It would seem to me that Paul in Rom 16 is actually suggesting an approach which is contrary to what you assume. Isn’t his point precisely that we shouldn’t be taken in by appearances, and that we should go straight to the content of their message in order to make our judgments? The mark here is doctrine (v17, & esp. vs 25-26), not appearances. Note also that it’s the ‘naive’ (v18) people who are deceived by such shallow things as ‘smooth talk’. I think the assumption here is that if we know our stuff then we’ll not be side-tracked by character. All this points to the message being the key test, <i>despite</i> what it is that we observe.

While not denying that bad character and false teaching are linked, it still remains a logical fallacy to rely on <i>mere</i> appearances to decry a person’s theology. Hillsong is a questionable church because of what they say and teach, not because they have a sound desk “the size of a billiard table”

I think this is an absolutely critical issue to discuss because the issue of character is tied directly to inegrity.  (I would also add the part in Matthew (I think!) where Jesus said it what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.)  So many people claim to be Christian but when you closely examine their words and compare then to their actions and the Bible there’s contradiction all over the shop.  I take it then that we’re to weigh up their character because if it’s lacking then all they teach is in questions.  Words and actions just go hand in hand…  Often when you question someone’s character you get the old ‘judge not that ye not be judged’ which itself is taken out of conext because those who say it overlook the fact that one day God WILL judge!

I’ve been engaged in a discussion on FB over the last week with Christians who actually believe that you (not you personally, Gordo!) can be a practising homosexual and Christian at the same time… When pressing these people they typically arrive at their conclusions by junking parts of Scripture that they just don’t like (e.g. Leviticus 18, 20, Romans 1), disparaging the human authors who co-wrote it (saying Paul was a wowser and contradictory), and even doubting if all the Bible actually comes from Him.  They can’t even get their minds around the marital model of Genesis 2-3, that sex belongs in marriage and instead of talking about that part of Scripture they niggle about the law.  They can’t debunk Genesis 2-3 so then they invent crafty doctrines like ‘All sexuality is from God and we glorify Him by practising what we feel like doing’.  When you take a closer look at their lives they talk smutty jokes, speak about purile things, and profess hatred of other Christians who hold to the Bible as truth and shut down dialogue with them.  At that point you really start to wonder if they are Christian…  Their claims to be Christian are denied by their actions and eventually the words catch up with them.

The problem with this all is that it’s creating confusion among Christians and some Bible-believing ones today still don’t know what the Bible actually says about the subject because there’s been so much confusion.  Eventually people start to doubt the goodness of God and the clarity of what he says on such subjects because people with wicked characters and intent are white-anting the discussion.

It would seem to me that Paul in Rom 16 is actually suggesting an approach which is contrary to what you assume. Isn’t his point precisely that we shouldn’t be taken in by appearances, and that we should go straight to the content of their message in order to make our judgments?

Marty, if this is so, where in Romans do we find evidence that Paul takes his own advice?