Do you believe that such a person described in the topic details is saved?

[aegis]

The person I am asking about is the father in this story. A friend who is strugggling with whether his father is saved told me this story:

A man divorced from his long time wife and got full custody of his four children who were all then very young. The man takes his children to a local church Sunday School every week of their childhood. The man sits in on the church service that is held while his children are at the church's Sunday School program for children and the man hears the Gospel preached every week. Eventually, all the children hear their father say before they start high school that he believes in Jesus, that he believes he died for his sins, that he believes he rose, that he believes reigns over all things as risen Lord of all. The father said "I am a Christian". That was in early 2005.

The father struggles with loneliness when his youngest child starts high school especially as all his children come to him for help/support less and less. He registers on an online dating website. In late 2005, he finds a non-Christian female and starts a relationships with her. He soon invites her to live with him in an unmarried sexual relationship. He gradually withdraws from his involvement in church and spends more and more time with her.

Despite their repeated attempts, the father insists his children should not criticise his relationship with her outside of marriage while they are living under his roof. One of their unsuccessful attempts tried to involve the pastor of the church he had become less and less involved with. This only strengthened the father's resistance to correction. His children attempt to leave home as soon as possible as they are unable to stand living with a man who is living in sin and so strongly refuses correction even though he is their father.

All his children leave high school, and start and finish university. Immediately before the youngest childen of his from his former relationship with his ex-wife leaves home, that youngest child asks him whether he still believes in Jesus, that he died for his sins, that he rose, and reigns over all things as risen Lord of all. He says yes, and that he still believes himself to be a Christian.

A week later the father of the four children died as a result of a stroke. That was in 2017. In total, the man's out-of-marriage sexual relationship under the same roof with his girlfriend lasted more than a decade. But he has been claiming to be a Christian for also more than a decade even though he had no qualms about living in a sexual relationship with someone outside of marriage for almost all that time. He refused to say his sexual relationship, outside of marriage, with that female he met through an online dating website was wrong all the way up until he died.

[HB]

Only God knows.

[Skeptic]

@OP

I guess it depends on how one interprets how marriage becomes official to God from a religious perspective.

I suppose legal marriage doesn't resolve anything because homosexuals can be legally married.

I suppose a religious ceremony also isn't required since a Christian can commit to their spouse before God outside of a ceremony.

So the question is:

What is required to be officially married in the eyes of God?

[Sanoy]

It's often the sins we don't have the opportunity or desire to commit that become the most egregious sins in our minds. We are all living in sin, falling into the same sins on a daily basis while telling ourselves we are Christians the whole time. But we are not saying we believe on Christ because of our goodness, but because of the mercy we have received.

I am still trying to come to a conclusion on this issue, but if it is a sin it is only remarkable in that it is not one of the common sins we are all plagued with.

[Nunovalente]

The man will not be saved by what he has done. We are not his judges.

Salvation is of the Lord. He is just.

I am confident that if the man in his dying breath, is reliant upon the death of Christ, what we observed him do in life is immaterial as far as salvation is concerned.

We are called to holiness. Sin stains and will impact our living. Sin is "to miss the mark", to fall short. We cannot fulfil our potential while walking in darkness. We miss out. We cause loss to ourselves and others.

[aleph naught]

If you can get divorced, I don't see the difference between sex within a committed relationship, and sex within marriage. What is marriage over and above the commitment, a ceremony, and a bunch of legal documents?

[Nunovalente]

If you can get divorced, I don't see the difference between sex within a committed relationship, and sex within marriage. What is marriage over and above the commitment, a ceremony, and a bunch of legal documents?

A marriage is a commitment, to the future. Not emotional. But verbal. Public. Legal. Accountable. Visible. With identifiable pledges. I.e. Exactly what is committed, in what circumstances, for how long. To the exclusion of all others.

If your not married, your not committed at all. Any assessment is based upon the past. Nothing is committed for the future. No accountability. No public acknowledgment. No defined boundaries. It's as reliable as a chocolate fire guard.

"I'm committed."
 Prove it. "We've been together xx."

That's the past. Not the future.

To comit is to pledge something forward.

"I've been..." Does not prove commitment. It just outlines longevity. People can live together for years, not through commitment, but fear, not wanting to lose what you have, there being nothing else available at the time.
Drifting is not committing.

[idunno]

I know as Christians we tend to not want to pass judgement on whether someone is saved or not. We're not in God's position. However we have James clearly saying that a profession of faith without works is dead. Think about the way he ends his epistle, "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

[aleph naught]

If you can get divorced, I don't see the difference between sex within a committed relationship, and sex within marriage. What is marriage over and above the commitment, a ceremony, and a bunch of legal documents?

A marriage is a commitment, to the future. Not emotional. But verbal. Public. Legal. Accountable. Visible. With identifiable pledges. I.e. Exactly what is committed, in what circumstances, for how long. To the exclusion of all others.

If your not married, your not committed at all. Any assessment is based upon the past. Nothing is committed for the future. No accountability. No public acknowledgment. No defined boundaries. It's as reliable as a chocolate fire guard.

"I'm committed."
 Prove it. "We've been together xx."

That's the past. Not the future.

To comit is to pledge something forward.

"I've been..." Does not prove commitment. It just outlines longevity. People can live together for years, not through commitment, but fear, not wanting to lose what you have, there being nothing else available at the time.
Drifting is not committing.

I would imagine any couple that's been together for so long would have had a conversation about their level of commitment. And if they had that conversation, and committed to each other for the future, then by your standards they would be married. We can't know whether or not they were committed to each other in this way, but if they were then I don't see why their relationship would have to be sinful.

[Nunovalente]

If you can get divorced, I don't see the difference between sex within a committed relationship, and sex within marriage. What is marriage over and above the commitment, a ceremony, and a bunch of legal documents?

A marriage is a commitment, to the future. Not emotional. But verbal. Public. Legal. Accountable. Visible. With identifiable pledges. I.e. Exactly what is committed, in what circumstances, for how long. To the exclusion of all others.

If your not married, your not committed at all. Any assessment is based upon the past. Nothing is committed for the future. No accountability. No public acknowledgment. No defined boundaries. It's as reliable as a chocolate fire guard.

"I'm committed."
 Prove it. "We've been together xx."

That's the past. Not the future.

To comit is to pledge something forward.

"I've been..." Does not prove commitment. It just outlines longevity. People can live together for years, not through commitment, but fear, not wanting to lose what you have, there being nothing else available at the time.
Drifting is not committing.

I would imagine any couple that's been together for so long would have had a conversation about their level of commitment. And if they had that conversation, and committed to each other for the future, then by your standards they would be married. We can't know whether or not they were committed to each other in this way, but if they were then I don't see why their relationship would have to be sinful.

Because it does not reflect the character of God, as marriage does. It's a commitment for life, better, worse etc, forsaking all others. Not private. But public. We know what to expect.

A couple who agree to meet up for sex a couple of times a week, have committed what? For how long? Why?

That we cannot know, makes the relationship immaterial toward the wider world. It reduces it to the individual. It lacks accountability. It affords no protection. No security. The betrayed has no recourse, as no one knows.

It's a chocolate fire guard!

[aleph naught]

If you can get divorced, I don't see the difference between sex within a committed relationship, and sex within marriage. What is marriage over and above the commitment, a ceremony, and a bunch of legal documents?

A marriage is a commitment, to the future. Not emotional. But verbal. Public. Legal. Accountable. Visible. With identifiable pledges. I.e. Exactly what is committed, in what circumstances, for how long. To the exclusion of all others.

If your not married, your not committed at all. Any assessment is based upon the past. Nothing is committed for the future. No accountability. No public acknowledgment. No defined boundaries. It's as reliable as a chocolate fire guard.

"I'm committed."
 Prove it. "We've been together xx."

That's the past. Not the future.

To comit is to pledge something forward.

"I've been..." Does not prove commitment. It just outlines longevity. People can live together for years, not through commitment, but fear, not wanting to lose what you have, there being nothing else available at the time.
Drifting is not committing.

I would imagine any couple that's been together for so long would have had a conversation about their level of commitment. And if they had that conversation, and committed to each other for the future, then by your standards they would be married. We can't know whether or not they were committed to each other in this way, but if they were then I don't see why their relationship would have to be sinful.

Because it does not reflect the character of God, as marriage does. It's a commitment for life, better, worse etc, forsaking all others. Not private. But public. We know what to expect.

A couple who agree to meet up for sex a couple of times a week, have committed what? For how long? Why?

That we cannot know, makes the relationship immaterial toward the wider world. It reduces it to the individual. It lacks accountability. It affords no protection. No security. The betrayed has no recourse, as no one knows.

It's a chocolate fire guard!

None of that sounds morally significant. What's morally significant is the commitment, and whether or not it's publically expressed doesn't seem relevant.

[Snoochies]

Wondering if anyone here has drifted in their faith and believe they weren't saved when they drifted.
I know I did but the question is wether Jesus sacrifice covers your sins after coming to faith?

Looking back I became a follower of Christ, life was great and slowly slid back into old habits, was I at this stage not saved even though I still believed what I originally believed when I came to faith? I look back and tried to justify my behaviour but as I grew in faith the spirit of God convicted me of my sin.
So when someone comes to faith from a very messy background, is it reasonable to expect them to not sin anymore? Of course not, but some of us will no doubt say yes I sin but not as bad as that other bloke over there, he sins way more than I. Does God excuse little sin but not big sin? Of course not, you break 1 law you've broken them all!
Does this justify that we should go on sinning, not at all, we are called to live in righteousness and we are to encourage, teach and love one another into repentance, when we start categorising sin then we become like the Pharisee who exalted himself, lets be tax collectors and get on our face before God, he is the one who saves, it's not because we sin a little less than others.

Was I not saved when I drifted? If so, then Christs sacrifice isn't enough to save back slidden Christians.