All right, so this will be our last night going through chapter six of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This will be our third week in chapter six, and the title is called Of the Fall of Man, Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof. And so we'll be going through paragraphs four, five, and six. I'll just go ahead and read paragraph four for us to start. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. So that's how that one opens up. And we began our discussion of this paragraph last week. Right at the end, we got into a little bit of it there and some of our discussion time went over that. So the first bit of this is gonna involve some review, but also some new things. But this is the doctrine of total depravity. Since we are in Adam and he is our head, we receive the sin nature that he has passed down to us. A father, no matter if it's a great father, a terrible father, whatever type of father it is, a father always leaves an inheritance to his sons, always. And it may be good stuff. It may be a large sum of money or a house, things like that, but it could also be bad things. You can inherit bad things like debts. you can inherit from your father. Consequences of his sins, you can inherit. The temptations that he was tempted to, you can inherit a proclivity to temptations like that. And as Adam is the head and father of us all, He has left us the inheritance of original sin. Because when he sinned, we sinned. So whatever he reaped from sin, we also reaped. Now I don't want to just throw Adam under the bus 100%. He left us a good inheritance too, in that we are made in his image and he was made in the image of God. So it's not like Adam only gave us the worst possible things. But we do inherit a sin nature, which is very, very bad. The divines tell us here that because of this inherited sin, or original corruption, is the phrase they use here, we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good. In Romans 7, Paul says, I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. Or as Jesus says, can a good tree bear bad fruit or a bad tree bear good fruit? And the answer is no, of course not. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. And so a sinner, the divines would have us remember here, cannot produce righteousness. There's nothing within him that is a righteousness generator if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit. It'd be like that bramble bush bearing figs. It's not possible. Think of all the trees that we have here in the mountains. It's such a beautiful place where God's glory is on display through his creation. There are trees all over the place and they bear leaves and seeds and cones and different types of fruits. and it's all according to their nature. And this is one of the first lessons that the Bible teaches us. Genesis chapter one, verses 11 through 12. Then God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself. according to its kind, whose seed is in itself. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the trees are only gonna bring forth according to their own kind, according to the seed which is within them. An apple tree is not going to one day just bear pears. and a pear tree is not going to one day bear apples. Therefore a bad heart, a heart that's dead and rotten and corrupt and sick and wicked and deceitful can't bear good fruit. The clearest exposition of this doctrine comes in Romans chapter three. And Paul here is quoting from a number of Psalms as well as Isaiah and Ecclesiastes. And he's doing the work of systematic theology here in Romans three. Who can remind us what systematic theology is? Can anyone give a pocket definition? That's okay. So systematic theology is when you look at God's word, or at least for Protestants, that's what we do. We look at God's word. You look at God's Word and you mine God's Word for all the information you can find on a particular topic, and then you organize that information, you synthesize it, you distill it down, and put it in neatly packaged statements and explanations. That's systematic theology. Reading the Bible is one thing. You're going through the narrative or the letter or the doctrine, whatever it may be. Systematic theology is different. you're pulling from a lot of different places and distilling it topic by topic. That's why when you open a book that says systematic theology on the front, you find it organized by topic, not by Bible book, but by topic, doctrine of sin, doctrine of man, doctrine of angels, whatever it might be. And this helps, this type of work helps God's children understand various aspects of God and his creation very well. This is an important work. We see it being done by biblical authors. That's exactly what Paul is doing here in Romans 3. He's systematizing. He's pulling together the Old Testament doctrine of sin and in a lot of ways just quoting directly but also throughout the chapter adding explanation about what God's Word tells us about sin. He says this in Romans 3, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who understands. There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb. With their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." And Paul, throughout Romans, gives us more explanation and illustration of this terrible sickness of sin that is in all of us. But here, this is him just laying it out. This is the Bible's theology of sin and its effects. Paul could not be more clear how universal it is. I didn't count, but he says so many times, no one, none, no, not one, no one, just over and over. Everyone's infected. And then he describes how terrible this infection of sin is. Now, last week, John brought up the question of civic righteousness. I thought about that a little and I wanna touch on it again now that we're into paragraph four here in a more focused way. Once we admit the doctrine of total depravity, we do have to ask ourselves, how though do we account for the apparent goodness that we see unbelievers do? When the unbeliever helps the old lady across the street or gives money to a family in need or to a good cause, how do we account for that? And I think, I think the best answer is that these actions only have the appearance of goodness. They are not good in and of themselves. The reason I say that, it is good to help build laity across the street. It is good to give money to people in need, but it is impossible, it is impossible in God's economy, in biblical theology, to separate a particular action done by a person from the person performing it. You can't separate an action done by a person from the person performing it like it's its own totally distinct, unique act. So when God's looking at these actions, he's not just saying generic person A helped someone across the street. That gets you to checkpoints. No, he's saying this man, either a sinner or a righteous man helped someone across the street. And God does not judge deeds or works. What does God judge? Yeah, he judges the heart, he judges people. He judges people. He judges the people who commit the deeds and he judges them by their deeds. And if God deems the unbelievers have no good deeds credited to their account on judgment day, then we have to conclude that that is because at bottom, none of the deeds of unbelievers are truly good or truly righteous. Now, unbelievers can do things that truly benefit themselves and benefit others and serve some type of societal or civic good, but they can't be inherently good because an apple tree is not going to grow pears. So a good deed is not gonna come from a bad heart. But then we still have to ask, well, but why? Why do they do these beneficial things? If you're saying they're not good, why do they look good and why do they do them? What motivates them? Is it because their conscience accuses or excuses them? It's true that an unbeliever does have a conscience and it can guide him away from certain sins. It's a type of common grace is a word theologians sometimes use. Or a conscience could bring an unbeliever a sense of rightness when he chooses to do the right thing, when he begins to, in an external fashion, line up with God's law. If an unbeliever sees a baby lying in the road and he goes and picks the baby up and takes him somewhere safe, he has chosen the right thing to do in that scenario, the objectively right thing to do. Nevertheless, his conscience cannot positively direct him toward true goodness. That can only happen through the direct agency of the Holy Spirit. When the rich young ruler addresses Christ, he says, good teacher. And Jesus says, why do you call me good? He's trying to get to the bottom of what this young man thinks goodness really is. Jesus says, there's only one who's good, and that's God. So apart from God, we see no one can be good, and we can only come to God through faith in Christ Jesus. No one comes to the Father, but by me. That's what Jesus says. So the conscience is a gift from God to all men, and it can approve certain actions as the right things to do. but the conscience on its own cannot direct an unbeliever in a positive and active sense toward true righteousness. The conscience is never spoken of in scripture as being able to lead a sinner to faith in Christ apart from the direct activity of the Holy Spirit. So without the direct activity of the Holy Spirit, without him working through the word of God preached to our hearts, the unbeliever's not gonna have true righteousness and holiness, which is what leads to good works ultimately. So all of the righteousness of the unbeliever is just filthy rags at the end of the day. It may be righteousness in a horizontal sense, in a man-to-man-to-man sense, in a civic sense, we could say, these are good things to do. This person has done good things for the world, but there is no vertical righteousness. There's no true righteousness or goodness within him. To further answer the question of why, why does though the unbeliever do these beneficial things to himself or for himself and for others? We can note that it could be because of a particular end, a particular goal that he's working towards. Like, I want to do all these good things so that I can get into heaven when I die. People think that, they think at the end of the day, if my good deeds balance out my bad deeds, that'll be enough to get me into heaven. Or it could be that he's doing these good things so that people will like him. We oftentimes do things because we want to be liked by others. And people like nice people. Or that he'll be remembered well. You see that massively in the ancient classical writers. Constantly they're doing good deeds. so that they will be remembered well, because that was their idea of eternity. How can you have an everlasting life to be remembered in the hearts and minds of your descendants? That's how you can attain immortality. So I'm gonna build these structures and give this money to the poor and support this and that cause, and then I'll live on even after my body is laid into the grave. Or maybe someone's doing something, an unbeliever is doing good things so that he will build up credit and people will then do him favors when he gets into a tight spot. Or it could be because a society is a good godly society and the law is actually functioning as a terror to evildoers. That'll definitely dampen you from wanting to do some really bad things. And godly societies incentivize righteousness in some ways. Even ungodly societies sometimes incentivize righteousness. I heard that, you know, Trump's proposing a increase of the tax credit for families that have children. That's incentivizing righteousness to get married and have children. Now, once again, that's a civic righteousness. So don't, you know, don't think that having children is gonna earn you holiness points in heaven, but it is a civic type of good, a civic type of righteousness. So there are many, many reasons why an unbeliever could do beneficial things but they won't be truly righteous or good before the judge of all the earth, before the throne of God. Because the unbeliever is truly, as the confession says, made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil. Any questions about paragraph four before we go to paragraph five? Yes. You often hear in evangelism, you know, sharing with someone and they seem so close to the gospel. Cornelius, he was a man who was a God-fearer. So there's people who fear God, but don't know who he is yet. Or maybe the Ethiopian eunuch who's reading the scriptures and wants to understand there's people. And it does say that God draws. So they come step by step. And there are people, perhaps, that are closer to the gospel than others. How do you explain that? That's a good question because, you know, a dead corpse doesn't come slowly back to life in the way God works. You go from being, you know, one of those dead dry skeletons in the valley of dry bones to just in the twinkling of an eye being made alive again. So that's a good question, but we definitely see that in scripture. I fully believe that there is a category of people who are lost objectively, but they are clearly not far from the kingdom. And I would say that the Holy Spirit, the activity of regeneration is in a moment. Sometimes a word that theologians or scientists might use is that regeneration is punctiliar, meaning it happens in one exact infinitely, you know, you can't reduce it any more small point of time. But salvation is a slow process. Because salvation isn't just regeneration. So you have this calling that goes out. And when the calling goes out, it's a real seed being sown in someone. And that's the real activity of God working there. And you could be being drawn. The Bible says that you're being drawn. And think of a well drawing up a bucket. That could take time. And then even after you're born again, your growth in holiness takes time, your progressive sanctification. And then we're, of course, not glorified until heaven. So I would say that we can never know infallibly if someone is going to be saved, but we can see certain markers that indicate whether someone might be on that road. And I mean, I've seen that before in my own life in ministry. So I still would not say that Cornelius had any righteousness before God, but God was surely drawing him to faith in Christ. Well, we don't have any category in scripture of someone who is a God-fearer who doesn't end up coming to faith in Christ. There's no one who remains a God-fearer that's outside of the cup, that we have a clear example of in scripture. So I think it would just be, you know, almost like a hopeful transitional category from our perspective. God knows, of course, infallibly who's going to be saved and is not yet saved yet. And there has been debate in the church over Well, are they really apart from Christ? Is the wrath of God really on them if they were elect and Christ has already paid for their sins? And that's, those are good questions. I don't, I don't think we could get into that aspect today, but. Yeah, sure. I suppose that the people who are in covenant with Christ being our children are among those, like you said, they can have the Holy Spirit in the womb like John the Baptist did, but that most of the children in Christian families would be those who are like I think you're hitting on a good point, but actually it's more hopeful than that because Cornelius was not in covenant with God. And so our children, I would say, have a better state that they're in than Cornelius in his household, because they are not strangers to the kingdom and the covenant and the oracles and the promises and the worship and the glory. But it's true that there's a sense in which they're natural branches on the olive tree, but we don't know infallibly that they're going to bear fruit yet, that they're going to bear good fruit. We don't know infallibly that they're not going to be clipped off because we are to judge people according to their fruits. So we can give a baptized child a judgment of charity that they're a Christian and a believer. So I think there is a relationship there, but it's not the exact same, which of course, you know, I guess you understand what I'm saying, that Cornelius was seeking, you know, that's a word we use today, a seeker, even though no one seeks after God, you know, he's being drawn. But I would say our children are even closer. They're being drawn because they're getting preached to every week and they're baptized and they're in covenant. But you're right, there's this strange time that we can't exactly pin down all the details on before someone is confessing Christ, believing him in their hearts and demonstrating the fruit of repentance. And we just have to be hopeful and continue using the means of grace to draw people that are in that category and praying for them. John, do you have any follow up to that or any clarifying thoughts? No. The one thing I was thinking about with helping the lady across the street, and the language of the confession is very strong, right? Opposed to all good and inclined to all evil. Almost like that that fellow would be doing that almost against his will. Or he's just got really selfish ends in mind. I think there's some mystery. I don't think we can see with a microscope what all is going on in the human heart. You know, we see the example of Pharaoh, or in Proverbs, you know, the king's heart is in the Lord's hand like a water course. And with Pharaoh, God hardened him when he wanted to harden him. Or the people in Romans 1, who are given over to their sin, which implies that God was restraining them beforehand from being as bad as they could be. So, do you have a belief that unbelievers exist? for the sake of God's relationship with his people. In Romans 9, it says, look, God is patiently enduring the wicked because he's got a whole plan to make his love and his glory and his grace known to his children. So I think of the wicked as a controlled opposition, if you will. And of course, a lot of them have come across in the kingdom. But what I was thinking about was in the same way that we read in God sends his word and the hail melts. The wicked in our society today, by God's grace to us, are not as wicked as they could be. Right. So I see God's active hand. I think a lot of times coming out of medieval theology people wanted to systematize it all and get it all nailed down and this is what a human is and this is what their conscience and this is how it all but I Think when I see scripture together on this question in this point, I see the restraining hand of God actively governing unbelievers so that they're not as wicked and bad as they could be and that's for the sake of his children in other words like Sennacherib When he needs Sennacherib to be more wicked, more, he dials him up and sends him to go conquer the northern kingdom. So I think there's a relational element between God and his kids that impacts how wicked the wicked are. That's, I think, my main point. Absolutely. Yeah, I think that's a really good point. I completely agree. The only clarifying note I would make, assuming you agree with this is that, you know, the difference between unbelievers and like the hail is the unbelievers still have a will and God doesn't operate in a sense that's like they're robots. Right. Yeah, he doesn't. But he does control and foreordain everything that comes to pass. He made their nature. He did. He did. And he foreordained what happened in sin. Yes. Yes. Yeah, it's a meaningful, I do agree, you have to deal with the will of man in that transaction, as opposed to God sending his word for the help. Right, because he doesn't judge the precipitation on Judgment Day. Right, right. Did that come close to helping your question? I know those are things that, the questions you asked, I don't know that anyone can put an exact, super clear, explicit, you know, here's how it all works out. questions of God's mysterious providence and hope and things like that. But does that help? I do think a lot of people believe, I believe, you probably believe, James, that we can't see that moment when somebody's born again. And it could be, we don't know. I mean, somebody could be born again and then start on the outside becoming interested in the things of God, and suddenly the Bible catches their ear, or they go to a Christian group, and then they hear the gospel. I mean, there's a sense in which there's probably some mystery there in terms of when God does his work in the heart that's the actual born-againness. Yeah, 100%. We don't have to rely on a experience of crisis, which is, especially in the 20s, well, really from the second great awakening, and then through the 20th century, the revivalist evangelistic emphasis emphasized, you make a decision for Christ, then you're born again. That's your new birth. But that's not really exactly, I think, the picture of the whole Bible. Of course, that can be the way God works. Yeah, that's right, that's right. But it doesn't have to be a crisis conversion, and we don't need to look for a moment. All right, well, let's move on to paragraph five. Paragraph five of the confession reads like this. This corruption of nature during this life does remain in those that are regenerated. And although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin. So this one is an important aspect of the fall that we have to understand. There are some who believe that when a believer is saved or possibly when he received some type of second blessing or baptism of the Holy Spirit or some state of Christian perfectionism that he will no longer sin. Or even that his sin nature will be completely and totally undone in this life. But this is contrary to scripture. It's contrary to the tradition of the church. I would even argue it's contrary to reason and it's certainly contrary to experience. Probably the clearest refutation of the false doctrine of perfectionism is in Romans chapter seven. And this is a chapter that I've referenced many, many times, but I think it bears repeating here. I'm just going to read an excerpt from it. In speaking of the law and its use as a ministry of death, Paul writes this. Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not. But sin that it might appear sin was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice. But what I hate, That I do. If then I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, nothing good dwells. For to will is present within me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do. But the evil that I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find in a law that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death? This is clearly the experience and lament of a born again Christian. Listen to some of the things Paul says here. He says he wills to do the right thing. And when he does the wrong thing, he says it's no longer him, it's sin that's dwelling within him. He says he delights in the law of God in the inner man. Only a born again person could say these things with integrity. And Paul is an apostle whose every word here in Romans and in the other books of the Bible that he wrote was divinely inspired. So we know he's acting integrity. We know he's telling the truth here. Now, someone might say, well, that was Paul's experience, but it doesn't have to be a universal description. I would say first, have you ever met anyone in this life that's holier than the apostle Paul? I don't care what the person says, the answer is no, they haven't met anyone like that. And if they're saying it's themselves, well, I think that just disqualifies their statement right there. But maybe someone is being dishonest or they're being deceived in some way. Thankfully, Romans 7 is not the only place of scripture that proves this doctrine. 1 John 1.8, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Then two verses later, if we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. Now, 1 John was written by the apostle John to believers. This letter was written to people who have Jesus Christ as their advocate and who have God as their father. And John isn't just writing about past sins committed before following Christ, he's talking about currently. If we say we have no sin currently, we are deceiving ourselves. And if that isn't clear from chapter one, he writes this in chapter two, my little children, these things I write to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. So John's saying, I don't want you to sin. That's why I'm writing you this letter. I want you to avoid sin and pursue righteousness. But if you do sin, Christ will plead on your behalf. And he is the one who removes God's wrath that you and your flesh deserve. Why is Christ pleading on your behalf? Why is he removing your wrath? Because he's your Lord and savior. These are unbelievers. The divines also cite Galatians 5.17, for the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would. Now, this is an interesting sentence here. The flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. Does Paul here mean that because the flesh lusts against the spirit, you cannot do the good things that you desire? like he's talking about in Romans 7, or does Paul mean that because the spirit lusts against the flesh, you cannot do the evil things you would otherwise desire? Which is it? Is it you cannot do the good things you would because the remaining corruption of sin, or you cannot do the evil things that your flesh desires because of the renewing and restraining power of the spirit of God? Does anyone have a thought? Can you read the verse again? Sure. I got Galatians 5.17, and I can read it from this, because that's King James that I was reading. This might be a little simpler here. For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. Or in the King James, it says the things that you would. So what does he mean there? I think speaking as a believer, he's saying this is sometimes why you sin. In other words, it's a believing voice that's speaking or an unbelieving voice. And like in Romans 7, it's a believing voice. And he's speaking to believers. So I think he's saying, look, these two are in competition. And so that's why sometimes you don't do the thing that you want to do, like Paul said in Romans 7. I think it's a good opinion. I come to a little different place, and I'll explain it in just a moment, but I'll be honest, I don't think we can know for certain what the Westminster divines, if they take one position or the other. I don't think they're clear here, and that doesn't mean they didn't think about it. I think that was probably intentional, that they didn't come out really strongly explaining one way or the other, but they do cite this text. I have always assumed that Paul was saying, because of the war within you, You can't do the good and godly things you want to do in all the ways you want to do them. Because that's exactly what he's saying in Romans 7. So I was thinking Galatians 5, 17 is just pulling from Romans 7 in a sense, he's saying the same thing. But I think that the other perspective actually makes more sense in the context of what Paul is saying in Galatians. I think that probably, and I'm open to correction here, But I tentatively would suggest that what's primary in Paul's mind is you can't do the evil things that you and your flesh want to do because the spirit is warring against the flesh. And I think that's because of context here. So I'm gonna read just the last section of Galatians 5, starting in verse 16, which is one verse before the proof text, Galatians 5, 17. This I say then, walk in the spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would. But if you be led of the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. Of the witch I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Against such things there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. For if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. So Paul's opening exhortation here in this last section of Galatians 5, he exhorts the Galatians to walk in the spirit. He says, walk in the spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. That's verse 16. That's right before Galatians 5.17 that we're talking about. And then in Galatians 5.17, he says, the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary to one to the other. So you cannot do the things you would. And then he closes by saying, and they that are Christ have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the spirit. So I think that what Paul primarily has in view here is that because of the power of the Holy Spirit within you and the grace of regeneration and the growth and holiness, you will not be as bad as your flesh wants you to be. You will not fulfill all the wicked desires of the flesh. That's what I think. And Paul's not saying something opposite to what he's saying in Romans 7. What he's saying is that though the battle will continue to rage on, and though you won't be free from all its effects or enticements to sin in this life, you will have more and more victory. The Spirit will grow you in holiness. You will be able to resist temptation. You will sin, you will lose battles, but you'll win the war. I think that's probably what Paul has primarily in view, and I'll admit this is newer to me as I was studying this. I spent a lot of time studying this particular doctrine and thinking through it in that context of, this I say then, walk in the Spirit, you won't fulfill the lust of the flesh. That's how he opens that up. And I read commentaries and I think that's primarily what he's saying, is because the spirit is warring against your flesh, you won't do the things your flesh wants to do. I think that's a lot more hopeful than if all we had was Romans 7 repeated. But both things are true. I mean, both things are true, that you also won't do as much good as you want to do. because of Romans 7, because the flesh is at war within you. So I don't think you're wrong, but I think maybe primarily what Paul has in view is more of a victorious encouragement to the Christian. Yeah, I agree. I agree. When you read it in context with 16, it seems like that's what he, because he says that you would, and it's kind of singular. He didn't say like if you would in either case, he's saying he's focusing just on one of those. Right. And the one that he seems to be focusing on in the context is that you won't do what you would do apart from the spirit. Right. But I'd never really, I don't know, I've read the Bible several times and I'd never latched onto that. And I was reading John Brown's commentary of Galatians and he explained it so clearly and it's just like the light bulb went off and now I can't unsee it. You know how things work like that sometimes? So just, I thought it was encouraging thing here. But the non-Christian's different. The non-Christian has no fight within him. He isn't struggling with sin, at least not from a pure heart. He may find certain sins, especially displeasing or damaging to his life or his conscience, however mangled it is, or the law or other pressures, internal, external. He may be accused in such a way that he seeks not to commit certain sins. The unbeliever might be in that position, but he will have no victory. No ultimate victory because he'll only be clipping bad fruit from the tree. He won't be addressing the root problem. He's not gonna be giving himself a new root, regenerating himself. He can't do that. He won't do it and he can't do it. So the unbeliever doesn't have this battle within him between new nature and old nature. He's only old nature. That's it. There is no spirit, no Holy Spirit. He's just flesh. But if there's this struggle and fight, and oftentimes frustration, and if you are striving, if you are sometimes having victory to resist temptations, then that's a very good sign that you are different from the unbelieving man. That means you're in a battle. Being tempted with sin doesn't mean you're not one of God's elect. Sometimes we can think that. I keep getting tempted with this same terribly wicked sin that I don't even want to tell anyone about. And sometimes I fall to it. Could God have forsaken me? If you're feeling terrible and fighting the sin, it's not an infallible proof. You're God's child. People can come under some type of conviction, but it is a good sign. And if you're fighting and having victory, that is a very good sign. So don't be discouraged just because you're going through temptations. Now having said all that, I think that both these perspectives that we started out that conversation about Galatians 5.17 are important to remember. We're not gonna be as good as we want, but thankfully we won't be as bad as we otherwise would want and as bad as our flesh wants. The new man is powerful. The new man isn't just sitting inside you under complete bondage to the old man. The new man is the victorious dragon slaying man. The spirit's strong within you. strong within you. This should be a great comfort to us, even though we won't see the ultimate victory until the very end. Any questions on paragraph five before we go on to the last paragraph, which will be much shorter? All right, last paragraph of chapter six, last paragraph of the fall of man of sin and the punishment thereof is paragraph six here. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal. So we're just gonna look at some of the proof texts to start. The divine site 1 John 3, 4, whosoever committed sin transgresses also the law for sin is transgression of the law. That's a good verse to memorize. I've been asked multiple times during outreach at Apple, what is sin? Sin is any transgression of the law of God. It's right there. That's what the apostle John says. They also cite Romans 3, 9, and 19. What then, are we better than they? He's talking about Jews, people in covenant with God. Are we better than they? No, and no wise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. And then verse 19. Now we know that what thing soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. So we're all guilty. Ephesians 2.3, we're by nature children of wrath, even as the rest of mankind. Galatians 3.10, for all who rely on works of law are under a curse. For it's written, cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law and do them. Romans 6.23, for the wages of sin is death. They're just going, what is the punishment? What is the end result of this sin? It's guilt, it's death, it's misery. Matthew 25, 41, then shall he also say unto them on the left hand, depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. That's like half the proof texts. They really throw a lot of proof texts to cite how terrible the punishment and condemnation that sin brings is, that sin brings to the sinner. Every sin brings guilt. Every sin brings guilt. And guilt is not just a feeling. Sometimes that's how we use that word, even in church. I feel guilty. I feel convicted. That's certainly a part of it, and that's a grace of the Lord, that you feel guilty and you feel convicted sometimes. But this guilt that the divines are referring to that Paul is talking about is objective. It's a real guilt. Like when you go into court and the judge says, you are guilty of this crime, doesn't matter how you feel. You are guilty because you broke the law. That's what sin is, lawbreaking. Sinners are truly and objectively guilty before the judgment seat of God. And therefore, because of that, the punishment that you get, the sentence that you get because of your guilt is wrath, meted out in death with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal. If spiritual miseries, you have miseries unique to this life, spiritual, physical, whatever they may be, you have miseries into eternity. So when a sinner stands before the judge of all the earth, if he is not dressed in the righteousness of Christ, then he will be cast into the unquenchable fire of hell. And we are all sinners deserving of this. But the guilty verdict can be overturned. The guilty verdict can only be overturned though if God's infinite wrath is satisfied and a perfect record of sinless law-keeping and righteousness is presented to him. You don't get into heaven just by having not guilty. It's different than a court of law there. Not guilty is not gonna do it. You have to be perfectly righteous. You have to have the holiness of God if you want to see God. Be holy and be perfect even as he is holy and perfect. But we'll get into that more in the upcoming chapters when we talk about Christ and righteousness and judgment. The only final note that I'll make is that the divines here point to the truth that there are consequences for every single sin, even for those sins committed by believers. By those of us whose transgression is forgiven and whose sins are covered, there are still consequences. First, there is still the guilt of hell that our sins are deserving of. It's just not on us. We don't get that consequence. Consequence doesn't just disappear. We just don't get it. Because of Christ's offering on the cross, and it being one of perfect and infinite merit, those sins will not count against us on the last day. But they still have a real consequence that Christ really, truly had to pay. Also, though this isn't primarily in view here, our sins also bring us real non-eternal consequences in this life. If we are drunkards and gluttons, even if we're born again, we may suffer in our bodily health, in our relationships, in how long we live. If we give ourselves over to immoral lusts, we may ruin our marriages. We may have civil penalties for our sins. We may undergo discipline from the Lord that is mysterious. And out of nowhere, bad things start happening to us. Out of nowhere. You know, it feels like that sometimes. And then we reflect and maybe start putting some dots together. Having our sins forgiven does not mean that they are consequence-free. Something that We remember easily when we're teaching our children sometimes, okay, you committed this clear sin, you've repented, there's still a consequence. You're still losing this privilege, you're still getting spanked, whatever it might be. But sometimes as adults, we like to lie to ourselves and almost forget, no, we still have discipline too. It's just oftentimes not as clear and direct as getting spanked from your parent. So we still have to strive after perfection and we still have to be careful how we walk. And as Paul points out, we should never sin that grace may abound because the consequences are real. All right, what questions do you have on paragraph six or on the whole chapter? Because we're now done with chapter six. All right, well, if we have no questions, let's go into a time of prayer requests. because it was kind of jumping back. with people sometimes about the consequences of sin for believers and whether or not that is the operation of God's law or something else, right? Is there another category? Oh, because we're not under the law, you mean? Right. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. Temporal versus eternal. Yes, yes. Is there a category for being under the law of sin and death temporally when you sin? meted out by a fatherly hand, but just what category do we put those consequences in? Can you mention that? Well, I can't remember if it's the confession or one of the catechisms says that we're not under the law as a covenant of works, but we are under the law as a rule of life. And I think that's a helpful way to think about it. Yeah, we're still under the law, just not as a covenant of works. We're under the law as it is a lamp to our feet, a light to our path, but we can stray from the light and God needs to put us back on the path. And sometimes that might involve some discipline, some rough handling. But yeah, like you said, we don't have to get into it tonight, but I'd love to hear more at some time, even if you wanted to give us a snippet now, but you don't have to. Okay, okay, okay.