The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-20
For the Central Presbyterian
Paraphrase of Romans iii: 3-8.

This is an objection supposed to be urged
against the Apostles argument begun at
chapter j. Is, to prove that all men are
under sin and need the righteousness re-
vealed in the gospel as ground of justi-
fcation. The objection is that that would
make God unfaithful to his covenant in
which he promised to be God to the
Jews. How can he be God to them if
he condemns and Furnishes them? That
covenant was unconditional and not sus-
pended on moral character. 1t binds
God to bless and save whether the Jew
believed or not. Their unfaithfulness
could not release him from his covenant
obligation. By no means, says Paul
Verse A.. God will be true to his word
let happen what will. 1 might even go
farther than the objection supposes and
admit that not only some" but even all
might have disbelieved, and even that
would not affect the faithfulness of God.
He would still remain true though every
man were liar. But you misunderstood
the nature of the covenant. In the ma
ture of the case it could not be uncondi-
tional, it must be conditioned on faith
and obedience and was so expressly stated
(Deut. xviii y. For if God should bind
himself by covenant, irrespective of their
character, to bless and save men, he
would barter away his inalienable pre-
rogative to punish sin, and show himself
unworthy to govern the world. This is
altogether too broad an Interpretation of
the covenant. Besides David psalm Ii, }
admits that God was Just in condemning
hmm and oc N T., 1,
covenant and did not consider it violated
in his case, no Jew can now complain
that it would be violated in reference to
him. Gods promise to be God to the
Jew did not tie up His hands or put it
out OF his power to condemn those who
believed not, even though they were
under the covenant
But you might be disposed to say
(verse 81 that God was estopped from
condemning sinners by the fact that their
unrlghteousness commends" His right
eousness. Sin sets forth, proves, exalta,
and magnifes Gods righteousness, and
therefore he cannot condemn men for
doing what glorifes him. Sin is an ad-
vantage, it honors God, he ought, there
fore, to say the least of it, not to con-
denim it. The premise of this specious
objection-that our unrighteousness COM
mends the righteousness of God-Paul
does not dispute. He rather admits it,
but proceeds to show that the inference
deduood from it is false and absurd. Sup
pose that-our unrighteousness does com
mend Gods Righteousness, which indeed
it does by way of contrast, still that does
not make it improper in Him to punish
it. If that constituted righteous estop-
pei to the infection of punishment, then
how shall He take vengeance" at all :?
How shall he judge the world? Taking
vengeance is an inalienable prerogative,
it appertains tc him as righteous moral
governor, and to suppose that any indi-
rect or incidental consequence of sin
might destroy His right to punish it, is
inconsistent with His nature. Besides
you Jews yourselves admit and contend
that He will judge the GentileS, but how
can He do that if the fact that unright-
eousness commends his righteousness de-
prives Him OF the right to punish Will
not Gentle unrighteousness commend His
righteousness as much as Jewish unright-
eousness does? This argument deprives
/ hlhh vi ChO iShO ~ puhloh UFtJ ON6-OSu-
tile will escape as well as Jew. This re-
tort makes the DIRECTORS argument recoil
upon himself. He Stays his opponent
with his own weapon, and impales him
upon the reductio ad ab8mdatm.
So again (verse y the same objection
is refuted from another standpoint. II
my lie magnifes the truth Of God, on
your principles, l ought not to be
adjudged sinner. Man ought not to
! adjudge me sinner, and God cannot look
on me as one, for | am rendering service
to both. Indeed the more sin we com
nit the better, for we are only doing evil
that good may come. Verse 8 But
suppose my lie does magnify the truth Of
God, it is still lie. It's being followed
by that result does not alter its nature.
God is God Of truth, and he cannot APP
prove lie, no matter what results may
attend it. He may by his providence
override it and cause it to exalt his truth,
but still that does not show that he APP
proves it. He brings good out of evil,
and makes the wrath Of man to praise
Him, but at the same time reserves to
himself the right to condemn and punish
both. And as regards the notion that we
may do evil that good may come, with
which some Galatian Judaizers charge
me, l denounce it as a SANDER. 1t is a
! blasphemous sentiment. Some draw that
! inference from by teaching, but | abhor