Okay, thank you all for joining again. I want to start off tonight with a correction. I made an error last week when I said that Augustine's mother had several years with him after he became a Christian. That's incorrect. She passed away the same year he was saved, but she was blessed to see the results of her prayers. I apologize for that error. So as we start now, let's remember why we're doing this. I had read the book several, several years back, almost 20 years now, Christianity and Liberalism, and like I said, I thought it was a good book, but with all that's been going on in our culture, I went back to it after I did the Machen lesson last year and reread it, and it was just, right spot on for what we're going through. There's so much that he addresses. So we said, well, can we learn from a book written 100 years ago? And I said, yes, I think we can. So that's why we're doing this. I think it's still able to speak to our situation now. So let's begin this week by reviewing, once again, the definition of liberalism. It's, quote, a movement that interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science, and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of man's reason and his experience over doctrinal authority, end quote. And as we said before, the words interpret, Modern knowledge, science, ethics, man's reason and experience are all variables, to use a mathematical term, meaning they aren't fixed and permanent, which immediately differentiates this movement from historic Christianity. As Jesus would say, building upon a movable and changeable foundation, such as these things, is like building on sand. and realize that this is not a definition that was given by the opponents of liberalism in order to put the flaws in the strongest light. It was the definition given by those pastors and theologians within the movement in itself proudly displaying the banner they were marching under. But I want to remind you that though liberalism was claimed by most of the mainline denominations to be a new interpretation of the Christian religion based on these changing variables, Dr. Machen points out again and again that it is not Christianity at all, but a different religion entirely. because the heart of the true Christian religion is based on the historic, unchanging fact of Jesus' resurrection after his death, not, as liberalism contends, only an appreciation and emulation of the lessons learned from his life. Let me suggest that if you didn't hear the first two messages, that you listen to them in order to get the most benefit from this one. Now, in the first two lessons, we looked at the fundamental differences between liberalism and Christianity in two areas. First was liberalism's approach to doctrine in general. And second was liberalism's understanding of who God is. We saw that by denying the need for doctrine, Liberalism opened the door to a religion based on man's changing ideas of who God is. And as you can imagine, the next step, which is what we'll look at tonight, was to redefine who man is. And at the intersection of God and man is, you got it, sin. So the next logical step was to redefine the nature of sin. And that's what we're going to be looking at tonight, the nature of man and the nature of sin. But I want to warn you in advance, this is a depressing lesson. Just know that. As we begin, it shouldn't surprise anyone that liberalism's view of man and sin are both directly linked to the view or views of God that we looked at last week, each of which diminished and dethroned God in various ways, from denying his holiness, to denying his separateness from his creation, to denying his personality and seeing him only as an impersonal force or process. These views of God allowed a view of man to emerge that was very flattering to his bride. with a holy God out of the way, liberal pastors and theologians then affirmed that man was not flawed, but was fundamentally good. Now, that's really what they said. Good enough, in fact, deep down inside, there was enough goodness that they believed it would provide the basis for a hope that society could be remade, if only men were encouraged to follow the loving, self-sacrificing example of Jesus. Dr. Machen said that the liberal belief about man and his potential was, quote, that the world's evil can be overcome by the world's good. No help is needed from outside the world. End quote. So once again, we find the naturalistic principle applied, no supernatural religion allowed. But notice that with the concept of doctrine in general, and the doctrine of God in particular, we saw that there were multiple approaches and multiple distortions and denials. With the doctrine of man, however, we find the most consistent and easily articulated of the denials and distortions that we'll look at throughout. And that is that man is good. And while it seems truly hard to believe that anyone who is aware of the world around them could actually believe that, The reason it worked was that it was a welcome message about themselves that was vastly different from what the church had been telling people all the years before. People found that it was finally possible to live the way they wanted to and still be pronounced good by those that had up to that point constantly bothered their conscience with unattainable standards of behavior and unpleasant consequences for failure to meet them. Dr. Machen says that one of the reasons for this view was the emerging victim mentality that pointed to outside causes for bad behavior. He said that World War I, which he called the Great European War, he didn't know about World War II at the time, which had only ended five years earlier, caused people to look almost exclusively outward toward the sins of other people and forget about their own sins. And he says, that view then, quote, joins forces with the collectivism of the modern state to obscure the individual personal character of guilt, end quote. He goes on, quote, nowadays, if John Smith beats his wife, no one is so old fashioned as to blame John Smith for it. On the contrary, it is said, John Smith is the victim of some type of propaganda. And Congress should be called an extra session to take up the case of John Smith. End quote, meaning John Smith is not responsible for his actions. Something is making him do it, and the government ought to do something about it. Not by addressing his behavior, oh no, but by addressing the external conditions that caused him to act that way. Now remember, this was 100 years ago. Think how far we've come down just that path. in those hundred years. But back to the book. Dr. Machen explains the reason that this frankly unbelievable view of man could emerge. The view was that he was innately good and was not responsible for his actions. And this view could emerge even right during and after the horrors of World War I was that there was no acknowledgment of the evil predisposition in man's heart. Man is good. There's nothing wrong with his heart. And there's no objective transcendent standard for measurement of right and wrong. The holiness and righteousness of God as revealed in the Bible was denied, to the point that in many cases, God, as we saw, became undefined even in the religious language, as in, we're in the hands of providence, or may the great good shine upon us. and similar such vague and impersonal references. Instead of a personal god, he was a force or a process or even an absentee god that created the world but left everything in it, including man, to work itself out without interference or judgment. And because of that view, liberalism made the astounding claim that sin does not exist. Yes, you heard me correctly. Sin does not exist. Now, I know that that statement sounds almost too far-fetched even for liberalism to suggest, but it is perfectly consistent with their view of God, since the most common word for sin in the Bible is defined as failing to hit the target or missing the target. And in liberalism's view, which you recall is based on man's reason and experience, No target was ever established because there was no transcendent holy God to establish the target. So then logically, man is not failing. And even to suggest that he is failing tears man down instead of building him up, which is the goal of liberalism. And therefore, man is not accountable to anyone except to his fellow man. In that view, there is no sin as we understand it biblically. Now, a short aside. Though Dr. Machen doesn't state it explicitly, this view of man denies the existence of Adam and Eve and the reality of the fall in the garden. because its primary supposition is naturalism. Remember, no spiritual realm, only physical reality. And the existence of God isn't allowed in such a view. The initial probation and trial of our first parents is viewed as merely a moral story that doesn't have any impact on reality other than what we choose to learn from it, which is up to the individual. The fallenness of man is disallowed and the solution to the destructive behavior that's undeniably observed around us is to have more education on how to be a better member of society and how to encourage growth, personal growth, in order to progress beyond the current stage of antisocial behavior. End of the aside. Dr. Machen saw that all of this was dishonoring to God, dangerous to the souls of men, and damaging the truth message of Christianity. For liberalism to deny the need for doctrine and then to deny who God is and to further deny that sin exists and to still call the resulting system of behavior Christianity was not to be tolerated. And even though he had to confront and strongly disagree with a great many powerful men in multiple denominations, including eventually the president of Princeton, where he was a professor, and the leadership of his own denomination, he was determined to shine the light of biblical truth on these teachings so that others that had not come under their spell could see the differences and even more importantly, understand the long-term results of adopting these views, which is unfortunately what we see playing out in the modern church today. Now, Dr. Machen says that the reason that all this happened was that paganism had replaced Christianity as the main view of life. And paganism at its core is based on naturalism. Once again, we see it, no supernatural realm allowed. Paganism is defined as, quote, that view of life which finds the highest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious and joyous development of existing human faculties," end quote. Dr. Machen continues, Paganism, quote, is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature, while Christianity is the religion of the broken heart, end quote. He says that unlike liberalism that pronounces man good, Christianity starts with a broken heart over sin. And that, he says, comes from hearing the whole of the moral law preached. Now, this was particularly important because at that time, liberal pastors and theologians were stressing the need to modify the message from the pulpit in order to maintain the allegiance of soldiers returning from the war. It was suggested that the soldiers would like it better if their little sins weren't treated as big sins. They wanted to be built up after the war instead of confronted with their own sins. So in order to meet with their approval, the message delivered from liberal pulpits was stripped of all moral weight and accountability. Dr. Machen then puts his finger on the flaw in that unbiblical view when he says, quote, with regard to such an expedient, such a procedure, it may perhaps be suggested, he's being very diplomatic here, that in the moral battle, we are fighting against a very resourceful enemy who does not reveal the position of his guns by unnecessary artillery action when he plans a great attack. In the moral battle, as in the great European war, the quiet sectors are usually the most dangerous. It is through the little sins that Satan gains an entrance into our lives. Probably, again, being very diplomatic, therefore it will be prudent to watch all sectors of the front and lose no time about introducing the unity of command, end quote. Meaning that the entire front is to be defended and no entrance left unguarded to the enemy. Now, one more slightly longer aside. Though Dr. Machen doesn't specifically address this, we should ask ourselves, what is the goal of liberalism and why it appears so different from Christianity? We should also think through the implications of the whole liberal view and realize that in order for it to hang together, it's absolutely necessary that certain long held beliefs be denied or distorted or redefined. As far as the goal of liberalism, one way to explain it is by remembering the character of the enemy of our souls and recalling that he has shown from the beginning that he wants us to disobey and deny God by feeding us lies and deceit. But he, our enemy, realized that if that were blatantly presented as the starting point and the goal, there could be resistance even by unbelievers of 100 years ago. But if the starting point is redefined as man, and the goal is to affirm and build him up and help him grow in all his natural abilities, then our defenses are down and all the things we've mentioned, the denial of God, the denial of the moral law, and yes, even the denial of sin are all deemed as necessary in order to accomplish that admirable goal. And the result is a fully rebellious church. that has no acknowledgement of God and no moral constraint, but is happy because it thinks it's doing great things and will not let anything stand in the way of its progress. The goal of the evil one is attained, but without the direct frontal attack, just as Dr. Machen mentioned. Now, think about it. This makes perfect sense to us, but only because we acknowledge the reality of that resourceful enemy that Dr. Machen mentions above, an enemy that isn't flesh and blood and doesn't inhabit this realm, but is part of the, quote, spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places, as Paul says. liberalism doesn't acknowledge that realm and therefore doesn't acknowledge the primary enemy of our soul. So what a coup for the evil one to get us to deny not only God's existence, but his as well, so we're not prepared for battle in that realm. In fact, in liberal theology, the whole notion of a battle is removed with all its dire warnings and consequences and casualties, and the picture of a happy, fulfilled, maturing humanity that is progressing in knowledge and wisdom is presented instead. But stop and think about it and recall the extreme similarity of that very liberal distortion to the deception that was delivered so long ago in the garden. In Genesis 3, the serpent said to the woman, you will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Or in other words, there is no battle. Learn all you can and fulfill your potential. At that point, the serpent didn't try to deny the command not to eat the fruit. He just distorted it. And he didn't deny that there would be consequences to their disobedience or even that God existed and had the right to give them the command. He just distorted the consequences along with God's motives and character and denied God's goodness and truthfulness. and it was all happening in real space and time. It was just being reinterpreted by the evil one, and recall that the interpretation of Christian teaching is part of the definition of liberalism. I hope these things are kind of hammering into your head, because as I read them and understand them, they just... leave me breathless sometimes. So think how far we've come down the road with this deception, to the point where the church denies all the biblical teaching about God, man, and sin in the name of Christianity. Once again, alarm bells should be going off all over the place. Liberalism appears to be doing the evil one's work for him, all the while claiming to be doing good for mankind. That's the end of my aside. Now, back to the book. Dr. Machen says that while it is the work of the spirit to bring about the awareness of sin through preaching the moral law, he also emphasizes something we said last week, that in addition to preaching the moral law, Believers living out the moral law in their own lives will also be used by the spirit to convict the world of sin. He says, quote, it is quite useless for the preacher to breathe out fire and brimstone from the pulpit if at the same time the occupants of the pews go on taking sin very lightly and being content with the moral standards of the world. the rank and file of the church must do their part in so proclaiming the law of God by their lives that the secrets of men's hearts shall be revealed." End quote. And as we said last week, thankfully the Spirit is not constrained by the imperfect lives of believers, but he can and he does use even feeble obedience by Christians to show a sinner the emptiness and selfishness of their lives. Obviously, our motive for putting away sin and following the Lord shouldn't be so that we can be seen by the world. It should be done for love of Him who purchased us, but we must let that love truly be seen in words and in deeds so that people, especially in this day and age, are brought up short by a kind and gentle answer or a selfless sacrifice of time and money. or a devotion to truth in spite of painful consequences. Let your faith and your love be seen as well as heard, as James says. So with all of this in mind, the dethroning, diminishing of God, the overly optimistic view of man, the elimination of the concept of sin, the necessity of preaching the whole moral law, and the need for the true Christian church to live out what they say they believe about God, man, and sin, Dr. Machen closes this chapter with the following, quote, The fundamental fault with the modern church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task. She is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the church without requiring them to relinquish their pride. They are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens his Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows. Quote, you people are very good, he says. You respond to every appeal that looks to the welfare of the community. Now, we have in the Bible, especially in the life of Jesus, something so good, we believe it is good enough even for you good people, end quote. Such, he says, is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits, but it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and we shall be no more successful than he." And 100 years later, we can still say amen to that. So now we come to our three questions. One, has this view of man and sin gotten better or worse in the last 100 years? Two, does our confession have anything to say? And three, how do we need to think about it for our own benefit and for our loved ones and friends? So for the first question, has the view of man and sin gotten better or worse over the last 100 years? And by that, I mean, has it gotten more biblical or less biblical? And I think you all know the answer to that question. And we could literally spend multiple lessons on the distortions of man and sin that are alive and well in the culture and in the church right now. But bear with me while I give you just a couple of examples. And from this point forward, it gets pretty depressing. especially as we think about the world that our children and their children will be facing, both within the culture and the church. Now, in spite of the denial of man as God made him, and fallen man as he became afterward, the reality of man's fallenness is undeniable, except by those who refuse to see it. as was shown 20 years after Dr. Machen wrote this book. So think about when that was, 1943. There was a lot going on then. During that time, there was a war of ideologies. On the one hand, there was the church that said, number one, God is not there, but even if he is, he's not holy and just. Number two, man is basically good and he just needs better teaching and training. And number three, sin doesn't exist, but when people do bad things, see number two above to get more training. On the other hand, there was the world that said, Number one, there's nothing at all except what we can see, touch, feel, et cetera, and none of it has any meaning except what we give it. Number two, whoever has the will to power can define that meaning in whatever way they want to. Number three, there is nothing morally wrong then with whatever we choose to do. And in spite of having just endured the great European war or the war to end all wars that we now call World War I, a war that destroyed millions of lives and should have put an end to the church believing in the goodness of man, the church was astounded to find that the world was ignoring their pitiful message and proceeding in a way perfectly consistent with the view that God is not there, there is no meaning, and right and wrong don't exist. And at the end of those 20 years, the world found itself in another war to end all wars, and even more staggering and brutal application of the principles shown above by Germany against other nations, but especially against the Jews of their own nation. The church in some parts of the world stood in astonishment that this could happen, some of them even denying that it did, but many saw it as a natural and even inevitable outcome to those naturalistic, God-denying, man-centered policies that the church had been so eager to adapt in order to be relevant. Many things have changed since that time, Unfortunately, the church's desire to follow the world and man's fallen nature have not changed. You're all aware, I'm sure, of the battle over words and definitions in our culture that spill over into the church, such as, does the word man in the Bible mean men only or does it mean men and women? These play out in different ways, usually more rapidly within the culture, with the church following behind, trying to get the attention of the culture by saying something like, look, we're still relevant. We've got women pastors or we've got homosexual pastors. We're really no different than you are. which if you think about it is true, if what they mean by that is we all share the same fallen nature and tendency toward rebellion and sin and all its different manifestations. But if they mean you can't tell the difference between us and the world because we don't like the biblical restrictions on our behavior either, and we give free reign to those tendencies just like you do, then that church should be ashamed of their conformity to the surrounding culture and repent. But regarding the nature and definition of man, Both the culture and the church have begun to think in pragmatic, evolutionary, naturalistic, humanistic terms, meaning, as my former pastor Steve used to say, they've turned the telescope around and are looking at God through the wrong end, showing him as small and insignificant and very far away, even non-existent. and looking at man up close and filling up all the view. It's all about man and woman and what it takes to make them happy, displayed in ways that I'm sure Dr. Machen 100 years ago would have seemed impossible to conceive of. And even beyond what it takes to make both sexes of the human race happy, the sexes themselves are now no longer definable. and the number of gender identities at my last check is at 78, which includes agender, bigender, cisgender, gender expansive, gender fluid, gender outlaw, and transgender, and 70 more, all of which are expressions of rebellion against how God made man and woman. The recent book by Carl Truman titled The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self is not an easy book to read, but it dives deep into this world of what he calls expressive individualism and shows that far from running its course, there are yet further distortions and denials of what it means to be a man and a woman that are ahead of us. Nancy Percy, whom I deeply respect, says this about the steps which are going beyond all the gender identities. Quote, a movement calling itself transhumanism urges society to take charge of evolution through gene modification. Transhumanists argue that human life as it exists today has no inherent value or dignity. It is merely one step in an endless evolutionary chain, a chance configuration of cells that will be surpassed in the next stage of evolution. And why stop there? If humans are just a chance collection of cells, why not mix in cells from other species, creating human-animal hybrids," end quote. Transhumanists argue that there is no ethical barrier to splicing animal DNA in human DNA in order to create a post-human race. And to make you squirm a little more, combining humans and computers into cyborg, robot, android type of beings is seriously being attempted today, as I'm sure is the animal splicing. Indeed, the science fiction of the past seems to be rushing into our present day reality. As one scientist says, quote, we've lost even the concept of human nature. Life becomes a set of parts, commodities that can be shifted around to suit some geneticist's vision of progress." Now, like I said, it gets depressing. Now, because we're talking about the modern views of man and God, I'm gonna do something I've never done before. And that is I'm going to use a science fiction reference, actually two of them in this lesson. And the reason is that sometimes science fiction writers, in trying to predict the impact of certain technologies or trends into the future, see possibilities that others haven't considered and are able to craft stories that tell us things that we weren't expecting to hear or aren't willing to hear in any other way. Kind of like the prophet Nathan telling King David a story that moved David to righteous anger. But if Nathan had confronted David with the truth in the beginning, David might've tried to evade the righteous judgment that was due. But by telling the story about someone else in a different circumstance, he was able to get the king to agree with the man's guilt and pronounce judgment on him. And then he found the story was about him. Though many times these science fiction writers don't intend to give a moral or especially a spiritual lesson, or if they do, the one that comes across is not the one they intended, I've still found some valuable lessons in some of them. So in 1997, there was a movie about these very genetic manipulation scenarios that we've been discussing. A family had two sons. One was conceived and born the natural way, but the next was carefully designed through genetic engineering to provide a high-level mind, resistance to diseases, and all sorts of other admirable survival traits in order to ensure his success and his personal fulfillment. The world was becoming filled with these genetically engineered people, and testing their DNA for suitability and assignment to professions or for compatibility as marriage partners was commonplace. As the non-engineered son found himself unable to compete due to the results of his genetic tests, he worked harder and harder to give his life meaning. His brother, who was engineered to succeed, didn't work as hard and therefore didn't succeed. So that was the primary lesson the film was trying to get across. We can give our own lives meaning regardless of what cards we've been dealt if we just work hard enough. But there was an incident in the film that delivered a more compelling message that I think the writer must have subconsciously felt that he needed to add in order to make it more realistic and believable. One of the characters that was also genetically engineered had been assigned work on a highly important project, but wasn't satisfied with his assigned position. In spite of the utopian atmosphere and the assurance of personal satisfaction, fulfillment, and happiness, this person found it necessary to murder someone in order to get what he wanted. Now, while the purpose of the writer was to show what a wonderful society can come about with all the genetic technology and how the human spirit can soar even if his DNA isn't perfect, and to cast blame on the culture and the systems that didn't account for the needs of this one violent man, as a believer, I saw it as an unintended acknowledgement of the biblical view of man's fallen nature. You can engineer his DNA and dress him up and put him in a fancy job and give him a perfect environment, but you can't deny that his inward nature is still selfish and hateful and wretched. Regardless of what science tells us, you can't engineer sin out of man. This is a moral universe and we are the villains in it. The name of the movie was Gattaca, after the four nucleotide bases in the DNA chain, G, A, T, and C. I, however, think G-A-T-C means Genesis Awful Third Chapter. I hope you get that reference. In addition to the distortions within the church about the nature of man, there is much confusion about the purpose of man, which we as believers understand is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. But man and his desires and happiness continue to be the main focus of the culture and of a very large number of churches. Once God is removed from the primary focus, all the secondary things concerning man bubble up and strive to become primary in themselves. Yes, we should strive to be better ourselves in whatever we do, but no, we shouldn't do it in a way that neglects and harms our families. Yes, it's good to be happy. No, personal happiness is not the main thing in life. Yes, we should take care of others and seek to do them good. No, we shouldn't make that the primary task of the church. These are all good things, but as in many other areas, the good becomes the enemy of the best. Focusing on a horizontal plane is good. We are brothers keepers in a sense, but focusing only on the social gospel is wrong when worshiping and serving God is not the focus. The evil one loves to make us satisfied with doing a portion of what we should do and expecting the Lord to be satisfied with it, regardless of our motives or attitudes, or doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for what we think is the right reason, all of which have as their root cause taking God off of his throne and putting man in his place. As my former pastor Steve Martin used to say, a partial truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. And that's what happens in a lot of churches. Now, for the second science fiction reference, in my BC days, meaning before Christ, I read a science fiction short story that struck an amazingly clear note in my mind about how mankind views God and themselves, which carried over into my understanding once I repented and believed. Now, don't be nervous. I promise I'm not gonna propound some really weird theology. Just bear with me for a quick synopsis because it tells a very compelling story of how the world views God and man that is pertinent for us today. The story is called Evensong and it was published in 1967. This three-page story is disturbing but still worth pondering. The story describes a person that is being hunted relentlessly from planet to planet across the cosmos. All his efforts to lose the hunters are of no avail, and no place is found where he can be hidden from them. He doesn't know how many are hunting him, but his fear is growing. And he realizes as they close in on him that he must not give up. because he knows that the consequences will be unbearable for him if he's caught. Finally, he finds what appears to be a safe planet and a safe place on the planet, a garden. And this garden, when he steps into it, brings back strong associations, an echo of sorts of something that took place in the far distant past, something sad, heartrending and cataclysmic. I will quote the final lines from the story as the hunters close in. Come forth, this earth is a holy place and you cannot remain upon it. Our judgment is done and a place is prepared for you. Come forth and let me take you there. The voice was soft, but it carried a power that stilled even the rustling of the leaves. But words were useless, but the bitterness inside forced the words to come from him. But why? I am God. For a moment, something akin to sadness and pity was in the eyes of the hunter. Then it passed as the answer came. I know, but I am man. Come. He bowed at last silently and followed slowly as the yellow sun sank behind the walls of the garden. Now, as I said, it's a disturbing story, but it was told in a way that makes the awful reality of man's rebellion and pride and his ultimate goal to dethrone God and remove him forever from his rightful place as Lord of all. even more real and more painfully obvious. And whether that is said or published anywhere, it is the underlying goal of all of humanity without God's saving grace. So to answer the question we put forward originally, yes, the view of man and sin has indeed gotten worse, much worse, meaning that it's much less biblical than it was 100 years ago when Dr. Machen wrote this book. The concept of man as a broken, damaged, flawed creature rebelling against the law of a holy and just God has been replaced with the picture of man as a free and independent, noble being that is encouraged to develop all of his mental and physical abilities in order to overcome any and all obstacles that this meaningless universe brings his way. And he has the innate goodness to make the necessary sacrifices for the betterment of mankind, despite the resistance of those, regardless of who they are, who aren't enlightened enough to see and agree with this view of man as he imagines himself to be. Now to the second question. Does our confession speak about this? Yes, it does in chapter six, which is titled, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof. As mentioned last week, you can access Pastor Jerry's lessons on the confession in this chapter specifically on Sermon Audio. The biblical, factual, and historical point of view of the confession and Pastor Jerry's excellent teaching will help you understand these issues in much more depth and detail than I've been able to provide here. As I mentioned last week, the solution to the problem of liberalism's inflated view of man and its diminished view of God and sin is to read the confession and read the Bible references and listen to the lessons and read and read and read. Now to the third question. How do we need to think about this, about man and sin for our own benefit and for our loved ones and friends that are hearing these distortions, not only in the culture, but in the church as well? Well, first of all, just as we mentioned last week, and as Dr. Machen exhorted us earlier, how we live our lives will show the world how we view man and sin. we aren't convinced of our own fallen condition and the awfulness of sin, then our lives won't be any different than those in the world around us. And without quoting the numbers, you've heard the statistics about divorce and premarital sex and homosexuality and abuse of power and money and drugs and all the other things within the church, and they mirror almost exactly the statistics from the world. which is what you would expect from 100 years of the churches teaching people that God doesn't exist and sin doesn't exist and they are just fine the way they are, or in the other distortion, God isn't concerned with sin. He's just here to heal your hurts and make your life fulfilled and complete, whatever it takes. all of which denies the truth about God and man and sin, as we've seen. So whether we see and understand all the implications and ramifications of our obedience in our own small sphere of life isn't important. We don't need a big stage to show the world how we view God and man and sin. Our obedience in very small things, even in what we might consider the unimportant areas of our lives, communicates to the watching world and to the angels. Let us live like we believe what we say about God and ourselves. Without going into all the different philosophical theories about our existence, It is absolutely evident that we are dependent beings who did not create ourselves, but were created in an amazingly complex way physically with powers of mind and understanding that transcend just the bumping together of amino acids. and even further that we have a sense though it's imperfect and indistinct as though it's a remnant of a once pure and complete knowledge of a spiritual dimension to ourselves that encompasses our body and our soul and that connects us in a subordinate way with something or more rightly someone that is far greater and more powerful than we are. And beyond all of that, which exists as a fundamental part of our being, which we are all aware of, but which liberalism and naturalism would not admit to, by the way, beyond all of that, we're aware of another dimension to our life that has the sense of oughtness to it. It tells us that in spite of the modern conceptions of a universe with no meaning, We do not live and act as we ought to. It shows us the rottenness and selfishness of our being, even as we sense the incomparable goodness and high and holy greatness of that someone whose inescapable purity and brilliance pierces us completely through, and from whom we are prone to shrink and hide when we perceive his inescapable justice, and before whom our entire being stands condemned in rebellion. This, I believe, your conscience tells you is true of yourself if you will take the time to listen to it. That the liberal definition of God and man denies all of this is a great sin because it is denying the reality of the words that Paul speaks to us in Romans 1. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore, God gave them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossip, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil. disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." End quote from Romans. Those that preach the modern liberal theology, on the other hand, deny the moral law of God contained in the Bible and the requirement that we uphold it, downplaying and even ignoring the conviction of guilt that results when our conscience plainly and forcefully agrees with the Bible. That same liberal message then puts a false salve on our conscience. And then worse, the false salve sears our conscience so that the tender flesh of our soul is damaged and eventually becomes scabbed over, unable to hear or respond to the truth, even when it is faithfully delivered. The departure of liberalism from a moral universe to one of affirming nonjudgmental acceptance has for 100 years been shown to be a good way to build the numbers in the church by ignoring the reality and consequences of sin, but is bad for people's souls. Our loved ones and friends are no different from the rest of us, and none of us likes to be exposed as flagrant and rebellious sinners. But unless God works in their hearts and opens their eyes, they will be willingly led ever more swiftly on the broad road that leads to destruction. It is only through the Spirit's constant opening of their eyes to the truth revealed in the historic doctrines of the Bible that they will be able to see themselves, not as the good person they wish they were, or more truthfully, the good person they hope people think they are, but as the person they really are. With all their disgusting lust and greed and pride and anger and selfish ambition, But it is, as John Newton said 250 years ago, only those that see the true nature and extent of their disease that most willingly obey the prescription of the doctor. But let us be patient with those that are blinded by the God of this world. We should not be as those that I'm sure you've heard of or know personally that adhere to reform faith as a point of just plain pride and are only eager to learn so they can show off their knowledge and win religious arguments. They see religion as an area of their life where they can get over on others because others aren't wise enough to see what they see. Repent of this and recall what the Lord said to Israel in Ezekiel 36. It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I'm about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations you have profaned among them, and the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. And several verses later, he says, then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God. Let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel," end quote. Let us repent of that attitude and realize that we are fallen men and women, and at our very best, we are unprofitable servants. But we have a great God and Savior. God bless you all as you cling to the truth in spite of the temptations of your flesh, the threatenings of the world, and the roaring of the evil one. Amen. Thank you for your attention.