in our review of postmodernism. It is my hope that with another session or two, we will complete this review. And you might turn back in Errol Hulse's booklet this morning to the section that deals with deconstruction. I want to review what was dealt with last week by way of appealing to David Wells' book, God in the Wasteland. where he writes about this new epistemology. Epistemology is simply the study of how we know anything. And I want to quote and then draw out an illustration from David Wells concerning deconstruction as our means of calling to mind what was considered this past Lord's Day, and then we'll move on to the matter of moral relativism. David Wells, in commenting about this new epistemology that is deconstruction, says, and I quote, meaning has largely been detached from what is objective and, as a result, has become radically subjective. The argument of deconstruction is this, that texts have no stable and unchanging meaning that they simply mean only whatever an individual reader desires the text to mean. Words have no independent meaning apart from specific context. Moreover, the contexts that are crucial for meaning reside not in the sentences or paragraphs of the text, but rather in a given reader's internal psychology. That is, in the way the reader is inclined to understand it. And however he's inclined to understand it, according to deconstruction, that is then what it means. Thus, the subjective triumphs completely over the objective. And now David Wells gives us an illustration of this deconstruction at work. He says, take for example the sentence, quote, the sergeant looked at her carefully and then smiled warmly. And he asked the question, what then does this mean? The deconstructionist answer is that even in the context of a larger text, it all depends on which internal world of meaning fills out the words, the internal psychology of the reader. And now he illustrates the possibilities. Number one, a reader approaching the text as light entertainment, and again the text the sergeant looked at her carefully and then smiled warmly, a reader approaching the text as light entertainment might be inclined to view the sergeant's warm smile as simply the first spark of romantic interest. No matter what the context is, no matter what the words mean, it could mean that, because that's what the internal psychology of the reader says it means. But then there's the second possibility. A feminist critic might be inclined to view the sergeant as making a deliberate calculation, looked at her carefully—that is, in preparation for launching himself on a course of action that might end in sexual harassment. It may mean that because that's the internal psychology of the feminist, and nothing in the context or nothing in the ordinary sense of language can tell you otherwise if that's your internal psychology. Well, then thirdly, there's this possibility the reader may be a recent graduate of the military school. And again, in his case, the language means something entirely different, and who is anybody to say that he's wrong? A recent graduate of a military school might be inclined to find in the sentence a snapshot of the new face of the army, in which control—that is, the careful look—and humanity—that is, the warm smile—are blended. Well, the point is this. It is the reader, not the author, who provides meaning. Wells concludes, and it should be noted, that the significance of this shift in the source of meaning is not simply that it unleashes pluralism in places where it has not been known so plentifully before, but also that it aims a blow at the entire Western academic tradition in which it has been assumed that although words have ranges of meaning, authors also know how to limit for the reader what possibilities exist in a given passage. If the only meaning in a text is that which any particular community wants to give it, then what is normative in language as well as in life has been destroyed, and that's the agenda of deconstruction. More specifically, it is to destroy the plain sense and objective truths of the Bible. Well, now as we move on this morning in moral relativism, the second major tenet of this prevailing philosophy, and it would be interesting to know that since we've raised some bit of awareness of what this philosophy is, how many of you have come upon in the last couple of weeks evidences of this out there in the real world. But as we come now to moral relativism this morning, please open your Bibles to Romans chapter 2 at verses 14 and following. In fact, this is really an addendum to what we considered last week also with regard to moral relativism. I would direct your attention this morning to verses 14 through 16. In view of the aspect of postmodernism called moral relativism, and to the end, once again, that we not be daunted by this high-sounding nonsense, and to the end that we speak the gospel boldly I direct your attention to what Paul reveals here, beginning in verses 14 and following. Now, the context of Romans 2, 14 through 16, is the justification, the vindication of God's coming judgment upon all men. Note verse 11. For there is no partiality with God. That is, in the context, and this author knows how to limit the meaning of the words, in the context with respect to the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Verse 5, that is the present concern. The present concern is to vindicate the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. And if He begins to do that, He reminds us that when this day comes, it will come indiscriminately, universally. There is no partiality with God. And now note verses 12 and following. 12, 13, and 14. All of these verses begin with the word, for. The word, for, indicating that they are intended to support in an explanatory way this assertion of verse 11 of impartial judgment coming upon all men. And at verse 12, verse 12 supports verse 11 by setting forth that God deals with men according to the law they possess. And in verse 11, there are two kinds of men relative to the law they possess. We have, note the language, all, or in verse 12, all who have sinned without the law. And then we have, secondly, those under the law. Those are the two kinds of men, generally speaking, upon whom the day of wrath and the revelation of God's judgment is coming universally. Those without the law are who? They are those outside the circle of special revelation. That is, they are the Gentiles who did not have the privileges of the old covenant people. But then, again, verse 12, there are those under the law, they are the Jews who were within the circle of special revelation, those to whom God revealed His law at Sinai, those who had great light and great clarity. Verse 12 supports verse 11 and the theme of the impartial wrath of God In that, it sets forth that God deals with men according to the law they possess. And again, there are two kinds. Those outside the circle of special revelation and those within it. Further, note that in the structure of the paragraph that really runs from verses 12 through 16, note that verse 16 connects directly to verse 12. And follow as I read, omitting the parenthetical verses of 13 to 15. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. And all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law, coming to verse 16, the completion of the thought, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." The point is, verse 16 finishes the sentence of verse 12, and further, verses 13-15 are parenthetical and answer a question raised by the opening statement of verse 12. And that question is, how can men sin, let alone perish, without the law? Verse 12, for all who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. How can this be? How can men sin, let alone perish, without the law? That is, without the special revelation of the law. And verses 13-15 interrupt the flow of thought between 12 and 16 to address this question. Verses 13-15, in terms of their sense, and I quote John Murray, It is this, the theme is how can God be just in condemning those who have never had special revelation, who have never had the law revealed at Sinai. And in addressing this, Paul is going to speak of the knowledge of the law that they did have in general revelation a knowledge that justifies their condemnation. Even without the privilege of Sinai, they know enough morally by what is about to be identified in the realm of general creation to justify their condemnation. And as the text unfolds, the answer to the question, how can men sin, let alone perish, without the law? The answer, in summary, is this. By creation, by man's nature, men have knowledge of the moral requirements of God's law. They have a moral consciousness within. They have it innately. They have it inherently. And their conscience manifest this moral consciousness as it either accuses or defends them relative to their moral choices. Conscience testifies to a degree of moral consciousness that is sufficient for God to condemn men, even without the light of special revelation. Now note again verse 12 more particularly. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Quickly, verse 12 teaches the following. Number one, that those without special revelation, verse 12a, look at it in your Bibles, Those without special revelation, those without the law can and they do sin. They do not need the revelation at Sinai to sin. Those without special revelation can and do sin. Secondly, those without special revelation sin and as a result perish. And thirdly, this perishing is according to strict justice. Verse 13, for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified. Whether that law is the law that is revealed in general revelation or special revelation, God deals with sinners according to strict justice. But again, the objection, how can those without the law sin and perish? Note verse 14, his answer. And the answer is, Gentiles are confronted with the law, though not as a written revelation. Verse 14, for when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively, that's the language of general revelation, they do according to natural propensity. They do according to natural or inherent impulse. For when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these, the Gentiles, not having the law, are a law unto themselves. Again, as Murray writes, the law of God confronts them and registers itself in their consciousness by reason of what they natively and constitutionally are, and what law is being referred to. What law is in them instinctively? Well, obviously, in the context, it's the law under consideration. What law is under consideration? Come to the later portion of the chapter, verse 21. You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal? That's the eighth commandment. Verse 22, you who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? That's the seventh commandment. You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? That's the first commandment. What law is under consideration? Not the law of Leviticus. The Ten Commandments. That's plainly what the context reveals is on Paul's mind. He doesn't speak of their hypocrisy relative to the various feast days that are legislated in the ceremonial code. He's not speaking of the various civil statutes abrogated with the coming of the Church. Plainly on his mind, as to what is in the Gentile instinctively, is a moral consciousness of the Ten Commandments. Thus, we conclude here, there is a fundamental unity. between what we might call natural law, as natural law is defined by the Bible. There is a fundamental unity between natural law, or the law of creation, and the old covenant law written on tablets of stone by the finger of God, and the law of the new covenant written on the hearts of renewed sinners. The point in verse 14 is this. We are not to make a distinction between Jew and Gentile. We are not to make a distinction between churchman and pagan out on the street. We're not to make a distinction on the basis of what law is possessed. We all possess the same. The distinction is simply at the point of the form and clarity of that law. The Jew possessed the Ten Commandments in a different form. It was revealed at Sinai on tablets of stone. We possess that law as it has been written upon the heart. We possess it on this side of Calvary with the light of the new covenant shining upon it. Those are the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, between Christian and pagan. But the distinction is not at the point of what law they or we possess. We possess the same. But we possess it in a different form and in a different clarity. Now at verse 15, the explanation continues. In that, they show, and that's an interesting verb. The verb rendered in the NAS in verse 15, show, designates that which is externally displayed or the external manifestation of something hidden and unseen. In that, they show, they designate, or they manifest by their behavior a consciousness of what you can't see with the eye. That is, a consciousness of the Ten Commandments. The internal reality that is manifested is, following the text, the work of the law written in their hearts, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts. And this law is manifested by their doing instinctively the things of the law, verse 14, but then here at verse 15, This is manifested by their conscience bearing witness. Their conscience bearing witness is the evident proof, the external manifestation that God has put a moral consciousness within them. Within them, is the work of the law written on their hearts. And we're not talking about Jews, we're talking about Canaanites. Those without a Bible. And what is the work of the law? It is the sin-exposing, condemning work of the law, the work of pressing moral accountability upon men, the work of either accusing or defending them based upon their moral consciousness. The work is shown, the work is manifest in this way, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. What is it that is producing that in an unbeliever's heart? Why does he have any sense of right and wrong? It's because of the work of the law written in their hearts. Not the law written in their hearts. We're not talking about one of the great blessings of the New Covenant. We're talking about what God does in general revelation. that justifies the larger point, the day of wrath and the revelation of His judgment coming impartially upon all men, those with the Bible and those without. The work of the law written in their hearts is shown, is demonstrated, is proven by their conscience bearing witness That is, their conscience accusing or their conscience excusing. Again, in the language of John Murray, accusation or excusation, whether of ourselves or of others, are activities which evidence a moral consciousness and therefore point to man's indestructible moral nature, the only rationale of which is the work of the law of God in their hearts. The passage confirms the teaching of Romans 1, that is, the knowledge of God in those without special revelation. They know God as lawgiver. Hear Romans 2. They know God as lawgiver to whom they are accountable, and they don't need a Bible to know it. God has created them with that moral consciousness. Further, back in chapter 1, verses 19 and 20, the source of their knowledge of God without special revelation was creation without. Here in chapter 2, the source of their knowledge of God is their moral nature within. In chapter 1, 19 and 20, men know God as a Creator to be honored and thanked. Here in chapter 2, verse 15, men know by means of how God has made them. They know the moral requirements of His law. They have a constitutional moral consciousness. They know God is to be obeyed, and it doesn't take the Bible to tell them. Well, this is where we're going with that, with that confidence, with the confidence that our fellow Gentiles and our pagan neighbors and our pagan work associates have instinctively the work of the law written in their hearts, that work being manifest by their conscience accusing or excusing With that confidence in our postmodern age, we must renew ourselves to preach, then, the law of God over against this morally relativistic rubbish. We must press the law of God upon sinners that they might see their guilt and their need of Christ. We are reminded again here in Romans 2 that moral relativism, the second of the tenets of postmodernism, is just another form of truth suppression. In a way, it's no big deal. It's just another high-sounding, nonsensical form of truth suppression and rebellion. Just another evidence of human depravity. Just another way whereby men contradict what they really know within them. The moral consciousness God has created in them denies it. Denies their moral relativism. and declares moral right and moral wrong, and exposes their culpability, impresses upon them their accountability. And thus again, in our relativistic age, we must confidently proclaim God's law and God's gospel, supported by the testimony of creation. and supported by the work of the law within, that is, that instinctive moral consciousness that is the fruit of general revelation. Again, the point is, let's not be daunted by postmodernism. Let's not be daunted by the latest deceptive philosophy. Creation is on our side. Man's created moral consciousness is on our side. Thus, let's press upon men what we know they know, notwithstanding their words. The Ten Commandments. They know adultery is iniquitous. They know Sabbath-breaking is evil. They know stealing is wicked. And notwithstanding all that they say about situationalism, and contextualization and all the rest, we know that's in them because God put it in them. And thus we speak the law of God with confidence, notwithstanding the absurdity of their words. Well, that brings us in this morning to the, in the final 15 minutes, to the outworking of moral relativism, that is, pluralism. And you might turn in your booklet to page 16. And what might we remember in fairly recent American history that reminds us that pluralism is not a straw man in the culture. It's front and center now. Remember the opening invocation at the National Cathedral. I think it was Thursday after September 11th. How was God addressed, if I remember? He was addressed as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Mohammed, and the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's pluralism at work on a national stage. It's the rotten fruit of moral relativism. Follow now on page 16 for a few lines as Hulse writes. There is, however, a philosophy of pluralism which insists that all opinions have the same value and that value is no value at all except to the persons who hold them. The prevalent view is that absolute values in religion have led to strife, war, and persecution wherever they are found. The general opinion is that they might all have some truth and comfort to offer. The arch heresy is to maintain that your religion is the only right religion and that all the others are wrong, precisely what we do maintain. Or as John Blanchard writes, the only heresy is to call anything heresy. No religion is entitled to pronounce itself right or true, and others false or untrue. This is the era of a do-it-yourself faith, of the making of your own God, to match your religious beliefs. Well, before proceeding onward, Note on page 16, the sentence, to have any kind of credibility, you must proclaim your tolerance. It is simply out of place to criticize others' religions. Well, I want to pause and make what I think is a necessary correction here. Regrettably, the sentence, in context, seems to make pluralism and tolerance synonyms, and they're not. Each is distinctive. Pluralism is essentially the view that all religious, moral, and philosophical systems are equal. No one has inherent superiority over others. No one is to be viewed as exclusively right and true. There are no absolutes in religion or in morality or in philosophy to warrant any kind of exclusive claim. That's pluralism. Tolerance is something very different. Tolerance means, by definition, to put up with. to bear, to endure, and primarily the word tolerance is used with reference to those things which annoy, provoke, and offend. Tolerance means, in the context of discussing pluralism, means enduring the beliefs and practices which very much sadden and vex you. The point is this, one can be tolerant without being pluralistic. A Christian ought, in most settings, to be tolerant, but never pluralistic. Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, and Paul in Athens are examples of men who were tolerant in their pagan societies, but from the top of their head to the bottom of their feet, anti-pluralistic. Paul said to the Corinthians, we are destroying speculations, and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. We are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. But he prefaced those statements by saying this, the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh. In other words, we do not go about attacking, harassing, persecuting or coercing those with whom we disagree. Our battle cry is not the battle cry of Mohammed's submission or the sword. Such would be utterly at odds with loving one's neighbor and utterly useless in view of the nature of the new birth and of the kingdom of God. The biblical ethic is toleration, while pluralism is a denial of the claims of the Bible. We are to be tolerant, and we are to detest pluralism. Now, I have given a handout this morning that I want to direct your attention to. There are three pages. The cover page came from World Magazine, the article or the editorial entitled Tolerance vs. Pluralism. I heartily commend Joel Bell's treatment of this subject. And I might point out just a phrase or a sentence or two in the second column. Pluralism suggests much more strongly than most folks admit that there is not any such thing as right and wrong and no such thing as truth and error. As it is practiced more and more in America, pluralism tends to require that you not only leave room for your neighbor to believe what he believes, but that you also refrain from disagreeing with it. There is a world of difference between the two perspectives. There is a world of difference between pluralism and tolerance. I commend to you a careful reading of this column, and then the next two pages constitute a newspaper article written by Pastor Pizzino in the aftermath of 9-11. And coming down a few paragraphs, he says, the second currently dominant word that needs clarity and precision is pluralism. And then he refers to D. A. Carson, who makes a distinction between empirical pluralism, that's what we would call tolerance, and philosophical pluralism, that is what we would call a denial of the Bible. But philosophical pluralism says, next paragraph, that what is taught in the church, synagogue, and mosque is of equal value as truth for each community. Coming down to the final paragraph of that page, empirical pluralism, that is tolerance, is a fact of providence. Philosophical pluralism is part of the conspiracy of hell against God and his kingdom. And again, I would encourage you to read Pastor Bazzino's treatment. The language is a bit different. Empirical pluralism, that's tolerance. Philosophical pluralism, that is what we are dealing with here. And then further, I would encourage you, if you would desire, to listen to Pastor Martin's message on pluralism versus tolerance, a message that was also briefed in the aftermath of 9-11. Well, returning now to Hulse in these final few minutes, page 17, he says, Postmodernism is a philosophy that believes that every person is entitled to a belief system, but nobody is entitled to assert that his or her faith is superior to others. And then he correctly asserts that while we are not to employ coercive power and threats To advance the gospel yet, the need of the hour is to proclaim the uniqueness of the Christian faith, and more specifically, the uniqueness of Christ, of His person and His work. And I conclude this morning by setting forth a litany of texts, primary texts, which speak to the anti-pluralism of the Bible, or positively state it. which speaks strongly to the exclusivism of the Bible. And I want to begin this morning, you perhaps can turn back to the Old Testament, to Deuteronomy chapter 5. Deuteronomy chapter 5, verse 39. And I want to read various texts now that answer the pluralism of our generation. Deuteronomy 5 at verse 39. It couldn't be 39, could it? Is that why you were shaking your head, Chris? Well, let's go to chapter 6, verse 4. Hear, O Israel. This is the basic confession of faith called the Shema. Hear, O Israel. The Lord is our God. The Lord is one. Now, the context describes who is God. That is one God. He is a law-giving, redeeming God, a covenant-making God. This is the Lord who is our God. The Lord is one. Coming to Isaiah 44 and verse 6. Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last. And now what follows doesn't really square with the pluralism of our age, and there is no God besides me. It's rather narrow-minded. No God besides me. Chapter 45 of Isaiah, verse 5. I am the Lord and there is no other besides Me. There is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord and there is no other. Verse 12, it is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, and I ordained all their hosts." Verse 21, "...declare and set forth your case indeed. Let them consult together who has announced this from of old, who has long since declared it." Is it not I the Lord, and there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God that is a lawgiver, and a Savior that is the Redeemer? There is none except Me." Jeremiah in Jeremiah 10.10 says, the Lord is the true God. He is the living God and the everlasting King. There was a rather anti-pluralistic episode at Mount Carmel when Elijah challenged the priest of Baal. And the rationale of the challenge that God would answer was, quote, that this people may know that thou, Lord, art God. Turning to the New Testament. To John 14 or to John 3 at verse 36. He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life. But the wrath of God abides on him." A very narrow, exclusivistic statement. And then in John 14 at verse 6, Jesus said to him, and the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me. And then in Acts 4 and verse 12, and there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. Paul said to Timothy, there is one God. and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. He wrote to the Colossians of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He doesn't leave a few parcels for anybody else. They're all in Christ. He is the repository of all truth, for in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. Not a little bit of deity left over for somebody else's God. It's Christ. and Christ alone. And you may recall Paul's preaching to the Athenians. It was not pluralistic preaching. Well, as disciples of Christ, we are advocates of and practitioners of tolerance amidst a diverse and pluralistic society, yet as we live so as to promote civility and peaceful relations with those of different worldviews and false religions. As we do so, we repudiate pluralism and must call men to repent of their truth suppression and to penitently, believingly submit themselves to the only true God who has revealed Himself not only as Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge, but as the only Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. We say to them what Paul said to the pluralistic Athenians, what therefore you worship in ignorance. This I proclaim. That is our message to our truth suppressing pluralistic age. They think it's high-minded and noble. They're simply deceiving themselves, trying to deceive us. What, therefore, they worship in ignorance. We proclaim to them as God's exclusive way of salvation. Let us pray. Father, again I pray this morning that the Word of God would be our confidence. And Lord, in the midst of this relativistic age, that we would be renewed in our determination and in our confidence to proclaim the law of God, the moral consciousness of which you have put into men by creation. And Father, that with the law of God proclaimed and men seeing their guilty record before Thee, that we would proclaim Christ as the way, the truth, and the life, that we would proclaim His Person and His work in whom there is salvation, and salvation by no other means or way Lord, I pray in this age we would be wisely tolerant, but boldly anti-pluralistic. Lord, may we be champions of your law and your exclusive gospel. In the midst of our truth-suppressing generation, we pray in the name of our Lord and Savior, the One Mediator, between God and man. Amen.