Doesn’t Tullian’s sin demonstrate that taking the message of radical grace too far is dangerous and that it leads to exactly what happened?

Steve, doesn’t Tullian’s sin demonstrate that taking the message of radical grace too far is dangerous and that it leads to exactly what happened?
Actually, no. In fact, just the opposite. As much as I hate what has happened, Tullian has demonstrated that Christ didn’t die for just the acceptable and “popcorn” sins. Jesus didn’t die for us because we didn’t floss last month, told a white lie to our Sunday school teacher, or stole a quarter from our mothers when we were children. Christ died for real sinners and real sin. If the grace Tullian preached and taught isn’t available for him, it’s not available for me or you.

No. No, it doesn’t demonstrate the opposite. One thing we all agree on is that grace is available for our brother in his sin. The controversy isn’t about grace for serious sinners. The controversy is about Radical Grace as a means of sanctification. Tullian’s sin doesn’t help his case. That’s all.

As others have pointed out, plenty of men with a more traditional view of sanctification have fallen in this way. But their theology accounts for and even explains such falling. Tullian’s way was offered as a better path to holiness where effort and self-discipline were minimized (the whole “you can’t teach frogs to fly” theory). His view did not hold up to Scriptural analysis very well. His fall may have had very little to do with his views on grace, but his fall doesn’t demonstrate that he was right because he sinned “big”.

Yeah, I don’t think results arguments work well either way on the antinomianism question—partly because moral failures are easy enough to find on all sides, but mostly because there is so much solid, clear biblical info to work with. It’s definitely better to draw people’s attention to the relevant texts… which would have been a better direction for the writer of the article to go.