the time of John to present day. The church of today is clearly a type of Laodicea, being lukewarm.

In the letters to the seven churches, we can see how Christians can fall by the wayside and how Jesus will reject them. This isn't the only verse where Jesus says this.

Matthew 7:22-23 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.
​

These verses would indicate that it is possible to be a lost sheep and not return to the flock and be rejected by the shepherd as lost.

The parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) states that the door will shut on those who haven't trimmed their lamps and prepared vessels of oil.

I will add one more thing. The congregation at Ephesus that was "sealed" (Ephesians 1:13) if they did not repent would fall from that sealing (Revelation 2:1-7). Being sealed does not mean the Christian can go about living his life anyway he desires (Romans 6:1-2), being sealed requires the Christian meet the condtions placed upon salvation.

 

[Freth]

I will add one more thing. The congregation at Ephesus that was "sealed" (Ephesians 1:13) if they did not repent would fall from that sealing (Revelation 2:1-7).

The same thing for Laodicea. Jesus said He would spue them out of His mouth, which is rejection.

 

[Rachel20]

Matthew 7:22-23 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.
​

These verses would indicate that it is possible to be a lost sheep and not return to the flock and be rejected by the shepherd as lost.

That verse opposes your conclusion, since Jesus says "I never knew you"

 

[Hammster]

I cited John 6:37 so yes, God does give men to Christ.

I simply gave further explanation as to why God gives certain men to Christ and not others. And gave the necessary cinditions that must be met so they may have everlasting life.

Again, I asked specifically if God gives sheep to His Son? Answering a question that I didn’t ask isn’t really good form.

 

[Hammster]

The lukewarm attribute (Revelation 3:14-17) is what I am applying, not the actual church itself. The other attributes could equally be applied—idolatry, spiritual deadness, false doctrine, lack of patience, not looking for the second coming, etc. Any of these attributes could be applied to various churches in history since John's day, which makes them relevant for the church to recognize and correct.

I chose lukewarmness to compare it to the church today, because it is the primary issue of today (NOTE: that's my opinion, based on my own observations).

Is it an Old Testament/New Testament "Jesus is a type of Adam" type? No.

Is lukewarmness, for instance, typified (Google: "be characteristic or a representative example of") in the church today? Yes.

There have been lukewarm churches through history. See Revelation.

 

[Freth]

There have been lukewarm churches through history. See Revelation.

I think I acknowledged that in my previous post: "Any of these attributes could be applied to various churches in history since John's day, which makes them relevant for the church to recognize and correct."