Baptist Apostasy [The Cycle of Apostasy]

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 one’s faith. It is a forsaking of something once believed.

An apostasy or falling away is leaving the principles of one’s 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 Christ’s 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 God’s 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.

Would not such an interpretation of this scripture reference imply that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against Christ’s church?

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)

>>> 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 weren’t 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

18
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19
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.

20
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.

21
But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

23
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

24
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.

25
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

They hated Jesus because he convinced them of their sin, when believing in him their sins would have been forgiven.

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.

But tell me... is it really the presence of the Christians who hold back evil? or the Holy Spirit?

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)

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 God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2)

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.

Your is a "Johnny come lately" interpretation. There is no historical support for it. I mentioned Justin Martyr of the ECF who wrote about AD 140 the Antichrist would be "the man of the apostasy" (falling away). Here's another, Irenaeus AD 160, who, writing about the antichrist, interpreted "apostasy" in the passage at issue, 2 Thess. 2:3, for us. I put the word at issue in capitals:

"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?

The teaching that your scripture reference is somehow a contradiction of Jesus’s promise to Peter relies SOLELY upon this single phrase or passage.

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.

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?

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.

>>> don’t 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 live some two thousand years later, what makes you think your private interpretation is superior to theirs?

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.