Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 3.78 → restored 4.37
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
There is, gentlemen, as you know, an introduction to the Epistle to the Romans. Important as it is, I do not propose to discuss it at this moment, but to proceed to investigate what are the leading themes, and I use the plural now, the leading ideas of the first major section of the book. And I've listed them here for you. We saw in our first period the general theme of the wrath of God developed by Paul in his first section to the book, and how it comes to its climax with the explanation of salvation in this context, which is to be saved from the wrath
of God. When we look at this major section as a whole, we find there are at least five major elements to it. Half of it is taken up from verse, chapter one verse eight to verse twenty of chapter three, with what I have here called the justification of God's wrath. Or, if you prefer the term, the, the statement of God's wrath and the explanation of the principles that govern God's wrath, and how that wrath is expressed in practice.
The second half goes, of this section goes from three twenty one to chapter five verse eleven. And here I have laid out for you the major parts of it. First of all, the claim that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. And secondly, the validation of that claim by appeal to the Old Testament and to the case of Abraham.
Here is Paul the lawyer, having cited the claim that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law, he now appeals to the case law of the Old Testament and cites the case of Abraham, not as a type, but as an actual man walking on two legs on this earth, who was historically at a certain point justified, and the principles upon which he was justified, cited in the Old Testament, and he believed God, and it, that is his belief in God, was counted to him for righteousness.
Uh, an example then from the Old Testament to validate the general point that justification is by faith, validates it by the citation of an actual instance, uh, a case law, which establishes this, that if Abraham was justified by faith before God, then all others can be and must be justified on that same basis. Then follows the second half of chapter four, which is the definition of what is meant by faith.
It's all right to declare that man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Very good to cite case law about Abraham, how he was justified. But what is meant by faith in this context. Is it also a work that you have to do? And at least you have to do it to about seventy five percent? uh, Josie, of the possibilities of faith, or else it doesn't work. Or is it not a work?
What is meant by faith? And here we shall find that Paul once more appeals to Abraham, but this time not as case law. He appeals to it by analogy. After all, when Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness, the matter over which he believed God was this, that he and Sarah were going to have a son in their old age.
And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But surely, God doesn't come to us and promise us that we're going to have a son in our old age, and we have to believe that in order to be justified. So how can you possibly cite Abram's case then, and suggest that our faith is parallel to his faith? Paul must answer the question, of course, and answer it he does, and showing that there is indeed a parallel between Abraham's faith and our faith, by which we are justified.
And he uses the device that we call analogy, the analogy between Abraham's faith and ours. And I'm making these points now, before we get lost in the detail, to try and get across how Paul argues, and what he must argue if he's going to prove his case, and the logical order in which he does so, and how the whole thing unites and coheres to this glorious message that we are justified by faith and therefore shall be saved from the wrath of God.
Then the first paragraph of chapter five uh, deals with the results and implications of justification by faith. That then is the scheme, and our job now is to try and see, at least vaguely, the flow of thought between those paragraphs and within them, of course. So we start from the first big item, and I ought to have broken down chapters one a- uh, eight to three twenty into smaller parts, but it was a question of getting the thing on the overhead all at once.
So let's go back to the great statement of the wrath of God as we have it in chapters one and two and three, up as far as three twenty. It is a serious and solemn statement, and in places we shall have to be very careful about the argumentation. Let us notice the general principle. Verse eighteen says, the wrath of God is revealed. It's a present tense.
There is a wrath of God that is already revealed and that is already working. So we shall find, as we examine the contents of the rest of chapter one. There is also the wrath of God that shall come, according to v- chapter two and verse five in the future, what is called the day of wrath. Mm-hmm.
When God shall judge the secrets of men. Verse sixteen: in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ. Now, that's a very interesting fa- phrase. Let me pause there and call your attention to it. The judgment of God is part of our gospel message. It's a part of the good news. We need to grasp that. Solem as it is, it's part of the good news.
If you look back to the Old Testament Psalms, when they consider the fact that God is coming to judge, and he will judge the world in righteousness, then the psalmist calls upon all creation to clap their hands for sheer joy. Marvelous! God is coming to judge. Shout hurrah, or better hallelujah. We need to get that idea into our heads, good and proper. For some people get ashamed of the wrath of God, as though it were a sadistic God or something. Put it to yourselves and to your congregations.
Would you have man's evil to go on forever, unchecked? You really wouldn't have God interfere? The fact that God one day shall institute the day of judgment is a glorious gospel message. Of course, the unconverted partly sense it, don't they? But during the war, they were endlessly asking us believers, why doesn't God stop Hitler? Or Stalin? Or Pol Pot?
Or Chairman Mao? Or Ceausescu? Not to talk of Enver Hoxha. Why didn't God stop them? Those same people, if you s- point out that there's going to be a com- co- a coming judgment, and we all have sinned and come short of God's glory, and that therefore they need to repent. Oh no, I'm not that bad, and God isn't so... Oh, I see. God isn't so hard that he would punish anybody forever in hell. Oh. There's an ambi- ambivalence, isn't there, in people's attitude to the question of God's judgment and his wrath.
It is part of our Christian gospel. So now let's look at the detail of chapters, uh, one and two and three. Paul will argue that we are not only sinners, and all of us sinners, but we are guilty sinners. Now, gentlemen, let me interject something here, just to alert you.
We shall do it on another occasion. When we come to the second major part of the book, the wreckage caused by Adam's sin, then we shall face a situation of wreckage in ourselves and other people, and I say it taking courage in both hands, that isn't our individual fault. There are those indeed that would tell us that we are guilty of Adam's sin, and that when he sinned, we sinned, and therefore God holds us responsible because we sinned when Adam sinned.
That, I judge, is quite false. God is careful, as we shall find it in this passage about his wrath, to point out where responsibility lies. And here it's going to show that we are not only sinners, but we are guilty sinners. We are blameworthy. The second section of the book will talk about the wreckage for what which we are not altogether responsible. But having made that, uh, point vaguely, uh, and the importance of distinguishing between Paul's first section and the second, let me proceed with this theme.
Man is not only a sinner, but guilty. So you have it, verse twenty, where Paul is talking about man's reaction to the evidence of creation. Paul states the invisible things of God, since the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, in order that they may be without excuse. Now, this question of the judgment of God and God's judgment being fair and just, inevitably raises the question that if you are going to accuse men of being sinners, is it their fault or not?
Can somebody say, but it's not my fault? The question of excuse. And to show how important that is to this question of judgment, I want to, well, put your thumb in the place in Romans and turn, uh, to me, with me to John chapter nine. John chapter 9. This is our Lord speaking. And as you remember, in John chapter five, he declared that he is to be the judge at the final judgment, because the Father judges no man.
He has given authority, all judgment to the Son. The people should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. When he speaks on these matters, he speaks as the final judge from whose verdict there is no appeal. Now he says in John nine verse thirty nine, for judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see, and they which see may become blind. Those of the Pharisees that were with him heard these things and said unto him, are we blind also? Jesus said, if you were blind, you would not be culpable.
Literally, you would have no sin. But pray notice what that means in John's writings. The phrase to have no sin means not that you're sinlessly perfect, no one is that. To have no sin means that you are not culpable. You are not to be blamed for something. If you have no legs and can't walk, you are not to be blamed for not walking. If you were born blind physically, you can't be blamed for not seeing. If you were blind, you would not be blameworthy.
But now you say you see. Therefore, your sin remains, that is, you are responsible and will be blamed. In the context, the Pharisees had just said, ah, we know this man is a sinner. Really? They could see that much, could they? Not merely we don't understand any of this, but in face of the miracle that had been utterly unique in the whole of human history, as far as they knew, from creation onwards. In face of it, the common sense must have told them that this was an act of the Creator and was certainly not sinful.
They held and persisted in holding that they knew that this Jesus was a sinner. They professed to see. They will be held responsible for what they said they saw and the grounds on which they saw it. Let's look at John fifteen and verse twenty two. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. They wouldn't be blameworthy.
But now they have no excuse for their sin. Now here's the word that Paul repeats in Romans, that they might be without excuse. But notice the context here. If I had not come and spoken to them, they could not be blamed for not believing what I never, what they never heard, what I never said. To blame them for not believing what Jesus said, if they could honestly reply, but we, he didn't come to us.
We never heard him say it. We didn't know he said it. That would be excuse, wouldn't it? But I have come, and I have spoken to them. Now they have no excuse. He repeats it, verse twenty four. If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin, they would not be blameworthy. But now they have both seen and hated, both me and my Father.
Now, without excuse, therefore. Notice these statements by the judge, for God's judgment is just. So, do you see here, in the first instance, man's attitude to the evidence of creation. Verse eighteen: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness.
For that charge to be valid, the men must have known the truth, because they are charged with suppressing the truth, holding it down in unrighteousness. But do they know the truth? Oh yes, they know the truth. How? Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, number one. Number two, for God manifested it to them.
Notice the double description. The evidence of creation, the truth as demonstrated, as revealed in creation. It isn't left to men whether they deduce it or not. God has revealed it to them by the demonstration, by the very fact of creation and what can be seen in creation. Ah yes, but more than that, he has manifested it in them. This is very important.
God has put a consciousness of the Creator into the heart of every human being. That is the charge. Incidentally, in case I forget to tell you in the course of the next four weeks, there is a very interesting book written by a certain Budziszewski. Overlook the name if you care. And the title of his book is Things We Can't Not Know.
His thesis is that there are certain things that every human being knows and cannot not know. It is a very interesting book, of course, and among other things, talks of these chapters. Here is the scripture saying that awareness that there is a creator has been revealed by God to men by dint of the creation, but revealed in them. And you will get atheists from time to time saying that when they go out and look upon the stars in the night sky, they have an overwhelming impression that there is a God, a creator, put there by God, of course.
So that things like the stars at the night sky stimulate in that awareness into action. And now he goes on to explain in verse twenty what this revelation involves. For the invisible things of God have, are, from the time of the creation of the world onwards, are clearly seeing, being perceived through the things that are made. This is not a something that you have to come at and only eventually come to see by hard, rigorous chains of logical reasoning, which are far beyond the possibilities of many human beings.
These things are perceived by direct intuition. You see a rose is beautiful? Well, if you don't, how would I go about proving it to you? What kind of logic would I bring to bear upon it to prove a rose is beautiful. You see it. There are certain things that can be directly seen and known. And one of the things is that there is a creator.
They are being clearly seen, being perceived through the things that have been made. But now notice the things that are specified. It does not say that you can debi- de- deduce the love of God from looking at creation. You notice that? What are the two things that can be perceived and deduced by looking at creation? One, God's everlasting power. And two, his godhood, not his godhead.
Please, gentlemen, I shall have to ask you to make that distinction. Not his godhead. When we talk about the godhead, we are talking about the Trinity, the fact that in God there are three, what we call persons, the Godhead. When we talk about Godhood, we mean the essence being quality of being God. And what is revealed by creation is his Godhood and his everlasting power. Because it was known to the ancients as it is known to us.
The stars didn't begin to shine when we were born, you know. Have you realized that yet? This vast power that keeps them going is what is here described as the everlasting power. And these things are revealed so that they may be without excuse. Gentlemen, you will often be attacked and opposed by those who call attention to things like the tsunami and say, if there's a God, why does he allow these things to happen?
And they question his love. How could an almighty, all-wise, all-loving God allow such things to happen? There are, of course, some things that can be said in that direction and need to be said. But here we notice Paul is not claiming that the love of God can be read off from the physical creation around us, but rather his power and his godhood. And the charge is that knowing God, we repeat that this knowledge is instinctive in the sense that it is inbuilt.
God has put it in man. Man knows. But man doesn't like to admit he knows. Knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks. For acknowledging there is a creator is to acknowledge that we have a debt of gratitude to him, and are responsible for being grateful. The result of that basic denial of the fact has its first repercussion on their reasonings.
Notice what comes first. Not on their sexual immorality, that will come later. But the denial of the existence of a creator and his claim upon us has its first effect on the rational powers and reasoning processes, because they became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. For our very rationality depends on the fact that it comes from a personal, rational creator.
For if it doesn't, gentlemen, where do our rational powers come from? If there's no personal rational creator who created our rational powers deliberately, then the only other source is that they come from mindless, purposeless, impersonal forces. that, in the words of one atheist of recent times, are not aware of us.
They have produced us, but are not aware of us. And worse than that, of course, if our rational powers are the result of mindless forces who are not even aware of what they have produced. The other extreme is true. One of these days, those same irrational, non-rational, non-purposeful, impersonal forces will destroy us. Every scientist agrees with it. Destroy us personally.
And destroy what we're pleased to call our rationality. And when they've done it, they won't know they've done that either. And that's a remarkable conclusion for rationality to come to. That rationality is at the beginning baseless and at the end futile. And a prisoner in this universe, human rationality, a prince, a prisoner of irrational, mindless forces. The denial of a creator has its first implication for our rationality.
I'm not saying that atheists are by definition unintelligent. I'm saying what it does to their reasoning powers if you start from the premise that there is no God, and our rationality is the product of mindless forces. But more than that, in Paul's day, they changed the glory of the corruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and creeping things. You can sum that up, you see, as they worshipped and served the crea- creature, verse twenty five, rather than the creator.
The ancient world giving up, or suppressing rather, their knowledge of the one true God. They didn't always manage to hide it completely. To see, many a missionary has reported of African tribes that are quite aware that there is one chief god, only they never worship him. They don't offer sacrifices to him. They are concerned with the lesser deities and spirits. Hinduism has thousands of temples, but rarely, if ever, a temple to what they call Brahm, the one who is behind everything.
They don't worship him. Their temples are to lesser deities. The ancient world, suppressing the truth of the creator, then, uh, uh, turned to the deification of the forces of nature, the deification of man, and then of birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things. Modern atheists in the West don't worship birds, at least I think not.
They're guilty of the same thing. If you ask them what are the u- u- ultimates, what are the the ultimate po- uh forces that brought man into being, they will reply, the forces of nature. Yeah. The weak atomic power, strong atomic power, electromagnetism, gravity, biochemical forces, processes.
All the mechanisms of nature, the forces of nature, all of them impersonal, define them as the absolute powers. That doesn't matter they don't call them gods. It amounts to the same thing. What are the ultimate powers that brought human beings into being and will be responsible for their end. Modern atheists are like it. There is one scientist among thousands that I may quote, and that is Professor Paul Davies, professor of mathematical physics in Newcastle in Britain, and went to Australia.
He is author of many, many books at the high popular level. He it was that wrote the book and started the movement, God and the New Physics, to see, which he published about twenty to thirty years ago. And tells us in one of his further books that he did it on purpose to prod the old establishment in science and get them thinking. He doesn't believe in God himself, anyway. But he wants to argue that the universe is rational all the way down. That is, if you look at, uh, biochemical systems, you can see the laws of biochemistry that, uh, are behind their performance.
Then at the lower level, you can see the laws of arithmetic, and you can perceive that this universe works according to what we know as the laws of arithmetic. That is, the workings of the universe can be explained in terms of mathematical laws. And unlike many others who say that when you come down to the big, uh, black hole thing, all the laws break down, so you can't know what's beyond. Davies wants to claim that the laws of mathematics do not break down, and that the universe is rational right down to what he calls metaphysics.
That is the principles behind the physics of the universe. You will say there's hope for Davies then. He believes that the universe is rational all the way down even to metaphysics. Well, presumably he believes in God then. But when asked the question, he says outright, no, I don't want there to be a God. That's not a scientific statement, that's a statement of his preference. Well then, what, uh, what, um, what, uh, brought about the universe then?
He says, well, perhaps there are some mathematical laws so clever that they brought the universe in. Well, some days I wish there were such mathematical laws, and I would call upon them to put a whole lot of money, a few million, in my bank account in the bank. If they can create a whole universe, um, these little, these mathematical, very clever mathematical laws, that would be a nothing to them to create a few million in my bank account. The whole thing is stupid, isn't it? Professing themselves to be wise, they became... fools. Yes.
He doesn't like that idea for God, he says, because if God speaks to us, that involves moving atoms around in our brains. Well, what's wrong with God doing that? He made the old atoms anyway. But I say, what happens when you speak to your neighbor? Aren't you moving a few atoms in his brains? Of course you are. By the information you transmit, that can make various atoms in his brain move around to comprehend what you're saying, and then others to create, make a smile or break your heart. And if we can move a few atoms around, why should anybody object in the Creator moving a few atoms around in our brains?
How else would anybody talk anything? Professing themselves to be wise, so scripture, they become vain in their reasonings. The effect on our rational processes by denying the creator and the creator of rationality. In the second place, then, because they took this attitude, certain other things follow. Now notice the solemnity, verse twenty four. Wherefore God gave them up.
This is the judgment of God already revealed. If you deny the Creator in this sense, presently, the judgments of God will give you up to do these other. In the lusts of their hearts, unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Dishonor the bodies? Yes, indeed, yes.
The Bible declares man is made in the image of God. If Stalin had believed that, he perhaps wouldn't have murdered about fifty million. And Hitler likewise. For what is the worth of a human body, anyway? What value has it? What, in the old-fashioned sense of the term, what is the dignity of a human body? And you will notice that wherever atheism prevails, then one of the things that is undercut is the dignity of the human body.
That is not to say that all atheists are immoral, because when atheists deny God, they try very often to hold on to the, the values that in fact are based upon God. They try to va- have them without God himself. But if you deny the Creator, it not only has an effect on your bo- on your reasoning, it will have an effect on the body. They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
It isn't necessarily that they despised the body, but they put the body and things material in the place of worship in their hearts, as distinct from worshiping the Creator. That's an insult to the Creator, of course. Second step, God gave them up. Next step, God gave them up unto vile passions. And they are the less, uh, listed in front of us. And gentlemen, the more the West goes to the denial of God, the more you will see the increase, have we not lived to see it, of these perversions of sex.
Because sex is a created process of God to be held in honor. But when men deny the source of it in God and the purpose for which he made it, it leads to these perversions. Thirdly, verse twenty eight. The rejection of God leads not only to the devaluation of rationality, the processes of reasoning.
Not only to perversions of our hearts worship, to be spent on things that are not worthy instead of on God. Has the effect of perverting sexuality. But now comes, verse twenty eight, to the effect on our moral judgment. Rationality is not the same as moral judgment, is it? Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto reprobate minds, who not only do these things that are now listed, but verse thirty two, who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they which practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but consent with them that practice them.
Do beware, gentlemen, that if you preach against homosexuality, and you should have a homosexual in your congregation, they can sue you in court, in some countries. Because you have, uh, shown a- a hatred to homosexuals, discriminated against them. And in some countries, if you found out that a professing member of the church who professed to be a believer was a homosexual, and you excommunicated them, they could sue you in court.
For the moral judgment has gone so far, not just to say, well, these folks do these things, but to consent with them. And when the law of a land consents with it, things can become difficult for those who are called upon to proclaim God's word. Notice this giving them up to a reprobate mind is part of the judgment of God. It doesn't say because they have a reprobate mind, God will then judge them.
This is one of God's judgments as they work out in life. If you put your hand in the fire, it'll be burned. God has given us electricity, but watch how you use it. Because it can destroy you if you use it wrongly. It's in the nature of things, as we say. And because this creation comes from God, and he upholds it, then if people deliberately and knowingly deny him and proceed to live accordingly, then they will see his judgments show themselves in these consequences.
Here, therefore, men are sinners and without excuse, as you see explicitly said, without excuse because the basic evidence is available to them. Whatever they say, God has manifested through creation two things about himself, his, uh, power and his crea- and his godhood. If you hold it down deliberately, uh, uh, Josie, underneath you know it. As you hold it down, God has so ordered things that this will follow.
In chapter two, In chapter two, we have the case, as the old commentators used to say, against the moralists. That's one way of putting it. For in ch- in the first chapter, we've had God's witness in the heart that there is a creator. But now we go further to the moral law.
Not merely knowledge that there is a creator, but the knowledge of certain basic moral principles. And you see, uh, verses fourteen and fifteen are going to say this explicitly. Verses fourteen and fifteen of chapter two. For when Gentiles which have no law, that is no revealed law, such as Israel had at Mount Sinai, when Gentiles have no law, Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law, as they often do, these, having no law, that is no revealed law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them.
And to come back to the first verse of chapter two, wherefore thou art without excuse, O man. For the biblical position is that all men know certain basic moral laws. Whether they acknowledge it or not, whether they did agree or whether they deny it, the fact is that all human beings know certain basic moral laws.
Distinction is here made between the highly developed revealed law of God as revealed to Moses. That's a highly developed thing. Similarly, all the laws of, uh, cultures, uh, civilized, developed cultures, and the endless precisions of their law, civil and so forth, and others, criminal. God's word doesn't say that everybody knows that. It does say that there are certain things, certain moral principles that everyone knows because they are written on the heart.
Note the term heart, not conscience. You must distinguish between heart and what is next said, that is conscience. They're written on their hearts. Their conscience bearing witness therewith, and then their moral thinking, their thoughts, one with another, accusing or else excusing. And this is why they are without excuse. Let's get that basic principle then clear in our heads.
In many philosophical ter- uh, uh, uh, periods and ethical discussions, this view of ethics is often called natural law. That has certain disadvantages, that, uh, that title, but it'll do for the present. Meaning, certain law written on the human heart by the creator. Mm-hmm. It doesn't mean that every babe, the moment is born, knows these moral laws. Of course not.
Any more than a babe knows that one and one makes two. But when the teacher proceeds to tell the child that one and one makes two, the child perceives it, sees it for himself. And it's no good saying, well, I believe that because the teacher told me. Teacher only pointed out what was univer- what is universally true, and human beings see it. Yes? So there are certain things written on the human heart. Let me take one of them, obviously, for a moment.
Fairness. If somebody did something to you, some businessman or other, and you complain to him, look here, this is not fair. And he said, I don't know what you mean. What do you mean, fair? I have no concept of fairness. Fairness? What is fairness? Never heard of it. I don't try to be fair. There isn't such a thing as fairness. I don't understand what you're talking about. If that were true, we couldn't begin any ethical discussion, gentlemen.
For all ethical discussion depends on our having a basic concept that we all have of fairness. We'll come to the specific things that we can know, but let's first attend to the details of chapter two. Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man. Now in this moral area, ethics. How is he without excuse? Notice the phrase again, please.
We're sinners, but we are guilty sinners that have no excuse for our sinning. Why? Because we know what sinning is. We know there's such a thing as right and wrong, and we show it. Whosoever thou art that judgest, wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou that judgest dost practice the same things. Or, as verse fifteen that we read put it, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing.
The fact that we do accuse other people shows we have a standard of moral behavior that we expect other people to have. And we all endlessly accuse other people of doing wrong. Or we excuse other people. Mrs. Brown says to Mrs. Blue, have you heard?
Heard what? Well, Mrs. Green has run off with Mr. White's wife. Oh, says the second woman, she oughtn't to have done that. No, it's an ac- accusation, isn't it? So there's an awareness of both parties that this is wrong. Ah, then, ah, but says the other one, ah, yes, but her husband was an impossible chap. Oh, so now she's excusing. Why bother to excuse anybody if there's no basic rule or law? Yeah.
And the very fact that humans do this, accuse and excuse, shows they are conscious of a basic moral law. And if that moral law is inbuilt in us, uh, we know, no good pretending we don't know, that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practice such things. There is a truth in these matters. And the very fact you accuse shows that you believe there is a truth.
She oughtn't to have done it. There is a rule, a law. And we show that we know that the judgment of God is according to truth. Again, those those that practice such things. Gentlemen, I have to warn you at this stage against postmodernism. Anybody here hasn't heard of postmodernism? Put your hands up. Hm, you all know. And postmodernism as distinct from modernism.
Modernism made human rationality, human wisdom, the final judge of everything. The final judge of God included. Postmodernism says that there is no ultimate truth. There is no ultimate right or wrong. And, uh, all ethics, morality is socially determined. So a young man that once professed to be a believer was brought to me by his friend about two years ago, who had been a missionary on a fe- on the field and came back and did a course.
In Oxford, I think. By the time he reached me, he didn't believe anything. He have informed me that all morality is socially determined. I said, what about cannibalism then? Is that okay? Yes, said he, if his society approves of him. No other society has the right to say he's wrong. It is socially determined. Mm-hmm. And therefore, we should be tolerant of people. What may appear to you to be wrong, well, let it be wrong to you, but don't suppose it is wrong to anybody else.
And for you to say that is what is wrong for you is wrong for everybody is the height of intolerance. And you should, uh, not be guilty of intolerance. Yes. Postmodernism. It's curious, of course, how they don't believe it in life. They believe it in when they're in the classroom teaching ethics, but in actual daily life, they don't believe it. Well, this good professor of of this theory will go down to the bank and say, I put ten thousand dollars in the bank, and the bank manager said, no, it's only a a a thousand dollars in the bank.
I think you're wrong, therefore, says the bank manager. You've only a thousand, you think you have ten thousand, but you're wrong. No, says the man, I'm right and you're wrong. And then what does he say? Well, I mustn't say you're wrong, of course. There's no such thing as absolute truth. Uh, so if you say I have only a thousand, well, I mustn't say, no, I have ten thousand. Now they don't, do they? They don't live it. No, but they say they're against intolerance, you see, forcing your views on other people. I see. You shouldn't be intolerant.
No. Well, Pol Pot was rather in- intolerant of intellectuals. We all know that. If you wore spectacles, you were in danger because it was the intellectual class that wore spectacles. And, uh, Pol Pot was intolerant of intellectuals, so he massacred some thousands of them. What shall we say of his view? We mustn't be intolerant. So we mustn't say Pol Pot was wrong. So we mustn't, we mustn't be intolerant of his intolerance.
You must allow intolerance. Sort of contradictory, isn't it? And to lay it down as a universal truth, all morality is socially determined. And then to add, there are no absolute truths, is of course a logical contradiction. If there are no absolute truths, then you better ask, is this an absolute truth that all morality is socially determined? Is that absolute?
Sounds like it. All morality is socially determined. But if it's an absolute truth, there is at least one absolute truth. And to deny there is an absolute, gentlemen. And God's judgment is according to absolute truth. And because of this, reckonest thou this, do you calculate this, O man, who judgest them that practice such things, and then you do the same things, that thou shall escape the judgment of God.
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God is meant to lead you to repentance. But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. If we believe in the, uh, right, uh, there is such a thing as right and wrong, and we show we do by our accusing and then excusing ourselves and others, then we are acknowledging that the judgment of God is according to truth.
On these things that people do, and we say they're wrong, and we have done them, and we know them wrong. God's judgment then is according to truth. There is therefore a danger that we misinterpret the fact that God does not immediately send out his judgment upon us, but is long suffering. And we misread his long suffering as though our sins didn't matter. And God is lackadaisical, and so forth. Whereas the opposite is true.
God is good, he is forbearing, he is long suffering, and that long suffering is meant to lead us to repentance. Whereas if we do not repent, day by day, we are, so to speak, treasuring up, what an oxymoron that sounds, treasuring up for ourselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Mm-hmm. Therefore, we are without excuse. But then the fact is ma- ma- said that, verse six, who will render to every man according to his works.
The evidence upon which God will judge people. He will judge them according to their works. Now, that's a very interesting statement. Later on, the passage will say that, uh, uh, God shall judge the secrets of men. That is, expose their hearts and their motivations. But the prime, uh, evidence is the evidence of works, and what that entails we must take seriously, but we shall have to do it in our next session.
But it is important, gentlemen, that we hear the case against the sinner before we, uh, uh, come to, uh, hear the salvation that God has provided in this context. For we don't have to stand on the corner and preach brimstone and fire, necessarily. If God leads you to do it, do it. But we do have to convict this modern world of sin. And do it not with inflamed passion, but with the cool logic, love, of course, and compassion, but honesty and justice.
Somehow we must bring to people that they do need to be saved because of what is meant by the wrath of God. It's not some horrible monster that now and again loses his temper. The judgment of God, of course, is not unfeeling. But the judgment of God is according to truth, and God is just. So we shall give some time to this explanation of the principles upon which the judgment of God rests, before we come now to the principles upon which justification rests.
Very good. No protest at this stage. You're going to get lunch, but treasure up your protests against the time of questioning and protest, placards or no placards, in the fourth session today.
