Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members), have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter, rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members, but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

        (Off site link for more on that:

      Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

          )

        Seriously?

        But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

        The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

        At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

        There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

        The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity. But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

        The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin. And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

        I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting, and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous, non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

        (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

        Excerpts.

            BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER 
            July 25, 2014|8:33 am

          Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

          The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

          Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

          Pope Francis Perpetuates Christian Falsehood that One Man, One Woman Married Equals Image of God – (which in effect leading to: ) Teaches Single / Unmarried Do Not Reflect God That Singles Are Sub Human or Only One Half A Person / This Is An Anti Singles View and Is Unbiblical

          Pope Francis Perpetuates Christian Falsehood that One Man, One Woman Married Equals Image of God

          If you are a Christian who is opposed to homosexual marriage, I understand trying to come up with apologetics to defend traditional (hetero) marriage, but it should not be done at the expense of un-married, celibate adulthood, which is what some Christians do.

          Here is another example of that situation (though, and I’m sorry if I offend any Roman Catholic readers, I don’t usually view Popes as being actual Christians, unless it is known that they believe in sola fide and accepted Christ on those grounds (see my previous post, under “Mistake 3”)).

          Considering that Paul said it is better to stay single than to marry (see this link), and that, if I remember rightly, nowhere does the Bible state that it takes a man married to a woman to reflect God’s image, I contend that Pope Francis is incorrect.

          (Link): POPE FRANCIS: ‘THE IMAGE OF GOD IS THE MARRIED COUPLE: THE MAN AND THE WOMAN’

            By Michael W. Chapman

            CNSNews.com – Although the national gay magazine The Advocate named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year” in December 2013, the Pope repeated on Apr. 2 the Catholic Church’s teaching that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, adding that this is part of “God’s design” and that “the image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman ….”

            During his General Audience speech at St. Peter’s Square on Apr. 2, before a crowd estimated at 45,000, Pope Francis first cited Genesis, saying, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. … Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

            “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together,” said the Pope. “God’s covenant with us is represented in that covenant between man and woman. And this is very beautiful.”

            “When a man and a woman celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony, God as it were ‘is mirrored’ in them; He impresses in them his own features and the indelible character of his love,” said Pope Francis. “Marriage is the icon of God’s love for us.”

            He continued, “Indeed, God is communion too: the three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit live eternally in perfect unity. And this is precisely the mystery of matrimony: God makes of the two spouses one single life. The Bible uses a powerful expression and says ‘one flesh,’ so intimate is the union between man and woman in marriage. And this is precisely the mystery of marriage: the love of God which is reflected in the couple that decides to live together.”

          Pope Francis is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

          (Link): Pope Francis calls traditional marriage an icon of God’s love

          (Link): Pope Francis Says Marriage Between Man And Woman As Icon Of God’s Love
          ——————–
          Related posts:

          (Link): Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy – evangelicals, Southern Baptists and other Christians are teaching that an unmarried woman or unmarried man is not fully human, does not fully reflect God

          (Link): ‘God’s Purpose for Women,’ by Matthew Hagee – Hagee Teaches that Single Unmarried Women Do Not Have a Purpose in Life God has no purpose for singles

          (Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors

          (Link): Divorced From My Husband, and My Faith by Tova Mirvis – Also: Why It May Be Wiser For Women to Enter First Marriage At Age 40+

          (Link): Divorce Rates in America Decreasing But Divorce Rates on Increase Among Southern Baptists

          (Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage

          (Link): Roman Catholic meetings focus concern on marriage, family – also, remarriage and divorce

          (Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Bias / Prejudice – Making Idol out of Marriage

          (Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview)

          (Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host (Pat Robertson) Says

          (Link): Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

          (Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

          No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

          No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

          ✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

          ✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

          As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

          I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

          There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

          IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

          For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

          IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

          IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

          IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

          For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

          IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

          According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

          IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

          IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

          Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

          No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)

          No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (PART 1)

          This will be a series of posts where my thoughts wander in and out and all over, and it rambles, but there is a point or two behind it.

          Since I’ve been in a faith crisis the last couple of years, somewhere between being an agnostic and a Christian, I have noticed I don’t fit in anywhere. I reside in No Man’s Land.

          (Even before then, when I was a total, committed Christian, and politically, I was, and am, right wing, I still didn’t fit in at most blogs and forums, including political ones, and including ones for right wingers!

          I tend to be one of those personalities who annoys or angers everyone, even those on “my side” of an issue, except a small number of people, who are either on my side of a topic or not, who “get me” or who appreciate where I’m coming from – again, this is true for even the ones who disagree with me on whatever topic we are discussing.)

          I am in this really weird place now, where I am critical of some aspects of conservative Christianity, and see where conservative Christians get some doctrines and other things wrong, but, too, I am not fully on board with militant atheism (I find the New Atheists to be arrogant, vile, hateful and rude), and I don’t even care for lukewarm atheism.

          Nor am I in the camp of anything and all things liberal Christianity, except where I think they get the occasional point correct (such as their rejection of gender complementarianism).

          Since drifting away from the Christian faith more the last few years, I more often began frequenting forums or blogs for and by atheists, ones by liberal Christians, ones by ex Christians, or by Christians who were abused by a former church who remain Christian but who dropped out of Church, or who now are on a crusade to expose abuse by preachers or the absurdity and harm of current evangelical gimmicks.

          THE MILITANT ATHEISTS

          A clarification: when I say I have been visiting atheist forums and blogs more often, I am very picky about which ones I regularly visit.

          I do not like the frothing- at- the- mouth, extremely bitter, biased- against- Christians- type atheistic communities.

          The bitter atheist groups sound like a bunch of irrational, hate-filled loons who reject Christianity for emotional reasons, but who lie to others and themselves and say, “Oh no, it’s purely intellectual.”

          But their unrelenting, insane amount of hatred at any and all things God and Christian, is just a total turn-off to me, so I try to avoid such sites.

          These angry, always-ranting atheists are really nothing more than Fundamentalist Atheists or Taliban Atheists. They are just as dogmatic about their atheism as Muslims are in their Wasabi Islam or Baptists are in their Neo Fundamentalism.

          Really, those types of atheists are just as bad as the religious groups they claim they hate, but they don’t seem to spot that they are. It’s ironic – and it’s hard to stomach the day in, day out anger and hatred, so I try to avoid their sites.

          HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS VS NON HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS

          Also, you have to be honest with yourself, which I do not find militant atheists to be, by and large: not every single Christian is a hypocrite, jerk, idiot, dullard, or complete jackhole.

          I say this as someone who is very fed up with Christianity and Christian persons myself these days.

          But your average militant atheist will never admit that some Christians are in fact okay and not being hypocrites.

          I have known and met a few Christians who were sincerely trying to live the Christian faith out, such as my mother, who is now deceased, and her mother before her (my grandmother).

          I’ve met a few honest, sincere Christians online who do help people and show compassion to the wounded.

          So it’s not fair to completely dismiss the entirety of Christians and their faith or treat them all like jerks because some are liars, mean, or abusive.

          Which is not easy for me personally, because at the same time, I do keep noticing that a lot of self-professing believers do NOT live out what the Bible says.

          Many self professing Christians today, for example, do not protect victims, such as young church members who have been sexually molested by preachers.

          Nor do many church goers today hold accountable preachers who bilk their church goers out of millions to buy big mansions and jets.

          These idiots, these lemmings, actually defend their greedy pastors online, which I’ve written about here: (Link): Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why.

          Then you have a conservative or evangelical culture, which claims to care deeply that people preserve sex until marriage, but if you actually find yourself 40 years of age and still single – and therefore still a virgin, such as myself – these same churches and Christians do not offer you any support.

          You either go ignored, or preachers and talking heads of such groups “run down” and insult celibacy as well as older, celibate adults. Churches treat single (and especially celibate) adults as though they are flawed, lepers, weirdos, or losers.

          Churches wrongly counsel abused wives to return to their spouses – this is particularly true, again, of churches or Christian groups who buy into “biblical womanhood” (aka “gender complementariansm”) or “patriarchy.”

          Churches and average Christians also remain ignorant or callous about matters pertaining to mental health issues, from P.T.S.D. to depression and anxiety attacks.

          Some Christians wrongly and insensitively teach that “real Christians” can never get depression or other mental health maladies.

          Or, some Christians believe and teach that prayer, faith, service to the poor, or Bible reading alone can cure one of mental illness.

          Still other Christians (or the same type) will shame and guilt suffering Christians for using anti-depressant medications, or for seeing secular or Christian psychiatrists and therapists (see this link for more, “Over 50 Percent of Christians Believe Prayer, Bible Reading Alone Can Cure Mental Illness (article) – In Other Words Half of Christians are Ignorant Idiots Regarding Mental Illness”).

          Yet other Christians are incompetent at, or unwilling, to provide more ordinary, “every day,” run- of- the- mill comfort to other Christians who are hurting, such as a Christian who is stressed out over a job loss, someone who is in mourning for a deceased loved one, etc.

          Christians are dropping the ball in numerous ways.

          And this failure, this huge failure, causes life long Christians like me to look long and hard at the faith and wonder if it’s true at all.

          It causes even someone such as myself to ask if the faith is true, because

          • it doesn’t appear to be working,
          • it doesn’t make a difference in people’s life who profess it,
          • most who claim to follow Christ don’t actually do what he taught,
          • and some Christians refuse to hold Christians caught in bald faced sin accountable but excuse them for the sin,

          ~ and it makes you wonder “what is the point, then.”

          I find this discrepancy between confessed belief and actual practice shocking, because I myself sincerely tried living out the faith since childhood.

          Also, my Christian mother was a role model for me, and she genuinely, consistently lived out and by biblical teachings, including getting up off her ass and actually HELPING people (giving them money if they were in a bind, cleaning their homes for them when they were sick, listening to them cry and rant about their problems for hours without judging them or interrupting them, etc).

          I am not seeing most other Christians do any of this. They say they believe in those things but then they do not do them.

          BLOGS AND FORUMS FOR SPIRITUALLY ABUSED OR THOSE HURT BY CHURCHES

          Before I actually get into this topic (which I discuss more in Posts 2 and 3), here is some background leading up to it.

          As far as the sites I have visited by liberal Christians, ex Christians, atheists, as well as sites by Christians for the spiritually abused:

          By and large, these have been wonderful, supportive sites and groups to visit (the ones run by Christians for hurting Christians).

          I have noticed, though, that there are problems even within these types of communities, and I don’t entirely fit in at them, either.

          Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)”

          Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post – and rude guy banned)

          Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post)

          The blog visitor I wrote of earlier, who was wanting to argue with me over salvation by faith alone (I support it, he does not), despite the fact I told him in several posts I would not entertain debate, came back to my blog this evening and left me two or three posts, at least one was quite snotty.

          I have banned him from the blog. His original posts still stand, but I trashed the ones from this evening.

          I can’t get the idiot to understand that I believe in “Faith Alone” but am still a virgin at age 40+, so obviously, his perspective that “Faith Alone” turns people into sexual sinners is a bunch of crap.

          Here’s a copy of the post….

          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): herenote: 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.

            Continue reading “Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post – and rude guy banned)”

          Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality

          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): herenote: 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:

          (Link): ‘Relevant’ Christian Magazine Ultimately Dismissive of Virginity – Also Maintain A Few Falsehoods

          (Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

          (Link): Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – Easy Forgivism

          (Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

          (Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

          (Link): Why So Much Fornication (sex outside of marriage) – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

          (Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles