The Question of Apostasy: A Plea for Rapprochement

One of the saddest realities facing us as believers is when those who profess Christ turn their back on him, seemingly forever. We usually call such defection "apostasy." We can see it happening all around us, on a scale I am not sure we've seen before. But my object in this post is not to lament this occurrence, although we should indeed do that. My point is more a theological question. 

    We all recognize apostasy. But we cannot wrestle with the subject without broaching the question of whether or not salvation can be lost. Traditionally, those of a Calvinist persuasion would say "no," and would view apostasy as those who were never truly saved abandoning the faith they merely professed. Those of Arminian persuasion would typically, though not always, say that at least some apostates were genuine believers who abandoned the faith and became lost. These people are not lost because they happened to sin too much, but because they completely abandoned the faith.* 

    These two positions—the classic Calvinist position that says true believers will in fact persevere, and the classic Arminian position that says that someone can choose to fully and finally abandon the faith—may be thought as occupying two positions on the middle of the spectrum. Others go further. Some have suggested that believers can lose their salvation because of sin, perhaps unconfessed sin, and then need to be born again again. Others, particularly those who zealously shout "Once saved, always saved," have taught that someone who believes remains saved even if they completely walk away from the faith. I would argue that both of these extremes are unbalanced and unbiblical. The only valid options for us are the two in the middle—the classic Calvinist and the classic Arminian positions. 

    I myself, while not claiming Calvinism in all its details, embrace the former option. I believe that true believers will persevere and that those who turn their back fully and finally on Jesus were never actually saved to begin with. That being said, I can understand how those of a classic Arminian persuasion arrive at their position, as well. Because I can understand their position, I'd like to suggest a potential avenue for rapprochement between these two middle positions. 

    The bottom line is that both positions end up arguing for similar things. Both positions say that those who fully and finally turn their back are not saved. Both positions say that true believers are secure. That is, those who are trusting in Jesus and persevering in the faith are secure. Those who are insensitive to sin and are wandering away from Jesus must be concerned about their eternal state. In issues of pastoral counseling, both positions will treat such a person as potentially an unbeliever who needs salvation. And none of us would declare the person beyond hope of repentance. Only our Lord knows that. 

    So, at the end of the day, why can we not have more unity on this question and even leave it open-ended in terms of fellowship? Those with different positions on election can worship and serve together; why not those with different positions on apostasy? Of course, those who believe you can simply "lose" your salvation through sin and those who think that even full-on apostasy does not jeopardize your eternal standing will not be able to fellowship beyond a certain point. But those of us who hold more moderating and biblical positions should be able to attain greater unity than has historically been the case. At least, those are my current thoughts on the matter. At any rate, let us pray and combat the rising tide of apostasy, and "let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:1–2 ESV).

*Interestingly, Arminius himself might be an exception. While he's famous for saying that he was agnostic on the matter, he also seemed to believe that David lost his salvation after the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah and would have died reprobate had Nathan not moved him to confession and repentance. See Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford, 2012).