On changing theology after backsliding

People change their theology in large and small ways. This may be due to increased understanding, though it may also be in part relate to where they worship, their Christian friends, and what they read.

There are some who leave the church and then return. Some of these people may blame poor theology as a reason for them to backslide for a time. They leave the church rejecting one belief and return espousing another. Although bad theology is a possible contributor to backsliding I am not inclined to give this claim much weight. We have various people becoming more serious about Christ adhering to opposing theologies: there are Arminians who become Calvinists, and there are there are plenty of "recovering Calvinists"; I read of creationists becoming evolutionists and vice versa; some change denominations.

Granted, not all people significantly changing their theology have had a time of backsliding, and some theological positions are more biblical than others; yet as a reason for turning from Christ I increasingly see theology as a minor issue and rebellion and sin as a much greater issue. The Protestant who leaves God and returns as a Catholic probably was wanting to go his own way when he left the church, and those around him who encouraged him back may have been Catholic. Thus his return has to do with the beliefs of those around him at the time he is repenting. Still better a God-honouring Catholic than a rebellious ex-Protestant. (I say this as a Protestant who believes that Protestantism in general is more theologically accurate than Catholicism).

It is not that I think that truth is unimportant; the truth does set us free. But if your theological struggles coincided with your rebellion perhaps you should consider your former beliefs in greater depth.

Apostasy, weeds, and losing salvation

2 of the reasons that I don't agree with Calvinism are: that it seems to me to imply determinism and I cannot see how a deterministic God is not the author of sin; and I believe that saved men can subsequently reject the faith.

It is important to note that false believers, wolves in sheep's clothing, and antichrists can participate in the established church. There are people who would seem to be part of a church but who do not follow Christ and are not saved. Moreover there are men who would deceive others, draw them away from the faith, or use religion as a cover for personal gain. Some may deny Jesus is God. When Paul says to the Ephesians he fears some will arise to attack the flock (Act 20:29-30) and John speaks of those who left because they did not belong (1Jo 2:19) they are not generally speaking of apostates but of weeds. Men who have never entered the kingdom of God but who have infiltrated the church. These people may not be obvious to us, and we must be wary of removing them (Mat 13:29).

There are also apostates, those who started the journey but who no longer follow Christ. They are not those who struggle, or who are weak in the faith. They are men who had chosen the way of life, responded to the wooing of God, and turned their hand to the plow—then looked back. Those who have become entrapped in the false promises of the world once again. Having rejected God's Way they go their own way.

This is not to say that we can identify such people easily. We are to assess fruit, yet wheat looks like darnel and we mustn't harvest prematurely because no wheat is to be lost—of course darnel is indistinguishable from wheat until the fruit (grain) appears. Nor does this mean that apostates never become wolves however many apostates can be known when they declare themselves such.

Romans and salvation

Reading thru several chapters of Romans recently I noted a few aspects that speak to the Arminian/ Calvinist debate. I don't claim uniqueness here, others have undoubtedly put more time into this, nevertheless I document them for my own sake. They may be of some interest.

Paul's argument in chapter 5 compares Adam to Christ. The form of the argument suggests that all people are referred to here. While Paul says "many," he uses this for both Adam and Jesus.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:15-19)

We know that Adam's sin affected all men. "Many" is talking about everyone in this passage; for both Adam and Jesus. Thus Jesus' death can justify all men, which disputes limited atonement. Lest any think that this justifies universalism, Scripture makes clear that some reject Christ. The passage is talking about what Adam resulted for men, and what Jesus accomplished for men; not what sins men would choose to do, nor whether men accept Christ's work. The gift is universal for those who want it. "Come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1).

The next chapter rebukes the idea that men can sin in order that God's grace may be manifest, as Paul has also previously condemned in chapter 3. He implores us not to sin,

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.(Romans 6:12)

Sinning is obedience to sin which is slavery to sin. And continuing in this path will pay the wages of death, but slavery to God will result in the gift of eternal life. Paul is talking to believers here, they are baptised with Christ in his death. Such unity in his death will certainly mean unity in his resurrection—if indeed you continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23). Paul refers to their status as slaves of sin before salvation (verse 20), but the warning against sin and encouragement in their ability to choose righteousness now they are in Christ implies that choice to sin is possible, and slavery to sin and hence the wages of sin is possible. This disputes perseverance/ preservation (as Calvinism defines it).

Chapter 9 is favoured as teaching unconditional election. I grasp this reading, though it fits more with Pharaoh as an individual, Esau and Jacob should probably be read collectively as this and the following chapters are talking about the nation of Israel (Jacob). It is not my intention to dwell on this chapter here, though I note that Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16) states that Paul can be hard to understand. If this is the case then it may be that passages like Romans 9 are difficult, and need to be understood in light of other passages. If we say the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 is clear this means significant amounts of Paul elsewhere is hard to understand, as well as several other authors of the Bible.

Nevertheless, in chapter 11 it is clear that what keeps us in the tree (kingdom of God) is faith. We are grafted in because of faith, and removed because of unbelief.

They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. (Romans 11:20-23).

Both Arminians and Calvinists can agree here that salvation is connected to faith. I think this agreement should be remembered in discussions, and this fact receive significant emphasis. The disagreement is over the source of the faith: Is it God who provides the faith, or the person who responds to God in faith. Chapters 9 thru 11 are somewhat difficult in places; yet it seems to me that the association between disobedience and not understanding in chapter 10, and the exhortation to continue in God's kindness in chapter 11, would make most sense when faith is understood as a response to God.

Preservation and perseverance

Some argue that there are passages in Scripture that teach eternal security for the believer and the inability to apostatise. It seems to me that the security that God provides is not on par with that of men's faithfulness. Let's run with this.

Consider a prime employment opportunity. A kind-hearted boss offers you a job; an excellent job! There is always training for the employee. Remuneration is sufficient and the retirement plan is out of this world. The contract precludes dismissal. No matter how badly a job is done you can't get fired, though one is expected to eventually master the various tasks.

The point is obvious. Even if the boss has said he will never fire you—the contract does not allow for you to be fired—clearly the employee can quit.

One can take both the security passages and the apostasy passages at face value. God will never leave us, he helps us in our weaknesses, and he gives us strength to persevere. None of this prevents us from rejecting him. We can deny the faith and it says nothing of God's faithfulness

If we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2)