I understand where you’re coming from. I was once there myself, largely in reaction to the attempt of the moral majority to get people who don’t know God to act like they do. But the problem I found is this: Paul does rebuke them for individual sins, as he implies in Corinthians. Maybe I didn’t make that clear. I’m not just using the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is not a manual to let us know how to preach the gospel. It’s an apologetic in historical narrative that seeks to convince Roman officials that the gospel is not an attempt to overthrow the physical empire of Caesar. But it does come to overthrow one’s allegiance to self and sin.

So what you need is a broader understanding of how the gospel needs to be preached from the entire NT. Paul indicates that Gentiles have the law of nature, as Jews have the Law of Moses. So if your understanding is correct, the reason why someone is rebuked and told to repent when Jesus or the apostles preach the gospel to them is because they have a law that they are not obeying and repentance has a reference. But that’s Paul’s point in Romans. He can tell the Gentiles to repent, and that includes from all of those evils in Romans 1, precisely because all men have a law. I agree that idolatry is the root cause, but disagree that Paul doesn’t tell men to repent, even in Athens, as that is what he implies by essentially saying that God let your sin and idolatry go in past times but now no longer, since you must answer to Jesus Christ who has been appointed as the judge over you.

So I disagree that the distinction is between repentance from not having a relationship with God but not from the self-governed life expressed in evil works. That suggests that one can claim Jesus as Lord without having Him as Lord. Repentance calls all men to actually having Him as Lord, and that means turning away from the evil fruit that only an evil tree produces. One cannot say, You must turn from being an evil tree, but by all means, continue producing evil fruit. Instead, it must be that it all goes together.

So to bring it into perspective, if someone said to you, Kenton, I am going to receive Christ as Lord and turn from other gods, but I’m going to continue to molest children and murder, what would you say to that person? Are you seriously going to tell me that you wouldn’t call them to repentance and say that his or her claim to repent and receive Christ as Lord is bogus unless he or she repents from, at least, those specific sins?

I ask this because I think we might have a different understanding of what the gospel is calling us to actually do.

Kenton, do you think Alan belongs in one of these two categories?

He calls them to repentance, yes. But repentance from what? See, the thing is that Paul actually doesn’t technically rebuke them. He doesn’t even directly address their idolatry. Rather, all he says is, “You don’t know who God is”, and “God is going to judge the world.” Now, when Paul says, “He intended for everyone to seek Him” and “In him we live and move and exist”, what Paul is saying is, “We’re accountable to God and every action should be done ‘in Him.’” So with those three statements, Paul gives the grounds for repentance. But he doesn’t rebuke them for idolatry or sexual immorality or any of it. His point is, “There is a God who holds all of us accountable. You have been ignorant of His goodness and intention. He’s gonna judge everyone for what they do with Him.” And then Jesus is the instrument and center of God’s intentions.

My point is that Paul doesn’t go to them saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘You have sinned against Me in these ways and you must repent of these things immediately or I will destroy you.’” Nor does he go to the Athenian council and say, “God says you should ban idolatry and temple prostitution.”

Paul says in Acts, talking to Agrippa, that he declared first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, that they should “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.” One could infer that Paul’s gospel was “turn to God by performing deeds in keeping with repentance”. However, I’m more inclined to think that Paul is summing up both evangelism and the initial instruction to fledgling churches (as Acts describes Paul spending weeks and months with the new communities of Christians, instructing them). So the message is, “repent and turn to God”. And by that I take it to mean, “Turn from living without God to living under the authority of God”.

What do I mean by that? Paul doesn’t preach the gospel by identifying which sins a person has committed, or listing off a bunch of sins that he or she may or may not have committed. He identifies the root only, which is ignorance of God (yes, knowledge of God is more than awareness, as I said; it’s coming into covenant with God, into God’s covenant, which has repercussions for living under God’s authority, within those covenant bounds). And it is ignorance of God leading to God-less lifestyles (no matter how much or little they coincide with Christian morality) that is the basis for God’s judgment.

I don’t know if I’m being clear about the fine line between acknowledging and defining what constitutes sin, and pointing out the sins of others (or emphasizing specific [often obvious] sins). One is rightly included in the gospel message. The other is something that is scripturally only reserved for God’s people, who have a covenant knowledge of who God is and what He requires. The distinction that I made above between prophet and evangelist (and much earlier between viewing America as “Jerusalem” or “Athens”) gets at the heart of this fundamental distinction.

And the reason why this is fundamental is because the gospel, like God, is without partiality. How can you be impartial when you point out sexual immorality, but not nationalism (a form of idolatry)? If a person isn’t a murderer, isn’t an adulterer, isn’t homosexual, do we actually point out their sins, apart from a vague, “All humans are sinful. Sin includes lying, pride, selfishness, etc.”? The reason I say this is because I am guilty of this! And how can we point out those “lesser” (more palatable) sins without also condemning ourselves who we must admit are just as prone to consistent pride an selfishness and ambition and partiality, etc.? Then we are making the gospel about works. And even if we give the caveat that “Jesus perfectly obeyed so we don’t have to be perfect”, the only logical conclusion from such a gospel presentation is that Christianity is about works. But Acts 17 is revealing. Because the sin is ignorance of God (this is the chief, and foundational, reality of the Gentile world), the solution is knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. And hence, Christianity is about the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. Note how to the Jews, they have knowledge of God. And they rebelled against it, so Acts records the gospel to them as about rebellion and submission and forgiveness and escape from wrath. To the Gentiles it’s ignorance and knowledge (leading to submission) and inclusion and escape from wrath.

Just read through Acts again. That’s how it proceeds. Because what distinguishes us from the world, most fundamentally, is that we have come to know God, or as Paul says, we have come “to be known by God.” And THAT is why we live as we do. “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.” And to those who claim to know God, who claim to revere God and keep his commandments, what distinguishes us? Yes, true knowledge of God evident in how we live. As Jesus rebukes the Sadducees — “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” — and the Pharisees — “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” — so is our rebuke to them.

And just as a side note, just as in Jesus’ day, we have to deal with two types of people: those who claim to see God, and those who don’t a thing about Him. What is striking today is that this postmodern society exalts ignorance (well, ignorance about God at least), while many in Christian society claim to know God (but really don’t). So those who are blind think they see, and those without eyes refuse to get new eyes. Both are in darkness, the only difference is, one thinks the darkness is light, and the other just loves the darkness.

Alan: “My answer: I do not have the authority to define sin, so I won’t/can’t affirm that statement for you.”

#1: Nobody said that you had the *authority* to define sin.
#2: Nobody asked you to define sin.

What was asked was whether you affirm Scripture’s (Which incidentally has the Authority to define sin) teaching that same-sex genital activity is sin. Do you indeed affirm Scripture’s teaching that same-sex genital activity is sin?

My understanding is that you do affirm that Scripture teaches that same-sex genital activity is sin. I’m politely requesting that you confirm or deny this understanding.

In the absence of a denial, then it’s reasonable to state the following: “Alan holds that Scripture teaches that same-sex genital activity is sin.”

“Does this mean that we shouldn’t preach the gospel? I don’t think so. There’s a difference between preaching the gospel and being concerned with how others live their lives (that is, to attempt to regulate the behavior of others). But whether we attempt to regulate others or simply preach the gospel to them, everything is premised on a clear view of holiness and sin.”

We’re in agreement here, except that the issue isn’t simply knowledge. “Knowledge of God” in Scripture often means “submitting to a relationship with God,” “having an allegiance to God.” Hence, the Gentiles need to repent. If they don’t, we are to live among them as the text says, but our message to them is the same, “Repent and believe.”

I have to disagree. Paul rebukes the Gentiles in Athens for their BIG sin first. He calls them to repentance and says that God let them go their own way in times past, but now has called everyone to His Son who will judge the world.

But we need to understand that if the first sin (idolatry) is taken care of, other sins are rebuked. We know this because Paul mentions to us that the Corinthians were all called to repent of their sins when they were called by the gospel, and those sins include homosexuality, lying, being violent, etc. So a call of repentance is a total call, not a partial one. I agree that it is a call away from idolatry, but that’s true of both Jew and Gentile. The call is away from lawlessness to His Lordship, which includes a call away, then, from all sin. That means we need to convey to others, who may not know better, what those sins are. So you are right in saying that they need revelation, but identifying sin is a part of that. The call to repentance, however, is given to everyone.

10 …But we urge you, brothers, to [love one another] more and more, 11 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. 1 Thess. 4:10-12

This is how Christians are to behave in the world. But, Paul says immediately before this:

1 Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

Notice the focus on what Christians are to be and do. And notice how Paul describes the Gentiles: who do not know God, who are led by the passion of lust, who partake in sexual immorality, who wrong their brothers. So, it is knowledge of God that is the problem (I don’t think he means simple awareness that there is a God, and that He is a moral being). And yet, by doing this, they disregard God, and the Lord is an avenger in all these things (in other words, God judges sin). And in chapter 5, Paul describes the coming judgment of God upon all who don’t know him.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t preach the gospel? I don’t think so. There’s a difference between preaching the gospel and being concerned with how others live their lives (that is, to attempt to regulate the behavior of others). But whether we attempt to regulate others or simply preach the gospel to them, everything is premised on a clear view of holiness and sin.

Finally, the basis for denying interracial marriage and a literal priesthood is not entirely biblical. The reason I say this is because 1) there are numerous intermarriages in Scripture (though it’s easy, I suppose, to take the OT prohibition on marrying foreign women as primarily about ethnicity rather than religion). 2) the NT is very clear that we have one mediator.

Do you play for the Dodgers? Because you did quite a bit of dodging my questions there.

If God defines sin and you cannot, that implies that you cannot say that murder or pedophilia is a sin. It also implies that you are being a hypocrite for coming on here and telling others that they are in sin for making public proclamations that define sin. What was that about taking the speck out?

I actually didn’t give you prooftexts the first time and the second time I gave you texts that address a completely different issue. Perhaps you’re just ready with that empty assertion regardless of what Scripture someone gives you.

However, in view of the log in your own eye, I do see you have no problem spitting out a series of prooftexts of your own to support your own position. Unfortunately, in context, none of these texts support your argument.

Let me demonstrate:

“Come to understand that when Christ talked to His followers about praying in your closet,”

What does not looking for the praise of men by confusing ritual with morality (what Jesus tells us to do before men–e.g., let your light so shine before men that they see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven) have to do with our subject?

“not calling out a speck in your brother’s eye while you had a plank in yours (to say noting of a non-brother),”

His command is to remove the plank from your own SO THAT you might be able to take out the speck in your brother’s eye. This is also talking about within the believing community–hence the term “brother.”

“not casting a stone at someone unless you were blameless,”

An apocryphal addition to John, but I would consider it the same as the speck idea. We are told by Jesus and the apostles to call one another on our sin in order to seek repentance from our brother, so if you were right, we should all let our brothers be damned in sin because we don’t want to judge anyone else. Of course, that’s not what Jesus teaches us.

“turning the other cheek,”

What does this have to do with a person sinning against God? It has to do with a personal offense committed against us.

“forgiving someone 7 x 70 times, loving your neighbor as yourself,”

Again, see above.

“actions towards the least of these being in truth action towards Christ and that these teachings to His followers spell out a clear invitation to love, serve, forgive and be humble.”

Which includes rebuking others for sin within the community, but it also includes rebuking others outside the community for sin when we preach the gospel to them.

“That the living God will work with those who seek Him towards wholeness/holiness and away from sin with a power and authority that He alone has.”

And He gives that authority to His people, otherwise they cannot fulfill the great commission, their love toward one another in seeking another person’s sanctification, their love toward God in exalting what HE has defined as good and true over the evil and lies of culture within that culture, etc.

Again, you dealt with nothing I said, but rather conveniently dodged the obvious. You continue to argue nonsense that you don’t really believe yourself (e.g., If only God can define sin then you can’t even define it within the community of a Bible study, congregation, etc.; if society cannot define sin then it cannot really make its laws either, as all civic laws are based upon a morality of right or wrong that can be prevented or sanctioned by law; if you can’t define sin, you can’t define sin as that which harms another as well, etc.).

So does pedophilia, within a society that accepts it as morally acceptable, get a pass from you?

Does murdering Jews need no public condemnation from Christians when the Nazi regime has decided that Jews are not humans and therefore it is not murder to kill them? By what authority do you say it’s wrong? You don’t have that authority, remember? And that society had decided that it was OK. What if the Germans had won the war and everyone became convinced that is was OK?

Finally, to address what I already addressed many comments ago, a misuse of Scripture comes from prooftexting, like you have above, without understanding the creation principle upon which biblical morality is based. If you don’t understand the principle, you won’t understand the expressions of that principle and how to apply them. Hence, people who condemned interracial marriage were just as ignorant about the principle upon which biblical ethics is founded as you are. What’s your point?