Rom 1:32 Condoning Wickedness

[bcbsr]

Condoning Wickedness

Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

"Knowing" here is epignosis - "to know about" something. That is, they've heard of God's righteousness judgment on such things, which is not to say they agree with such judgement. For these approve of that which should be punishable by death. Though which things are approved may be dependent on culture. Western culture largely approves of things like sexual immorality and covetousness - the self-centered, pleasure seeking type of sins, while the Muslim community approves largely of the violent atrocities committed in the name of their god Allah, along with things like lying and deceit. Wherever you go you will find whole cultures which approve of things of which should be punishable by death.

Now while on a case by case basis one may not commit a particular act of evil, yet by approving those who practice them, they condone the action and so are guilty. An example would be 911 where that very day Muslims all over the world praised that act of Islam terrorism. And there are those who themselves are not homosexuals, but approve of those who do practice homosexuality, and not only so, but demand that everyone else approve of such things. And there are those who didn't get an abortion, but approve of those who do. And so forth.

Consider whether you approve of those who practice what the Bible calls sin.

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

 

[Tolworth John]

Consider whether you approve of those who practice what the Bible calls sin.

In context this passage is about those who are not Christian, it is not talking about Christians approving of sinful acts but in verse 30+31 of slanders, God haters, insolent and arrogant. They invent ways of doing evil etc they have no understanding, mercy etc and verse 32 approve of those who do evil. ( Paraphrased and shortened )

So being practical what would you suggest when a 'gay pride' parade comes down a Christians stret. What should they do?

Or a colleague at work who you know is gay, but work with, invites you to his wedding. How should that Christian respond?

 

[bcbsr]

In context this passage is about those who are not Christian, it is not talking about Christians approving of sinful acts but in verse 30+31 of slanders, God haters, insolent and arrogant. They invent ways of doing evil etc they have no understanding, mercy etc and verse 32 approve of those who do evil. ( Paraphrased and shortened )

So being practical what would you suggest when a 'gay pride' parade comes down a Christians stret. What should they do?

Or a colleague at work who you know is gay, but work with, invites you to his wedding. How should that Christian respond?

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

 

[Tolworth John]

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

No I didn't ask for superspiritual claptrap., But for practical advice.

Organisers for a gay pride parade are knocking on your door, they want to put a stall in your front yard?

A guy you work with, and have for years wants you, someone he likes and admires to attend his gay wedding.
What do you say?

People have these sort of real issues, now give a real practical answer if you have any spiritual insight.

 

[Phil W]

No I didn't ask for superspiritual claptrap., But for practical advice.

Organisers for a gay pride parade are knocking on your door, they want to put a stall in your front yard?

A guy you work with, and have for years wants you, someone he likes and admires to attend his gay wedding.
What do you say?

People have these sort of real issues, now give a real practical answer if you have any spiritual insight.

You list yourself as "non-denominational", but I can think of no denomination that calls scripture "claptrap".
Respond to each proponent of death with a firm no.
Then tell them why.

 

[Tolworth John]

You list yourself as "non-denominational", but I can think of no denomination that calls scripture "claptrap".
Respond to each proponent of death with a firm no.
Then tell them why.

Merely quoting random scriptural verses is meaningless and thus is claptrap, rubbish.

Scriptural verses have meaning in a context and with application.

It took two requests to get a sensible reply from you, which should have happened on the first request.

Yes saying no and giving an explanation is a good option.

Just like quote a verse and say why it is applicable.

 

[Phil W]

Merely quoting random scriptural verses is meaningless and thus is claptrap, rubbish.
Scriptural verses have meaning in a context and with application.
It took two requests to get a sensible reply from you, which should have happened on the first request.
Yes saying no and giving an explanation is a good option.
Just like quote a verse and say why it is applicable.

If the scriptures you would quote to them are claptrap, you should present them in an orderly manner.
Plan ahead of time which ones to use for each of the two preceding cases.
Imagine their arguments in favor of sin, and be prepared with a reply.

 

[anna ~ grace]

No I didn't ask for superspiritual claptrap., But for practical advice.

Organisers for a gay pride parade are knocking on your door, they want to put a stall in your front yard?

A guy you work with, and have for years wants you, someone he likes and admires to attend his gay wedding.
What do you say?

People have these sort of real issues, now give a real practical answer if you have any spiritual insight.

I agree that actual situations need actual solutions; based on and informed by Scripture, but described in a way that a person can actually live out, and act on. Practical advice for obeying Scripture with wisdom, compassion, and clarity.

 

[hedrick]

Please be careful about Rom 1:32. Paul is quoting an argument in order to refute it. Rom 1 is a standard Jewish condemnation of Gentiles, on the ground that they are inherently immoral. Note that 1 isn't a generic attack on immoral people. It's a very specific claim: that Gentiles are inherently immoral because their idolatry leads immorality.

In Rom 2 Paul demolishes that argument, on two grounds (1) Jews are just as bad, (2) There are Gentiles that are moral, which contradicts the claim of 1 (2:15). 2:2-3 explicitly quotes and rejects 1:32. Paul doesn't deny that condoning evil is wrong (although he doesn't assert it either). But that was never the point of 1:32. 1:32 was the culmination of attack on Gentiles, saying that because they were Gentiles, they ended up as a moral cesspool. 2:2-3 says that Jews are in no position to attack Gentiles on that basis, because they do it too. And 2:15 says they aren't necessarily immoral either.

Since Rom 1 is basically his opponent's position, you really can't cite it as Paul's views. Of course Paul disapproved of immorality, and presumably also of condoning immorality. But it wouldn't be reasonable to cite Rom 1 to establish that.

 

[pescador]

Please be careful about Rom 1:32. Paul is quoting an argument in order to refute it. Rom 1 is a standard Jewish condemnation of Gentiles, on the ground that they are inherently immoral. Note that 1 isn't a generic attack on immoral people. It's a very specific claim: that Gentiles are inherently immoral because their idolatry leads immorality.

In Rom 2 Paul demolishes that argument, on two grounds (1) Jews are just as bad, (2) There are Gentiles that are moral, which contradicts the claim of 1 (2:15). 2:2-3 explicitly quotes and rejects 1:32. Paul doesn't deny that condoning evil is wrong (although he doesn't assert it either). But that was never the point of 1:32. 1:32 was the culmination of attack on Gentiles, saying that because they were Gentiles, they ended up as a moral cesspool. 2:2-3 says that Jews are in no position to attack Gentiles on that basis, because they do it too. And 2:15 says they aren't necessarily immoral either.

Since Rom 1 is basically his opponent's position, you really can't cite it as Paul's views. Of course Paul disapproved of immorality, and presumably also of condoning immorality. But it wouldn't be reasonable to cite Rom 1 to establish that.

Thanks so much for explaining the beginning of Paul's discussion of sin in Romans 1. People skip over the beginning of the discussion to lambaste the sins committed, forgetting that the main sin committed was idolatry. They're obsessed with the actions rather than the cause.