The Fairness of God and the Sinfulness of Sin

Our text this morning is Romans chapter 3. Please turn there in your Bibles. Romans chapter 3. Our text is verses 3-8, though I’ll pick up the reading (so we can get the whole paragraph) beginning at verse 1. One commentator says about this paragraph, “It is one of the most difficult, perhaps, in the entire epistle.” It may seem strange – not in the throes of justification, or later in election and reprobation, or chapter 11 what do we make of Israel – that here in chapter 3, almost in a transition before we come to the answer of justification, that we have this very difficult paragraph. It’s difficult, in particular, because we’re left to follow the inner logic of the apostle Paul and read a little bit between the lines and understand the argument that he’s making and the sort of objections he’s responding to. So, follow along as I read, and let’s ask for God’s help upon the reading and preaching of his Word.

Gracious heavenly Father, we do not take for granted that you have entrusted to us the oracles of God and that we are so privileged and so blessed of all peoples that we have so many resources, that we have such access to your Word, that we have – we hope and trust – such faithful proclamation of the gospel, that we would know the way of salvation. And so, may we not neglect such a great salvation and your Word now proclaimed by your Spirit. Help us, we pray, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Verse 1:

I want you to notice the phrase at the beginning of verse 4 and verse 6 translated in the ESV “by no means.” By no means. It is the Greek phrase me genoito, and it occurs 10 times in the book of Romans. These are the first two of 10 occurrences. Me genoito – translated “by no means.” The phrase always comes after a question, and these questions present arguments that Paul anticipates and, likely, arguments that he’s already heard. Remember he has years of evangelism among the Jews. He would often start in the synagogue to the Jew first and then to the Greeks. So, these are not only thoughts that he has anticipating what someone might say, but are likely the very things that people have said to him many, many times. These are emails he’s gotten. These are letters. These are after the conference, someone waits to shake his hand and says, “I got a question.” These are the sorts of questions that he’s responding to, and at times – 10 times in the book of Romans – he gives this answer: me genoito. The King James translates it “God forbid,” which is not the best translation, because it doesn’t have the word God anywhere in the Greek, but it’s the sense of it. You could translate it “of course not,” “not at all,” “may it never be,” or if we wanted to put it a little more colloquially, “absurd,” “you’re kidding me,” “that’s ridiculous,” “unthinkable,” “a thousand times no,” “not in a million years.” So, Dad, if I clean my room, maybe I could get a little money? Yeah, maybe a little bit. And then if I worked really hard, did the dishes, clean the whole house, did it all week, maybe I could get a little bit of money? How much money? I don’t know. Maybe you could get $5, $10, $20. Maybe you get something a day. So then, if I did it for like a month, you’d buy me a car? Me genoito. Absurd. Unthinkable. By no means.

He uses this phrase two times in these verses, and although he uses it two times, I want you to notice three interlocking criticisms leveled against Paul’s gospel. So, he gives this response twice, and in one sense they’re all kind of the same, but I want you to notice three interlocking criticisms of all that Paul has been saying – in particular what Paul has been saying about the universal sinfulness not only of Gentiles but of Jews, that to stand before God in the day of judgment, that though there are advantages to being a Jew (he gave one, just one: you have been entrusted with the oracles of God. That’s a privilege. It’s an advantage, and with that privilege comes responsibility.) But by itself, you cannot stand before God and say, “But I’ve been a religious insider. But I’m a Jew. I’ve been circumcised.” Or, “But I went to Christ Covenant, and I was baptized, and I had a very huge Bible, and I had a study Bible. And I every day got the verse on my app. I did it, and I even did the Versle, and I look it up.” You see if you – I’m on like a 350-day streak with the Versle app. It’s like Wordle but with Bible verses. That will not get you in.

So, three criticisms to this message. Number one, you’re tarnishing God’s name, Paul. Number two, you’re impugning God’s righteousness. And number three, you’re encouraging evil behavior. These are three interlocking criticisms. They follow each on the other as Paul develops his argument. So, let’s understand what these questions are about and why Paul responds so vigorously. Me genoito. Here’s the first criticism, then. They say to Paul, in essence, in verses 3 and 4, this message you’ve been telling us, you’re tarnishing God’s name. He comes back to the broader point he was making in chapter 2. If you look at chapter 2, verse 5, he says there about at least some of the Jews, “Your hard, impenitent heart – you’re storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” So, they’re thinking, “How can this be? We’re Jews, and you’ve been laying out for verse after unrelenting verse about how we will stand condemned before God. So how can this be? Remember, we’re the chosen ones. We have the covenants. We have the promise. Are we going to be on the wrong side of God’s wrath?” Now, this may sound like the very sorts of arguments Paul’s dealt with already, but there’s a little twist to it, because they’re saying to Paul, if God were to judge us, then he would not be faithful to his own promises. He gave us the promises to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob. We’re the people of the promise. We’re the people of the covenant. They are the original Messiah-covenant congregation. We have promises from God. So, Paul, you have been laying out that many of us Jews are unfaithful and will face judgment. Well, if we are unfaithful and will face judgment, doesn’t that make God faithless to us? You see that there in verse 3. What if some were unfaithful – does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? That’s the question that they’re asking. Because we were not true to the covenant – alright, Paul, if that’s what you’re trying to establish – then it means God is not going to be true to his covenant to us? So, you’re saying, Paul, God, in your estimation, must be liar. He made promises, and he didn’t make good on the promises, because you’re saying that we as his chosen people are going to be judged. Am I right? Paul’s response, “Absurd. Not in a million years.” If the whole world – look there at verse 4 – if the whole world were full of lies, everywhere you turn, lies, lies, lies, everyone were a liar, God would still be true. He’s saying God is never a liar. This is, incidentally, one of the simplest syllogisms to reach the conclusion that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant (without error) in all that they affirm. You have been entrusted with the oracles of God.

So, the Scriptures are God opening his own most-hallowed lips to us. These are the very words of God in Scripture. And we see here that God is never a liar. So, if this, the Scriptures, are God’s words, and if God is never a liar, therefore it stands to reason that every one of these words can be trusted. There is nothing affirmed, nothing taught in this book that will fail to be proved to be true. It is infallible. It is inerrant. So how can this be, coming back to their argument? He promised these great things to Israel, and now the Apostle Paul is saying that they will stand judged even though they belong ethnically to Israel. One way to get at Paul’s argument is to follow that word we saw last week – the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Yes, they were entrusted with the oracles of God, but they did not prove trustworthy with those oracles. So, the question then is, does their lack of trustworthiness make God untrustworthy? He has somehow failed to keep his promises. Now, here’s what they were forgetting. They were forgetting all that is said in the oracles of God. They were forgetting all that was promised in the covenants, because if they remembered correctly the oracles of God, if they knew better what was there in all of those covenants, they would know that the covenant promises always promise blessing for those covenant keepers and curses for those covenant breakers. In punishing Israel, therefore, here’s Paul’s argument: God was not forgetting his covenant promises. He was, in fact, fulfilling them. They had only one set of promises in his mind.

Again, it’s hard not to think of parents and children. Children, if you promise them ice cream – you don’t even have to promise. You just say, “You know what? Maybe we’ll get ice cream on Tuesday.” Your child hears, “Upon pain of death, sworn in my parents’ own precious blood, there shall be ice cream before the heavens roll away and the stars fall.” That’s what they hear. They register those promises, but any sorts of threats – if you do not come home on time, if you do not clean your room, if you do not follow through, if you do not bring your grades up, then this consequence will happen – well, those are mere possibilities. Nobody says, “I’m so thankful that you were true to your promises. I honor you, dear parent, for now I face the consequences of my failure to keep my end of the agreement. And so now I’m grounded, or I have received a painful consequence on my backside. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.” Well, that’s not the instinct of our children, nor was it the instinct of God’s people here. They wanted God to be faithful to his word. We all want God to be faithful to his word. They had overlooked what he had promised in all his words – not only blessing, but also judgment. It’s like in Amos’s day – and this happened often with the prophets – the people were clamoring for the day of the Lord, the day of the Lord, because they were tired of the nations around them oppressing them. And so, they’d say, “Oh, come with the day of the Lord,” because they knew that the day of the Lord was the day that God himself would visit, and he would visit his people for judgment. And so, they said, “Come, bring the day of the Lord. That’s going to be the day when you get our enemies off our backs.” And the prophets like Amos often said, “Careful, careful when you call for the day of the Lord. You’re right. It is the day where God comes to judge the wicked, but are you so sure you’re not among the wicked? Don’t presume.”

As we’ll come to many times later in the book of Romans, we will see absolutely the Bible teaches the perseverance or the preservation of the saints. One of the five points of Calvinism, the P – perseverance, preservation of the saints. Those who are justified cannot be unjustified. Those regenerated cannot be unregenerated. Those who are chosen will in no way fail to make it to the end. I believe absolutely in the preservation of the saints. We should not, however, believe in the presumption of so-called Christians. Big difference. These religious insiders had, as likely many religious people have in this country, a false assurance. They had a false assurance of salvation because they had circumcision, and they were Jews. Is it possible you have a false assurance because you grew up in church? You went to camp, and you prayed a prayer. You threw the pinecone in the fire – at least that’s what we did when I went in camp. If you want Jesus into your heart, go ahead and just – right now, just – while every head bowed. It’s just sort of a variation of the altar call for camp. You did that. You joined a church, and now you think that whatever you do, God owes you something. You have God in your back pocket. You had some kind of religious ritual or symbol or some kind of basic religious observance, and it’s like in Monopoly – you have the get out of jail free card, that you have it, and you can just, at any time, just say, “Excuse me. Child of God coming through right here.” Well, that’s a wonderful truth if, in fact, it is the truth. That’s why Paul has just belabored the point for the Jews. You want to know what it means to be a true Jew? It’s a matter of the heart. You want to know what it means to be a true Christian? It’s not a matter of a perfunctory formula or mere church attendance or church membership or how many Bible studies you’ve been to. It’s a matter of the heart. So, when God comes to judge, he will judge those knowing their heart. A life lived in blatant and habitual disregard for God’s commands, a life that is totally devoid of the fruit of the Spirit is not a life of faith and should expect God’s judgment. The point Paul is making – what’s implied here in this argument – is God is faithful to judge those with hard and impenitent hearts. Yes, you think God is somehow breaking his promises. You have forgotten all of his promises.

And then look at the argument he gives in verse 4, because we’re likely sometimes for these “it is written” statements, we just sort of pass them by and think, “Alright, that’s interesting that you may be justified in your words, prevail when you judge – let’s get back with the argument.” But this is absolutely critical to Paul’s argument. Why? Because this comes from Psalm 51, and you need to know what Psalm 51 is about. Some of you may remember. It says at the beginning, the ascription, in Psalm 51, “A psalm of David when Nathan the prophet went to him after he had gone to Bathsheba.” This is David’s great sin, the sin of adultery, the sin of lying, the sin of treachery, the sin of murder. There was hardly any commandments that he hadn’t broken in this matter with Bathsheba. And so, Nathan the prophet comes. Nathan told David in 2 Samuel, “The Lord will raise up trouble for you from your own house.” When David recognizes, “I am the man,” Nathan promises, “Trouble will come to your house. Your wives will be taken away. The child you bore with Bathsheba will die.” Remember, that’s what Nathan said. You’re guilty, and here’s what you have. You have some covenant curses coming to you, David. Now, David will announce the blessed mercy of God: “Create in me a clean heart. Wash me with white as snow, and cleanse me with hyssop.” But Nathan has said to him, “This is what’s going to happen. You’re going to have trouble come to your house as a form of discipline. Your wives (in this time, these kings had multiple wives) will be taken from you, and then worst of all, the child that has been conceived with Bathsheba, this child will die.” Now, it isn’t the case that anytime these sorts of things happen, there’s difficulties, that it’s a sign of the Lord’s judgment. But here from on high, Nathan tells him, “This is the judgment of the Lord.”

Now, this is significant because it’s to that message, that announcement of judgment, that David gives these words here in Psalm 51, “that you may be justified in your words and prevail in your judgment,” or as it says back in the Psalm, “Against you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” This is why, for all of his sins, David can still be called a man after God’s own heart – because though he sinned greatly, he always repented just as great. Do you see what David is saying in this psalm? It’s as if he is saying as he receives this word of judgment, what would most of us do? You say, well, God, we all make mistakes. Or, don’t you think you’re being a little unreasonable? Or do you think the punishment really fits the crime? Or, I said I’m sorry. I thought you were a God of mercy. I thought you forgave and you forgot. It’s not what David says. He says, in essence in Psalm 51, after Nathan announces this word of judgment, “You are not at fault, oh God. You have not broken any of your promises. I am the promise breaker. I have been unfaithful to your Word. You (this is what Paul quotes) are blameless in your judgment of me.” That’s why it’s a tremendous – it’s just brilliant what Paul does by anchoring this truth in this text, to say the Jews are saying, well how could God judge us? If he is, he’s unfaithful to his word. And he says, “No, remember what David said. It’s precisely because he was faithful to his word that he judged wicked David in this instance.” Nehemiah – there’s a prayer in Nehemiah 9 to the same effect: “Now, therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who keeps covenant (notice that word, he’s a covenant-keeping God) and steadfast love.” And then it says this, “yet you have been righteous in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully, and we have acted wickedly.” It’s exactly what Paul is reminding them of. Yes, he is a covenant-keeping God. This takes a profound work of the Spirit.

Again, think of our kids. It’s not very likely they would say, “Mom, dad, I said I would be home by 11 p.m., and I wasn’t home until after midnight. I have proved faithless. You promised me discipline if I violated your rules. I want to announce that you are justified in your words of rebuke, and you are blameless in your judgment.” Sounds unlikely, and it’s also very rare in any of our hearts, because that’s not what the typical child says to a parent when they’ve broken the parents’ rules, and it’s not what many of us say when we have broken God’s rules. Usually what we do is we turn to self-pity. We have a self-referential way of looking at the world, or maybe we say, “But God, how can you be angry with church people?” And God’s response is, “Because I am just, and sometimes even the church, and sometimes even church people deserve my judgment.” That’s Paul’s response to the first criticism. They say, “You’re tarnishing God’s name. You’re making him to be a liar.” Paul says, “Oh, quite the contrary. I am absolutely holding him up to be the one who always tells the truth, always faithful to his word.

Here’s criticism number two. They say, “You are impugning God’s righteousness.” We can trace this argument verses 5 and 6. Let’s follow the logic. Our faithlessness proves the faithfulness of God. That’s what Paul has just said. Even when we’re faithless, when we don’t keep the oracles of God, God keeps his oracles, and therefore we prove that he is faithful. And when, therefore, he is faithful, he shows himself to be a truth-teller in all the world. Verse 5, our unrighteousness, does it not serve to show the righteousness of God? Okay, Paul, I’m tracking with you. If that’s the case – that when we are unrighteous, God comes in judgment, and it shows his righteousness, his execution of justice, and from that display of his righteousness, God is true to his character – we see God express his holiness, his glory. They’re thinking, “Well, then surely our unrighteousness makes God’s righteousness shine all the greater. So, what’s the problem? You’re impugning God’s righteousness by saying that there’s a problem with us when our actions, collectively, are in the end making God look righteous.” And Paul says once again, “by no means.” See, you have to understand the implicit argument they’re making. The implicit argument is, “Are we really going to be judged? Are we really going to be judged, because if we’re judged and that’s God’s righteousness, then our unrighteousness just serves God’s righteousness, and how is that really fair? Because God isn’t going to judge us, right?” Well, he says, “By no means.” And look at the response, “For then how could God judge the world?” They’re still arguing that God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us. You see that at the end of verse 6, and Paul here has to catch himself. He can hardly believe the words coming out of his mouth. He says, “I speak in a human way.” They’re saying, “God cannot inflict his justice on us, because we’re in the end just helping him to show his righteousness, so what’s really to blame on our part?” Paul says, I can hardly even believe I’m making this sort of argument. But then he says, “How could God judge the world? You’ve got to trace why he’s using this as his argument, and it’s always interesting when you read through the Bible to notice what points need to be argued for – in this case, the judgment of the Jews needs to be argued for – and what points are assumed. It tells you a lot about some of the differences between how we see things and how they saw things.

What can be assumed? For example, 1 Corinthians 15, Paul’s talking about the resurrection. The question that they have in 1 Corinthians 15 is, “Is there a bodily resurrection for all of us yet to come?” And Paul says, well, of course there is, or Christ himself has not been raised. Do you see? The thing that he assumes everyone agrees on is that Jesus Christ has been raised, and he can assume that because he’s appeared to Cephas and the Twelve and then to more than 500 witnesses – some of them, even, at one time. So, no one was doubting that Jesus had been raised. Now, it’s just the opposite for many modern people. They might think, well, of course, we’ll all be raised, but do we really know that Jesus has been raised? There Paul assumes the thing that we would argue, and he argues for the thing that we might assume. And it’s sort of like that here. And when we look carefully at the way the Bible makes arguments, it can help us spot things that were plain to them but aren’t plain to us. So, the assumption here, if you look at verse 6 – the assumption is that everyone knows God will judge the world. That’s the argument he makes to prove the argument that they disagree on. God will judge the world. No one in Paul’s audience doubted that God would judge the world. After all, what kind of God doesn’t judge wickedness and evil? And because they all knew that God would judge the world – again, you have to follow somewhat implicitly Paul’s argument, because they’re saying God would not be righteous, he would not be fair, to judge us because we would just be making him look good, and then how can he really blame us? And Paul’s argument here as well, by that same logic – if God can’t judge people just because by judging them he gets glory, then he can’t judge the Gentiles either, because when he judges the sinful Gentiles, he also gets glory. So, by your logic, God could not judge anyone, and we all know that God will judge the world. That’s the assumption that Paul makes to prove his point. They all knew, of course God will judge the world. Now, we might think, “Well, yes, they were primitive people, ancient people, fearful, vengeful, violent, superstitious.” Well, maybe some differences between them and us, but perhaps they might say about us, “Well, they were an excessively therapeutic people – that is, they only believed in illness and dysfunction, not in evil and wickedness.” Or maybe many of us in the West are so shielded – those of us who live in great prosperity – so shielded from the brutalities of the world that we don’t think judgment is necessary. It’s quite an easier proposition when you live a relatively comfortable life to think, “I mean, yeah, nobody’s perfect, but why do we need a god to judge the world?” Maybe if you were living in the midst of great injustice – some of you have – great brutality, then you would say, “We absolutely need a god to judge the world.” It’s like if people who lived in a safe, wealthy, gated community wanted to abolish the police when the people who lived in the midst of violent streets and danger said, “That’s the last thing we want to do. We want justice.”

Paul argues from this starting point. Look, God can judge Israel, even though Israel’s unfaithfulness proves God’s faithfulness. We may be bringing God glory in a way, but he is still right to judge us for disobedience, because after all, if God could not judge the disobedient just because in that judgment he received glory, then how could he judge the world? And everyone knows God is going to judge the world. That’s the intricate argument he’s making here with this imaginary Jewish questioner.

When you think about the Apostles’ Creed, or let’s say the Nicene Creed, which we recite often in this church, and you think about what was difficult in the fourth century when the Nicene Creed was hammered out. The issue at the council of Nicea was Arianism. It was Arias saying there was a time when the Son of God was not. He was the first of the Father’s created beings. Sure, he was God. He was God the second. That’s what Mormons call Jesus. God the second. They had a functionally similar theology. And so, the council at Nicea, the bishops there, and then through the course of the fourth century and beyond have to hammer out this great truth that the Son is of the very same essence with the Father. And in other centuries, perhaps the most difficult line in the Nicene Creed might be “born of the Virgin Mary.” Especially think of that in the 19th and 20th century, the rise of theological liberalism – people said how can we believe in a virgin birth? Or maybe it’s the confession, “on the third day he rose again from the dead.” Can we really believe in a bodily resurrection? Today, I believe, many of our theological problems in the world start with a weak adherence to or a quiet doubting of the line, “He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.” That may be the line precisely that people have the hardest time believing. Not many people today get so caught up in all of the intricacies of Arianism and what homoousiosmeans. They may even say, “Well, okay, so miracles, there’s mysterious things, and yeah, Christ did miracles, and maybe he was raised from the dead” – but it’s that point, especially for some church people, that point – “he will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.” Almost everyone in this room, you’ve said that before. You’ve said it in this very room. Words on the screen. Do you believe that? Is that true? God sent his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to come with glory, and he will judge the living and the dead. And then, you have to ask, if that is true, who will he judge with wrath? You say, “Well, that’s obvious. The bad guys, the wicked people, the evil ones, the disobedient.” Alright, but then there’s a third question. Are you sure you are not numbered among those people? Or to put the question another way, what will you do when everything or so much in your life would put you in that class of people? Are you confident? Do you really think you’ll stand before him and say, “I’m looking forward to you judge all the bad guys, all the people who didn’t get stuff right, all the people who didn’t honor you as God. Thunderbolts. Let’s go.” Are you so sure that you and I wouldn’t be deserving of that wrath? And if we are deserving – see what Paul is doing – how will you be secure on that day? He’s coming again to judge the living and the dead.

Well, there’s a third interlocking criticism, and it’s very similar to the second one. They say to Paul, well, basically you’re telling us, then, it’s fine to be wicked. You are encouraging evil behavior. That’s the argument in verses 7 and 8. Okay, you’ve established God is true to his promises. That’s why he judges us. And you’ve said he judges us, and he’s still righteous to do so, because if he can’t judge people when they bring him glory by that judgment, then he couldn’t judge everyone. Okay. So, he judges us. So, final point, if through my lie, God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come? Ah, here we come to it, and this same argument will come up in chapter 6 in a different context. But this is the continuation of the previous logic. Let’s do evil so that good may come. Let’s sin so God can prove his righteousness in judging us. Do you see what this basic argument is, and you may think, well nobody makes this kind of argument. No, actually people make these kinds of arguments all the time, because the argument is, in essence, the end justifies the means. God gets glory. He judges sinners. So, I want to give God glory, right? And when I sin and he judges me, he gets glory, right? So, let’s sin. You see Paul’s response there: to even say such a thing is so obviously warped that their condemnation is just.

But notice what Paul indicates in verse 8. Some people slanderously charge us with saying this. Some people were out there. They’re saying, “Get a load of this Apostle Paul guy. You know what he teaches? He teaches, ‘Sin so that God gets more glory.’ That’s what he’s teaching.” God will judge the people, and when he does so (he’s righteous to do so), the teaching of the Apostle Paul is sin, do evil, so that glory may abound. Do evil, that good may come. They said that’s what Paul teaches right there. Somebody was hammering it out online. You can follow it. The Apostle Paul says, “Do evil, that good may come.” Paul says that is nothing but absolute slander. It’s not the truth. Now, maybe his opponents made up the charge. Maybe they misheard something. Maybe they assumed an inference from Paul’s teaching, and then they said, “Ah, well, that must be what Paul is saying.” In any case, it was slander. If you claim someone has stated what they have not stated or that they believe what they do not believe, you have slandered them.

Now, this was not a good-faith disagreement with these people. This is not sort of, you know, you do a book review, and somebody says, “Wait a minute. I don’t think you understood my argument.” “Oh, okay. Alright, I see.” This was not a good-faith disagreement. Paul’s opponents were not interested in knowing the truth. They were not interested in being corrected. I don’t know if you’ve ever encountered any people like that in your life. They’re not really looking for correction. They’re not really looking to have a give-and-take with you. They’re looking to have a punch, punch, punch at you. They had a line about Paul. This guy teaches that we ought to do evil so that good will come. That was the banner over Paul’s teaching. And Paul says it’s absolute slander. Now, let me just say here, I think this – I hope this is an appropriate application at this point. As you talk about people, whether you do it online or whether you do it in conversation with others, do not do this to other people. And unfortunately, you ought not to be surprised if this happens to you. “So, you will not accept my lesbian girlfriend. I get it. You hate me.” It’s not what I said. It’s not what I believe. “So, you believe in taking incremental steps to get rid of abortion. Just incremental steps. Okay, so you’re in favor of murdering babies.” Slander. “You believe men should be the head of the household, and men should be officers of the church, right?” Yes. “So, you want a handmaid’s tale of patriarchal oppression. Is that right?” Slander. “You have concerns with many expressions of Christian nationalism.” I do. “Well, I guess you want pagans to run this country and trans our kids.” Slander. Don’t argue like that. Don’t be surprised when people give you those arguments.

Beware – here’s one of the lessons here from this passage – beware of conclusions based on human logic instead of Bible logic. That is taking a couple rules and thinking you know how it all turns out without taking into account all of the rules. Here’s what I mean. Somebody says about baseball –  apologize if you’re not from America, but it is our pastime. Baseball. Someone says, “Foul balls are strikes.” That’s true. “Three strikes and you’re out.” That’s true. “So, three foul balls, and you’re out.” No, no, it doesn’t work like that. Those first two rules were true, but there’s another rule that you can’t get out on a foul ball. You mean, you can’t get out in any way on a foul ball? Okay, well, you actually can. It could be a foul tip, or somebody could – you can’t get called a third strike on a foul. It’s complicated. You see, if someone just had those first two rules and they went all around the world and they just declared three foul balls and you’re out – well, you don’t know the rest of the rules and how the whole thing fits together. Don’t come to conclusions based on human logic that negates Bible logic. Now, it’s not against logic, but it’s not taking into account all of the Bible logic. So, someone says, “God has chosen from eternity those who will be saved and those he will pass over in judgment.” It’s true. “And this decree is unalterable.” That’s true. “Therefore, we don’t have to engage in evangelism.” That is not true. That is often the first thing you will hear. Oh, you’re a Calvinist. I know what Calvinists believe. They don’t believe in evangelism. George Whitefield, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, the list goes on and on. We believe in evangelism. You have not used Bible logic. “Oh, I’m justified by grace alone through faith alone, according to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, and not by one iota of my works. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how I live.” No, that is not the Bible’s logic. Do not reach conclusions based on mere human logic that contradicts Bible logic. That’s part of what Paul is saying. You have not read my argument correctly or fairly.

I want you to notice just a couple of other things about what Paul does. Number one, again, we see the principle that the end does not justify the means. And it’s amazing how many people, Christians even, still make that basic argument. “Well, look, if we don’t do things the way that they do it, we’re never going to get control. We’re never going to have the power. We’re never going to be able to accomplish these things. Yeah. The way they lie, the way they cheat, the way they wield authority, the way they’re unfair, the way they don’t play by the rules. You get it? We’re not going to get there if we don’t do it like that.” Do not go about accomplishing God’s ends with the world’s ways. God never tells us to accomplish his end by using the devil’s means. The end does not justify the means.

And then notice the other thing that Paul does. This is instructive just in your own life and sometimes how you talk to people. Some people do not deserve a long, detailed argument. Some views do not merit a long, detailed response. You say, “Well, pastor, that doesn’t sound very caring or very loving to people.” Well, how about Jesus? “Do not throw your pearls before swine.” Swine. See, part of being a mature Christian is you got to know sheep, you got to know wolves, you got to know snakes, you got to know dogs, you got to know pigs. You got to be able to discern your animals. You don’t throw pearls before swine. That’s what Jesus said. Or what about “do not answer a fool according to his folly” or “have nothing to do with a divisive person.” You see what Paul does here? There are people out there slanderously saying, “Apostle Paul teaches you do evil so that good may come.” Paul doesn’t – “alright, clear the schedule for today, I got to hammer out 7,000 words.” He says that’s a lie, and anyone who would make that argument and really believe it, their condemnation is just. That’s all he has to say. Sometimes the best argument is to appeal to a near universal sense of right and wrong. That’s what Paul does. Everyone knows that’s a lie and a terrible argument, and if you really believe that you do evil so good may come, then your condemnation is just. I have nothing left to say.

So, what’s the bottom line? You could summarize the whole paragraph in one sentence. God is always fair, and sin is always wrong. Very simple. God is always fair. Sin is always wrong. We know that intellectually, but if we’re honest, in our hearts, we often get those two things mixed up. And in our hearts, we kind of feel like God is sometimes unfair, and sin is sometimes okay. Paul will have none of that. There’s a question. This whole paragraph comes down to this question. Are you the judge of God, or is God the judge of you? That one question is going to serve you well through all of Romans. And part of what Romans is going to be relentless – and we’ll find this especially when we get to Romans 9, but all throughout the book – are you the judge of God, or is God the judge of you? A whole lot of people deep in their hearts, they live their life with, really, God’s in the dock. That’s the British way of saying God’s the one who’s on the stand. Where are you? This is the courtroom scene, and everything about whether you’re a Christian or not depends on where you think you sit in the courtroom. Do you sit at the judge’s bench, and there’s God sitting there on the stand? Is that what it is? You got a lot of ‘splaining to do, God. You got a lot of things that you’re not doing right, a lot of unfairness, a lot of injustice, and I’m here to get my questions answered. Or is it, as every Christian realizes, just the opposite? God’s ultimate concern is for his glory. His righteousness is beautifully displayed in both salvation and judgment, because in both acts – salvation and judgment – God is true to his character, his holiness, his unfailing righteousness, and his commitment to see his name hallowed in all the earth. Genesis 18:25, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?” He always does what is right, and he gets the glory.

God is always fair. Sin is always wrong. And so, if you know where you sit in this courtroom, and you and I sit on the stand – we sit there, and God is on the bench to judge us – then we know that we need a righteousness not our own, because he will in the end. This is what Paul’s coming to. He’s a just judge. He will be fair. And so, there’s got to be a way. How can this work, that he’s just and he will justify the ungodly? How’s that going to work? And Paul’s going to get there. And if you can just wait with bated breath until we get through the summer, you’re going to get there, too, because he’s going to tell us there’s a way. There’s a way that those who trust in Christ alone, that he might be their faithfulness, that he might be their righteousness, that then God can also be righteous in declaring the unrighteous to be righteous for the sake of Christ. Let’s pray.

Gracious heavenly Father, we give thanks for your holy Word. We pray now that you would work it deep into our hearts in Jesus’ name. Amen.