Post by Lee on Jan 30, 2014 5:11:05 GMT
"And done this evil that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest."
That is, the practical result of David's fall was that God was placed in the supreme
position of Judge & Benefactor showing mercy. David's mouth was closed:
David humbled in the dust.
Having introduced this idea, Paul supposes another objection (Romans 3): If unrighteousness
have the effect of exalting the righteousness & forbearance of God as Judge,
ought not the unrighteousness be leniently regarded?
If the fact of God's truthfulness is made to shine all the brighter to His glory thru men as a rule being liars,
should not liars be passed over as meritorious, rather than as deserving punishment?
Why, in fact, shouldn't the principle be adopted of doing evil that good
may come, which Paul was slanderously reported as advocating?
Paul is stating and combatting the argument of a supposed objector. His answer
in the whole chapter is that even though sin is made to subserve an ultimately
beneficent purpose in providing a situation in which the righteousness & mercy
of God are clearly exhibited, yet it is not the less to be reprobated as sin. For if
it were not an evil, there would be no wisdom or mercy shown in its forgiveness
and removal. It is one of many cases in which 2 apparent opposites are co-ordinate
truths, not only not mutually destructive, but necessary to each other.-Jan., 1890
(Isn't it interesting how our daily readings often are interwoven with the similar subjects)
That is, the practical result of David's fall was that God was placed in the supreme
position of Judge & Benefactor showing mercy. David's mouth was closed:
David humbled in the dust.
Having introduced this idea, Paul supposes another objection (Romans 3): If unrighteousness
have the effect of exalting the righteousness & forbearance of God as Judge,
ought not the unrighteousness be leniently regarded?
If the fact of God's truthfulness is made to shine all the brighter to His glory thru men as a rule being liars,
should not liars be passed over as meritorious, rather than as deserving punishment?
Why, in fact, shouldn't the principle be adopted of doing evil that good
may come, which Paul was slanderously reported as advocating?
Paul is stating and combatting the argument of a supposed objector. His answer
in the whole chapter is that even though sin is made to subserve an ultimately
beneficent purpose in providing a situation in which the righteousness & mercy
of God are clearly exhibited, yet it is not the less to be reprobated as sin. For if
it were not an evil, there would be no wisdom or mercy shown in its forgiveness
and removal. It is one of many cases in which 2 apparent opposites are co-ordinate
truths, not only not mutually destructive, but necessary to each other.-Jan., 1890
(Isn't it interesting how our daily readings often are interwoven with the similar subjects)