The question at issue is whether somebody can believe in Christianity even though they have no experience of God's saving grace in their lives. Put another way, is Calvinism guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy by saying they were never saved in the first place? Is that a position you'd only take because your theology requires it?
Suppose we broach the question sociologically. Is this a special case of a general phenomenon regarding the sociology of belief?
I think it's irrefutable that many beliefs held by many people are the product of social conditioning. Because we're social creatures, our beliefs tend to align with the beliefs of our peer group. People raised as Muslims, Baptists, Catholics, Hindus, Lutherans, Buddhists, Democrats, atheists, &c., are far more likely to be...Muslims, Baptists, Catholics, Hindus, Lutherans, Buddhists, Democrats, atheists, &c.
That general correlation applies to religious and nonreligious beliefs alike. That also explains why many people who go to college change their beliefs. When they change their peer group, they change their beliefs to align with their new peer group.
Given that demonstrable social dynamic, somebody can believe in Christianity due to social conditioning and not because they've had any experience of saving grace. That's a very thin belief, which is why they can lose it so easily.
If that's the source of their faith, and they lose their faith, then they were never saved in the first place. That's not unique to Reformed theology. That's not an ad hoc explanation to save appearances. Rather, that applies to the particular case of Reformed theology a very general, well-documented phenomenon regarding the sociology of belief-formation.
You could debate if all apostates fit that profile, but for now I'm addressing the question of whether, in principle, it is special pleading for Calvinism to say an apostate was never saved in the first place. I've presented a very broad counterexample to that allegation.
And yet, Matthew 7:21-25 ( "I never knew you" ) and 1 John 2:19 at least tell us that many do indeed fall into that category. (were never truly regenerated in the first place)
ReplyDeleteBut there are others who seem to have been true Christians, but who suffered from other issues (depression, suicide, schizophrenia or other mental illnesses that happen in a person's 20s, after professions of faith and growth and evidence) that make those verses not universally dogmatically known to us as humans. We don't know for sure in every case who falls under the Matthew 7:21-23 or 1 John 2:19 category.
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/are-all-apostates-doomed.html
DeleteThere are people who fell away because they were not saved to begin with, but many times the real life story is much more complicated than that. Some pastors claim too quickly that "Oh, he wasn't really saved."
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wonder about a lot is, a person seems to be saved, drops out of church life for x number of years, and then comes back. What values of x are acceptable? I have a dear friend who dropped out of view (spiritually) for 40 years, then returned, deeply convicted for having dropped out for so long. We all have stories like that. So is the question, "What's time got to do with it?" a valid question? I have no idea.
Suppose I was raised in a Democratic home. My parents talked politics all the time. They persuaded me that the Democratic platform was best for the country. I understood the issues, and I even told all my conservative school mates they were wrong. When I turned 18 I voted Democrat. Then one day when I was 19, I read the Constitution. It convinced me that smaller government is better. I became a Republican. It didn’t take much to change my mind. Is it your contention that because of my social conditioning, I was never a “true” Democrat? That I was never a “true” Democrat because I was easily persuaded differently?
ReplyDeleteThe conditions to be a true Christian are different from the conditions to be a true X in general. To be a true Christian, once must experience saving grace. The point of the comparison is that it doesn't require saving grace to believe in Christianity.
DeleteDoes the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints teach that no “true” Christian fails to persevere in the faith?
ReplyDeleteIt's a traditional label. Has the strengths and limitations of a label. The point is less about our holding onto God but God holding onto us. Not the strength of our grip but the strength of God's grip. God will pull his people through.
Deletehttps://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/11/preservation-of-saints.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/are-all-apostates-doomed.html