Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Why Paul Must Be The Figure Who Permitted Fornication
Consequently, Paul pennitted an act of adultery that Jesus prohibited. Paul pennitted a Christian woman who was unjustly abandoned without a divorce certificate to remarry. However, Jesus said absent there being grounds she committed adultery and/or a certificate, if she remarried, she committed adultery. Paul thus pennitted fornication in the sense that Jesus was condemning fornication in (Rev. 2:14). Paul's doctrine on remarriage and fornication evoked Jesus' harsh response in (Rev. 2:14).
Furthermore, if we look to verses where Paul uses the tenn fornication (where he usually means unwed sex), mainstream Christianity today teaches Paul's other lessons mean either (1) fornication is clearly occasionally pennissible for a Christian with not even loss of rewards or (2) if the fornication is repetitive and unrepentant, it poses no threat to a Christian's salvation, citing (1Cor. 5:5). In either case, fornication is subject only to the expediency test. This has opened the doors to all kinds of immorality condemned in the Law of Moses. In fact, if we cite the Law and we insist salvation must be threatened if you commit sexual sins because of Jesus' words in (Mark 9:42-47) (better heaven maimed than hell whole), we are labelled a heretic. We are seen as undermining Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith without works.
Thus, the Paulunist spin on (Gal. 5:19) as threatening loss of rewards, not salvation, for practicing fornication (Dillow) is the only rational view that squares Paul with Paul. If you disagree, and you claim Paul means to threaten a Christian with losing salvation (and thus he teaches what Jesus teaches in (Mark 9:42-47)), Stanley accuses you of being a dangerous heretic attacking the core of Christianity:
The very gospel [i.e., of Paul] itself comes under attack when the
eternal security of the believer is questioned. 19
Consequently, if Paulunists have won the day that (Gal. 5:19) does not teach any loss of salvation for an occasionally or repetitiously fornicating Christian, no one can cite Galatians 5:19 to prove Paul 'prohibited' fornication either for such a Christian. If Paulunists also construe it as pennitting occasional fornication by a Christian with no threat (as most do), I then can cite this verse to prove Paul at minimum pennits occasional fornication by a Christian with no negative consequences whatsoever, not even loss of rewards! Such a limited loss of rewards is only reserved for those who practice fornication!
This brings us right back to our conclusion that (Rev. 2:14) is talking about Paul. He injected a moral ambiguity into Christianity by abrogation of the Law. He changed Biblical morality into the principle "all things are permissible, but not all things are expedient." Paul implied in (1Cor. 5:5) that the member who engaged in a persistent and unrepentant incest relationship was still saved. This led others such as Luther to conclude Paul taught a Christian was permitted to commit fornication. While it might not be always expedient, fornication was permissible. This formula was identical to Paul's teaching that it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols, even though it was not always expedient to do so. Only if by eating such meat you would hann the conscience of another should you refrain. With that same principle, Paul is understood in the Modem Gospel to pennit Christians to fornicate occasionally without any fear and even commit repetitious unrepentant fornication while remaining saved all the while.
- Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (Thomas Nelson Publishers: 1990) at 192.