I have often made reference to this passage, insisting (contrary to the exponents of 'once saved always saved' that it does not negate the concept of real apostasy. The argument is made that so-called apostates aren't really so, because like the figures mentioned in 1 John 2.19, they were never actually part of the Church. And so when a person seemingly 'falls away', they did not in fact fall away, but merely manifested their unregenerate state. In other words they were never 'real' Christians.
Aside from the fact that the term 'apostasy' is used in Acts 21 and 2 Thessalonians 2, and that the concept of falling from grace, or of those falling away is used on numerous occasions, there are also the many exhortations and warnings concerning perseverance and of faith having the potential to be choked and drowned, the unfruitful branches being cut off and burned... despite all this, there are those who insist by an appeal to grace and for the sake of theological coherence that these passages cannot possibly mean what they say. The warnings concern temporal dangers and deliverances and for some Dispensationalists the apostasy warned of 2 Thessalonians 2 is transmuted into the pre-tribulational rapture - another doctrine with no basis in Scripture.
In every case 1 John 2.19 is the trump passage, the verse that cancels out the notion of genuine apostasy, that renders both the Parable of the Sower and the warning passages in Hebrews as mere hypotheticals.
But what does 1 John 2 actually teach?
John says that antichrist (or Antichrist) will come and that even now there are many antichrists so that we know it's the last time.
And then verse 19:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
And who are these antichrists? We learn a little more in verses 22-23:
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
and
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
I see two possibilities here. One is that they never were 'of us', meaning they were never actually part of the Church. This is not to say they were part of the Visible Church and not part of the Invisible Church. That's reading too much into the passage. It's not there. They encountered the Church and interacted with it in some capacity but given the fact that they effectively deny Christ they were not able to be part of it. In which case we're not talking about apostasy at all or the notion that someone can't be genuinely apostate. That's not even on the table.
Or, they were part of the Church and yet embraced and advocated these false teachings and as such are no longer part of it. Is not the tone of warning and exhortation concerning salvation a key component of the epistle? That seems to provide a context for the reference - how do you know your saved and how do you stay saved? John answers with a litany of concepts - keep his commandments (which are not grievous), keep his word, abiding, loving in deed and truth, overcoming, loving not the world, walking in the light, confessing our sins, purifying ourselves, laying down our lives for the brethren, confessing Christ, keeping from idols and the wondrous testimony of the Spirit.
As some have pointed out the typical Calvinist read requires an implied 'ever' to be read into the text. In other words:
They went out from us, but they were not (EVER) of us; for if they had (EVER) been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all (EVER) of us.
The link below pursues this line and makes many compelling points arguing these were Church members or Christians that fell into apostasy.
I am still inclined to view these men as not so much apostates but simply false teachers that were never part of the Church. This is not the same as saying they were part of the Church and yet were never Christians - that kind of spiritual-surgical analysis of their heart/regeneration status is not on the table and flows from a particular understanding of soteriology not found in the New Testament.
Either way, the passage does not negate the possibility of genuine apostasy. It does not cancel out the scores of passages that warn of falling away and exhort to perseverance. These are not hypotheticals. 1 John 2 is often appealed to in connection with the Analogy of Scripture and yet we must ask - does one verse cancel out dozens? I am willing to say there are dynamics and nuances but I cannot in good conscience let the one verse reign supreme and then treat all the others as 'problem passages' that require special explanation. The Analogy of Scripture is easily abused and is often just a cover for theological rationalism.
Even John in his first epistle warns of a sin unto death. What does this mean? This isn't the mortal sin of Roman Catholicism but it does suggest a brother may fall into a sin situation that we're not to pray for. This 'brother' is in peril of death. Some will argue this is just temporal death but that doesn't fit with what John is suggesting. He speaks of the Christian that can't be touched by the wicked one because he keeps or guards himself - presumably by confessing his sin (that's not unto death) and repenting of it. The one who doesn't falls into a sin that is unto death and by implication falls prey to the wicked one. It's also implied by the reference to the world, that this one falls back into the clutches of the world. This is in keeping with what Paul says about being put out of the Church - such a state is to be delivered unto Satan the wicked one and (as it were) returned unto the world.
Or elsewhere it's stated that to be removed from the Book of Life is to be subject to the judgment plagues reserved for the wicked one and his followers. How someone could be in the Book of Life and yet not be reckoned a Christian defies sense. Unless one is willing to say that the Book is merely hypothetical or provisional until the end of all things is to impose a paradigm on the text that isn't there.
Even just a few verses later in 1 John 2 we find a warning that defies the anti-apostasy reading with regard to verse 19. In verses 24-25 we read:
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
These truths must abide in you. 'If' they don't, it's implied that you won't 'continue' in the Son and the Father. And once again, we're talking about eternal life. And so just verses after the famous appealed to passage we have yet another (one of dozens) warning regarding perseverance unto salvation.
Eternal Security could be argued for on the basis of election but the way it is employed and wielded is not found in the New Testament. The kind of assurance people of that camp profess is not the blessed hope of Scripture but a kind of presumption and in the case of some Calvinists, it's a presumption rooted in a misuse and abuse of the doctrine of election. The wonder of God's sovereignty and predestination is meant as a comfort and assurance but in general terms. As individuals we don't know if we're elect but by perseverance. When we're in the faith, we can be sure and need not be afraid and those who are in God's will never treat the faith in a light or trivial manner such as Esau. Some abuse election in the realm of assurance and others abuse it by allowing it to generate angst and endless fear of failing to abide or persevere. Those that fear that after having lived a godly life they might stand before the Throne only to find that they weren't elect have grossly misunderstood this teaching but no wonder considering how it is sometimes taught. God is not playing games with us. Those that struggle usually have naught to fear - it is those who are presumptuous that are often marked by worldliness and fall prey to self-deception.
With regard to 1 John 2, election is not in sight here. There is no need to bring it into the equation and start musing over how this can be read in light of that doctrine - true and glorious as it is. There is not a contradiction, it's a matter of context and perspective and we err when try to flatten and compress Biblical doctrine into a nice, tight, compartmentalized philosophical box that meets our temporal understandings of logic and coherence.
It is no wonder that this approach to theology has led over time to Hyper-Calvinism in some cases, Semi-Pelagianism in others - as well as a host of errors concerning the Trinity and the Person of Christ. These are revealed mysteries. Their revelation does not mean they cease to by mysteries let alone mysterious and thus beyond our capability to understand. We are to be patient and submit to what God has revealed. It may not satisfy our curiosities but it is sufficient to live our lives in this present evil age.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment