Newspaper Page Text
4
Trom Taith Unto Taith—Triday Nights WithTfimans
"By Reb. Len G. Broughton
Perhaps a word of explanation just here is nec
essary. These Friday night lectures by Dr. Brough
ton to his large, popular Bible class at the Taber
nacle were so rich and strong, that the stenograph
er’s notes have been worked out and carefully
revised by Dr. Broughton for The Golden Age.
There are sixteen of them and The Golden Age
will be glad to furnish back numbers to new sub
scribers. It is confidently expected that they will
be eagerly received as they contain the best
work of Dr. Broughton’s life and will greatly aid
the busy Bible student. Editor.
LECTURE 6.
God’s Attitude to Sin.
Chr. 1:19-3: 20.
I. PRELIMINARY.— What is sin? 1 John 5:14;
2 John 3:4. God’s attitude to sin.
“Wrath.” 1:18. Definition: “Wrath,” op
posite of love.
11. REASONABLENESS OF GOD’S WRATH.—
1: 21-23.
1. His law.
2. Revelation in conscience.
3. Revelation in nature.
4. Their conduct.
(a) Glorified not God.
(b) Gave not thanks.
(c) Vain in their reasoning.
(d) Hearts darkened.
(e) Idolatry.
111. THE MANNER OF HIS WRATH.—I:24 43.
1. Present.
(a) Hearts unclean.
(b) According to works.
(c) Without respect to persons.
(d) According to Paul’s gospel.
2. Future. —Judged by God, 2:1-6.
(a) According to truth.
(b) According to works.
(c) Without respect to persons.
(d) According to Paul’s gospel.
IV. RE-ITERATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY
OF SIN AND INSUFFICIENCY OF THE LAW
TO SAVE.
HAT is sin? There are two definitions
of sin. They are both in 1 John. The
first is in 1 John 3: 4, “Sin is the
transgression of the law.” The second
is in 1 John 5: 17, “All unrighteous
ness is sin.” “Sin is a transgression
of the law.” The revised version
translates it “Sin is Lawlessness.”
It is a disregard of law. It is disobe-
00
dience of the law. Then the next defi
nition, “all unrighteousnes is sin.” Keep in
mind the definition of “righteousness.” It will
help you to see the nature of sin. Under this defi
nition, righteousness is failing to come up to God’s
standard.
There are a great many people who think that
sin is doing something that God has told us not
to do. That is true, but it is not all of sin. It is
also failing to do what God has commanded; fail
ing to come up to God’s standard.
In our definition of “righteousness,” we tried to
point out how man in his natural state was unable
to balance God, and that God had to balance Him
self. You remember the figure of the children at
play on the see-saw. One child on one side and an
other on the other of equal weight, each one bal
ancing the other. When they balance each other,
there is perfect harmony—an easy swing. God in
all past ages demanded of man that he should
balance Him; that he should complement Him, so
that there might be no friction between heaven
and earth. But man was unable to balance God, so
Jesus Christ came, and He, being God himself,
The Golden Ate for September 8, 1907.
complemented God, and thus an easy swing between
earth and heaven was established through Jesus
Christ.
Now, righeousness is just that balancing of God.
Man cannot balance God. Deity could only be com
plemented by Deity himself, otherwise God would
not be God; He would not be just, immaculate and
pure, spotless and holy. In order for Him to be
balanced, He must have one on the other side just
as holy, as immaculate, as sincere, as pure, as spot
less as He Himself is.
So God came Himself in the person of Jesus
Christ and took His place upon our end of the see
saw, and through Him we obtain His righteousness
and are able to complement Him. God’s demand
of the race is satisfied through Christ when we are
in Him, and that is the only way we can satisfy
God, so that without Christ there is no satisfac
tion of God.
Through Christ Jesus we can look straight into
the pure eyes of the Great, Infinite and Holy God.
Out of Jesus Christ we have no standing -whatever
in His pure presence.
All failure to come up to that point is sin, and
all violation of the law is sin. What is God’s at
titude to this sin of lawlessness, transgression and
failure to come up to God’s desire for holiness?
You will observe that it is not said that the wrath
of God is revealed against man. God has no feel
ing of wrath against man. His wrath is revealed
against the sin of man. He is looking at sin, and
He hates sin, and the wrath of God is revealed
against the sin of man and not man himself. He
is love when it comes to His attitude toward man,
but He is wrath when it comes to His attitude to
sin, and hence He has gone to work and provided
away of escape from sin.
There are a great many people who shrink from
the idea that God is a God of wrath. They aie
fond of saying that God is a God of love. And
that is God’s normal condition. He is the very
embodiment of love. God’s wrath is against that
which is abnormal. Let God be placed in His nor
mal condition, and He is love, and everything that
issues from Him is love. If man had not fallen
in the Garden of Eden such a thing as wrath would
not have been revealed. The whole fight of God,
from the time that Adam fell in the Garden of
Eden until Christ hung upon the cross, was against
sin. Love would iiow like the stream tnat trickles
down the mountain side if it were not for sin, and
wrath is revealed against “all ungodliness and un
righteousness of man.”
Some people think that it is unreasonable for
God to thus look upon sin. The reasonableness lies
in the fact that God tried man by providing every
thing that was necessary to overcome this state of
abnormality. He provided: First, law. Man vio
lated that. Second, God provided instruction in
his inner conscience, and man went back on that.
Third, instruction with reference to nature, and he
went back on that. Then man’s conduct itself is
sufficient to justify the wrath of God against h's
doings.
“The wrath of God is revealed against all un
godliness of men, because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them; for God mani
fested it unto them. For the invisible things of
Him since the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being perceived through the things that a:e
made.”
THE REASONABLENESS OF WRATH.
We have here God justifying His wrath upon the
ground of His revelation of law. Then there is the
second revelation of Himself in the inner con
science of men, that which God has revealed in
them; for God manifests Himself to them. You
will understand that the Apostle is speaking of
heathen men and women, who had never known of
God. He is setting up the claim that they are
without excuse because, though they have not heard
of God and have not had the law of God, they
have had God’s revelation of Himself in their in
ner conscience. He has manifested Himself in
them, and then, also, because of “The invisible
things of Him since the creation of the world being
clearly seen.” The Apostle here sets up the sec
ond plea for justifying the wrath of God upon the
ground that God has given them enough, in the
things that He has created about them, the visible
things, enough to remind them of the existence
of the invisible. So he argues, “they are without
excuse. ’ ’
Then, take their conduct. This is sufficient to
justify God’s wrath, and when coupled with His
revelation, it more than justifies the wrath of God,
because that “knowing God they glorify Him not
as God, neither give thanks, but become vain in
their reasonings, and their foolish heart was dark
ened. Professing themselves to be wise, they be
came fools, and changed the glory of the incor
ruptible God for the likeness of an image of cor
ruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts
and creeping things.”
There are five things here specified in this bill
of indictment. First, they glorified not God. Sec
ond, they gave no thanks. Third, they became vain
in their reasonings. Fourth, their hearts became
darkened. Fifth, became idolatrous. Note
that he starts out with the assertion that they
knew God. They might deny it, but they knew
Him. They knew Him by the revelation in His
law. The Jews knew all about that. At that time
Jerusalem "was largely inhabited by Jews, and
Jews formed rhe pillars of the church in Rome. It
was through the efforts of the Jews that the
church in Rome was established. So they had the
revelation of God in His law.
Then, those who had not heard of God had had
the revelation of God in their consciences. Paul
does not stop to expound conscience. He states a
simple fact and leaves it for us to consider our
selves, and then m the revelation of God in the
things that he had made around them. So he says
they knew God, and yet in spite of the fact that
they knew God they were guilty of those things
that he mentions. Note the gradation of it. “They
glorified not God.” They knew Him, but di'd not
glorify Him. Oh, how easy for us to forget God.
I have never, never been so pessimistic as I am
at this minute with respect to the existence of sin
in the world, and the vilest sort of sin. It grows
out of the fact, in my opinion, of the great pros
perous wave that has been for so long a time sweep
ing over this country.
Failing to glorify God, see the next step. Os
course, they “neither gave thanks.” When God
slips out of our minds, there is not any need for
thanks, and so they ceased to give thanks. Today
we can hardly get enough people together in pray
er meeting to hold down the benches. A thank
less age is this in which we live. God has been
lost sight of. Sin is on the rage and even God’s
people are failing to give thanks.
Then the next step: “They became vain in their
reasonings.” This was the time when Rome lifted
her proud head and defied the world with her phil
osophy, when they became so ambitious in the
world of letters, and especially in the world of
philosophy, that they became worshipers of their
intellects, and during that period developed some
of the most gigantic reasoners that the world has
ever seen, and they became wild over the reasoning
of their minds They overlooked God, stopped giv
ing thanks, and they became worshipers of then
own intellects.
Is this not true of us today? We see it every
where. In the Sunday school class, in the uulpit,
in the demands of the pew upon the pulpit, in our
theological seminaries, in our colleges and univer
sities. The world seems to have gone wild after
the reasonings of men. But men are not saved by
philosophy.
The mind itself is depraved. When Adam went
