The sanctification argument for refusing to listen to certain Christian apologists

Here is an argument I posted at another forum.  I argue that despite the fact that many bible scholars are consistently Christian in their faith, their unwillingness to break fellowship with other Christians they know are living in sin, proves that such scholars probably aren't true Christians to begin with.  The internet allows Christians who live in the sin of slander/reviling to run wild with little to zero chance that their local pastor, will ever know, and when the pastor is told, he typically brushes this off without employing the admittedly emotionally difficult disciplinary measures required in Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 5:9-13
==============================

In my experience, while some Christian might have a lot of knowledge of bible scholarship, they are often shockingly lacking in sanctification.  I've known really smart Christians who are routine drunks, really smart Christians who routinely engage in pre-marital fornication, etc.  God only knows how many Christian "internet apologists" there are who download pornography while posting defenses of biblical inerrancy to debate forums.

The problem is bigger than just the Christians who "live in sin" as we typically use that phrase.  The problem includes Christian scholars and leaders who exhibit zero motive to fulfill the harder parts of the bible, like obeying Matthew 18 and excommunicating the so-called "brother" who refuses to repent of some sin committed against another. 

For example, many "internet apologists" routinely hurl insults at whoever they are debating.  Apostle Paul told Christians to stop communicating with so-called Christian "brothers" who constantly "revile" other people:

  9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

But how good are the odds that any such sinful Christian's pastor knows about this, and can therefore implement this biblically necessary discipline?

I've witnessed plenty of cases where well-known conservative christian scholars became knowledgeable that one of the Christians they fellowship with routinely "reviles" everybody including other Christians, using language that is in clear violation of Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8...but these scholars did precisely nothing to address it.  They simply never attempted the least bit of biblical response.

How long can a Christian scholar turn away from the more demanding morals the bible requires of him, before the skeptics can be justified to say such scholar is likely lacking in sanctification?  Does 1st Corinthians 5:11 place a burden upon all Christians, or only on local pastors?

I'd like to know what the Christians here would think of the skeptical argument that says a Christian can be safely deemed to lack salvation, if despite a scholarly-level knowledge of the bible, they carefully refrain from addressing issues of sin in their own lives, or in the lives of other Christians whom they regularly fellowship with.

I'm not saying nobody can be a Christian unless they are sinless.

I'm saying the more you disobey the biblical requirement to reprove sinful brothers and disfellowship the unrepentant, the more the outsider is justified to conclude your lack of sanctification testifies to your lack of salvation. 

Sure, the the bible will allow for the husband who commits adultery to still be a Christian.

But does the bible allow a husband to be a Christian if he has been committing adultery every day of the week for the last 20 years?

So the ultimate question is:  even if the skeptical attack is not infallible, can the attack still be "reasonable" in concluding that where Christian scholars either live constantly in sin, or sheepishly run away from a need to rebuke a sinful brother, this lack of evidence of sanctification increases the odds such Christians are not authentically born again?

James Patrick Holding: indifferent to the bible's divine authorship, but pathologically obsessed with defending bible inerancy anyway. WTF?

I accuse Holding of harboring such an apathetic attitude toward the bible that it places him outside the pale of NT Christianity.  The "teachers" in the NT did not have justification to be indifferent toward the divine inspiration of the scriptures. 

Holding affiliates himself at least partially with the Southern Baptist Convention ('SBC'), as he claims to have received an apologetics instructor certification from SBC’s North American Missions Board (‘NAMB’) Convention.  Link.  Link.

The SBC asserts that the scriptures are the trustworthy word of God:

The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

 
Holding not only doesn't "care" whether the bible is the inspired word of God, he specified, when asked to explain, that he wasn't being sarcastic, but genuine, in the 20 or so times he's said this in the past.

-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding: I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 

For obvious reasons, Holding's friend who owns the website where Holding made this admission, deleted that thread, but it is still available through wayback. See the link.

 Sure, SBC allows members to differ on eschatology, but has SBC gone so liberal that you can now be a member without caring whether the bible is the word of God?

So Holding’s apathetic attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible makes it just a bit deceptive for him to claim any degree of affinity with the SBC.  Indeed, Holding appears to have a mental illness, because for the last 20 years, he has been the most obnoxious asshole defender of bible inerrancy on the internet…and then we find out that he doesn’t “care” whether the bible is the word of God…?  

 Ok, then what?  Is he just a fake Christian who gets involved in Christianity for no other reason than the fact that membership gives him a way to vent his dysfunctional obsessive need to dominate everything he gets involved in (similar to other fake Christians who involve themselves in it solely to make money)?  What would you think of a Roman Catholic who “didn’t care” whether Catholicism was the right version of Christianity? 

You’d probably conclude such a person's faith in Catholicism wasn't exactly sincere, would you not?

Isn’t is true that when you seriously “don’t care” about something, the one thing you don’t do is obsessively defend it as absolute truth?  Is there any area of your life where for 20 years you have obsessively engaged in some act or defended some theory, while the whole time not “caring” about it?

Holding sometimes writes for the Christian Research Journal, and in a 2011 issue, apologist James R. White concluded that yes, it does matter whether the bible is in fact the word of God.   Dr. White has publicly accused Holding of being a "nasty apologist", and refuses for that reason to communicate with him:

The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner.

Therefore, Holding’s apathetic attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible would seem to justify the assumption that in actual life and belief, he is not a Christian, Christianity is merely something he “does” because it provides endless opportunities to vent his pathological need to belittle other people, no other reason. 

In other words, Holding is plagued with the same "your-actions-don't-square-with-your-alleged-faith" problem that we saw in the likes of Benny Hinn, Ted Haggart and others.  In all cases, they were loudmouths who boisterously advocated for Christianity, and put on such a good dramtic show that their followers were deceptively prevented from detecting that these men were nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing.

For those who staunchly defend Holding’s integrity, let me know when you find a bible verse that will support the notion of a person who can legitimately hold the office of Christian “teacher” while not caring whether the bible is the inspired word of God or not.