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 3.62 → restored 4.64
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
It has been a long time my getting here, or so it seems to me. But now that I'm here, it's nothing but a delight for me to be with you, and I find it a real and genuine honor to be invited to lead your thinking in the course of these seminars. I'm encouraged by the fact that you are to be allowed questions, because not only will your questions contribute to my deeper understanding of these things and a more balanced view than perhaps I shall myself present, but they will allow me, in the course of these seminars, myself to be a trifle more dogmatic at places than perhaps I ought to be, because you will have the opportunity to come back at me and to restrain my wilder enthusiasms, and together we shall work towards a better understanding of the truth.
One tiny matter, uh, to begin with, through my own fault, my grievous fault. On page two of your seminar notes, there is a typist's error. Page two, which begins seminar one, The Justice of God's Judgments, has as number four in the list the fourth scripture. On your page, it appears as John five twenty two to twenty five, when all the while it ought to be John fifteen twenty two to twenty five.
Now, the general aim of these, uh, four studies, and the context against which we study them, and the background, and the different attitudes, particularly with those who may well find themselves in substantial disagreement with me. These things have been set out in the preamble, and so that we may get on with our business, I'm going to take it for granted that you have had time or will make time to read the preamble. All I wish to do here is to emphasize what our major aim and motivation is.
We are to study the glorious gospel of the blessed God, so that we may, as we study that glorious gospel, come into deeper understanding of the character of God, his love and his justice, his goodness as well as his holiness and severity. And we shall study the character of God as it is revealed in this his glorious gospel, so that in the first instance our hearts may well up and our spirits likewise, in the more fervent and genuine adoration of the wonder that God is in himself, and that our worship may be deepened, and with it there shall come that same divine compassion and attitude that God has shown to those that are around and as yet are lost.
And we ourselves may be the more motivated to carry that gospel to them. Our motivation, therefore, is that, uh, as we ourselves, through the study of God's gospel, come into deeper understanding of his character, we shall ourselves, ourselves be saved from holding any views and preaching i- any ideas that would derogate from the glory of God and misrepresent his character. That, I know, is a very high aim and not necessarily easily accomplished.
And I could well be criticized, I suspect, before I have finished these seven seminars, in being myself guilty of holding various misunderstandings of his word that would, if taken to their logical conclusion, undermine the glory of God, for which I ask God's pardon in advance. We all of us surely are, as we would say, beginners in the school of Christ. We have so much more to learn of our infinite Lord and Savior, uh, that while our hearts wish nothing but his glory, sometimes our misunderstandings must vex him and dishonor him.
God give us that due sense of humility about ourselves first, and humility towards others who disagree with us, lest the wonderful things of God's gospel become, as they have in some quarters, occasions of fierce hot debate and not a little unchristian acrimony and rejection of one fellow Christian. That would be a sad outcome of our study if it were to ferment such strife among genuine believers. Now then, our first topic for this afternoon is to consider the justice of God's judgments.
Not merely in general, but in particular, the justice of God's judgment as it is stated in the New Testament, chiefly by our blessed Lord Jesus himself, and as it comes to light in the description of the final judgment. So without further ado, let us first begin with the book of the Revelation and chapter twenty, verses eleven to fifteen. And here we shall be looking for that ultimate criterion. What is to be the ultimate criterion upon which God will consign some to eternal perdition and others to glory?
What is the decisive point in God's summing up and in his verdict. Let us read, therefore, the Revelation twenty and verses eleven following. And I saw a great white throne and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them, and they were judged, every man according to their works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. I want to make from this passage two what seem to me to be important observations.
Shall we notice in verse eleven the very careful, verse twelve rather, the very careful distinction between the two groups of books that there are mentioned there. The books were opened, says verse eleven. We notice the plural, the books were opened. And then, distinguishing it from that first group, this second, and another book was opened, which is the book of life.
The book of life not therefore to be confused with those other books. The importance of making this observation is shown when we come to the function of those two groups of books. We are told twice over, verse twelve and then again in verse fifteen, that the dead were judged, uh, by the things written in the books, according to their works. That in twelve, that again in verse thirteen.
Uh, they were judged every man according to their works. But then in verse fifteen, it becomes very clear that the thing that decides whether any particular person shall at last be banished to the lake of fire. The criterion that decides it is not the person's works. It does not read that when each man or woman was judged out of the things written in the books according to their work.
Then, if any person's works were found to be insufferably and intolerably bad, they were cast into the lake of fire. It is exceedingly clear. They were cast into the lake of fire if any man's name was not found written in the book of life. It is impossible, perhaps, to exaggerate the importance of that distinction. I'm not aware myself of your technical terms in legal matters and processes here in the United States.
In England, we distinguish between the verdict that is rendered by a jury. Is the person guilty or not? We distinguish between the verdict and the sentence which the judge then pronounces. Suppose a man is accused of murdering his wife, and the evidence stands clear against him. The jury might certainly render the verdict he is guilty. So it could happen in a second case where a man was accused of murdering his wife, and the evidence was clear, and the jury likewise return a verdict of guilty.
But though the judge might be the same in both cases, he would not necessarily, in our law, impose the same sentence on these two men. One man, for instance, might have done it with evident months of deliberate preparation and in cold blood have murdered his wife. And another man might have pleaded that if only your honor you had known my wife and what a targe she was, and how she made my life an absolute misery, do see. And in a moment of exasperation, I killed her, though I didn't intend to, and I've repented of it ever since.
And the judge might be, uh, moved by such considerations to pronounce a sentence of life imprisonment on the one man, or, as it now is in Britain, about six months imprisonment on the other one. The verdict, according to the works, must be that all of them come short of that there can be no doubt. We know that what things soever the law says, it says to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped. The verdict can be nothing else but guilty.
They who are consigned to the lake of fire shall not, however, find that their sentences are exactly the same. For here they shall be sentenced according to their works. And for some, our blessed Lord himself, who is to be the judge, said, of some it shall be more tolerable for them in the day of judgment than for others. The self-righteous woman, full of good works that she did, done alas in pride of spirit and in constant refusal to humble herself and own her sinership, her worthiness of being damned, and her need to be redeemed.
Such a woman, if she is consigned at last to the lake of fire for refusal to repent and believe, should not be punished with such punishment as shall befall the monsters like Hitler. For even in the sentencing, God is a God of justice. While the sentences therefore will differ, that is why they are, uh, sorry, while the verdict and, sorry, while the sentences differ because they are according to people's works. We come back to the point that the passage makes.
The thing that decides whether anyone shall be cast into the lake of fire will be not their works, but whether their name is found written in the book of life. That, of course, is an exceedingly basic principle of the gospel, is it not? When, as believers, we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and he examines our works, some he shall assess as being good, good work, and if it passes criticism, it shall abide.
Other work he will have to describe as shoddy, and some valueless, so that we are warned in the case of some that our works could be burned up. Scripture, however, hastens to add that the man whose works are burned up, he himself shall be saved, though so as by fire, because salvation never did depend upon works anyway. Believers, therefore, shall be judged according to their works, as Scripture affirms, for the reward or otherwise of what they have done in the body.
But thank God they shall not be cast into the lake of fire. For I repeat, it doesn't read that if any man's works were found substantially below standard, then he was cast into the lake of fire. For here works have nothing to do with this verdict. The verdict is, is the name written in the book of life. It is to be noticed in passing how carefully the phrase is used. If any was not found written, so the book will be examined, though God is all om- is omniscient and knowing all things.
Notice the phrase was found, meaning upon examination it was found, not to be written, as though Almighty God, out of the tenderness and infinite compassion of his heart, would even then be glad to find that a name had been written. But alas, turns out not in fact to be there. This then one criterion of judgment is the name found written.
That raises a question, of course. If a person's dismissal to the lake of fire or not depends on the name being found written in the book of life. Um... How is that to be explained? Name written in the book. And how does the name get written in the book? These very practical and necessary qu- questions surge into our hearts, do they not? Some people have called attention to phrases such as one finds elsewhere in this same book of the Revelation, chapter seventeen and verse eight.
Talking of the reign of the beast and all the pseudo miracles or apparently genuine miracles that he will do. We are told that some they shall wander after him, masses of the populace shall wander after him, they whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. That verse, though it does indeed say from the foundation of the world and not before the foundation of the world, some ver- some that verse, however, and others similar, have been taken by some to imply this, that before the foundation of the world, God chose some of his creatures to create them so that thereafter he might redeem them.
And upon so deciding, he, so to speak, wrote their names in his book. The names, therefore, were there from all eternity, so to speak. Other people he decided to pass by. Their names were not written. They never were written. God had no intention of seeing them written in the book. And therefore, these people, being sinners like the rest of us, they could never have their names written, whatever they did.
It was a foregone conclusion, though they knew it not, perhaps, but it was a foregone determination and decree from God that they should at last be cast into the lake of fire. There was nothing they could do about it. In its more extreme form, that doctrine is held, therefore, that God created some people simply for the purpose of damning them eternally for his greater glory. We shall have to inquire whether that kind of interpretation is right.
And so leaving that question in our hearts, stored now for a while in our memory, let's turn to another statement of the criterion of the final judgment, this time in the Gospel of John, chapter three and verse eighteen. John's Gospel three verse eighteen. It reads, he that believeth on him, that is on our Lord Jesus, is not judged. He that believes not hath been judged already.
Why? Here the reason given is because he has not believed on the name of the Son of God, of the only begotten Son of God. From this it appears that the charge against them is their own failure or refusal to believe. And if somebody is going to be condemned for not believing, ordinary everyday justice might suggest to us that the man ought to have been able to believe if he had chosen to.
For, to condemn someone for not doing what he couldn't possibly do would sound on the surface to be unjust. But there it stands. The judgment is that he has not believed. Now notice that. Because some there are who will say that the final judgment, at the final judgment, God will consign some people to the lake of fire simply because of their sins. We have just seen that that is not true.
From Revelation twenty, God will consign people to the lake of fire, not because their works are bad, but because their names are not written in the book. Here it is said that the final condemnation is this, not that their works in general were bad, but they refused to believe. They believed not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Another reason is given in verse nineteen of this same chapter. And this is the judgment, so now we have it twice repeated. This is the judgment, meaning this will be the final criterion of someone being condemned.
This will be the case against them. This is the judgment that the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. So not only are they condemned for not believing, they are condemned on the ground of their own personal preference. They loved the darkness rather than.
It was their personal preference. Of course, they had their background reasons for this preference, as the verse goes on to explain. Uh, he that, uh, uh, uh, everyone that does ill hateth the light, and so he prefers the darkness rather than the light, for his deeds are evil. That's the reason why he, for his preference. But it is the preference that is the basis of the final verdict. He is condemned for his personal preference. Notice how fair and just the condemnation is.
The judgment is that light has come into the world. You'll see, had the light not come, the man could not be accused of having preferred the darkness to the light. A man that has lived in a lightless prison cell all his days, born there, lived there, and about to die there, and has never seen the light, that man cannot justly be accused of having preferred the darkness to the light, for he never saw the light.
The judgment is that the light came, and the man saw it, but preferred the darkness to the light. Here is our blessed Lord, who is himself to be the judge. Telling us what the grounds of the verdict will be. Man's refusal to believe. Man's own personal preference of darkness rather than light. You will say that's a very bad taste, of course, in anybody, a very bad moral taste.
Is it not a flaw in their character to prefer darkness to light? And then your heart of compassion moves you, doesn't it? You say, well, look at that, uh, that, uh, little boy there of seven years old, and he won't eat his cabbage that would be so good to him, you'll see, but will insist on eating candy floss and sweets for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, do you see? And so that this time his taste is utterly perverted, poor child. He thinks candy floss is the very best taste ever invented by man, and he abominates the greens that his mother wants to put before him.
You say you can't blame the poor child for that taste, can you now? That was the way he was brought up. Could it be that men do prefer the darkness, but, uh, they have developed a taste, and they are hardly to be blamed for the taste they developed, seeing the world they lived in? But such an excuse will not pass muster. I refer you, if you haven't read it recently, to our Lord's long argument with the Pharisees, recorded by Matthew in his gospel, chapter twelve, from verse twenty two to verse thirty seven.
This conversation, not to say argument, that our blessed Lord had with the Pharisees, is what you might say a fore view of what proceedings may well be like at the final judgment. For our Lord, who as we know is to be the final judge, says to these men eventually in verse thirty six of Matthew twelve, and I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. The situation was that the hostility between the Pharisees and our Lord had been simmering and coming to the boil.
When our Lord did a miracle on a Sabbath day, and the Pharisees decided they had had enough of this, they could not deny it was a supernatural act. But they were determined not to admit that this supernatural power that was evident in our Lord Jesus was from God. For if the power by which he did the miracle was from God, then Jesus was the Messiah, and they must bow at his feet and crown him Lord of all. That they were not prepared to do.
So, as I say, they could not deny that the power was supernatural. But rather than it admit it was of God, they chose to say the power was the power of the devil himself, and by the prince of demons, does this Jesus of Nazareth cast out demons? And had I been Peter, with Peter's normal permission to speak when he shouldn't, I would have said to the Lord, now look here, Lord, don't trouble with these men anymore. They are so deliberately perverse, Lord. Turn on your heel and go.
You're not going to convert them, Lord. They are determined to reject you. Leave them and go and preach to the prostitutes and the sinners that are more ready to listen to you. But not our Lord. He stopped and faced these men. And talked to them. As one day he may have to talk to them again. They had determined to reject him. They preferred the darkness to the light. So now what will he say to them?
His argument is this: Gentlemen, you know in your heart of hearts that you are being absolutely perverse, morally perverse, intellectually perverse. In order to make out that my power is not of God and that therefore I am not the Messiah, you are prepared to say I am in the grip and in the power of Satan. Ah. So you honestly believe, do you, that Satan has turned these latter thirty years to defeating himself.
Is that your considered opinion, gentlemen? That Satan has arisen against Satan, and Satan, without your help, is now in process of demolishing the fortresses of his own empire. Of course, in your heart of hearts, you don't think it. How would prisoners in a dread fortress of a castle ruled over by a merciless and powerful tyrant, how could they be delivered unless their first, their deliverer first put the old tyrant out of action?
How could this man before you have been delivered from the power of Satan, unless I had been against Satan and overpowered him? Gentlemen, in saying I'm doing what I do by the power of Satan, you are being knowingly perverse. And anyway, if I cast out demons by, uh, the Prince of Demons, tell me, your sons, they cast out a few demons from time to time, don't they? Uh, um, um, um, and by what power do they cast demons out? And I expect the Pharisees stroked their beards, and if they dared to reply, would have said, they do it by the Spirit of God.
Oh, and what's the difference between them and me? The result appears to be the same. And the difference? Well, everybody knew. For when their sons cast out demons, their sons didn't claim to be the Messiah. But when Jesus cast out demons, he did claim to be the Messiah. And if God Almighty was using our blessed Lord to cast out demons, here was God's authentication of Christ's claim to be the Messiah. And that's why they were driven to this absurdity. To say that Jesus was casting out demons by the Prince of demons.
And I say, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord. Look, there are millions of unconverted people out there. Why are you stopping with these foolish men? Because our blessed Lord has his eye on the day of judgment. One day those men will stand before their judge, and says the Lord Jesus, in the day of judgment, gentlemen, you'll be acquired to account for these foolish words that you have said. Oh yes. When men stand before the judge and are accused of preferring the light, the the darkness to the light, they will be made aware by the judge that as they made their choice, they knew that they were being perverse.
Why will the judge of all the earth stop to argue with his creatures? Because he's just. He will not send any man to the lake of fire on some arbitrary decision. For every knee in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, shall bow and recognize the moral right of our blessed Lord to execute judgment. But now, having raised the question in these words, the final judgment is man shall be condemned because he has not believed.
Could he have believed? That is not a impractical academic question, because the view has been advanced for many centuries, as you know, that mankind are divided into two groups. There are those who, by the decree of God, before the foundation of the world, were decreed to obtain salvation. Their names are then written in the book, and to them, as was apro- at an appropriate time, God gave them the gift of faith so that they could believe.
Others, by a similar decree before the foundation of the world, these were ordained to eternal punishment. They couldn't escape it. Why not? Well, to escape that punishment that all without exception deserve, they would need to repent and believe. But having been ruined through the fall of Adam, as unregenerate men and women, they couldn't possibly believe. It was impossible for them to do it. But in spite of it being impossible for them to believe, they will nonetheless be condemned for not believing.
And if you should inquire how it could be possibly just of God to condemn a person for not doing what that person couldn't do anyway, the reply may well come back to you in the form of an analogy. Now, please understand, as I quote the analogy to you, that it's not my analogy, it's, uh, from those that hold the other view. And it says like this, that there are times when a judge may rightly condemn the man in the dock for not doing something that he couldn't do.
Take, for instance, the man that appears before the local magistrate, and the magistrate fines him to two thousand or twenty thousand dollars or whatever it is, and a day or two in prison. What for? says the, the, the man in the dock. Well, says the judge, you know, when the police stopped your car and they asked you to get out and, uh, walk down the white line in the middle of the road. You didn't do it, did you? You didn't walk straight. And the man says, but you're not, you're not condemning me for that, are you?
I am, says the judge. Ah, but, says the man, but I couldn't walk straight. And you're condemning me for not doing what I couldn't do. Couldn't walk straight. Yes, I know that, says the judge, and I'm going to condemn you for it too, because it was your fault that you couldn't walk straight. As the Irish put it, you had had too much drink taken. So it would be just, wouldn't it, sometimes to condemn a man for not doing what he couldn't do. When it comes to this great matter of eternal judgment, and the criterion being he has condemned already because he has not believed.
The question becomes exceedingly urgent. Could that person believe if he or she chose to? We're not talking abstract theology, are we? We may be talking of your next door neighbor, for all I know. We may, ma'am, be talking of your dear eldest son. Here to our comfort we have the words of our blessed Lord Jesus. And I turn now to two statements that he made, recorded for us in the gospel. The gospel, that same gospel, Gospel of John, that give us the definitive answer to our question.
The first passage is the Gospel of John and chapter nine, verses thirty nine to forty one. And Jesus said, for judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see, and that they which see may become blind. Those of the Pharisees which were with him heard these things and said unto him, Are we also blind? Jesus said unto them, If you were blind, you would have no sin.
But now you say, we see, therefore your sin remains. First, we must make sure that we have understood the phrase that our Lord Jesus uses in verse 41. If you were blind, you would have no sin. That does not mean that these persons would be sinlessly perfect. To have sin means to be guilty, to be blameworthy. Uh, that something is your fault.
And what our Lord is saying to the Pharisees is, if you were blind, you could not have sin. In the context, as we know, and we shall consider it in more detail on another occasion, God willing, in the context our Lord has given a man who was born physically blind, has given him the faculty of sight.
Physically blind, the man could not have seen anything. And when our Lord was asked, whose fault is it that this man is thus born blind? Our Lord replied, it's neither his nor his parents. God would never think, would he, of condemning a man for not seeing physically something he couldn't see because he didn't possess the faculty of sight. Suppose a man stands at last before the great judgment seat, the judgment throne of God, and the judge solemnly consigns him to the lake of fire.
And the man says, but may I ask a question? Yes. Why am I being condemned? And the judge replies, for not seeing this book in my hand. And the man says, but I can't see any book. And the judge says, of course you can't, you stupid man. You're blind, aren't you? Of course you can't see the book. You don't have the faculty of sight. And says the man, and I'm going to be consigned to the lake of fire, am I?
For not seeing, while I couldn't see. And the judge says, yes. All men, my friend, heaven would grow dark at such a perversion of justice. It will not be. This we can say on the authority of the judge himself. If it is true, if you were blind, if you didn't possess, and now our Lord is talking in spiritual terms, if you did not possess the faculty of sight, you would have no sin.
You could not be blamed for not seeing. There is the judge speaking. Ah, of course, said our Lord as he added this remark to the Pharisees. You, on your part, say you claim to be able to see, don't you? Now you say you see. And take upon yourself the responsibility. You can see all there is, can't you, gentlemen? So you say. You can see so much that you can see I am an imposter and a liar. And you take upon yourselves the responsibility.
Now then, in that case, your sin remains. But if a man is genuinely blind, he will never be condemned for not seeing what he could not possibly see. Thus says our Lord. Now that is the subjective side of a problem, the inner thing, a man's ability to see. In chapter fifteen we have the objective side of this. Let's read the passage. It is chapter fifteen, twenty two to twenty five.
Said our Lord, if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin. But now they have both seen and hated both me and my father. But this cometh to pass that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law.
They hated me without a cause. And as you now perceive, this puts the objective side. Chapter nine, the subjective side, this the objective side. Let me illustrate what I mean by those, uh, barbarous philosophical terms. Here I have in my hand my own prize computer. Uh, you put the ink in one end, press the other end on the page, and words come out of it. It's called a pen. If you are going to see that pen, uh three conditions have to be fulfilled.
Yes? The pen has got to be there. You won't see it if it isn't there, will you, what? Objectively, the pen has got to be there. Wouldn't be your fault for not seeing it if the pen wasn't there, would it? Or could you see it if it wasn't there? Secondly, the pen could be there, but to see it, you would have to have the faculty of sight, wouldn't you? For even though the pen were there, if you don't have the faculty of sight, you still won't see it. That's a subjective side, isn't it?
Ah, but there's still another condition to be fulfilled. If you're going to see this pen, not only has the pen to be there, and you must have the faculty of sight, then there must be a light source that will shed the light on the pen. For suppose the room is in complete pitch darkness, the pen was there, you have the sight to see it, but there's absolutely dark, and you won't see it. The same is true of the blessed gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. If men are going to see it, they will need light to see it with.
Is it true that God lightens every man? It is indeed true, because scripture declares it. John's gospel chapter one and verse nine, the true light lightens every man. Secondly, we've just had it, that if men are blind and do not have the spiritual faculty of sight, they will not be blamed for not seeing what they couldn't see. Now we are to have the third side. If the gospel weren't there, men could not be blamed for not believing it.
Listen to our Lord as he enunciates the principle. If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. Here comes the phrase again, they would not be blameworthy. If I hadn't come and spoken, then they could not be blamed for not believing what I said, could they? You can't blame a man for not believing what he was never told. I have come, I have spoken, and they have heard.
Therefore, they are without excuse for their sin. Because I have come, I have told them. The gospel was there right in front of their noses. And I personally spoke to them. Now if they refuse to believe, they can rightly be judged guilty for not believing. But if I had not come and I hadn't spoken to them, then they would have had excuse for their sin. And our Lord repeats the principle, verse twenty four: if I had not come and done among them works which none other did, they had not had sin.
But now they have both seen, both seen and hated both me and my Father. Now let us notice carefully who these people are of whom our Lord talks. They are obviously unregenerate men and women, aren't they? They hate the Lord Jesus, though they've no real cause to hate him. They have seen him, and they hate him. And seeing him, they have seen the Father for the blessed Lord Jesus is the expression of the Father. And seeing the Lord Jesus, they've seen the Father, and they've has hated both Jesus and his Father. They've hated me without a cause.
Therefore, they have no excuse for their sin. If I had not done among them unprecedented miracles, such as none other had done, if the evidence had not been given them, they could not have been blamed for not believing what they never saw or never heard. You know, let's use our little analogy again. Suppose a man stands at last before the throne of Almighty God and is condemned to eternal perdition and says, may I ask a question?
And the judge says, yes. Why am I being condemned? For not believing in Jesus. And the man says, but... I... I don't know who you're talking about. Jesus? I never heard of him. And the judge says, well, of course you didn't, you stupid man. You lived ten th- thousand years before Jesus was born. Of course you didn't hear of him. And I'm being condemned for not believing something I never heard.
How could it be just? It will not happen, of course. Christ the judge tells us, if I had not come, they would have no excuse. Oh, sorry, they would have excuse for their sin if I had not come and told them. If I had not done the works before them, they would have excuse, but now I have come, and they have no excuse. That isn't to say that there is no other evidence. The epistle to the Romans in chapter one emphasizes this topic, doesn't it? All men have some evidence of God.
Chapter one and its first paragraph of Romans says that through the creation, God has given men evidence enough of his Godhood so that they may be without excuse. Done on purpose. This is evidence deliberately given. The men can see if they will, and if they reject that evidence, they have no excuse. God has placed a law written on Gentiles' hearts. You can see its presence by the way they accuse people of wrongdoing, but then you'll find that the very people that accuse others of wrongdoing presently do the same thing themselves.
You are without excuse, says Holy Scripture. You know you do wrong because you condemn it when other people do it, and you've done it yourself. And you despise God's long suffering. His long suffering was meant to lead you to repentance. You could have repented if you like, and God gave you space to repent, and you knew you had done wrong. Therefore, you are without excuse if you continue impenitent and refuse to cast yourself on the mercies of God. This matter of excuse, of course, as you'll see, is an exceedingly important thing when it comes to the question of the final judgment.
If men, therefore, are going to be condemned for not believing, my claim today is that it must have been possible for them to believe. Whatever the evidence given, how much or little, it must have been possible for them to believe if they had chosen to believe. But there are many of the contrary view. There are some who take the scripture in Romans five and verse twelve following to argue on its basis that an unregenerate man cannot believe, and, uh, what is more, it is his fault that he cannot believe.
Why is it his fault? Well, because he was in Adam when Adam sinned. And therefore, the man is guilty of the sin of Adam. And the guilt of Adam's sin is to be imputed to the man. He was in Adam when Adam disobeyed, therefore God counts it as though he himself had disobeyed. He is guilty of Adam's sin of disobedience. The consequence of that sin is that he was born unregenerate and unable to believe, but it's his fault because he brought it on himself when he was in Adam and sinned when Adam sinned.
Now that is obviously a very strong argument in the minds of many, and in the minds of many able and honored interpreters of God's holy word. It is not a view that I share, as you see. But then we have no time to discuss it here this afternoon. I have raised all kinds of questions in the second page of your notes for this afternoon session to stir you up, might even be in a good Christian fashion, to provoke you full sore. But you see, I shall be all ears to hear what you have got to say on this topic when we meet for our question time.
