Part 1: Must Infidelity be Confessed to a Spouse? A Rebuttal to Questionable Counsel from Russell Moore

Part 2, here
Part 3, here
Part 4, here

A year ago I read an article at The Gospel Coalition which contained a transcript of Dr. Russell Moore, the president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, on this issue of disclosing infidelity to a spouse and you may read it here. The case dealt with a man who had an affair some years ago which only lasted a week but who had struggled with whether or not he ought to confess this to his wife. In his communication to Dr. Moore, the guilty party also shared that in weighing whether or not to divulge this to his wife, Russell Moore should know that his marriage is already fragile and that he is not even sure his wife is saved and if so, she certainly is not a mature believer thus, such a revelation may simply be too much for the relationship to bear (I have paraphrased the letter with its implication).

My rejoinder will be in four parts. Parts 1, 2 and 3 will be addressing Moore’s counsel and Part 4, my own observations and recommendations. Here is the first section of the documented solution Russell Moore offers:

First Section of Moore’s Advice

I do think that you need to tell her and for several reasons: One of those reasons being, you have sinned against her. Your having this adulterous affair is a sin against your wife, and until you have confessed to her and until you have repented to her I don’t think you are finished with the process of repenting. Biblically she has ownership—that is radical language, I Corinthians, chapter 7—she has ownership over your sexuality, and so your sin affects her, even if she doesn’t know about it. And it affects her in several ways: one of them being you have joined yourself with some other woman outside of your marriage, which has a spiritual, mysterious effect, Paul says in I Corinthians, chapter 6. 
 
Repentance and confession

While Moore is earnest and correct in identifying the fact that the man’s infidelity is a sin he qualifies the unfaithfulness of the man as sinning against his wife in a manner which by default, requires admitting this to her. My first question to Russell Moore is by virtue of what Biblical edict is this derived?

It cannot be Matthew 18 since Matthew 18 requires one to be aware of an action against themselves in order to be offended. Further, it involves the offended party confronting that person, not the offender going and confessing something unknown.

As well, it cannot be referencing James 5. When the James speaks of confessing sins “one to another”, it has to do with admitting what both parties know. That is, both parties are aware of a sin that one party has committed against the other but one of the parties refuses to acknowledge the offense, just as Matthew 18 demonstrates.

What many erroneously believe about James 5 is that we are to indiscriminately use our brothers and sisters in the Lord as personal priests for confession. That is not the context of the James passage which has to do with being disciplined by God via health issues for sins against someone we refused to acknowledge and to whom we owe a confession. And if you look at the larger text which starts at the beginning of the chapter James is writing or enumerating specific sins against others which bring divine discipline when we refuse to acknowledge them.

One might argue that confessing to a spouse is not indiscriminate but owed since he or she has been sinned against. And again, in order to be sinned against, a conflict arise and then a conflict resolved through confessing or admitting a sin to the offended party, requires the offended party to have knowingly been acted against and the offender resolving it by admitting or confessing their offense . In the case of James, they are being commanded to confess to the party(s) against whom they have knowingly offended and to be restored to health and from divine discipline (as well as fellowship with one another). This does not mean an offense has not been committed but how it is viewed, Biblically, with respect to appropriate resolution which includes confession, must be qualified based on the variables involved. And in just a bit I will speak to that.

The woman caught in adultery (John 8) and brought to our Lord was instructed by Christ to “go and sin no more”. However, the fact is, being caught in adultery would certainly include her sinning against one or more parties. The Lord did not direct her to go personally confess to any such person(s) but to abandon her sinful practice. She acknowledged her sin and was instructed to stop. Her repentance was qualified by our Lord as going and doing this sin no more. One might argue that it assumes her confessing to the parties whom she has offended but any such assumption is an argument from silence and has no real weight.

The union of husband and wife

Russell Moore appeals to his audience with the proposition that marital infidelity must always be confessed because a spouse has joined him or herself to another and that this has a "spiritual, mysterious effect". While this argument has the attractiveness of piously elevating the institution of marriage to a spiritual construct (it is a divine institution for certain but that does not make it a spiritual construct just as government is a divine institution but not a spiritual construct), it really leaves a great deal to be assumed and worse, errs with the Scriptures.

Let’s look at the passage to which Moore is referring in 1 Corinthians 6:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

The Scriptures, in 1 Corinthians 6 talks about two unions:

• Our union to our spouse in which it states, “The two shall become one flesh”
• Our union to Christ which states, “But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him”

Dr. Moore may claim, as long as he wishes, that the union between husband and wife is spiritual but the text is quite clear, it is not, it is fleshly. This seems to be a grand oversight by Dr. Moore. Look again. Marriage is not a spiritual context or spiritual union but a carnal or fleshly one (the two become one flesh, a single institution and if one simply thinks beyond this and to the entire world and the implications of Moore’s suggestion that it is a spiritual union, we must conclude then, that the unregenerate or spiritually dead, cannot possibly be married because they are not alive spiritually thus, cannot be joined spiritually).

Further, there is a spiritual union mentioned in the text but it is with Christ. That is the one to whom we are joined spiritually.

The fact is Russell Moore simply fails to pay careful attention to the passage. While 1 Corinthians 6 does reference marriage and its union and the husband and wife becoming one flesh, it neither states or even hints that the marital union is spiritual and where a spiritual union is mentioned, it is that of the believer with Christ.

So at best, if one is going to introduce the “spiritual, mysterious effect” argument (which Moore actually never even made, he simply asserted it), this passage does not qualify seeing that Moore erred in his interpretation and subsequent application of it. This is not to say there is not an effect on the marriage but no such mysterious spiritual effect, as Dr. Moore describes, is present in the text.

Finally, here in the midst of the very passage referencing immorality and a married man joining himself to a prostitute this qualifier regarding who is sinned against is given which is prima facie (italics mine):

18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.

Of Serpents, Doves and Christian Bakers

Our Lord was frank when he spoke about the dangers of the world for his sheep. He stated, in Matthew 10:16:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

This was no mild or anecdotal description which was intended for us to merely put into the back of our minds, rather, it was the naked assessment of how most of the world, if not at times all the world, was going to see and treat the believer. The world is a world of wolves and we are to operate, day in and day out, minute by minute if it requires, with this reality as our viewpoint.

Our Lord did not teach us to be unsuspecting and suffer needlessly. However, as I read, over and over again, I am observing what appears to be Christians who do not fully understand that Christ our Savior did not promote naivety as a way of life for the believer which seems to be the case for a few people who apparently feel it is somehow required of them to "show their cards" to people who have no good intentions for them. No such obligation exists in the Scriptures.

If one owns a bakery and is a Christian and someone comes requesting he or she make a product that causes offense in one's conscience before God, one is to be wise about this. Establish a process which requires customers to explain everything they are desiring and then explain that the company will contact them if the calender permits this request.

As well, answering questions about who you will and will not serve as a restaurant, as if you are bound to respond to hypotheticals, is gullibly falling into a trap when it could be avoided. Difficulty will arise on its own, or if forced. But revealing to a world of wolves all of your thoughts and intents is to leave a trail to your front door with a key in the lock and an invitation for them to enter in and take what you have.

Think about how our Lord was often confronted with direct questions. He rarely answered them instead, he shrewdly turned the questions back on the inquirers in a number of ways ultimately walking away without ever answering them thereby, taking away their ammunition.

I post this with a caveat. I do not know all of the details of all of the various cases that have arisen as of late but I do know of a few which could have been avoided. Others, on the other hand, may not have been able to be avoided so I am not attempting to judge where I do not have the details and really not judge specifically any case at all.

What I do wish to do is to remind you and encourage you. Remember, dear believer, you are among wolves. Hold your cards close to the vest. Be wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove.

(Yes, I have been busy and have not blogged too much this year. I hope the summer provides more opportunity. I have had a series on marriage that I may be able to do more with by the fall which I believe will be of great edification for my readers).

ONCE JUSTIFIED, PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED – FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM A BELIEVER CAN LOSE HIS SALVATION OR BECOME UNJUSTIFIED

Introduction

I often wonder if those who assert a believer in Christ as Savior - someone who has been justified - take the time to examine exactly what they are claiming with regard to all we receive in our salvation. Many of the dismissals in adjudicating that we can lose our salvation are absent of the due diligence inherently necessary for such arguments pertaining to how all, which is consummated the moment we believe and are saved, is terminated when we somehow have our eternal life vanquished only to be rehabilitated when one returns to salvation, possibly many times (some say this is accomplished through repentance and absolution and others through getting “saved again” or re-believing and so on, there is a myriad of theological formulas for the reconstitution of one’s salvation out there).

Salvation isn’t just…

Salvation isn’t just, “you’re going to heaven” and when you allegedly become unsaved you are now just “not going to heaven”. Rather, a litany of extensive and ultimately legal declaration(s) and works by God occur that, if we were to really be able to lose our salvation, would require the view that all these things, far more than just going to heaven, have been reversed, nullified or obliterated and must all be obtained and performed anew in order for one to be saved, again. 

All that we receive at Salvation

Made popular by the late Lewis Sperry Chafer and modified by various Pastors and Bible teachers since, there is a list is things received at salvation which stand in confrontation to the man or woman who would argue that man’s salvation can be lost. Such arguments are made in the absence of the accompaniment of a reverse accounting which explain how all these blessings received at salvation have now, suddenly, dissipated, capitulated and/or been obliterated.

Yes, they say we can lose our salvation with a handful of proof-texts. But nay, it is when one asks them to explain how a Christian is de-justified, de-sanctified, de-positioned with Christ, de-adopted and de-credited with the righteousness of Christ and so on.

Missing as well, in the assertion that one can lose salvation is a thoroughly Biblical explanation as to how this so great a salvation and all of its properties are re-transacted when the person, who has allegedly lost their salvation, recovers that salvation again, and again, and again - determined of course, by how often they lose their salvation. AWOL are the explanations of how one is then re-justified and re-re-justified and re-re-re-justified along with all of the other reapportioning of salvation’s properties when one allegedly returns to salvation or is saved again.

I plan to deal with just a handful of the blessings received at salvation to make my point. And of course that point is that when a person claims we can lose our salvation, all of the magnificent properties of salvation have to be walked backwards, if such a putative claim is made, seeing that to lose salvation is to lose all of its possessions. Subsequently, this demands a thoroughly sufficient doctrinal/theological argument of the reversal of all of the corresponding blessings given by God and received at salvation (an assumption not permitted merely by logically assuming they must be undone). If you are interested, click here, and this link will take you to The Riches and Grace in Christ Jesus by Lewis Chafer and the list he compiled. 

The Uphill Climb for those whose Justification is Tentative

As I said, here is but a sprinkling of the blessings received at salvation which, by default, must also be reversed when one is allegedly unsaved or loses their salvation and worse, supposedly reconstituted every time someone returns to salvation, over and over again - its absurdity plays itself out in a rather prima facie manner:

1. The Righteousness of Christ is imputed or credited to Us (Romans 4:3-5)

2. We are made Holy (Hebrews 10:10)

3. We are justified, legally declared acceptable by God by way of the righteousness of Christ credited to us (Romans 4:3-5)

4. We are regenerated (Titus 3:5)

5. We are sealed by God’s Spirit unto the day of our full redemption (Ephesians 4:30)

With just these five blessings of salvation, alone, one is faced with an impassable theological task when championing the view that they can be eradicated.

Imputed or Credited with the Righteousness of Christ

Though we have been imputed or credited with the righteousness of Christ (Romans 4:3-5), this apparently can be lost through some kind of sin, even the sin of unbelief. Thus, Christ’s righteousness, a work he has done which is credited to us the moment we believe, is reversed or nullified according to opponents of permanent or perfect justification. Thus, we are now back to not possessing the righteousness of Christ. Think of what is being asserted here.

Placed upon us the moment we believe is the cover of divine righteousness. This is not merely a metaphorical exercise but a legal one. God, legally or forensically, declares us righteous. This covers our past, present and future, the entirety of our being and apart from another court proceeding in heaven, it stands, forever. It is not merely an immediate or contingent declaration by God but by its very nature, a permanent legal rendering.

Thus, if one argues that salvation is lost (and all of its properties, accordingly), getting past just this hurdle will prove to be hopeless. Where, crusaders, are your citations and arguments that the divine legal rendering has been overpowered by sin and reversed by the court of heaven, whether as a result of conduct or unbelief after one is rendered righteous by heaven? No such doctrine exists or is even remotely implied in the Bible.

Our Holiness

In that righteous credit referred to above, we are also made holy. Hebrews 10:10 says of the believer, “having been sanctified”. The verb tense which the writer uses in reference to our having been sanctified is quite revealing, it is the perfect tense. That tense, in Koine Greek, indisputably refers to a completed or once-and-for-all action in the past with a permanent result in the future. This language is deliberate and for a reason.

Once we are sanctified, made holy, we cannot be made unholy though we may act as such. Christ’s righteousness is not something that can be erased because it is the thing which erases.

But to those who would counter this, please explain how you feel free to challenge the use of the perfect verb tense here and insist that though Hebrews 10:10 uses the perfect tense it is, in fact, an imperfect and tentative holiness which can be lost and further, one that will be performed again though God says it has been done, once-and-for-all in the past with permanent results in the future. Your argument is with God’s claim and remains so.

Our Justification

Further, to accept the proposition that salvation can be lost, we must also acquiesce to the notion that the divine legal verdict of our innocence is destroyed along with its objective, namely our justification which it, too, apparently has no real standing legal power. We must believe that the verdict by God that we are declared just and that God’s justice has been satisfied by way of the propitiation of Christ which we receive when we believe on him as Savior, is guaranteed – not by God - but by our sustained faith, conduct or both! We are now the adjudicator of our own justification, it seems.

Another passage in the epistle to the Hebrews which stands as a stalwart gatekeeper against such predications is Hebrews 10:14 – (ESV) “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” The word “perfected” is the Greek word τετελείωκεν (teteleiōken). And just like the earlier Hebrews passage, it is in the perfect tense; a once-and-for-all completed action in the past with no further action in view but with permanent results in the future which stands in defiance to those who would counsel otherwise.

Dear friend whose sad salvation is so fortuitous, based on what grammatical property do you now maintain that the Greek perfect is again, imperfect and clumsily used by God in his inspiration of the text? And to what text(s) do you point us to believe God mistakenly permitted and inspired the use of the perfect tense, here, in referencing our being made “perfect” which directs us else ways and overrides its clear and unimpeachable meaning?

Our Regeneration

We are regenerated – born again or spiritually resurrected by God’s Holy Spirit and made anew - when we receive our salvation. Titus 3:5 states (KJV):

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Is there really the suggestion that this new man, our regenerated being, who is made alive, not by any human power but the divine power of God through the Holy Spirit, suddenly dies again when we allegedly lose salvation but further, upon renewed belief, repentance or absolution or all of the above, he springs back to life with this process taking place every time someone returns to “the faith”? 

The elephant in the room, of course, is why we are made alive by the Holy Spirit in the first place. We are washed or cleansed of our sin and reconciled to God. To assert we can lose salvation is to forward the dubious theological view that we can become in need of the washing of regeneration again, which, somehow can occur over and over again, each time we return to salvation from “falling away”. 

Then what good is the cleansing in the first place if it is itinerant? To be in need of being washed from our sins a second time is to say we weren’t sufficiently washed the first time!

But what did our Lord tell St. Peter in John 13:10? Jesus said to him:

The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean.

Sealed until our Future Redemption

Finally, Paul writes and tells us we are “sealed unto the day of redemption” by God’s Spirit (Ephesians 4:20). The verb used there is an aorist verb which refers to an action in the past with the indicative. While not the same as the perfect tense, its use clearly directs us to understand this is not a process that is repeated, rather a past action with a resulting condition and the very reason for this is to secure our salvation as the sealed ones, not by our own conduct, faithfulness or whatever but by God’s declaration and legal seal.

And aside from this, the text is clear of the duration of this action, until the day of our redemption. This is a reference to the future, when our bodies are glorified and we enter into our fully glorified state. There is no counter or objection raised in Scripture where this is presented as contingent or subject to our conduct or sustained faith. But when one argues that we can lose our salvation, here again, stands an impregnable barricade which denies such a thing can occur - that is unless you feel free to dismiss the promise of these words which state emphatically and unconditionally that we are sealed by God the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. But understand what you are doing if so choose.

Conclusion

It really is amazing how negligent those who assert salvation is something that can be lost, fail to provide the theological citation and explanation of how all these benefits are all subject to putrefaction; these benefits which are instantaneous when one receives salvation. I am not referencing what Paul wrote about concerning our works as God’s children which will be judged at the Bema Seat of Christ which indeed, may be lost - but our salvation and all of those things equally prescribed to all believers the moment one believers which are kept by the integrity of God.

God’s great recantation of all he blesses us with at salvation requires a theological, line item, justification which I believe is grossly and embarrassingly missing by those who claim salvation is held by something other than God and can be lost by the believer through some action on his or her part.

If you are going to assert this, explain then, how one goes to being declared just by God and given eternal life and then unjust and having it taken away then back again to justified and how many times it may be possible, not to mention all of the other promised permanent blessings of eternal life which, itself and by its very nature, cannot be eternal if it can be lost.

I think so much is rushed over and the implications, both practically and more greatly theologically, are simply not considered and certainly not explored when these kinds of postulates are entertained and affirmed. I have never read any treatise on the Scriptural citations and arguments regarding how the thirty-three (33) plus blessings given at salvation are lost and regained by the believer and done so several times if one is consistent with such a view. I have read general claims in abundance but believe the full apology for such a view does not exist because mid-way through its development I have no doubt it would be abandoned and likely has on many occasions.