“And finally, tell them what a saving response looks like by challenging them to count the cost, deny themselves, and become a follower of Christ.”

How does this line up with the many examples of Jesus telling people to “believe on me for eternal life?” How does it line up with Pauls teaching of justification by “faith alone?” It doesn’t. To tell a person this is how to be justified is to put the entire requirement on them. They count the cost. They deny themselves. They follow Christ. Where is the message of faith, belief, trust in Christ? Where is the message of Grace? Where is the message of atonement?

It’s absent. I couldn’t believe it when I read that article and there was nothing mentioned about trusting Christ; in an article claiming to be about evangelism?

The only way to reconcile the two is to redefine “faith” to mean “faithfulness”.

This is a huge problem…

How does the idea that obedience is a “condition” for salvation…as you seem to indicate…line up with the over 150 examples of faith being the only condition for eternal life in the New Testament?

My point is that conversion and obedience are two separate things. If it was so automatic, then why is so much of the NT written to encourage believers on to obedience and good works?

For example (without the references):

* Walk worthy…
* Put of the old man…
* Shall we continue in sin…
* etc.

Isn’t the reason we have all this teaching because obedience isn’t automatic? If not, then why all this teaching from Paul? If it’s automatic then there’s no need to exhort believers to live lives worthy of Christ.

To intertwine conversion and obedience is to add works as a condition to salvation.

I hold to the idea that conversion and discipleship are two distinct things. One is instantaneous and the other is a process.

My point also above is that the text does not support MacArthurs view of repentance. He writes it in a way as to repent of personal sin. I see and agree to the point that idolotry is sin….but Pauls point is that they would repent of their wrong view of God and Christ; which is much different than the indication of repenting from personal sin.

Mark…I believe a more dangerous ground is entered when a person tries to force their own theology on the text, instead of letting their theology flow from the text.

I heard MacArthur teach on John 3 at a Shepherd’s Conference several years ago. It was a great message, until his conclusion. He said, “And what did Jesus ask Nicodemus to do? He asked him to GIVE IT ALL UP!” I looked around at everyone nodding their heads and saying amen and wondered what version of the Bible they had. Mine said Jesus told him to “believe” on Him for eternal life; not give it all up.

Based on that comment and many like it in MacArthur’s books, I disagree that his view of repentance is in line with the rest of Scripture and that his view of faith/belief is either.

I don’t know that I would say that the devil has great Theology…he believes that God is one (James 2:19)…He probably doesn’t believe that God is just, merciful, holy, etc.

Doesn’t having right Theology presuppose knowing what God commands and that He has a right to require that we obey His commands?

The commandments are not arbitrary rules, but reveal yet another attribute of His nature. Paul was building the argument that God is and has the right to make requirements of the Athenians (and us), not just an object for intellectual gamesmanship.

We enter dangerous ground when we redefine repentance to mean “changing your mind about God,” or, said another way, giving up your bad Theology in exchange for good Theology.

Remember, the devil has great Theology (knows the right things about God) but has not repented. (James 2:19). If I understand what you’re saying, then your view does not harmonize with James 2:19.

Paul is clearly calling the Athenians to task for their idolatry (a sin), not just for their bad Theology (that they believe the wrong things about God.) It wasn’t just that the Athenians believed the wrong things about God, but they actively worshiped and served the creation instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25).

True repentance is changing your mind and your will.

When we evangelize “our Athens,” it is not enough to have people change their view of God to an orthodox view, but we must help them to see that they are vile sinners in need of a Savior. Hallelujah - Jesus is that Savior! Repentance means having the right beliefs, (as you correctly say) but further, submitting to the True God.

MacArthur’s use of repentance is consistent with its New Testament uses elsewhere, and harmonizes well with the whole counsel of God.

(Short pause while I go splash cold water in my face and make sure I really want to do this.)

If I might, I’d suggest that your third step is not complete enough.

You said that Paul told them to “repent or be judged” and I agree wholeheartedly, but I believe there is a key missing step before that.

It makes no sense to an unbeliever to “repent” if he or she does not understand what he is repenting from. Repentance from sin presumes that the sinner understand that he or she is a vile sinner. So before we can get to the point where we explain “repent or be judged” we must explain what we are being judged for. We must explain to the person that he has broken the law of God, or else repentance and judgment will be meaningless.

Paul did this in Acts 17 when he spoke of their idolatry. He in essence told them that they have violated the first and second of the Ten Commandments.

Think of it this way… If I unexpectedly pulled my 8-year-old daughter from her playtime and told her that she must go to her room, I would indeed be guilty of being unreasonable. She was having a great time playing. Why did her grumpy father pull her out and send her to her room? Makes no sense!

But if I pull her aside and explain, “Daughter, because you have shoved your baby sister, stole your brother’s toy, and wrote on the walls with crayon, you have lost your playtime privileges and you will go to your room to await further consequences,” now my actions are reasonable and make sense. Only after the offender is presented with the allegations against him or her, does it make sense that he or she is in danger of consequences.

Paul knew this. This is the same Apostle who said “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). The Law humbles the sinner to show his need for grace. Otherwise grace makes no sense.

He also said, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient” (1 Timothy 1:7-8). Paul said the Law is good, and he tells us who the Law is for - it’s not for Christians, but it’s for non-Christians. He even goes on to list a bunch of specific sins.

Paul said, “Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7). He was saying, in effect, that without the Commandments, he wouldn’t have realized that he was a sinner.

And great Christian men have understood this throughout church history.

Luther said, “The first duty of the Gospel preacher is to declare God’s Law and show the nature of sin.”

Charles Spurgeon said, “I do not believe that any man can preach the gospel who does not preach the Law.”

Spurgeon also said, “Lower the Law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt; this is a very serious loss to the sinner rather than a gain; for it lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion. I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary when you have set aside the Law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring men to Christ… They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy Law. Therefore the Law serves a most necessary purpose, and it must not be removed from its place.”

Before Paul told the Athenians to repent, he showed them their idolatry, that they broke the 1st and 2nd commandments, and we ought to do the same.

So let’s tell the world to repent, but we must first prepare the heart for grace by using the “schoolmaster” that God has given us. The Law of God must be used to show that the sinner has violated God’s standard. Otherwise telling them about judgment is unreasonable.

If a person does not realize that they have actually broken God’ law, then telling them to repent will either confuse them, or worse, end in a shallow “profession of faith” with no repentance, which is a recipe for a false conversion and religious hypocrisy.

God gave us ten commandments. Let’s use them! Paul used two with the Athenians. Jesus used six with the Rich Young Ruler. When you’re in your “Athens,” use as many as it takes to humble the person you’re speaking with. And if they’re not humble, then don’t tell them about repentance and faith. You’ll only help create a religious hypocrite, a so-called “Christian” without repentance, and we sadly have far too many of those already.

1) Paul spend almost the entire passage discussing the nature of God and Christ.
* vs 24 - creator
* vs 24 - does not dwell in manmade temples
* vs 25 - not worshipped with man’s hands
* vs 26 - made men and set their boundaries
* vs 27 - He’s not far from each of us
* vs 28 - we live and move because of Him
* vs 29 - idols are not appropriate to represent Him
* vs 31 - The Man (Christ) will judge the world

2) Therefore, it appears the word repent in vs 30 is not talking about a change of mind about sin, but a change of mind and reconsideration of one’s view about God and His Son.

3) Also in vs 34 the emphasis is on their “belief”. Belief about what, about the nature of God and this “Man” that Paul has just presented them with. Thus tying in well to Christ’s many, many exhortations to “believe on Him” for eternal life.

Just a thought….

It is simple, but sin is what makes it hard for man to enter in by the narrow gate, and that is because he loves it.

The are truths that transform.