A Theological Quibble
A THEOLOGICAL QUIBBLE
ROMANS 3:5-8
“Why should people be condemned for their sin?”
It has been remarked before that anyone sensitive to the ways of Greek thought recognizes in Paul’s writing, in many subtle ways, his Greek outlook, which complements his equally obvious Jewish insights. The imaginary debate with a Jewish objector which is the key to this passage is typical of some of the writings of popular Stoicism.
The objections brought up by the supposed antagonist appear in this passage at their most obscure, but the argument Paul deals with is one which was not uncommonly advanced against his own doctrine of salvation by grace, and he was very sensitive to it.
It was simply this: if a man sins, his sin is a foil to God’s righteousness, the contrast setting God’s holiness in higher relief, just as darkness would not be known without light, and pleasure is made more comprehensible by pain. Therefore, the destructive conclusion follows, if a man’s sin enhances the glory of God, why should he be condemned for it?
The gap in the logic is obvious. If God could take joy in another’s sin, because he was exalted by it, it would follow that God was imperfect himself. The whole argument is absurd, and Paul is almost apologetic in advancing it (3:5): “I speak in a human way,” that is: “This is common argument.”
But although the logic seems absurd, and the drift of the argument almost blasphemous, is not the same sin apparent in more than one sphere of modern theological thought? By one means or another, by diminishing human responsibility or by misrepresenting God, sinful humanity seeks to avoid the admission of their sin. The modern theologian, compromising with permissiveness, murmuring excuses about situation ethics, speculating on God’s involvement in the world, and avoiding the Bible’s outright condemnation of sin, has no cause to be impatient with his ancient counterpart.