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 2.33 → restored 4.52
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
So that I would ask you to believe my sin- sincerity in saying how grateful I am to you for your invitation and for the friendliness with which you have welcomed me. Thank you, all of you who have gone out of your way to show hospitality and to show me the countryside and to show me what life is like in New Zealand. I thank all my hosts and hostesses. My special thanks go to Campbell Fountain, who has just graciously chaired this session.
He is the one who organized my visit here for the whole of the ten weeks and has put an immense amount of work into the detail of arranging many separate different venues, and I am deeply indebted to him, and it is right that I should give him now my thanks publicly. Tonight I'm going to make a very honest and well-intentioned attempt. I can- cannot guarantee any success, but I am going to make an honest attempt to give a shorter lecture than I have done on the previous two occasions. I know that very observation fills you with mirth and incredulity, but at least I have started out with good intentions, whatever the result.
And I'm hoping there will be time for questions afterwards, not only on tonight's topic, but on the topics of the previous two occasion. Now, as you have heard, the question you have put to me tonight is, don't all religions lead to God? The first thing I must say in honesty and fairness to you is to remind you once more that I am a Christian. I shall try to be fair to other religions as far as I understand them and have had experience of them.
If in the course of my remarks I say things that are unfair, I beg the pardon of any who are members of those religions. At the same time, of course, being a Christian, I am not altogether a neutral judge, as you will readily understand. As a Christian, I do believe the words of Jesus Christ, our Lord, when he said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father but by me. I accept also the words of the Christian apostles when they, uh, informed the Sanhedrin that there is no other name under heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved.
Yet at the same time, as a Christian, I do believe that the one we call Jesus Christ did not begin to exist when he was born in Bethlehem. I believe that he is the Word of God, who in the beginning was with God and was God. He was the one who has told out God in creation. He the, eh, beginning, the agent, and the goal of creation. And therefore, when, for instance, Abraham, according to the Old Testament, believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, though Abraham had never heard the name Jesus, yet the God he believed, whether he knew it or not, was the blessed and holy triunity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Abraham, therefore, was believing the word of God because he believed in a God who, as I repeat, was the gracious and is the gracious tri- triunity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, I believe that God took the initiative in revealing himself to Abraham. And so he had a special role in history for both Abraham and his descendants. Yet, as the New Testament affirms, God is no respecter of persons, and the God who revealed himself to Abraham, uh, could reveal himself to any in those early centuries to whom he chose.
God taught Peter in the Christian age the basic truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that doeth righteousness is acceptable to him. And what Peter meant on that occasion is not that, uh, people's good works find such, uh, approval with God that he grants them salvation on the basis of those works. Far from it. The Bible declares that none shall ever be saved on the basis of their works, save only faith in Christ, faith in God.
What Peter meant was this, that here was a Gentile Cornelius who knew nothing of Jesus, who in his heart earnestly desired to find the true and living God, and in his life did as best works he could as evidence of the dis- sincere desire of his heart. And God, who is no respecter of persons, didn't disregard him because he was a Gentile, but took steps to s- to, uh, secure that a preacher of the gospel should come to where Cornelius was and show him and tell him words by which he must be saved.
We notice that the Gentile, he wasn't already saved because he had done a lot of good works. He needed to be saved, but God read the man's heart, and God, who respects the man's sincere seeking of God, sent a messenger to tell him words by which he must be saved. Our Lord himself laid it down as an absolute rule, he that seeketh findeth, he that asketh to him shall be given, and he that knocketh to him it shall be opened. Moreover, in the Gospel of John in chapter three, our Lord comments on people who had lived in times before he was born, particularly in those times immediately before he was born.
And he said the situation now is that light has come into the world. He was referring to himself as the light of the world. But alas, said he, men, generally speaking, love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Now he that doeth evil hateth the light, says he, and comes not to the light, lest his deeds be reproved. But he that doeth good comes to the light. And in that we see an explanation of many, for instance, in the nation of Israel, who in the days before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, honestly believed in God and, uh, did as they could his will.
Because they believed in God, and that God was the triune God, whether they knew it or not, and were therefore believing in God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. When the second person of the Trinity entered our world, of course they came to him and recognized him for who he was, and found in him the glorious message of complete Christian. There were many others who, in those days past in Israel, were exceedingly religious, but when the God whom they professed to worship came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, they rejected him.
Saul of Tarsus was an eminent example, though he later repented, but there were many that persisted in their rejection of the word and showed thereby that their professed faith in the true, one true God in the days before Christ came was not the genuine article. And finally, by way of general remarks, this I do believe, that the God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that men shall not perish, can be relied upon to save as many as he possibly can.
But if then you ask me, do all religions, in my opinion, lead to God, I shall say, well, hardly so, and certainly not. I know for many it is, particularly nowadays, it's become once more a very popular idea, and politically correct, no less. And there are reasons for it. For many people, religion, the sum total of religion actually, is concerned with teaching people to be good. And at that level, of course, all major religions have in common certain basic moral principles, such as respect for your parents, for telling the truth, more or less, and for fulfilling your social duties in your family, in your tribe, in your larger nation, and to the world.
Certainly, the major religions are therefore concerned, to a greater or lesser extent, with certain common moral values. And therefore, it is understandable that many people shall feel that these moral values are really the sum total of religion, and that therefore all religions are about the very same thing, teaching people to be good. Their distinctive beliefs are not significant. To put it in the famous phrase, all these different religions are different paths up the mountain, but it's up the same mountain.
Of course, the paths are different in many respects, but their goal is the same, and quicker or sooner, uh, or later, they will all arrive at the summit of the mountain and find the goal they were seeking is exactly the same goal. And therefore they say, people who hold this view that all religions have the same basic concern, that is to teach people to be good, it is therefore foolish to say that one religion is right and the other wrong. Some might be a little better than the others, they are all intending the same thing.
And of course, that a- attitude chimes in very well with present modern philosophy, that in the West at any rate, but then you count yourself the West, so in all the, all the, uh, world, uh, that, uh, we call West, uh, postmodernism is the newest, uh, style in philosophy, and postmodernism holds that there is no such thing as objective truth. Everybody has a right to his and her opinion, but no opinion is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. They are all equally either wrong or right, however you ca- uh, uh, care to think about them, and the uttermost arrogance would be for any one person over any one thing to say his opinion is right and anybody else is wrong.
That is the temper of postmodernism, and therefore postmodernism faced with the question, do all religions lead to God, would say that all religions are equally valid or invalid, as the case may be. Have your pick according to your choice, but what you mustn't say is that yours is absolutely right and anybody else's is wrong, will they? And therefore, to say, as I did at the beginning, uh, the states, uh, to state the Christian belief that there is no other name under heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved, and that name is Jesus, is highly offensive to many who have embraced postmodernist, uh, philosophy.
And then I understand too, uh, the pain that is caused to many people by the strife and bloody wars that have been caused by religion and still are, and very often are caused by what the press will call fundamentalist religious attitudes. Our religion is right and everybody else's is wrong. Religion has been at the cause of so many of the wars in past centuries, and still is in ours.
In that respect, I want, as a Christian, to confess the shame and scandal of Christendom at large. I shall not tonight criticize other religions who at present are waging war in support of their religion and persecuting others. Christendom has enough to answer for itself, its disgraceful, uh, habits in times past, the Inquisition and other such, uh, execrable acts. We should remember that to Jewish people, for instance, Hitler was a Christian. Franco was a Christian. The Spanish, who in the Middle Ages and later held their inquisitions and burned alive many thousands of Jews at the stakes in Spain, in the Jewish mind, these were Christians.
Many Christians nowadays, I among them, would wish to point out that that action on the part of Christendom, raising armies to go and slaughter Turks, for instance, because they were Muslim, is in open, direct, blatant contradiction to the explicit teaching of Christ in the New Testament. That I offer to all who have suffered, as I have done often to Jewish friends. It shows how very often even Christianity can de- de- uh, deteriorate into being a mere religion held by unregenerate people.
There is nothing so dangerous as religion held by unregenerate hearts. It has been the cause of endless misery. But I would claim it wouldn't be fair to, uh, condemn either Christ or the New Testament for that mispractice based on misinterpretation of Christ's teaching. Now, with all those things said, let me now say why I do not think that all religions lead to God. In the first place, for the obvious reason, how can all religions lead to God when some of them don't admit his existence?
Pure Buddhism, as originally taught by the Buddha, if I have understood it right, was not in that sense a religion, more a philosophy and a psychology. It offered no certainty of any heaven or peace with the Almighty God or any god. It taught people how to arrive at a state of calm and self-possession by understanding their desires and being able to cope with human desires, which, according to the Buddha, are the cause of all our human distress. If we can get rid of our desires and get relief from them, we shall find peace, said the Buddha.
I would find it difficult to believe that that pure form of Theravada Buddhism can be said in any sense to lead to God. Or to take Hinduism first in its popular form. In Hinduism, as we all know, there are one thousand and one gods. You take your pick as to which you prefer to follow. The supreme being, Brahm, is largely unknowable. Even philosophically, very little can be said of the supreme being, whatever he might be like.
Whether it's right to call it he, she, or it, nobody knows. It is beyond our comprehension. Here, uh, uh, uh, uh, therefore, allow me to refer to the intellectual, philosophical side of Hinduism. Hinduism is a difficult religion, isn't it, to comment upon because it has so many different forms, and there is no Hindu magisterium as there is in the Roman Catholic Church to tell you which is the right doctrine or and which isn't. You have your choice amongst thousands. My colleague in my, my erstwhile colleague in my university, the professor of Italian, was and is an Indian, Professor Singh, and just the other month at a university lunch, we fell to talking, as often we had in the past.
He likes to pull my Christian leg from time to time, does Professor Singh, you'll see, and I try to allow it to be pulled in a very Christian way, you'll see. But anyway, he was pointing out to me, when I inquired about the, uh, philosophic teaching on the part of philosophical Hinduism. Here, i- i- i- I said, how do you know it represents reality? He said, of course we don't know. This is not a revealed religion. Our concepts are simply philosophers arguing from the bottom upwards what ultimate reality is like, and therefore we come up with our logical theories.
But whether any of it resembles, uh, uh, uh, the ultimate reality or not, we have no way of knowing, says he. That is from the mouth of an Indian, uh, his version of philosophical Hinduism. How could it lead to God? In the Christian sense, indeed in the Jewish sense, it isn't even in the running. For according to both Old Testament and New Testament, the stark difference between Judaism of the old and Christianity of the new is that the Old Testament is not the record of men and women trying to find God, starting bottom upwards by philosophical reasoning in the manner of the Greeks, say Plato and Aristotle, uh, uh, uh, and uh, so forth.
The gospel according to Old Testaments and new is this. Now the living God who made us has taken the initiative to reveal himself to his creatures. It's not an a record of man's attempt to find God. Atheists, of course, have laughed that religious people haven't they? They said man makes God in his image. If elements had a tendency to be religious, they would regard God as a super duper elephant, and man regards God as a super duper kind of human being because it's man making God in his own image, so they claim.
Now, the claim of the New Testament and the Old is the reverse. This is not the attempt of man to find out God by his own devices. This is the living God revealing himself to men at different times, says the New Ti- Testament, in different proportions, treating, uh, uh, uh, scheduling his message to the human race when it was young, in simple terms, leading people on in the course of their spiritual development until you come to the adulthood of the race and God manifesting himself in Jesus Christ.
Do all religions lead to God? Well, in the second, uh, thing I should say, well, hardly likely. Take, for instance, those religions and philosophies, if you care, that believe in pantheism. Pantheism simply means that everything is God. There are those who so believe. Ah, the heavens are God, the stars are God, matter is God, human beings are God, alligators are God. Cows are God. Stones are God. Everything is God, or a bit of God, do they?
Uh, the technical name, as you know, is pantheism. It is a view held, eh, by certain Hindus, of course. It is a view that was held by the Greek philosophers, the Stoics. They held that, uh, at the heart of the universe is reason, intelligence. But that reason and intelligence is a part of the stuff of the universe. It is a material. It is very fine and pure material, so they thought, but it's part of the matter of the universe, just as anything else is a part of the matter of the universe.
They were therefore pantheists. They said that this reason, this divine spark is in everybody, and all that happens is part of God, and, uh, therefore all is good. The inevitable end to which such a theory brings us is to say that evil is a part of God too, and evil is good. It may not look good, it may not seem good, but it is part of the whole. It is therefore good. And pantheism has sooner or later to agree to that, if everything is God.
See what that means. Uh, everything, said the Stoics, was overru- ruled and caused by the reason, the divine reason is at the center of the universe, this material power, and therefore we ought to act according to reason as best we can. If you saw Pol Pot about to murder a couple of million people, you might choose by reason to try and stop him. That would be a very reasonable thing to do. But if you failed, said the, uh, Stoics, then you would see that the murder of two million people was part of, of reason.
It is part of the whole, ultimately was good, and you would not be right to sorrow over the fact that two million people had been massacred. You must take it that this too was good, part of the whole. That is not exactly what, uh, either Judaism or Christianity would say, and Christians would ga- regard it as a horrifying scandal upon the Almighty. Stoics, therefore, were obliged to say that this world, as it is, is the best of all possible worlds. It couldn't be improved because ultimate reason that pervades everything is in control of everything, and therefore you had to put up with things as they are, or if you couldn't rationally put up with them anymore, you were allowed to commit suicide, and that was good as well.
There were many noble minds among the Romans, in particular in the first century, that were adherents to stoicism. If you believed it, it did really make you a rigorous brave, uh, shall I say hard, but I mean it in the noble sense, character. But who could agree with it? It's certainly not what the New Testament means when it says all things work together to go- for good to them that, uh, love God, to them that are called according to his purpose. Yes, the New Testament affirms that God can turn all things to the good of those who trust him. But one, he's not the author of evil, and two, this world as it is, is not the ideal world, not the best of worlds that could possibly be.
It is a fallen world, says God. And even though bildame nature, she groans, as says scripture, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God. And even believers in God and in Christ, they groan within themselves, waiting for their adoption, the redemption of their body. Here lies hope. Evil shall not be triumphant or permanent. There shall come an heaven and an earth wherein it- wherefrom evil has been banished and righteousness reigns. Do all religions lead to God?
Well, pantheism, surely not. If you'll allow me a personal, uh, thing, I hope not. For if God is the God of the Stoics, I'm not sure I would want to get to know him. Um, all religions lead to God. Um, what about the doctrine of creation? What about the universe in which we live? Uh, well, let's start again with certain forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. They would hold, along with the Greek philosopher Plato, who got his doctrines from them anyway, by the Pythagoreans, they would hold that the supreme deity, the supreme being, whatever you call him, is not responsible for this universe.
The supreme being, being of that such undiluted purity, would never have ever considered creating matter. He did create lesser deities, and they in turn created still lesser, lesser deities, and at that level they each possess creatorial powers. Alas, so it happened that one deity down the rank somewhat, as the Neoplatonists would have said it, went and used his creative powers to create matter. Alas. And matter is somewhat undesirable.
It is down the scale somewhat, unfortunate. And we human beings are caught up in this because we're composed of matter. But matter is ultimately not to be desired, and therefore the goal of any wise man is to try and get free from matter, back to the, uh, earth, the universal soul or spirit. And so people have been taught to despise the body, to despise matter. Socrates, the great and famous Socrates, I do respect his memory, but he taught us that the body, you'll see, the soul, if it is wise, will keep as far away from the body as it can possibly be, because it is the body that, uh, defiles the soul.
Therefore, the soul, the soul's wisdom is to get as far from the body as it possibly can, and, uh, seek us to incur the least stain of the body. That lead to God? Indeed not. The one true God, creator of heaven and earth, as Genesis proclaims it, saw the work of his hands and said, it is good. Despising matter will lead you to God. Well, it won't lead you to Jesus Christ. He is God incarnate in a human body.
And if you think human bodies are, are not altogether desirable and not the ideal, then of course you will not respect the body of Jesus. So much so is the human body in its essence good. Ours are fallen, of course, damaged, but so far is the sinless body of Christ part of God's good thing. But the Bible declares the supreme act of our redemption is the resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ. So the Platonic theory and Hindu idea that matter is bad will not lead you to Christ, nor to the Christ bodily raised from the dead, nor eventually to any hope for this world.
The idea that our wisdom is to escape from matter, which is a kind of unreality, and get back to the center of things, which is the universal soul, goes clean counter both to God's original purpose in creation and to his ultimate purpose in redemption. The Bible affirms that there shall be not merely a new heaven, but a new earth. And so saying it holds out hope, not for us merely personally, but for nature and for the world. And then, um, let's come to what is wrong with us.
First, according to some religions, and then according to what the New Testament says. What is wrong with us? What's gone wrong? Suppose here a baby born with some handicap or other, some serious handicap. What has caused it? According to Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism, that baby has been born that way because of some sin it did in a previous incarnation. These religions hold in the doctrine of reincarnation, that a human soul must be born in a body, and then when it dies, if its wrongdoings have not been cleared, then it will have to be reincarnated in another body, either of a human being or even an animal.
The theory is that when a person sins, that person involves a tax, so to speak, of suffering, uh, a load of suffering. It's measured meat of suffering because of its sin, its karma. And the only way for that person to get released from its karma is by suffering the penalty and consequence of its own sin. If by the time it has reached the end of life, it hasn't suffered enough to clear that load, that karma of pain and suffering which it has incurred.
Then it will have to be reincarnated. If its sin was very bad, it will have to be reincarnated, perhaps in one of the lower and sometimes disgusting animals, do you see? Part of the suffering imposed upon that human soul. If the soul has been moderately good but still has not wiped out its karma, it could be reincarnated in the person of a nobleman or a king or something. But not until the karma has been wiped out can the cycle of repetitious reincarnations be put to an end, and the soul released from the need to be reincarnated and thus free to be united with the, uh, uh, the central ultimate soul, world.
That is what Plato taught too. As I say, he got a lot of his philosophy from Hindus via the Pythagoreans. To some people, and particularly in more recent decades, reincarnation has been appealing. I have no guarantee of what I am about to say. I fancy with many people it is this, that it seems to offer another chance. Christianity, with its doctrine of one life, and then after death, the eternal judgment, seems to many to be severe. They feel in their hearts that they are not ready to face any final judgment.
They say, how is it fair that for sins done in a finite lifetime of, say, seventy years, you then have to face an eternal penalty? So therefore they welcome the idea of reincarnation because it seems to be another chance, at least to work out and to suffer temporary pain so that eventually one might attain eternal bliss. But actually, the doctrine of reincarnation is one of the cruelest things that man's mind ever invented. Take a baby born with congenital, uh, ill, uh, handicap.
Is it so that this is a load of suffering because this human soul now in this baby's body, in some previous incarnation, committed some grievous sin, and in that previous incarnation didn't suffer enough to wipe out the karma coming from that sin. So it's had to be reincarnated. You say, what sin? Well, the poor child can't be told what sin. Some sin. Must have been a grievous sin then. Well, who knows? Ah, but there's another catch to it, isn't there? How long has this business of reincarnation been going on, so to speak?
How many times has it already happened with this soul that's in this baby's body? Has not the process of reincarnation been going on, if it, if it be true, from the word go? And if now after all these centuries and how many hundreds of reincarnations, the poor soul has not yet suffered enough. When is it likely ever to finish its suffering? Considering that now this time round again, it'll still sin and incur more suffering and more karma. What a cruel doctrine that is.
Leads you to God. Well, not the God of the Bible, of course. You see, in this theory of reincarnation, there is no such thing as forgiveness. That sounds startling, doesn't it? I am aware that some forms of Buddhism will talk of forgiveness, but in the classical kind, no. I remember vividly a Thai girl who came to our my university to conduct postdoctoral studies in chemistry, and through the grapevine she heard that there was this, uh, Christian chap who inhabited the Greek department, you see.
She asked if she might come and investigate him and find out what he thought Christianity stood for, you see. She informed the people who told her about me that she wasn't intending to get converted. She simply wanted to, honestly, to gen herself up on what Christians believe, you see. So she, one Saturday morning, she came to see me, and we had quite a long discussion. In the course of that, I happened to remark how wonderful Christianity is, because therein God offers us forgiveness, and when he grants us forgiveness, he wants us to know that we are forgiven. He doesn't say, so to speak, well, I forgive, uh, John's body here, but I shan't tell him I shall keep him on tenterhooks just to keep him on his toes of behavior.
No, when God forgives anybody, he wants them to know and lets them know, as the Bible puts it in its lovely terminology, be it known to you that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins. Lovely word that the Lord Jesus was so frequently repeating to people in their repentance. Be of good cheer, thy sins have been forgiven. So I said to my good Thai friend, I said, of course, if I mean, if you're, you've got a little girl, yes. I said, if she did something naughty and then she said sorry, you would forgive her, wouldn't you? I could do no such thing, she said. Who will I be to forgive anybody? No, if a girl has done something wrong, then she must bear her own karma and suffer for it.
I'm in no position to forgive her. Nor were any of her gods in position to forgive the girl. The girl must suffer. That lead to God? I want to quote the words of the Old Testament prophet Micah. Who is a pardoning God like thee, that, uh, casts all our sins into the depths of the sea and passes by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage, heritage. The incarnation will not lead you to the God that has manifested himself in Old Testament, nor in his son in the new.
That leads us, of course, immediately to the question of Sagar. I have talked of the contrast between Christianity and Hinduism over certain basic matters, and of Buddhism likewise. Let me now turn to two of the monotheistic religions, first of all, Islam and Judaism. Um, in Islam, we ask, what has Islam got to say by way of offering us a savior? Well, of course, its leader, prophet, and founder, Muhammad, never claimed to be a savior, just a prophet.
He is unlike Jesus Christ therein, claimed to be the savior of the world. Of course, Muhammad, Mu- Mu- Muslims honor Jesus Christ, do they not? They believe he was born of a virgin, and they put a lot of modern so-called Christian theologians to shame thereby. They still believe the truth that Jesus was born of a virgin. They hold he was a prophet. They hold he is coming again. And when he comes, says the Quran, he will announce to the world that Muhammad was the true and final prophet, you'll see. But the one thing they do deny about Jesus Christ is that he died on the cross at Calvary.
That they will the most emphatically deny. And if you should insist in their hearing that Jesus Christ did actually die, they will, if ever they're going to get ruffled and a little bit out of sorts, they hold it rigorously that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. As you will perceive, that idea, therefore, that he did not die cuts the very heart out of the Christian gospel. The gospel is how that Christ died for our sins. We notice that by Paul the Apostle. He doesn't say the gospel is Christ's high moral teaching with which all decent people around the world will agree, all religions included.
The gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he rose again the third day according to the scripture. Islam cuts the very heart out of it by saying that Jesus Christ. Now the gospels and the epistles, of course, in the New Testament constantly repeat the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. And Muslims, according to the Quran, are supposed to respect not only the people of the book, that is Jews and their Old Testament, but the Injil, which is the Evangelium, which is the New Testament, the gospel, shall say.
Uh, Muhammad taught his people to respect them. But if you should say to a Muslim, knowledgeable Muslim, that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, he will accuse you of having changed the Bible. You've altered that bit. He will say that the gospels originally written did not say that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and you Christians have altered the Bible to make it say that he did. I was in Jordan the other year with a good friend of mine who's a dermatologist, he and his wife in Jordan, uh, practicing dermatology and seeking to witness for Christ in that country.
And my friend introduced me to some of his colleagues, and one of them invited me to dinner and brought some of his senior friends in with him. And delightful people they were, not at all aggressive, gracious, sympathetic. They held, so they told me that they didn't agree with all this religious strife between Muslims and Christians going on in some countries. They, uh, uh, uh, uh, regretted it, deplored it. Do you see? When I happen to say something about Christ dying, do you see? Oh no, there is this, we we're all seeking the same direction, they said, but that no, no, no, you Christians have changed the Bible there, do you see? Eh, and having it now say that Jesus died on the cross, when he didn't die on the cross.
I happened to have in my pocket a pocket Bible, and I drew it out. I said, I wonder, gentlemen, would you allow me to read something? Well, they gave me instant permission. I said, now what I'm going to read to you was not written by Christians. In fact, it was written, uh, somewhat six centuries or so before even Jesus Christ was born. So we Christians didn't write it, and we Christians certainly didn't change it. Ask the Jews if you want to find out. We didn't change it. So I just read it. This was written six hundred years or more before Christ was born, and I read him those lovely verses from Isaiah fifty three.
He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquity, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed. He poured out his soul unto death, he made his soul an offering for sin. One of them, pointing his finger at me, said, you're going to say that's talking about Jesus, aren't you? I said, well, I shall later on. I wasn't just at this moment. I was just saying that this was written, uh, around six hundred years before Jesus was born, you'll see. Uh, we Christians didn't write it. This is Old Testament. And of course, they respect the people of the book, don't they?
I said, this is God, isn't it? Showing to his people what his plan was in the coming centuries for the redemption of mankind. A kind of silence fell upon the room for a moment or two. And then the senior man said, was that a Bible you had? I said, yes, it was. He said, pulling out a Quran, I have a pocket Quran in my pocket too. And we all parted a friends, of course. Yes. But that excuse that we Christians have, um, changed the Bible is actual factual nonsense, as any student of the manuscripts, uh, and textual criticism who knows anything about biblical manuscripts will tell you.
But then, not about Judaism. If you say to the Jews, have you a savior and redeemer? They say, of course we have. What do you think? God is our savior. Do not the ps- psalms proclaim it everywhere? God is our savior and redeemer. Of course we have a redeemer and a savior. It is God. They will tell us we don't need your Jesus to be our savior. But then, of course, one notices that in the Old Testament days, God not only gave those people his law to keep, but he ordained for them sacrifices of animals and things, so that when they broke his law, they might use these animals as sacrifices and be taught thereby by God the beginnings of the basic principles of redemption and forgiveness of sins.
Now, they don't have any sacrifices, do they? I remember at one stage in my university, some of us had what we called a forum. We were Christians, various sizes and shapes, and we used to invite speakers to come and talk to us. They could come and talk anything they liked, atheism, any old thing they could talk, so long as they allowed us to question them afterwards, which you see we did in very obviously fair-minded and and gentlemanly fashion, Dorothy. And one time there came the newly appointed rabbi from Belfast. Now he was a young man, and his high office had uh affected him a little bit. He came, and uh he was very Orthodox Jew, and he made the point to us assembled throng he that Judaism was glorious in this, that its laws were given to the nation when they were in the desert, all those centuries ago.
They were suited to the desert, said he, and you know what? Even though we no longer live in the desert, we've never changed anything. We keep the same laws as our ancestors did when they were in the desert. We keep them the same today. There is the glory of unchanging Judaism. I listened a little impatiently to that, summoning up my best manners when it came to question time, I asked permission to speak, and uh, I said, do I get you right, you've changed nothing? We've changed nothing, said he. I said, but didn't your fathers in the desert have animal sacrifices appointed by God, so that when they had broken his law and repented and now wish for forgiveness, they had to bring a sacrifice.
Do you have them still? No, he said, no, no, no, but we have, we have the equivalent, you see. Uh, in those days, for instance, they bought a sheep or a bullock, and that cost them money. And our rabbis tell us that nowadays, when we sin, we can just contribute some money. And yes, the very few present were convinced by that. Those sacrifices weren't a fine to be paid into court, either a bullock or the equivalent in cash. They were a symbol, weren't they, of the basic principle, without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. That was God beginning to teach people in the nation's infancy that things cost, that yes, he can forgive sins, but not by saying sin doesn't matter.
Sin's penalty must be paid. Here was a figure, a parable, pointing to the great reality that should be when John Baptist proclaimed the approaching Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I was lecturing once, eh, in, uh, the Christian Union in the University of Cambridge, many young years ago, and I had been asked to lecture on the first and second books of Kings in the Old Testament. Towards the end of the series, a young student came up to me and, uh, graciously thanked me. He said it was marvelous for him to hear his Old Testament expounded like this.
He apparently was a Jew. He said, you know, why don't our rabbis expound the Old Testament in the synagogue? I said, I didn't know. Don't they? He said, no, they don't. I said, what a pity. We Gentiles could do with them. Why don't they get up and preach to us Gentiles, anyway, some Isaiah, those glorious passages in Isaiah that denounce idolatry. I said, we Gentiles are fast going to idolatry in our modern world. Why don't your rabbis get up on their hind legs and and preach the Messiah to us? But he didn't know. Anyway, we became friends, and he came to dinner once or twice, still said. So eventually I said, plucking up courage and getting to know him, I said, you know, I'm an old Gentile, but I don't believe in just any old God.
I believe in the God of Abraham, you know. It was Jesus Christ who brought me, as a Gentile, to believe in the God of Abraham. There's very few Jews who've done that for Gentiles, aren't there? I said, you know, I have tremendous, and I meant it, this was, this was absolutely sincere, tremendous, uh, uh, respect for your Old Testament law, and for the declaration that behind the moral law stands the authority of the Almighty Creator. We need it, I said. Morality is not a matter of subjective opinion, nor mere social contract. Behind true morality stands the authority of the Creator.
I admire Judaism for standing for it. I said, I, I also admire the fact that in the Old Testament, your Old Testament, uh, the Tanakh, as they call it, when you, uh, people sinned, they had to bring the sacrifice, didn't they, of animals to get forgiveness of sins. He said, yes, that's true. I said, tell me, what do you think? Do you think that the blood of those animals actually atones for sin, put away sin? No, he said, of course not. I said, well, what was it then? They were symbols, perhaps, were they? Yes, he said, they were symbols. I said, symbols of what?
No, no, he said, no, no, no, no, don't you press me any further. No, no, I, I don't want our friendship to be spoiled. I said, okay, I shan't press you any further. But I did allow myself, before the evening was out, to point to a sig- what seems to me a significant thing. That when the nation as a nation, not all individuals, but when the nation as a nation persisted in its rejection of Jesus Christ, God allowed their temple to be destroyed. Thereafter, they have not had the place, the only place on earth where they would be allowed by God in the Old Testament to offer a sacrifice.
They can't offer it because they have no place to offer it at. I said, is that a coincidence, do you think? And finally, come to the terms upon which we can receive and enjoy salvation. You'll see, here we must distinguish between what I would call Christianity on the one hand and popular Christianity on the other. Because it seems to me, without being unduly critical, that popular Christianity has deteriorated into a mere religion.
So that when it comes to the question, how can I be saved, and on what terms, and can I know I'm saved, popular Christianity will give the same answer as most religions will. Most religions have some kind of initiating ceremony, a gateway at the beginning that is followed by a path, a course of religious practice and discipline, hoping thereby to improve oneself, and then at the end another gate, which is some form of the final judgment. Now you can be through the first gate by some religious ceremony, you can be on the way of the road trying to improve seriously, but in religion you cannot know what the result is going to be at the end, whether you'll be accepted by God the Almighty at the end of the final judgment or not.
You cannot be told that. And there are many in Christianity who hold that view too, don't they? They seem to think that salvation is like a university degree. You know, if you want a university degree, well, of course, first of all, you have to qualify to enter the university, don't you? You won't get a university degree if you don't get in, and to get in you must qualify, you'll see. Ah, yes. Now, once you're in, that's good. That doesn't guarantee you're going to get the degree. Now there's the course to be taken, and the dons, oh, I know from personal experience, oh, a kind-hearted set of men and women, and they'll do their utter best to help you to get through and wish you through and do all in their part to get you through.
Oh, how kind I have known them to be. But not one of them could guarantee to get that you'll get through at the end. That can only be known after you've done finals. And people think of religion like that, don't they? That is true in any religion we would like to get, Islam or Hinduism or anything. Christianity is different, isn't it? Yes, there's an entrance, repentance and faith and being born again. There is a road, our spiritual development to maturity. The glorious thing is, however, that in Christianity you don't have to wait until the end to know whether God will accept you or not.
You can know it now. That is the extent of the love and mercy of God. Our Lord is on record as saying two wonderful things. First, I am the judge. I shall be the judge at the final day. The Father has committed all judgment to me. So now as he speaks, he speaks as the judge who will be the judge at the final judgment. And he says, verily, verily, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes on him that sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into the condemnation, but has already passed from death to life. That is a marvelous thing, isn't it? You can meet the final judge here on life's pathway, and through faith in him, receive from him a verdict that is final and irreversible, has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.
How is that possible? Because while Christianity exhorts all believers to make moral and spiritual progress, Christianity affirms that acceptance with God is not by our works, but through our faith. I want to stress that because I have criticized, haven't I, other religions in some sense. I'm not unaware that much popular Christianity has failed really to grasp its own gospel. I was traveling once from Belf- uh, from Dublin to Cork City in that fair land of error.
The train was full. There was one seat beside a priest. I took it and sat beside him. I had to preach that end weekend in Cork, and I got out my Greek Testament and was reading it, you'll see. Presently, curiosity, I suppose, overcame him. He said, uh, and what might that be? I said it's a Greek Testament, and went on reading. He said, it's unusual to see somebody reading a Greek Testament on a railway train. Why do you do it? I said, because, well, to be honest with you, sir, I said, because I'm a believer in our blessed Lord, and I'm one of those who am so grateful to God that I have absolute assurance of salvation, that I shall never perish, I shall never come into condemnation.
I know I'm saved, and it so fills me with gratitude, I want to read everything else our blessed Lord and his apostles said. Oh yes, he said, they're very good, but you can't know you're saved, of course. I said, really? Why is that? Well, he said, it depends on your works, my good man, he said, doesn't it? I said, does it? I didn't know. Yes, he said, yes. You remember the parable our Lord Jesus told, didn't, don't you, of the men that got the talents. The one that works, they were all right. The one that didn't work, he was put out in the bad place, says he. I said, is that what that parable means? I never knew that before. I said, you see, because I said, for instance, I, I, and I turned in my Greek Testament to Romans chapter four.
I said, let me read you this. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but as of debt. Yes, he said that is what is he saying? It is to him that worketh, you see. You have to work. I said, hold on, old chap, just a moment. It says to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned not of grace, but as of debt, you see. If you could earn salvation, you would put God in your debt, wouldn't you? He'd have to pay you. You can't do that. Listen to the next verse. But to him that worketh not. What about him? Oh, he says there's no hope for him. I said, hold on. What it says here is, to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.
He said, I don't know what that means, says he. I didn't know it was in the Bible. That was written by Paul, wasn't it? He was an old rogue, says he. No, well, it's not really to be laughed at, is it? Sincere profession of Christianity. But here the difference between mere religion and the salvation that Christ offers, not grasped, in fact denied. And so it is with all mere religion. The glory of the real God is that in his son Jesus Christ, he offers us a salvation that, because it is not of our works, can grant us the peace of acceptance with God here and now, and assurance of his heaven beyond.
Yes, of course, it doesn't mean that Christians are free to do as they like and sin. But God has provision for that, not just mere exhortation, but a new birth, a new spiritual birth in which God imparts his Holy Spirit and gives his people the wherewithal to begin to struggle against sin until the time comes when they shall see the Lord, and in seeing him be transformed to his likeness. Do all religions lead to God? Obviously not. For mere religion says when you've done your best, you can't be sure that God has accepted you. Says Christ and his apostles, the moment you repent and believe, you access into the very holiest of all of the presence of God.
That in- ends my answer to your question, very roughly put. And as you see, I have labored sincerely and strenuously not to go on till nine o'clock tonight, as I did last night. And so now we have at least ten minutes left, according to our schedule, in which, if you have questions, our good chairman will moderate them for me. Right, has somebody got a question in that they would like to ask, either on something that's been said tonight or from one of the previous nights? Who's going to be the first?
Nobody got any questions? Yes, Richard. I'd like to ask the doctor, what is God going to do with all these very sincere people that are following, uh, other religions? What's he going to do with them in the end? It's very unjust that he doesn't let them into his heaven. He's not right. Uh, yes, you're prompting to in me all sorts of philosophical and theological questions, sir. But, um, what will God do? First of all, in my prayers to God, I would say like Abraham, when God announced his imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin, Abraham pleaded for the city and argued with God, shall not the judge of all the earth do right?
So that's my first basic principle. The second principle I would, uh, uh, hold to is that the Old Testament, uh, se- the New Testament says, Romans chapter two, that it is God's intention by his very goodness to lead men to repentance. That God does for all men by his goodness, trying to lead them to repentance. And if God tries to lead to men to repentance, it follows in my understanding that he will have a salvation for them. If they are prepared to take it.
Thirdly, I noticed what Paul says in Romans chapter three to the effect that the value of, uh, the death of Christ not only reaches forward to us in our age now, but reach backwards to former ages. So Paul says that through his great sacrifice as a propitiation for sin, Christ has shown God to be perfectly just and righteous in two respects. He was just and righteous in passing over the sins done aforetime. Meaning what? Well, take the case of Abraham, for instance. He believed God.
He'd never heard of Jesus, but he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. God accepted him on the grounds of faith. If you say, how could God possibly be righteous to accept Abraham simply because he believed in God, when Abraham, of course, was still an imperfect man and from time to time sinned, how could God be just in accepting Abraham? And the answer is that Abraham's sins, as God knew, would one day be atoned for by God's son at Calvary. In light of Calvary, God passed over his sins, and Calvary has now shown that God was perfectly just in forgiving Abraham's sins.
Yes? Then Romans says, the death of Christ shows God's justice at this present time, that's in the centuries since Calvary. God's justice, that he might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. Now notice this time the personal name Jesus. You couldn't have known the Savior's name until he was born. This age does know his name, and therefore it is through faith in him and his name that, uh, we are justified, and the death of Christ justifies God in accepting and pardoning those that believe in Jesus. Now, that being so, I recur to the remark about the Old Testament people.
Abram was forgiven and accepted by God because he believed God, though he knew nothing about Jesus. Since God is no respecter of person, persons in every race and at every time, those that have cast themselves on the mercy of God in sincere repentance and put their trust solely in the, uh, supreme God will be covered like Abraham was covered. We need to be very sure, however, they will not be covered because of their reli- their pagan religion.
That is important to notice. Baalism in the Old Testament led nobody to God, even though the priests of Baal were so sincere they cut themselves with knives and danced upon their altars. All that kind of religious sincerity would not lead anybody to God. What God is prepared to do is to justify those who, conscious of their sin, as best they know how, so to speak, in repentance, cast themselves on the mercy of God. Those who seek to gain salvation by their good works shall never attain it thus, either in past ages or in this age. That is, sir, as I understand it.
We have another question. You're very easily pleased tonight. Yes. I don't think they should hang out this question time too long, should I? I mean, they shouldn't be allowed to, to hang things out too long. You have a question. Pardon? Well, to answer that question, sir, I, I would want to ask one or two others. Eh, I want to know, first of all, about what individual Catholics you are talking about.
Because, uh, there are Catholics who put their faith solely in Christ and his work, who do not offer the Mass as a sacrifice to forgi- to obtain forgiveness of sins, you'll see, and put their faith solely in Christ. That is one thing. Uh, do you see, I think such people are certainly saved, and I've met some of them. Many of them, in fact. But if you ask me about the doctrines of the Catholic Church as enunciated by the Curia, then I have to say in all honesty, they frequently seem to me to contradict Holy Scripture straight out.
Take the matter of offering a sacrifice to get forgiveness of sins, as is plain they do from the Missal, at least our Irish Missal, and from the fact that they offer the sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it, for the dead, that they might be released from purgatory. Now, the New Testament says that if you meet anybody that offers, continues to offer a sacrifice in order to get forgiveness of sins, that person has not yet a conscience made perfect. Meaning, uh, if they had had a conscience made perfect and were assured that their sins were gone, they have complete acceptance with God now and forever, the Bible says they would cease to offer sacrifices.
So, if I find a Catholic who offers the Mass, the sacrifice of the Mass, or any other sacrifice for that matter, to get forgiveness of sins, then I am obliged, I do believe what the Bible says, here is a person who has not yet a conscience made perfect. I do my best, and I have done it many times in study, Bible studies with Catholics in their homes, gently to point them to Holy Scripture and to the wonder of God's salvation, because Christ's sacrifice is enough to cover all our sins. The Bible says there is no more process of offering for sins.
Yes? Does that begin to explain? Yeah. There are several other things I would want to test in the Catholic Missal, and particularly in the, in the official doctrine set out by the Magisterium. I want to test it alongside of scripture. I was talking to a Sikh not long ago. Yes. Um, and he said to me that, um, when he is with different religions, he does what that religion requires. Oh yes. When he's Christian, he does so on, so on.
Mm-hmm. And he said that he can find it with God. I said, well, when you're with these different religions, how can you do all of them when they're connected to each other? Well, I haven't worked that one out yet. What would be the next step that you would point out to him? Uh, yeah, well, yes. I would like to meet him first, but, uh, you'll see, but then, uh, to come alongside him, do you see? Uh, if you ask me i- in abstract, I would say that that is an attitude typical of religion. Uh, I speak as a classicist. I'm not a theologian, as you've already gathered.
I am a classicist. I taught the Greek and Ro- Latin, uh, do you see? Language, literature, civilization, and so forth. That would be a, a, a, a typical, uh, pagan attitude. The Romans didn't mind which gods you, uh, uh, sacrificed to or, or worshipped, as long as, of course, you sacrificed to the god of the state. It was a gentlemanly thing to do. If you were in Rome, you offered sacrifices to the Roman gods. If you were in Athens, you could offer sacrifices to your own gods still, but you offered a sacrifice to the Athenian god, Athene, you'll see. That was the gentlemanly thing to do, because that is the very basis of idolatry. There are very many gods, and while you, uh, might be attached to one of them in particular, you also ought to reverence everybody else's gods, because they're gods in some sense, you'll see.
And so if a man like your friend, a Sikh, says to me that, uh, of course, as a Sikh, he does Sikh things, but when he's with Christians, he does Christian things, you'll see, when he's with Muslims, he does Muslim things. I should say, well, there's a man that is, I don't mean pagan in the, uh, vicious sense, but the, uh, uh, the attitude of the ancient world, pagan in that sense, non-Christian sense. That is a typical attitude. And generally, those things are all saying that you do these Christian things to get salvation. You, uh, uh, pray to your own God specially, but it doesn't, it doesn't harm you to pray to other gods. They could add their weight to help to get you saved, you'll see.
And I would want to inquire whether he's, what he's expecting from that, doing these Christian things. What Christian things, you'll see. So very often, people like that, looking upon Christianity, uh, think it's a sys- system of symbols, and you sing hymns, okay, they'll sing hymns. And you have prayers, well, they'll have prayers, you see. And you have the ceremony of bread and wine, well, they'll join in that as well, without beginning to perceive what it stands for, and without personal repentance and faith solely in Christ, you'll see. So that is the way I should begin to, uh, uh, come at it and ask him what he was expecting to get out of all these various performances of Christian, Muslim, and Sikh affairs, and see what he's at.
Hello. Why do you say the Christian needs no shoes? Why can't a Christian, you know, have a garden in their own home or their own life? Why, why do we need no shoes? Well, because the Bible says to Christians, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. That's number one, you'll see. I had a friend i- i- in England, when I went to lodge in a certain city, and he had been a s- a stark atheist, you'll see. He got converted one night, uh, he heard, I think it was Billy Graham preaching over the radio, was overwhelmed by a sense that God was offering him something which he must accept, and if he didn't, it could be fatal.
And there and then, atheist though he was, he got down on his knees and accepted Christ as savior. And he said, I, I, I, when I woke up the next morning, I said to myself, now, is this real? Will it last? Has it lasted? And lo and behold, it had. So he went on, but he said to himself, I don't need to go to church. I can be a Christian all by myself. And so he proceeded until reading through his Bible, as he now began to read it, he came to that particular verse, not assembling, uh, uh, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is. Oh, he said, I do have to go to church then, and to church he went. Secondly, of course, there's a deeper sense, isn't there? When we are converted, the New Testament explains it's not merely we are personally saved and forgiven, but we are baptized in one spirit into one body and made to drink of one spirit.
In giving us the Holy Spirit, when we trust Christ, Christ joins us first to himself and then to every believer, to form the body of Christ. And Christ's intention for that body is that it should work together as a body. And therefore, if we refuse to, to follow the instruction of the New Testament, and suppose we ca- we will get on okay if we're just individuals by our little, uh, lonely selves, we are to that extent defeating the purpose of Christ in forming the body of Christ, yes? And then a whole host of other reasons would be my answer. Mm-hmm.
We better stop, Henry. Yes, good. I'm sure that there wouldn't be a question that, uh, you wouldn't get a satisfactory answer to, but we must stop, and it just falls to my lot on your behalf to thank Dr. Gooding very much for the past four nights, or indeed, and and the Saturday and Sunday as well at Rossland, for those who heard him there at the missionary conference, for the time that he spent in our city and for what he has shared from the word of God and, uh, from his own experience and, uh, the many opportunities that the Lord has given him to share his faith under all sorts of situations that we can never even begin to imagine, let alone find ourselves in.
So thank you very much, David, and we do want to, uh, wish you God's blessing as you continue through this country and trust that many, many more will be encouraged as they listen to your ministry. As we close in prayer, I want to use as a prayer, um, the words of a chorus in our book, because I think, uh, as I was listening to the message tonight, they sum up something of what we have heard. Shall we pray? I believe in Jesus. I believe he is the Son of God. I believe he died and rose again, and I believe he paid for us all.
I believe he is here now, standing in our midst, here with the power to heal now and the grace to forgive. And all the people said, amen.
