Does Anyone At All Escape the Judgment of Romans 3:19? Part I

"...so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." (Romans 3:19)

This specific posting is not concerned with the final judgment of God on every person who will stand before Him on the last day.  That is His business, not ours (He has expressed the extent of His love most clearly of all in John 3:16).  It is concerned, however, with the standards He himself has laid out in His Word the Holy Bible (Romans chapters 1-3) which exposes the measure of our culpability before Him.

Whenever a sincere Christian is caught in the act of sinning (an extremely common occurrence since we Christians are, after all, sinners) there is only one honest response for us to make (1 John 1:9).  Sincere Christians, consistent with our doctrine, will confess the specifics of our sin, turn away from our wrong-doing, and seek to make amends to the person(s) we have hurt.  And then we will receive His promise of forgiveness and cleansing.  Sincere Christians will not dismiss the judgment of moral law as an irrelevant triviality.  To the contrary we will admit that we are guilty under the standards of that very moral code.  Shocking as it may at first sound, when Christians sin we do not contradict our faith.  We instead live out the awful reality that gave reason for the Father’s delivering His Son to the cross on behalf of our sinful world (Romans 5:8).  For Christians the contradiction lies in the denial of the very authority of God’s Word, including His moral law.

Proponents of post-modernism, by stark contrast, involve themselves in self-contradiction at the most foundational level.  I am not stooping here to the simple tit-for-tat charge that they “mess up.”  Since it is true that Christians sin, it should be no surprise that non-Christians do the same (by the way, Christ holds out His offer of the forgiveness of sins to every person, not just to those who are currently Christians).  My actual challenge to post-modernists is that the central agenda they vigorously advance is never actually practiced by them.  Indeed it is never even attempted by even its most enthusiastic proponents.  Instead they contradict their central assumptions at every turn.  These assumptions include the notion that “truth” is merely a matter of personal perspective (and hence is not binding outside of the individual).  Another guiding assumption is that morality is relative.  Moral Relativism holds that “morality” is merely a social invention and therefore its standards are merely social convention that can be cast aside in favor of more pleasing alternatives.

to be continued...