BEREAN.AI ← Ask a Question

Modern Human Arguments Against Romans 3:5-8

Paul's letter to the Romans, particularly 3:5-8, addresses objections to his teaching on justification, specifically the idea that if human sin highlights God's righteousness, then sin itself might be considered good or inconsequential [9, 10]. The passage reads in the Tyndale translation:

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God: what shall we say? Is God unrighteous which taketh vengeance? (I speake after the maner of men.) God forbid. For then how shall God judge the worlde? If the trueth of God hath more abounded through my lye vnto his prayse: why am I yet iudged as a sinner? And saye not rather (as men evyll speake of vs and as some affirme that we saye) let vs do evyll that good maye come therof. Whose damnacion is iuste" [5].

This section of Romans is part of a larger argument where Paul establishes the universal guilt of both Gentiles and Jews, leading to the conclusion that justification must come through faith, not through adherence to the law [9, 10]. Paul anticipates and refutes several objections to his doctrine, particularly the notion that placing Jews and Gentiles on the same footing undermines the unique privileges of the Jewish people [12].

The core of the "modern human arguments" against this passage, as understood through the historical reception of Paul's argument, centers on the perceived logical consequences of his doctrine of grace. Charles Hodge notes that a recurring objection to Paul's teaching is that if "personal goodness or moral excellence is not the ground of our acceptance with God, then all necessity of being good is denied, and all motive to good works is removed" [8]. This leads to the rhetorical question, "We may continue in sin that grace may abound?" [8]. This objection, according to Hodge, has been "reiterated a thousand times since it was urged against the Apostles" [8].

The specific arguments Paul addresses in Romans 3:5-8 are:

  1. If human unrighteousness highlights God's righteousness, is God unjust for punishing it? (Romans 3:5). The argument here is that if human sin serves to "commend" or display God's righteousness, then God's act of taking vengeance on that sin might seem contradictory or unfair. Paul immediately rejects this with "God forbid!" (μὴ γένοιτο, me genoito), asserting that if God were unjust, He could not judge the world [1]. The concept of God's wrath and indignation, while described in human terms, is not to be understood as human vice, but as an attribute of divine power that cannot be corrupted [13].

  2. If my lie (sin) magnifies God's truth and brings Him more praise, why am I still judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7). This objection extends the previous one, suggesting that if a person's sin somehow contributes to God's glory by making His truth or grace more evident, then that person should not be condemned. This argument touches on the idea that God's glory can be seen even in the context of human failure, but it does not excuse the failure itself [1].

  3. The accusation: "Let us do evil that good may come" (Romans 3:8). This is the most direct articulation of the "modern human argument" against Paul's doctrine of grace. Paul explicitly states that this is a slanderous accusation made against him and other believers ("as men evyll speake of vs and as some affirme that we saye") [5]. He firmly condemns this idea, stating that "Whose damnacion is iuste" [5]. This phrase indicates that those who promote such a view, or live by it, are rightly condemned. The cross-references for this verse often point to other passages where Paul refutes similar misunderstandings, such as Romans 6:1 ("Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?") [1].

The underlying concern in these objections is the perceived tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and the fear that emphasizing grace might lead to moral laxity. Paul's response is not to deny God's absolute freedom or the abundance of His grace, but to unequivocally reject the conclusion that this freedom or grace justifies continued sin. The idea that one might "do evil that good may come" is presented as a perverse distortion of the gospel, leading to just condemnation [5].

Theological traditions have consistently affirmed Paul's rejection of this antinomian conclusion. John Calvin, for instance, in his Institutes, addresses similar objections regarding human inability to avoid sin, arguing that divine upbraidings are just because sinners are condemned by their own consciences [11]. The emphasis on God's righteousness and judgment (Romans 3:5) is crucial, as it establishes the moral order that grace does not abolish but fulfills [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7].

Sources

  1. Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Romans 3:5 cross-references: Deuteronomy 32:39, Psalms 58:10, Psalms 94:1, Nahum 1:2, Nahum 1:6, Romans 2:5, Romans 3:7, Romans 3:19, Romans 3:25, Romans 4:1, Romans 6:1, Romans 6:19, Romans 7:7, Romans 8:20, Romans 9:13, Romans 9:18, Romans 12:19, 1 Corinthians 9:8, 1 Corinthians 15:32, Galatians 3:15, 2 Thessalonians 1:6, Revelation 15:3, Revelation 16:5, Revelation 18:20”
  2. Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Romans 8:5 cross-references: Mark 8:33, John 3:6, Romans 8:6, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:12, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:48, 2 Corinthians 10:3, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:9, Philippians 3:18, Colossians 3:1, 2 Peter 2:10”
  3. Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Romans 7:5 cross-references: Matthew 15:19, John 3:6, Romans 1:26, Romans 3:20, Romans 4:15, Romans 5:20, Romans 6:13, Romans 6:19, Romans 6:21, Romans 6:23, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:23, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 15:56, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Galatians 3:10, Galatians 5:16, Galatians 5:19, Galatians 5:24, Ephesians 2:3, Ephesians 2:11, Colossians 3:5, Titus 3:3, James 1:15, James 2:9, James 4:1, 1 John 3:4”
  4. Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Colossians 3:5 cross-references: Exodus 37:22, Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:29, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:13, Romans 7:5, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:23, Romans 8:13, 1 Corinthians 5:1, 1 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:13, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:6, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Galatians 5:24, Ephesians 4:19, Ephesians 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Hebrews 12:16, Hebrews 13:4, James 4:1, 1 Peter 2:11, Revelation 21:8, Revelation 22:15”
  5. Romans “Romans 3:8 (Tyndale) — and saye not rather (as men evyll speake of vs and as some affirme that we saye) let vs do evyll that good maye come therof. Whose damnacion is iuste.”
  6. Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Romans 5:5 cross-references: Job 27:8, Psalms 22:4, Psalms 119:116, Isaiah 28:15, Isaiah 44:3, Isaiah 45:16, Isaiah 49:23, Jeremiah 17:5, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 22:36, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 8:3, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6, Galatians 5:22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 3:16, Ephesians 4:30, Philippians 1:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, 2 Timothy 1:12, Titus 3:5, Hebrews 6:18, Hebrews 8:10, 1 John 4:19”
  7. Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Romans 8:8 cross-references: Matthew 3:17, John 3:3, John 3:5, John 8:29, Romans 7:5, Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 7:32, Philippians 4:18, Colossians 1:10, Colossians 3:20, 1 Thessalonians 4:1, Hebrews 11:5, Hebrews 13:16, Hebrews 13:21, 1 John 3:22”
  8. CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 20: ground of our justification. 140 7. This still further and most decisively appears from the grand objection to his doctrine which Paul was constantly called upon to answer. That objection was, that if our personal goodness or moral excellence is not the ground of our acceptance with God, then all necessity of being good is denied, and all motive to good works is removed. We may continue in sin that grace may abound. This objection has been reiterated a thousand times since it was urged against the Apostles. It seems so unreasonable and so”
  9. Romans (Nonconformist/Puritan) “Matthew Henry on Romans 3 (introduction): The apostle, in this chapter, carries on his discourse concerning justification. He had already proved the guilt both of Gentiles and Jews. Now in this chapter, I. He answers some objections that might be made against what he had said about the Jews (Rom 3:1-8). II. He asserts the guilt and corruption of mankind in common, both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:9-18). III. He argues thence that justification must needs be by faith, and not by the law, which he gives several reasons for (Rom 3:19 to the end). The many digressions in his writings render his disco”
  10. Romans (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Romans 3 (introduction): INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 3 In this chapter are an answer to several objections which follow one upon another, relating to what the apostle had said concerning the equality of the Gentiles with the Jews; and various proofs out of the Psalms and Prophets, showing the general depravity and corruption of mankind, of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles; and the conclusion from all this, that there is no justification by the works of the law, but by the righteousness of God received by faith, of which a large and clear account is given. The first objection is in”
  11. CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 41: do, the thing required. Answer, which explains the use of promises, and removes the supposed inconsistency. 11. Third class of arguments drawn from the divine upbraidings,—that it is in vain to upbraid us for evils which it is not in our power to avoid. Answer. Sinners are condemned by their own consciences, and, therefore, the divine upbraidings are just. Moreover, there is a twofold use in these upbraidings. Various passages of Scripture explained by means of the foregoing answers. 12. Objection founded on the words of Moses. Ref”
  12. CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts & Romans: The passage iii. 1–8 considers four possible objections. (1) “This placing of Jews and Gentiles in the same condition, takes away all the theocratic prerogatives.” ( v. 1 .) No, answers Paul, they have a great advantage as to light and privilege, though none as to righteousness. ( v. 2 .) (2) “They have the O.T. scriptures, you say; but what if those scriptures have not attained their end in bringing the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah? If some have not believed, does not that render void God’s promises to his people in the O.T., so that he i”
  13. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 5: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian — CHAP. V. ARGUMENT.--IF WE REGARD THE ANGER, AND INDIGNATION, AND HATRED OF GOD DESCRIBED IN THE SACRED PAGES, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS BEARING THE CHARACTER OF HUMAN VICE: Moreover, if we read of His wrath, and consider certain descriptions of His indignation, and learn that hatred is asserted of Him, yet we are not to understand these to be asserted of Him in the sense in which they are human vices. For all these things, although they may corrupt man, cannot at all corrupt the divine power. For such passions as th”
Ask Your Own Question
About Terms Privacy Contact

© 2026 BEREAN.AI. All rights reserved.