Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality
A commentator at this blog left several comments under other threads (such as (Link): here and (Link): here – note: I may be deleting or heavily editing his anti faith alone posts in the future) where he seemingly feels, unless I misunderstood him, that the belief of “salvation by faith alone” leads to, or excuses sexual sin.
The Apostle Paul touched on this topic in the book of Romans:
(Link): Romans 6: 1,2:
- What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
This is the same Paul who taught that one is saved by grace through faith alone, not via works or by “right living” ((Link): Galatians 3):
- I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?
5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?
6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Here is a copy of my reply to the blog commentator:
- You seem to think believing in “salvation by faith alone” is what leads people (Christians specifically?) into sexual sin. I believe in salvation being by faith alone, and I am still a virgin over the age of 40, so it’s obviously not true that “faith alone-ism” necessarily leads to sexual sin.
I find your view on this very insulting. It is usually held by Roman Catholics.
I don’t know if you’re a Catholic or not (perhaps you are a Protestant who believes in “Conditional Security”), but I’ve had in-laws before who are Catholic who hold this same view as yours.
One of them [a Roman Catholic] believes that ‘faith alone’ means that Baptists (of which I am one, or was one) live sleazy, sinful lives because we believe Jesus paid for all our sins [once for all].
Meanwhile, this same Roman Catholic woman thinks that because Catholics reject that view, they are more “holy,” or live “godlier lives,” but her own sons (raised in Catholicism and anti faith alone views) were having sex outside of marriage.
One of these sons of hers used to work in a sex toy store around X-rated material. So don’t tell me that rejecting “faith alone” means “being more godly, pure, and moral,” because it does not.
Not only do I not believe in a works-based salvation (the book of James is discussing how one’s works can demonstrate to others that one is saved, it is not saying works with faith are necessary for salvation), I do not believe in Conditional Security (that one’s salvation can be lost), either.
I am OSAS (Once saved, always saved), which is not the same thing as Calvinism’s Perseverence of the Saints (which is basically a works based system, where one has to do good works to prove one is of the elect, or, one has to maintain one’s own salvation via right living/ good works).
The guy leaving these comments also actually believes this (direct quote):
- So evil will be wiped out when all the faith alonists are annihilated in hell per Psalm 37:20…
Uh-huh. I don’t think so. He’s confusing Soteriology with sanctifiction. The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith alone, but that sanctification is a work of the indwelling Holy Spirit over a believer’s life time.
Anyway, the irony:
This blog visitor is claiming faith aloners engage in sexual sin like nobody’s business and here I am a faith aloner who is a virgin over the age of 40.
I have known “Conditional Security” advocates (they are anti faith aloners; they believe in salvation by works, good deeds, being pure) who live sexually immoral life styles.
I have not seen this guy do it, but there are some Christians who like to argue that pre-marital sex is a grounds for being sent to Hell -which is technically true, I guess, but any sin can send a person to Hell.
While I am disgusted at how utterly lax most Christians are about sexual sin these days, I do not believe the Bible teaches fornication is the “unpardonable” sin.
Ergo, I think it incorrect to use the verse (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) “and fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom” chestnut as some kind of proof a fornicator (who accepts Christ as Savior) cannot make it into Heaven. I have seen a few sexual purity advocates use that verse in that way.
There is this weird Bible verse (from 1 Tim),
- But women will be saved through childbearing– if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Some weird Christians try to twist that to mean a woman has to get preggers and pop out a kid to be saved. You have to be careful how you use Bible verses.
Obviously 1 Tim is not teaching women must get preggo, since that would violate other Bible verses that say….
-sex is for marriage only;
-marriage is a personal choice, not a commandment
There are married Christian couples who have medical issues who cannot conceive. I seriously doubt God is sending them to Hell for being unable to pop out a baby.
In the same way, I think the verse about “fornicators not inheriting” is sometimes misused as well.
Related posts this blog: