St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: A Practical Exposition. Vol. IGore, Charles
Religion
St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: A Practical Exposition. Vol. I
Gore, Charles
Bible. Romans -- Commentaries
What is of interest here is to notice that St. Paul reproduces the
argument of his Jewish opponent with great sympathetic force. It had
clearly been weighed in his own mind. It was urged, no doubt, against
his own teaching, that it gave an excuse for sinning by suggesting that
the greatness of the sin only glorified the super-abundant greatness of
the pardoning love. It is only too probable that some of his followers
were persuaded by some such argument or acted as {119} if they were.
Thus St. Paul states it with vigour, but thereby only makes all the
more apparent the meagreness of his reply. Not that the argument is
such as makes reply difficult. In a slightly different form St. Paul
deals with it elaborately in chapters ix-xi. But here he clearly
treats it as contemptible when its true character has once been
disclosed. And why? Because it is professedly an explanation of the
ways of God with man, which is at the same time an excuse for
immorality. It is an intellectual exercise at the expense of
conscience. And St. Paul shows, by the very contempt with which he
treats it, that a man who will play false with his conscience, and then
proceed to find intellectual justifications, is not to be met in the
intellectual region at all. He has been condemned already.
St. Paul then, we find, will not argue with one who reasons at the
expense of his conscience; and this is an important principle. When
the intellect is acting purely, it must be free, and must be dealt with
seriously on its own ground. But the conscience must be followed first
of all. Its light is clearer than the light of intellect, and must be
left supreme. Whatever be the bewilderment of my intellect, I am
self-condemned, {120} God-condemned, if I play false to the moral
light. And arguments to the contrary, however clever-sounding or
philosophical, are in fact sophistry. There is, we must confess, a
good deal of such sophistry to-day in the use of arguments drawn from
the current philosophy of necessitarianism and the idea of heredity.
[1] Chapters ix-xi.
[2] The points are resumed in ix. 1.
[3] Ps. xxxii.
{121}
DIVISION I. § 4. CHAPTER III. 9-20.
_Sin and condemnation universal._
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account