Some time ago I participated in a Bible study concerning the importance of knowing what we believe as Christians – a great subject! A major point of the study book and materials was the topic of “unconditional acceptance” – God’s unconditional acceptance of us and the need for our unconditional acceptance of others. We should accept others with all their sin and faults, because we know that God accepts us even with our sin. This has become the mantra of much of today’s evangelical church – the new gospel, if you will. But is it biblical?
Well, I can’t find in anywhere in the Bible, and believe me I did my homework. What I do find in the Bible is Christ’s death for our sin as the first point of the gospel message that Paul preached, among others. What the death of Christ in our place means is that God can only accept us through the shed blood of His own Son. Saving faith hinges on recognizing our sin, repentance and a wholehearted turning from it, not bringing it with us!
I found that “unconditional acceptance” became the centerpiece of humanistic psychology beginning in the mid ’50s. It gradually invaded the church until the condition we have today that it is this ‘new gospel’ permits avoiding the sin issue in the proclamation of the good news, as well as the need for continuously confronting the sin in our lives and turning from it in the process of sanctification as we grow spiritually.
Did I pose a rhetorical question? You bet, as far as I am concerned! The myth of God’s “unconditional acceptance” of sinners is the greatest lie the enemy has ever fed the human race (especially the church), except for the original lie in the Garden when he hinted that we can be like God and the first couple bit.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, unless someone can offer solid scriptural proof that I am wrong.
The Battle Cry 
I don’t have any solid scriptural proof that uses the term unconditional acceptance; however, isn’t ‘agapeo’ an unconditional love? Not quite the same, but definitely something most of us don’t even come close to giving. I linked the definition because it was too long and it was too good to leave off. The last bit is especially good, so anyone interested, don’t stop reading until you get to the end of the def. (please)
http://vines.mike-obrien.net/
I don’t believe, Dan, that this means we are to overlook sin in the life of believers, but the way we go about in confronting it needs to be biblical…
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with the term “unconditional acceptance.” What I am familiar with is that God loves us unconditionally.
If we claim that we experience a shared life with him and continue to stumble around in the dark, we’re obviously lying through our teeth — we’re not living what we claim. But if we walk in the light, God himself being the light, we also experience a shared life with one another, as the sacrificed blood of Jesus, God’s Son, purges all our sin.
If we claim that we’re free of sin, we’re only fooling ourselves. A claim like that is errant nonsense. On the other hand, if we admit our sins — make a clean breast of them — he won’t let us down; he’ll be true to himself. He’ll forgive our sins and purge us of all wrongdoing.
If we claim that we’ve never sinned, we out-and-out contradict God — make a liar out of him. A claim like that only shows off our ignorance of God.
LikeLike
Michelle & b4dguy,
Good morning! You are both right about God loving unconditionally – it’s his character. He also hates some things and even said Jacob I loved and Esau I hated(Figure that one out)! Although we are born objects of his wrath even loves us! I don’t think we humans can really love unconditionally unless he lives in us, and then it’s hard sometimes.
At the same time, we need to deal with the sin issue. When we come to Christ we have to deal with it and repent from it. We do battle with sin the rest of our lives. We can’t just hang on to it.
Much of the church these days never really deals with issues like sin, judgment and the holy wrath of God against sin. It might not be ‘comfortable’. Just preach love, love, love. Sin is just a cloud or gulf between us and God and Jesus died to eliminate the gulf (I heard the cloud thing in church). Personal sin is completely overlooked, or called something like mistakes or hindrances, etc. but not the “S” word. Jesus died for our dreams (personally heard that too), our abundant life, so we could have our best life now.
My Jesus died for MY sin. the rest is gravy (bad description?) And the rest is on God’s terms not mine.
I’ve heard it said that it you can’t preach it anywhere, don’t preach it. If that axiom were followed in a lot of our evangelical churches, they might have to get back to biblical expository preaching.
LikeLike
I’m not disagreeing with the larger context of what you are saying. The devil is in the details (the interpretation and application).
Define sin.
Define repent.
So how do you deal with the sin issue? Scripture says we never stop sinning, and to even claim that we are without sin is to call God a liar (my comment was almost exclusively from 1 John, btw). How do you “deal” with sin without crossing the line into legalism?
I challenge you to find one verse in the book of Acts that speaks to God’s wrath. I found quite a few examples of unconditional love in Acts, but I guess that work is now lost. People were responding in Acts to the message that the Messiah had come; to random acts of kindness; and in response to miraculous signs and wonders.
I’m curious too, how you (this is an open question) reconcile “once saved, always saved” (that is, assurance of salvation) with this doctrine of dealing with sin? They seem to be mutually exclusive.
Can you tie this all together for me? Or if you’ve already done this, point me to the post?
I’d be much obliged.
LikeLike
A. Definition – What is sin? Sin is any violation of the perfect holiness of God.
1. 1 John 3:4 – “Sin is lawlessness”
2. Romans 3:23 – “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
B. The origin of sin – How did sin begin?
1. Sin did not begin in God, He cannot sin (James 1:13)
2. Sin began in Satan (Ezekiel 28:15). In angels who followed him (2 Peter 2:4). In man (Genesis 3:6, Ro-mans 5:12)
C. Inherited Sin
1. Definitions:
– Inherited sin is simply “the sinful state into which all people are born” (Ryrie). We have a constant bent toward sin.
– Inherited sin is also called the “sin nature” (it affected our entire being), and it is called “original sin” (emphasizing that Adam’s sin caused the corrupted nature we each inherit).
– “Total depravity” is a related term expressing our total lack of merit in God’s sight. Total depravity does not mean we are as “bad” as we can be but that we are as “bad off” as we can be because we all have a totally sinful nature.
2. Scripture
– Psalm 51:5 “…in sin my mother conceived me.”
– Ephesians 2:3 “…by nature children (objects) of wrath”
– Our emotions (Romans 1:26), our intellect (Romans 1:28) and our will (Romans 7:20) are all en-slaved to sin and opposed to God.
3. Penalty. The penalty of inherited sin is spiritual death. Man is born spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:3) and will be eternally separated from God in hell if our sinful condition is not remedied (Revelation 20:11-15).
D. Imputed Sin
1. Definitions:
“Imputation” means putting to someone else’s account that which may or may not be his (Robert Light-ner, Sin, The Savior and Salvation, p.33)
The “imputation of Adam’s sin to mankind” means that Adam’s first sin was rightfully charged to the account of every other person. Someone may protest that it doesn’t seem fair that others are charged with what Adam did. But the Bible teaches that since all were “in Adam” we all unconsciously partici-pated in Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; cf. Hebrews 7:9,10).
2. Scripture
Romans 5:12 – “Therefore just as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
Grammatically the expression “all sinned” does not refer to our individual sins or our sinful nature. It means that all sinned when Adam sinned (cf. Romans 5:18). That’s imputation. We are each held re-sponsible.
3. Penalty. Imputed sin caused physical death. Each person’s physical death was sealed and certain ever since Adam sinned (“death spread to all men because all sinned” – Romans 5:12). Our sin nature does not cause physical death but spiritual (Ephesians 2:3). Individual sins do not cause physical death (Infants die). Imputed sin caused our physical death.
Correct. The term wrath is not in Acts. See Ephesians 2 and Romans 1. Some of the evangelistic encounters in Acts do mention judgment, which goes to the subject of the wrath of God. Sin will be punished.
For both assurance and God’s wrath go to http://www.bible.org and google “assurance of salvation” and “the wrath of God” for some excellent treatments of both subjects.
Concerning assurance and dealing with sin. There is a lot of scripture that points to God keeping us by his power. Nowher in the NT is there a mandate to become sinless to remain saved. 1 John 1:9 tells us what to do when we encounter sin in our lives and promises forgiveness for confessed sin and cleansing from all unrighteousness.
We are saved and kept by grace and the power of God. If a particular sin or a number of sins could cause us to lose our salvation, where is grace?
Is it license to sin? Of course not. Phil 2:13 tells us God provides the desire and strength to live a life of obedience.
I think we can lose our assurance, but not our salvation.
Great thoughts and questions!
LikeLike
The only defining statement I see above is “Sin is any violation of the perfect holiness of God.” Can you expound on that; e.g. what is the perfect holiness of God?
I don’t see where you defined “repent”? Probably an oversight, but I’m still interested.
Based on what you’ve described about the assurance of salvation, my question is why are you so focused on sin? If the continued sin in your life, the total depravity, is ever present – and it’s not a salvation issue – why so much emphasis?
Where is the line crossed and the focus on sin in your life (or others’ lives) becomes legalism? Would you agree that legalism is sinful? Or, at least not profitable/desirable?
The issue of how your actions/behavior affect a younger believer has come up in the last several days. I have great concern that your emphasis on sin (assuming it’s not legalism) would cause a weaker brother/sister that is prone to legalism to fall back into legalism. I’ve seen that happen to a lot of people. It conjures visions of millstones around necks to me – and that’s sobering.
LikeLike
See the following for a better definition of the hliness of God than I can present:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_08.htm
You can go to the same location I mentioned earlier and search the site for repentance.
My simple definition is connected to the word ‘repent’ as the first word of the gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Peter on Pentecost. My nature ‘repent’ is connected to ‘sin’. For me it is an acknowledgment of sin and the wholehearted turning away from it. It is not a one time deal when one receives Christ, but an ongoing thing as we discover remaining sin and turn away from that also.
God has predetermined that we be conformed to the image of his son and that involves dealing with sin as it surfaces in our lives.
It is sometimes easy to cross the line and become legalistic. It is also easy to ask the question: “Why should I NOT do, or even DO, a certain thing?” Is it because I am trying to ‘earn somethng’ (legalism), or is it obedience to his word because I love him and he has planted within me the desire to walk in obedience.?
I don’t think that I need to wait for ‘warm fuzzies’ to stop any particular sin. “I know smoking is wrong, but God hasn’t conviceted me yet.” What’s that about?
A lifelong prayer I have is that God would teach me to hate all sin, as he hates all sin. That is not possible apart from Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. By nature, we love our sin.
LikeLike
I found this article at bible.org:
http://www.bible.org/qa.php?qa_id=305
Here is just a small section:
“The word “repent” has to be understood within the context in which it is being used. In fact, very often, it should not even be translated “repent” because of the wrong preconditioned theological connotations this carries. It is a matter of what some would call, “illegitimate totality transfer.” This occurs when the meaning of a word in one passage is carried over to every other place the word occurs. The Greek word for “repent” is metanoia (noun) or metanoeo (verb). It basically means a change of mind and the context must determine what is involved in that change of mind. In passages where salvation is in view it is equivalent to believe or trust in and involves a change of mind about any form of self-trust in human works, good deeds, religious tradition, etc. followed by a trust in the finished work of Christ which alone has the power to save us. It means a turning from self-trust to trust in Christ.”
There is one other paragraph worth throwing up here:
“Of course, there is also a repentance needed in the Christian life in relation to specific sins (2 Cor. 7:9; Rev. 2:5) but this repentance has nothing to do with salvation (Matt. 21:28-30).”
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Repentance in connection for salvation is much bigger than repenting from specific sins. In salvation we are repenting from believing we can do anything to earn our salvation. Repentance from specific sins connected to confessin as mentioned in 1 John 1:9 involves afreeing with God about a certain thing (part of the definition of confess) and then getting rid of that sin(s). Some sin(s) is/are clearly defined in scripture. Sin has also been described as whatever is not of faith. Romans 14:23.
There is a good piece by John Piper here:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper80/082480m.htm
It handles the “stumbling principle” also.
I am not a “sin hunter”, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time and effort focusing on. All I am saying is that we need to rid ourselves of it when we see it and that the popular idea manifested by “unconditional acceptance” that ignores it is unscriptural.
LikeLike
I could have sworn you said in the same sentence that sin needed to be mention during evangelism, and that repentance was the first requirement. Now you are saying that repentance “unto salvation” has more to do with the acknowledgment that we can’t earn our salvation.
Arguably the two are interrelated, but I think there is a need to let the Holy Spirit convict of sin, rather than being so quick to point out the sin in someone’s life. I prefer to think of pointing out someone’s need (they’ve fallen, and haved turned away from God, they’ve sinned the big “S” sin) for a savior rather than telling them to stop sinning.
Let’s face it, it’s extremely easy to find sin in other’s lives and our own lives – there really is not much challenge to do this – especially if you believe in the doctrine of total depravity. We tend to focus (and that’s where legalism crops up) on the visible sins – rather than focusing on the heart sins. These sins are best remedied by repenting (turning) toward acts of love and kindness. That is the solution to putting the flesh to death – focusing on the good.
Reading the Bible can be a sin; attending a Bible study can be a sin; going to a church service can be a sin. It’s all relative to what the Holy Spirit is telling you to do in the current situation, and if he’s saying go to Nineveh, and you’re saying “I can’t, I have to lead a Bible study” something is out of whack.
Sin is complex. Loving is complex. I believe our focus should be on doing the good, not avoiding the bad. The former can only lead us to experience the Kingdom of God, the latter is loaded with pitfalls and dangers.
I’ll read the link you sent and comment back.
LikeLike
Part of repentance unto salvation is repenting from the idea that our works can save us. We are totally helpless.
There is also the acknowledging of specific sin(s) and repenting from those. Two sides of the same coin.
“Sin is complex. Loving is complex. I believe our focus should be on doing the good, not avoiding the bad. The former can only lead us to experience the Kingdom of God, the latter is loaded with pitfalls and dangers.”
So we just need to love, love, love, and the sin takes care of itself? Don’t even bother with confessing and renouncing sin when we see it in our lives as Chsistians?
That’s how I hear you. If that is what you mean, it is a completely unbiblical stance, and it is most certainly is not filled with pitfalls and dangers. Quite the opposite is true.
LikeLike
Well, yes. If we love, love, love – there won’t be as much time to sin. If we do sin (and we will) and confess our sins, He is faithful and just… Never have I suggested not bothering with confessing and renouncing sin (I’m not sure renouncing is even a biblical concept – you’ve thrown in a new word here). The “seeing” sin in our lives is tricky. I once read of an analogy of an iceberg. We are like an iceberg in that only the “surface” sin is what we see – but only about 10% of an iceberg is visible above the water. If you focus only on the sin you see, you’re missing about 90% of the sin in your life. Fortunately, no one can “see” what’s going on in your heart, so most Believers can skate along working on a form of holiness/righteousness based on appearances. Unfortunately, there is Biblical precedent – the pharisees were darn good at this lifestyle, but Jesus called them what they were: whitewashed tombs, a brood of vipers, hypocrites. Jesus said, “First clean the INSIDE of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.” (see Matthew 23)
The ultimate danger and pitfall of focusing on not sinning, is you become a pharisee. I AM NOT SAYING ANYONE IS A PHARISEE. I’m saying that is a clear and present danger.
I’m not suggesting we ignore sin – just not dwell on it. Sin is an ever-present reality in our lives. If all I do is focus on not sinning, I’ll miss the opportunity to love and that in and of itself is yet another sin. In effect, by focusing on not sinning I would be committing a sin, so to not sin in this area I need to focus on loving.
This whole discussion started with you saying that my idea of loving the lost, of not leading with exposing their sins, but telling them that God loves them and letting the Holy Spirit convict them of their sin was hogwash.
If we’re talking about Believers, yes – there is absulutely a Biblical mandate to not sin. Period. We still do, and will continue to sin for the rest of our lives, and we are responsible to confess our sin; and somehow point out other Believer’s sins to them as well. Jesus warned us to do self-inspection before talking to others about their sins (the whole log/splinter analogy), and I say we do a very poor job of obeying Him (there goes another sin). The dangers of focusing on sin in our own lives and others include: guilt, pride, arrogance, legalism, “holier-than-thou”-ism (what’s a word for that?), strife, envy, jealousy. There’s no end to the list; so I say FOCUS on loving, not on not sinning.
I’m trying to think of a good military analogy; like when you fire a rifle are you aiming at hitting the target, or simply not missing the target (hand grenades notwithstanding)? What’s the difference? The goal or outcome and the focus.
Let’s try this: obedience to the law, to all Jesus commands us, should be our primary focus. He spent a good deal of time telling us to do things, and less time telling us not to do things. Focus on the DOING, and then confess when you don’t DO everything that Jesus tells you to do.
I hope this makes more sense.
LikeLike
I read the transcript of John Piper’s sermon on “Whatever is not from faith is Sin”. I agree with what he says:
“The second implication of Romans 14:23 is that we cannot view sin any more merely as breaking the ten commandments or transgressing a list of do’s and don’ts “Everything that is not from faith is sin.” Coming to church may be sin, staying home may be sin. Eating steak may be sin and not eating steak may be sin. Sexual intercourse with your own wife may be sin and the refusal of sexual relations may be sin. One of Satan’s most successful lies is that sin can be limited to a manageable list of do’s and don’ts. The reason this is so satanic is that it causes thousands of churchgoers to think that things are O.K. between them and God because they avoid one list of don’ts and practice another (much shorter) list of do’s; but in fact may be sinning all day long, incurring the wrath of God, because their attitudes and actions do not come from faith in the promises of God.”
and…
“The real battle of life is not fought at low-lying delta where the river of our inclinations flow into action but at the high, less accessible spring of faith. If the stream doesn’t start in the spring of faith, it does not matter where it flows, it will issue in sin. Therefore, as Proverbs says, “Keep your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life” (4:23).”
Geez – almost makes me look like I was plagiarizing…
LikeLike
Sounds tome like we’re trackin’, just needed to get past a little interfrence!
LikeLike
This comment was made to this post on another site:
“Actually, the idea man must do something as a condition to God’s love, which is the logical conclusion of your post, is eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I will trust in the unconditional love of God, who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself…as Paul said.”
This reply goes to unconditional love, which we can say if God IS love. But is it the same thing as unconditional acceptance? I thought Christ died so that we could become children of God. Wouldn’t that make acceptance by God as his child contitioned on our belief in Christ?
LikeLike
I am looking for the book by Robert Arthur Matthews “Born For Battle” Publisher Harold Shaw. Any idea how I can get one?
LikeLike
Go here Connie:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=122063&netp_id=312994&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers
LikeLike
A God who commands his children to love their enemies, in order to be like their Father in Heaven (Luke 6:35) is clearly a God who loves unconditionally. Actually I would not even use the word condition. I see it as deterrents coming in the way of God’s unconditional love flowing into a person’s life. God’s love for his people doesn’t change. As it says in Eph Chp 1, God has loved us before creation. It’s when the eyes of a person is opened and he invites God into His life that the person can enjoy the goodness of God’s love. God’s love for the person was always there. By removing the deterrent, the person can enjoy God’s love. This is very different from fulfilling conditions before God can start loving you. Hence, I would agree with the phrase God’s love is unconditional and is always flowing towards a person. Since He doesn’t force His love on people, each person has to make a decision to receive God’s love or not. Making this decision is not ‘fulfilling a condition’ so that God can start loving a person.
LikeLike
Certainly God loves unconditionally,because he is, after all, God.However the question is God’s unconditional “acceptance” a biblical concept? Unconditional love and unconditional acceptance are not the same thing. Does God hug us “WITH our sin?” I actually heard that from a well know teacher and apologist.
LikeLike
But God demonstrates (action) his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
The cross is God’s big hug for sinners.
LikeLike
Matt,
Thanks again for your point, I think, that the cross wasn’t an actual hug, but a symbolic, but the cross was so much, much more than a hug for us. Jesus drank the cup of his Father’s wrath for those he came to save, didn’t he? I think there is a God-ward dimension and a man-ward dimension to the cross. It is easier for us to focus on the ‘hug’, the man-ward (man-centered) view of the cross. We naturally like to think about how much Jesus did for us. But what about what he did for his Father, in his perfect obedience to come down here on a ‘death mission’ to save God’s elect? But that’s another issue, and a good one to discuss.
The question here is still a “What does the Bible say about it?” kind of question. Is the idea of God’s ‘unconditional’ acceptance found in the Bible? It sure is found in many churches down here, I’ve heard it proclaimed and declared all over the place. It’s a Yes/No thing that requires a bit of Bible study because it is so common these days, but a worthy study indeed. I would love to hear your thoughts on the question.
LikeLike