Apostates & backsliders

Antonio da Rosa appears to have made Jonathan Moorhead’s fine blog his last stand. He also seems to think that he has Jonathan on the ropes because Jonathan hasn’t given a direct answer to one of his questions. This is Antonio’s basic line of questioning:

***QUOTE***

The only difference between Zane Hodges and Dort, is that Dort (and Westminster) have no OBJECTIVE time standards by which a backslider (whose faith is "interupted", read "lost for a time") can remain backslidden and still be saved.

They just can't die that way. Well, that leaves a whole lot of room for time during the interim, does it not!?

And why can't they die that way? You mean, they can go for some unspecified amount of time in a relationship with other "gods" (whatever they may be), who says not years, but they just cannot die that way!? Yet on their death bed, they just need repent, showing that they were truly elect?

This is not functionally different than Free Grace theology, in that the only difference is that we say that a true Christian can die that way, either because his sin is full grown (see James 1:14, 15) or because of the temporal displeasure of God whereby death is a punitive action for their unfaithfulness.

Quite possibly they die because of the righteous wrath of God against their unfaithfulness.

Take Solomon for instance. Only speculation can maintain that he died repentant. There is no indication in Chron or Kings that he repented. But HE WORSHIPPED OTHER GODS, LEAVING THE LORD GOD. His heart was turned to other Gods and was not loyal to the Lord.

We can look back and say with certainty that he is in heaven, no?

The gentlemen that Zane speaks about is like a Solomon.

It is Free Grace theology that says we can give NOONE assurance of their salvation. It is not our duty nor is it wise. We only point people to where they can gain certain assurance of eternal life, the objective Word of God; the promises of Christ.

Reformed people seem to me (and to anyone else as well?) to be very quick to judge someone else unsaved. "He must not be saved because (you fill in the blank)".

This is not our job! There is just to much judgmental stuff going around concerning this subject. Now open sin is another matter, unrepentance is another matter, but telling someone they are not saved, judging someone unsaved because of sin, what an endless regress and slippery slope that is!

The unforgiveable sins (or you just cannot be saved if you are guilty of these sins):

I don't know how you would interpret "interrupt the exercise of faith" but it seems to me that the writers meant that such a man loses his faith (albeit they say temporarily, but they do not specify ANY objective standard of time by which is allowable and still be saved or shows that one is reprobate).

The first implication that comes to mind is that they have to first have faith in order to lose it. But if it was a false faith, then how can it be deemed LOSING "faith"? You have to have something before you can lose it. Nevertheless, are you saying that a Christian's faith is linnear without any preforations whatsover, Jonathan? If there is a preforation, they just CAN'T be regenerate? You either can say that you believe that faith can never fail in the truly born again Christian, or you must concede that loss of faith (even for a temporary, underterimed amount of time) is possible in a Christian.

Jonathan, it is impossible for a Christian, (even for at least a while in your belief) to lose his or her faith? Is this impossible in your theology? I don't think if you believe this that you would have any good Scriptural support, nor would experience bear this out.

***END-QUOTE***

Jonathan has responded by quoting some classic passages of Scripture which set the bar what constitutes a saving profession of faith. That is not the answer Antonio was looking for.

In fairness, Jonathan is under no obligation to answer a question the way it was posed. And the way in which he’s chosen to answer this particular question is perfectly legitimate in its own right. Any Biblical position on the spiritual status of the apostate must come to terms with these passages. Antonio hasn’t answered Jonathan’s question either!

Having said that, I think it’s worthwhile to answer Antonio on his own grounds.

As we can see above, Antonio’s basic objection to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance is that such a doctrine cannot specify objective criteria for distinguishing an apostate from a backslider, and failure to do so falsifies the doctrine in question.

That, however, is an obvious non sequitur, and one wonders how Antonio arrived at such an illogical inference.

i) According to Calvinism, there is a categorical distinction between the elect and the reprobate. These are two distinct groups, and, what is more, there is no intersection or defection from one to the other, or vice versa. The elect are uniformly heaven-bound while the reprobate are uniformly hell-bound.

ii) There is also a categorical distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate, but here there is a degree of intersection and defection—although it only runs in one direction. All reprobates are unregenerates, but not all unregenerates are reprobate. There are elect unregenerates whom God will, at some point in their life, regenerate, and they cannot revert to their unregenerate state.

Either you are elect or reprobate. Either you are regenerate or unregenerate. There are no borderline cases, metaphysically speaking, or epistemically speaking from a God’s-eye viewpoint. God knows which is which. Indeed, God knows which is which because God is responsible for election, reprobation, and regeneration.

iii) The elect can backslide. An individual can start out as a nominal Christian, backslide, then be restored to the faith by the grace of regeneration.

Or, an individual can start out as a born again Christian, backslide, and then be restored.

By contrast, an apostate is a nominal Christian, an individual who was never regenerate, but a professing believer who, at some point, publicly and permanently repudiates his one-time profession in faith and/or practice.

There is also a sense in which it’s possible for someone to be a closet apostate, but keep it to himself to avoid being ostracized by his faith community. In addition, he can do more damage from inside the church than outside the church.

iv) The elect/reprobate and regenerate/unregenerate share something in common. They are all sinners. And this commonality generates borderline cases. It is possible for a child of God to behave worse than a child of the devil.

We all know about David’s affair with Bathsheba, and subsequent cover-up, which involved murder. Yet there’s no doubt from the witness of Scripture that David was a true believer. And he was restored to the faith. Yet there are many “virtuous pagans” who never committed murder to conceal an affair. Due to common grace they were restrained from that particular sin.

This doesn’t mean that a child of God can be as bad as the worst unbeliever, any more than a child of the devil can be as good as the most mature believer. There are heights of holiness of sanctity which only a Christian can attain, and depths of depravity which only a reprobate can attain. But there is also a muddy middle-ground.

v) Now, when we talk about borderline cases at this level, we have shifted from the ontology of faith and infidelity to the phenomenology of faith and infidelity.

The individual is whatever he is, objectively speaking, but from the viewpoint of a human observer, his spiritual status cannot be determined with certainty.

A Christian can know his own state of grace, but he cannot be as definitive about the spiritual status of a second party.

So there is, indeed, a limitation on our knowledge at this juncture. But such a limitation in no way invalidates the doctrine of perseverance. There is no logical inconsistency between what is ontologically certain, and what is epistemically uncertain.

It is ontologically certain that a particular pack of cards will be sequenced in a particular order, but what makes poker a game of skill is that knowing the odds does not make a player privy to the actual ordering of the deck.

vi) For purposes of church membership and church discipline, Calvinism customarily distinguishes between a saving profession of faith and a credible profession of faith.

We cannot know for sure who is a true or nominal believer. But we can render a provisional judgment on the basis of whether the individual is able to offer a credible profession of faith.

After all, one of the necessary conditions of being a Christian is to be a believer and follower of Jesus. So the burden of proof is always on the individual to offer a credible profession of faith.

The onus is not to disprove someone’s Christian identity, but of the individual to give evidence of his Christian identity. And, for this, there are objective criteria, such as Jonathan has already spelled out.

vii) Not only is this exercise permissible, but it is mandatory. The Bible prescribes certain qualifications for Christian ministry. The Bible prescribes certain beliefs, attitudes, and behavior for a saving profession of faith. The Bible prescribes certain forms of discipline for an errant member of the covenant community, up to and including excommunication. And the Bible also distinguishes between the treatment we accord to those in the church and those in the world.

viii) By definition, the ambiguity attaching to borderline cases is only relevant to cases that are, indeed, borderline cases. The fact that some areas are gray doesn’t have a graying effect on everything. Dawn and dusk are borderline cases. When, exactly, do they begin and end? Are there objective criteria? Not really.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t distinguish between high noon and midnight. Yes, it all ranges along a continuum, but the outer spectra are clearly discernible.

ix) Objectively speaking, what distinguishes a nominal believer from a true believer, or a backslider or from an apostate, is not so much what they believe or how they behave, but the source of their faith or unbelief, virtue or vice.

Is their faith the outward issue of a renewed heart and mind? Is their iniquity the expression of an unregenerate heart? Or else the expression of a regenerate, but still sinful heart?

God knows, but we don’t.

Yet, in Scripture, our omniscience or infallibility has never been a precondition of moral valuation and holy conduct. We are finite and fallen.