Greetings, PB.
I am currently in a back-and-forth discussion on my blog related to the salvation of R. L. Dabney. My intention is both to acknowledge Dabney's great sin and to defend my belief that he is safe with his Lord.
Here is the question, though, that is currently bugging me:
If I "defend" (for lack of better terminology) the reality Dabney's salvation by saying that the fact the may have held to unrepentant sin does not negate the fact that Christ died for all his sin, does this mean that I must also defend the salvation of the open homosexual offender who still claims to trust the Christ of Scripture and maintain otherwise orthodox views of God and his Word?
In other words, if Dabney did in fact hold to racist thoughts until his very dying breath (which none of us can know, even the most researched of biographers), and yet we can still affirm that he was saved due to his life's work otherwise, is this any different than affirming the salvation of a practicing homosexual who otherwise was a firm believer?
I am currently in a back-and-forth discussion on my blog related to the salvation of R. L. Dabney. My intention is both to acknowledge Dabney's great sin and to defend my belief that he is safe with his Lord.
Here is the question, though, that is currently bugging me:
If I "defend" (for lack of better terminology) the reality Dabney's salvation by saying that the fact the may have held to unrepentant sin does not negate the fact that Christ died for all his sin, does this mean that I must also defend the salvation of the open homosexual offender who still claims to trust the Christ of Scripture and maintain otherwise orthodox views of God and his Word?
In other words, if Dabney did in fact hold to racist thoughts until his very dying breath (which none of us can know, even the most researched of biographers), and yet we can still affirm that he was saved due to his life's work otherwise, is this any different than affirming the salvation of a practicing homosexual who otherwise was a firm believer?