https://philosophical-theology.com/2025/10/17/abandoning-the-faith-in-college-really/
DiGiacomo finds parental discourse surrounding the issue of apostasy to be confused but we could say the same adjective describes his discourse as well. The bottom line is this - what does the New Testament say? And this is the rub, Calvinism all too often commits itself to rationalist systemic frameworks that logically prioritize certain truths and as a consequence, verses (even if there are literally dozens of them) that suggest something to the contrary must be explained away and/or subordinated.
The more Biblically faithful way to reckon with such questions is to leave the ambiguity alone, to let the tension stand, and to limit concepts allowing them to function in context rather than become universal standards which define all discourse and doctrinal formation.
There's no point in going back and trying to revise someone's history or reinterpret what was happening in their heart. Rather we understand that they had faith, tasted of the heavenly gift, shared and partook in the Holy Spirit and of the powers of the world to come. They were baptized, brought into union with Christ but did not abide and were choked by the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of this world. They did not persevere. As such they were cut off. They did not continue in the faith grounded and settled and thus lost their way, fell away, fell from grace. That's the Biblical language.
The context of these verses is not dealing with Divine election and predestination but they are no less true and cannot be explained away if one is to faithfully read the Holy Text. Likewise predestination is indisputably taught despite those who cannot reckon with it terms of logic or their concepts of equity.
So how to resolve this? The answer is quite simply - we don't. We submit in faith to what God has revealed and do not rely on our flawed, fallen, and temporal human logic to try and work it out.
As far as these students that were exposed to bad teachings and fell away.... God uses means and we would do well to make use of them. Scripture, prayer, the sacraments, the Church and its life - these things are necessary and helpful in the path of perseverance. If we fill our heads (and hearts) with filth, we spiritually starve, lose sight, and lose our way. It's that simple.
This does not overthrow Justification by Faith or downgrade the magnitude of God's grace. This is not Arminianism nor is it most forms of Calvinism. It is (one could argue) Augustinian but it's also in accord with what we find in the Early (especially Ante-Nicene Church), not to mention (I would argue) the New Testament itself.
1 John 2.19 cannot negate the dozens of verses that deal with warnings concerning apostasy and perseverance. As I have repeatedly argued John is dealing with antichrist teachers who had infiltrated the Church and never belonged there. This is not 'normative' in terms of how a person's failure to persevere should be interpreted and (to be blunt) the rest of the New Testament simply doesn't speak that way. In fact there are numerous instances that speak in the very terms I'm using. People did not continue in the faith and lost their way.
DiGiacomo decides to blame it on Federal Vision as he's dealing primarily with the phenomenon of apostasy within Reformed circles but his arguments are wanting as he falls into the same old patterns of Calvinist explanation. The college student always hated God and was never sincere. Their faith was always false. I'm sorry but that's not what the New Testament teaches. It's a coherent model in the Calvinist tradition but in this case it just happens to be less than Biblical. I found his footnote regarding the warning passages to be telling. He states they have to be treated carefully so as not to undermine Reformed theology. This is at the heart of this debate. If we have 'problem' passages that potentially undermine our 'theology' then we've made a wrong turn in the realm of prolegomena (the first principles concerning methodology and the assumptions that drive our thinking). We're committed to a theology (and a tradition) not faithful exposition of the Scripture and the doctrine it teaches.
He insists they were never converted and thus reveals his commitment to paedobaptism to be little more than a wet dedication. DiGiacomo like so many Confessional Presbyterians is in reality a Crypto-baptist. The real moment of import is at Confirmation (a kind of dry baptism) connected to a conversion experience. The pattern is the same as what one finds in Baptistic theology and I contend this is why so many Calvinist converts and even many within Confessional circles end up landing in the Baptist camp.
Calvinistic Baptists even make a similar argument suggesting their theology is the logical end of the Reformed tradition and thus it's the Baptists of the 17th and 18th century that mark the full harvest of the Reformation. History tells us something different as we find many older Reformed authors were far more robust and dynamic on these questions than the modern Reformed who have been primarily shaped by the Common Sense impulses and the post-Enlightenment theology of the 19th century. The Reformed discussions concerning issues such as the sacraments, perseverance, and yes, 'temporary faith' that we find in earlier centuries seems quite alien to today's Reformed and is often met with furrowed brows if not outright hostility. I will grant that both Calvin and Dordt are not framing this exactly as I am, but it's closer to what I'm suggesting than DiGiacomo and other contemporary Calvinists.
DiGiacomo argues that to win over these children (notably not 'win back' because in his book they were never Christians) is to teach a full-orbed gospel which incorporates worldview. In other words (and appropriately given his own proclivities) the answer is found in philosophical theology - the creation of a Unified Theory or Worldview which gives believers not just the means to live in this present evil age but to sanctify it and transform it into Zion itself. On this point he is fully in accord with the Federal Vision camp that he so despises.
I do not doubt his sincerity in relation to these issues. He means well in terms of a philosophy of child rearing, the ecclesiology related to it, and the welfare of the Church at large. But, we must follow the revealed text - the New Testament which speaks of salvation being brought to households, which assumes the children of believers are part of the Church and full heirs of the promises. It's a model in which we raise children in the faith because they are in that very faith. They are (by baptism) Christian brothers and sisters in union with Christ. And they must persevere just as we all must. Their faith will grow and must be maintained, as it is for all of us. Just as the elderly wane and become feeble and simple in their understanding, so it is with children who (if in a sound context) will wax strong in the faith and grow to maturity. Some argue we see no example of infant baptism in the New Testament (I disagree) but we also see no instance of the children of believers being baptized at an age of accountability. Nor do we read of some kind of adolescent or teenage conversion of such people. This is in keeping with Old Testament patterns which (while different) are consistently appealed to and invoked. The dynamics of Biblical sacramentology come into play and they defy the limits of the systematic theology that tend to dominate Calvinistic circles.
In the end it's clear that for DiGiacomo and so many like him, apostasy is an empty set, a non-concept. There's no such thing. It's just a word we use to describe a false conversion. There is no real departing from the faith even though the New Testament is replete with such language. He speaks of apostasy but doesn't believe it's real.
May God grant us wisdom and perseverance.