How to Cope Theologically with Apostasy
Jan 06, 2009 by Craig Blomberg | 7 Comments
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (1 John 2:19 [T]NIV).
One of my most memorable assignments in seminary was to write a paper discussing Calvinist and Arminian interpretations of a number of the key passages in the Bible that each group most cites to buttress their understanding of perseverance. We were particularly to focus on how Calvinists dealt with texts, like the warning passages in Hebrews, which most strongly seemed to teach the possibility of forfeiting salvation. We were likewise to focus on how Arminians dealt with texts, like the Johannine promises of security, which most strongly seemed to teach that God would always preserve his flock. A kairos moment of sorts hit me when I came to 1 John 2:19, cited above. This put all the pieces of the puzzle together for me. Phenomenologically, apostasy happens. Theologically, John explains how to interpret it. People can fool others and probably even fool themselves, up to a point. Yet only where they wind up at the end of their lives ultimately determines their final destiny -- and their true spiritual nature all along. One can defend "eternal security," but only for those who are truly Christ's. And only with 20-20 hindsight can we fully determine who truly were his.
Sadly, I have watched people abandon professions of faith in Christ at a variety of times in my life. I have heard others tell their stories, whom I have encountered only after the fact. Over my 22 years of teaching at Denver Seminary, I am aware of four of our graduates who have done this; these are the stories that hurt the most. There are no doubt a handful of others I don't know about, though overall the graduates I do hear from, like the survey results we receive from more systematic canvassing of our graduates, are extremely heartening.
As I have become more familiar with the blogworld, I have discovered that there are plenty of websites devoted to attacking Christianity or at least to pointing out everything that makes it hard for various people to accept it. Some are intellectually quite rigorous. I have had some fascinating response when I have joined in the conversations on such blogs-some encouraging, others less so. Not surprisingly, a disproportionate amount of the passion exercised against Christianity, especially historic, orthodox Christianity, seems to come from ex-evangelicals.
It would be easy to lash out with a torrent of invective against such individuals. After all, doesn't John call them "antichrists" in 2:18 and 22? Yes, but he is not directly addressing them. If they are the ones who have left the church, then by definition they are not the ones present when this letter is read out to the local congregation of those who have "abided" or "remained" faithful to the truth. It is one thing to warn "the flock" in strong language against those who would ravage them; it is quite another to speak this way to the "wolves" themselves. In the blogworld, however, this seems to be Christians' preferred modus operandi, and I can assure you from personal conversations with the ex-Christians, skeptics and atheists that this does absolutely nothing but alienate them further and convince them their decisions were the right ones.
Robert Yarbrough's outstanding new Baker Exegetical Commentary on 1-3 John has some profound reflections on 1 John 2:19. A woodenly literal translation of the last third of this verse reads "but in order that it might be shown that they are not all of us." The thought is incomplete; the elliptical sentence has to be finished with something like "they went out." The NIV, TNIV, NRSV, NAB and NLT mask entirely that there is purpose clause (using hina) here. The NJB and NET hint at the idea of purpose, but turn the passive voice verb "be shown" into an active one, easily creating the impression that the people leaving the church did so intentionally to demonstrate who they really were, when in fact John's point is that this is God's intention in the context, irrespective of the specific human motivations. For this verse, the HCSB, ESV, NASB and RSV get it right. Yarbrough explains, "God is continually at work showing forth his glory, and for his people this means their ongoing sifting and purifying. . .When ostensible members of the people of God turn away from the beliefs and practices authorized by God and subsequently depart the community, God is glorified in that the truth of who are his and who are not is revealed" (pp. 147-48).
But that can't be where we stop. Just as not all who profess Christ are truly his, not all who claim to have given up the faith have truly defected. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 shows Paul holding out hope that some will return to the fold. In other instances, those who never were truly Christ's will become so, now truly, for the first time. "The pain of an open parting of the ways. . .can be the necessary prelude to a higher level of community cohesion and doctrinal integrity" (p. 148), including among some who once were among us, left us and later came back. We have frequently seen this at Scum of the Earth Church in Denver with its particularly transient and needy population.
Yogi Berra had it right, "It ain't over till it's over." Let's keep that in mind for ourselves, for our fellow church members and for all people elsewhere. There may be an unforgivable sin, but only God knows who has crossed that threshold. Our task is to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) to everyone. Just as we are surprised by some who apostatize, we will be surprised by some who repent.
Comments
7 Comments | Login to Post Comments
James Reitman Jan 6, 2009 9:00am
Craig, I have been interested in this issue for over 25 years and have come to a different conclusion about 2:19 that I believe is more consistent with John's overriding concern for the reliable oral transmission of "the truth once received."
From 2:12 through 2:27 the main theme that runs through the section and identifies the status of his teknia is "you know." The main issue at stake is "what you have heard from the beginning." The primary threat to that body of received truth is the distorted teaching of false apostles. Hence, the visible fact that "they went out from us" becomes the most tangible evidence that they are not members of the authentic apostolic community (from whom the teknia had received the truth "you heard from the beginning").
I too, along with Yogi, would be very cautious about identifying soteriological status on the basis of current outward profession. But I think the caution applies equally to the contemporary proclivity---amid ongoing debates over the superiority of competing doctrinal systems to explain the phenomenon of apostasy---to misconstrue John's argument vis-a-vis the apostate teachers as a test of salvific status. In context, John's argument is rather to supply a means for his teknia to identify the teaching as apostolic (authentic) or not, so that they might more confidently abide in that truth and not apostatize under duress.
Craig Blomberg Jan 6, 2009 10:10am
I don't disagree with any of your exegetical observations, Jim. But in a context which also identifies the errorists who have departed as antichrists, denying the Father and the Son, and not having the Father, and then proceeding immediately in chap. 3 to set up stark contrasts between those who are born of God and those who aren't, those who are of God and those who are of the devil, with the former in each case being defined as those who remain/abide, precisely what the errorists did not do, I find it impossible to believe that John is not talking about salvific issues. Zane Hodges, et al, are just flat out wrong and dangerous here, to the extent that anyone is misled into thinking they can be Christian while still falling under these negative descriptors. (How do I really feel. . . . ?) :)
James Reitman Jan 6, 2009 12:13pm
Well, Craig, we agree on one thing: just where the real battle lies over the interpretation of First John.
Not surprisingly, I would also take issue with this view of 1 John 3, which I admit is the far more prevalent view. And while I have admittedly been a little "zaney" in the past, I view the unity of First John and of chapter 3 in some ways that differ significantly from Hodges.
Problem is, the major views of chapter 3 are just as polar as John's notorious antitheses therein, and the dialogues have generally tended to generate more heat than light. (Did it just get a little warmer in here...?)
I know this is not the place to debate such a huge issue, but I would throw out one rejoinder on the issue of "denying the Father and the Son": The gospel of John includes several narratives of some "who believed in him" that went on to "deny" him, not the least of whom was Peter, as is well known. Why do these "markers" indicate something other than "salvific" status, which you assert obtains for the antithetical "markers" in First John? Why can't these markers speak of a "moral paternity" or "ethical" righteousness that manifests the Father's character yet depends on voluntary obedience rather than salvific status?
Don't I in one key sense---explicit in 1 John 3---"deny the Father" when I treat some of my mettlesome brethren and "sistren" (like my own wife) with overt contempt? If someone is labeled "of the devil," does that mean that John can tell they are going to hell by their behavior? Or is he simply identifying those who---even as believers---can all too easily manifest the unrighteousness of the true "father" of their murderous attitudes? As those who are still both "of Adam" and "of Christ" as long as we inhabit this flesh, can we not by our choices "declare" to others which in which "paternity" we are behaving?
Craig Blomberg Jan 6, 2009 3:11pm
In a word, context. :)
Yes, but then you have all the other language to explain, too.
James Reitman Jan 7, 2009 12:55pm
...Begging your indulgence, kind sir (and surely not wanting to overstay my leave), with regard to your comment:
"...dangerous here, to the extent that anyone is misled into thinking they can be Christian while still falling under these negative descriptors"
In the larger context of First John the author has already addressed your fears by 1:8, 10. If we concede 1:5-2:2 as predicated of Christians (do you take it as salvific?), then there is to me a far greater danger of taking chap. 3 in the way you have (and this is exactly what happened to my own sister; she has still not recovered at age 55):
The moment John's most vulnerable readers recognize the inevitability of sin in their lives they question their salvation and lose the very confidence (parresia, 4x in 1 John) John is aiming to inculcate among them. To this now purported unbeliever, John's message would be that all effort should go into working one's way into the family rather than confidently loving others out of the existing overflow of God's grace that is already freely available to the believer.
This need for assurance and confidence is what occasions the core of John's argument as it develops from 2:28 to the end of the book, and the assurance and confidence comes not from works but from "the truth you have heard from the beginning" about life in the Son.
(I promise, I'll shut up now.)
Craig Blomberg Jan 7, 2009 1:51pm
No need to make rash vows (about shutting up)! :)You raise questions other readers (and hopefully there are some) will raise also.
By context, of course, I meant the immediate context. You don't have to explain just "deny" but "antichrists" and the other descriptors in the verses immediately around 2:19.
I am very sorry to hear about your sister. For her I would turn to the end of chapter 3, where John's three "tests of life" are intertwined. For those who doubt their confession, a changed life and loving behavior can attest to the indwelling of the Spirit. For those who feel they haven't worked hard enough, then by all means we stress the confession, faith, grace--all of the solas. By definition no one who wants to turn or turn back to God can have committed any unforgivable sin; such sin is precisely that from which a person does not want to turn.
And that appears to be the situation of the errorists in 1 John. In 2 John they are coming back trying to bring more people out of the church their way. in 3 John they may have already succeded in taking over in at least one house church. By Revelation, the church in Ephesus has won the doctrinal war, but at the toll of losing their first love.
So, yes, the message for the faithful in John's congregation is one of assurance and confidence. But the warning indirectly to those who have left (and directly to anyone they might be enticing to leave) is more serious than loss of reward or assurance or whatever, but merits the label "antichrist"--a salvific issue, surely, were they to succumb and never return.
Is anyone else out there? Would anyone else like to weigh in? :)
Sean Belcher Jan 12, 2009 7:30am
Yes, other(s) are out here. I don't have anything to add, other than to express encouragement toward continuing these types of discussions visibly in referenced formas you have so that it serves purpose beyond your own thoughts.
Additionally, it did sadden me a bit to see Prof. Reitman's note that, "this is not the place to debate such a huge issue." I can think of few better places. An example of loving, seeking exegetical dialogue is something we can all use to see in practice by those we respect, regardless of the topic. I know that when Piper and Grudem were going back and forth regarding Baptism, I feel like I was f5ing repeatedly waiting for the next response.
Apologies for the tangent, but the point is: please do carry on in the same vein anywhere you see fit. It's encouraging to see, as often the discourse in the digital mediums are much more harsh. Sound interpretive disagreements and discussions are often kept silent, leaving actual responses left between the sides of the believers/unbelievers, hyperfocused cause supporters, or any number of denominational feuds.