LangTurbo - Learn Languages Faster

CR101radio.com, podcasts and more.

Now, first of all, how many of you were in the

last hour? Anyone? Would you bear with me then, since you're the only one, if I repeat

just a few things, because I feel that it will help set the temper for what we are going

just a few things, because I feel that it will help set the tone for what we are going to do.

to do this hour. I'll try to pick up a few pieces and put them together this hour, as

a kind of pulling some things together, so that I'll start where I did the last hour.

A kind of pulling some things together, so that I'll start where I did the last hour.

Since there's only one person who heard me. By repeating an illustration I also used

Since there's only one person who heard me, by repeating an illustration I also used.

yesterday, because it was a very disturbing thing to me. A nurse here in the emergency

Yesterday, because it was a very disturbing thing to me. A nurse here in the emergency.

hospital, as some of you heard me say yesterday afternoon, reported that during the time she

hospital, zoals sommige van jullie mij gisterenmiddag hoorden zeggen, meldde dat tijdens de tijd dat zij

has worked there, she has had only one person as they've been brought in from an accident

or an accident.

Now, as I indicated, I would have expected this kind of reaction in New York or Chicago

Now, as I indicated, I would have expected this kind of reaction in New York or Chicago.

or San Francisco, but in Jackson I would have expected more than that, because there is

a stronger church life here. What it means is that for these people, it all practically

intends God's death.

They do not have a Christian mind. They may have some sort of faith, but God is a kind

They do not have a Christian mind. They may have some sort of faith, but God is a kind.

of life insurance for them, a policy to take care of the hereafter, but not the living

God, so that in a crisis they do not think of him. This presents us with a very serious

problem.

Then again, in the last hour, I've talked about the fact that there is a kind of life

Then again, in the last hour, I've talked about the fact that there is a kind of life.

insurance system.

We are the living God, and indeed, the living God is not the one whom we need.

We zijn de levende God, en inderdaad, de levende God is niet degene die we nodig hebben.

But there is such a power to live in to help us, when we're living in this kind of life,

Maar er is zo'n kracht om in te leven om ons te helpen, wanneer we in dit soort leven leven,

in the Christ-dom.

in the kingdom of Christ.

One of the things I've pointed out, I'm just summarizing a few things from what I've said,

that the one serious point of view that the Reformation which did not have a powerful

that the one serious point of view that the Reformation did not have a powerful

state behind it was the reformed faith. Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism had powerful, ruling

states behind it; the Reformed faith stood alone. Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism had powerful, ruling states supporting them.

and entrepreneurial power.

But the point of view was not that this reform of faith really had a power that still did

But the point of view was not that this reform of faith really had a power that still did.

not have a positive effect.

Rulers behind them, even Anabaptism for a while, occupied important areas and militarily had a force.

But the reformed faith, apart from a small city-state, Geneva, had nothing.

Maar het gereformeerde geloof had, afgezien van een kleine stadstaat, Genève, niets.

And yet it was the faith that passed fear before long in the hearts of all rulers.

And yet it was the faith that soon overcame fear in the hearts of all rulers.

It had a power, because it had a world and life view.

It had power because it had a worldview and perspective on life.

It provided the answer in every area of life in terms of scripture.

Men were desperate then for such a faith as they are now.

I cited also the fact in some detail how when scholasticism arose,

I also cited in some detail how when scholasticism arose,

there was a parallel rise in another kind of faith.

There was a parallel rise in another kind of faith.

A parallel rise in another kind of faith among the common people.

Although there had been on a limited basis before the use of images and candles

Although there had been limited use of images and candles before.

and the blessing of fields and so on,

as scholasticism arose and it eroded the biblical faith

and presented an abstract religious concept that meant little to the people

en presenteerde een abstract religieus concept dat weinig betekende voor de mensen

so that God became remote.

They felt desperately on the local level, on the everyday level,

They felt desperately at the local level, at the everyday level,

the need of having something that made God real in everyday life.

So the blessing of the fields before they planted,

So the blessing of the fields before they are planted,

the blessing of their boats before they sailed,

bring God down to the world.

This was their feeling.

Dit was hun gevoel.

Man needs God in his everyday life.

The church finally had to accept that kind of Christ.

Although early it was against it,

Although it was against it early on,

simply because the people had to have something.

Today as people have nothing,

they are again turning to something that will give meaning to everyday life.

They are once again turning to something that will give meaning to everyday life.

Occultism, the witchcraft movement.

Because they feel the need for an overall answer on the practical everyday level.

Because they feel the need for a comprehensive answer at the practical everyday level.

Now the only philosophy,

theology and faith

theologie en geloof

that has consistently provided this in the past

has been the reformed faith.

And we cannot be truly reformed

And we cannot be truly reformed.

if we limit the Bible to the church.

As I said in the last hour,

it is not just a church book.

It is not just a church book.

It is a book for the state.

It is a book for the school,

It is a book for school.

for the family,

for vocation,

for every area of life.

The point of this, of course, is,

let us continue,

that no piecemeal defense of the faith is possible.

In the reformed faith we must begin with the totality of the sovereign God and his word.

In the reformed faith, we must begin with the totality of the sovereign God and his word.

Or we end up with nothing.

We presuppose the whole.

We do not begin by saying,

well,

I'm going to begin by trying to defend

Ik ga beginnen met proberen te verdedigen.

the idea of God,

that there is a God.

And then I will go on from there

And then I will continue from there.

and try to build up the doctrine of the Trinity.

And then I will go on from that to creation

And then I will move on from that to creation.

and then to the word and so on.

And apologetics which does this will get nowhere.

And apologetics that do this will get nowhere.

Instead you begin with the whole of the faith.

It's a secret.

Het is een geheim.

It's a seamless garment.

Het is een naadloos kledingstuk.

You defend the totality,

the sovereign God,

his infallible word,

the essentials of the doctrine,

the claim of God on every area of life,

on church, state, school, home,

everything.

But God is a total God.

And he has a totalitarian claim on the whole of life.

It is only this way,

that we can have a consistent apologetics.

Presuppose the full truth.

Nothing else can answer the needs of man.

Niets anders kan aan de behoeften van de mens voldoen.

Nothing else can give anything to man.

Niets anders kan de mens iets geven.

Thus it follows that the best defense of the faith

is to take the offensive.

is om de aanval te openen.

Now historically apologetics is called

Now historically, apologetics is called

the defense of the faith.

And Van Til has given that title to his book.

But by the time you read it,

Maar tegen de tijd dat je het leest,

you will very clearly understand

you will understand very clearly

that he is not defensive in the defense of the faith.

He is taking the offensive.

And the essence of his position is

that he is out to cut out the ground

that he is out to cut the ground out from under someone

from the claims of fallen man

in every area of life.

And to establish the crown rights of Christ.

In every area of life.

We do not allow to the natural man anything.

We do not allow anything to the natural man.

We say that only the man in Christ

We say that only the man in Christ.

We do not allow to the natural man anything.

We do not allow anything to the natural man.

is sovereign lord over every domain under Christ.

The covenant man is lord of all creations.

The God of all creation.

One of the fallacies that some people have is that if a man denies God, he still has the rest of life to himself.

But what the doctrine of hell tells us is that when a man denies God, he ends up with nothing but the little closed circle of his mind.

Nothing else exists for him.

Niets anders bestaat voor hem.

So that in taking the offensive, what we do is to push the fallen man into recognizing that without Christ he can have nothing.

There is no community possible.

There is no philosophy possible.

His epistemology collapses.

There is no doctrine of the state possible.

It collapses into anarchy.

That in every area of life, in terms of his faith, he winds up with nothing.

That in every area of life, in terms of his faith, he ends up with nothing.

Nothing.

Niets.

Our approach then cannot be anthropological, that is man-centered.

Our approach cannot be anthropological, that is man-centered.

It cannot be love-centered.

It cannot be church-centered.

It must be theological.

Yesterday, when the ledger referred to the church, I said,

I was interviewed for about 45 minutes.

She went back to my Indian missionary experiences because of the wounded knee episode

She referred back to my Indian missionary experiences because of the wounded knee episode.

to ask me about Indians, a great many questions.

to ask me a great many questions about Indians.

What about their religion?

And I said to her, well, the thing that we must avoid doing is to look at the Indian and his religion in our lives.

And I said to her, well, the thing we must avoid doing is to look at the Indian and his religion in our lives.

Why?

Waarom?

Well, I said there are two kinds of religions basically among the American Indians,

but you have not described the Indians' religious life with these two.

but you have not described the religious life of the Indians with these two.

I said, anthropologists can classify the Indian religions first in terms of those tribes that were agricultural tribes.

They worshipped the sun and the moon, the stars.

Because weather was important to them.

Omdat het weer belangrijk voor hen was.

And they were aware that the sun and the moon had some kind of relationship apparently to weather.

So, since they were concerned with agriculture,

they were concerned with worshipping the forces in nature that were oriented to the weather.

They were concerned with worshipping the forces in nature that were related to the weather.

But I said the hunting tribes were concerned with hunting.

Maar ik zei dat de jagende stammen zich bezighielden met jagen.

And therefore they worshipped...

They worshipped the wolf and, in some cases, the coyote.

Because the wolf was the great hunter and the coyote was a good hunter.

And for them, these particular animals were important.

And they worshipped their spirit and felt very, very strongly about the wolf in particular.

And where I was, the wolf cult was very prominent.

But I said this was not basic to their lives.

Maar ik zei dat dit niet temelangrijk was voor hun leven.

They recognized that...

These spirits had a lot to do with things.

But I said that their basic concern was anthropocentric, man-centered.

Maar ik zei dat hun basiszorg antropocentrisch was, mensgericht.

What kind of a religion did they have?

What kind of religion did they have?

Why?

Waarom?

Not by going to what the anthropologists say.

And classifying these two types of religions and all the variations.

This was secondary.

Because first and foremost in the mind of the Indian was healing.

Omdat genezing voorop stond in het denken van de Indiaan.

Healing.

Genezing.

His position had become so completely man-centered that for him the beginning and end of religion

was healing.

was genezing.

And the medicine man there had a tremendous power on him.

And the medicine man there had a tremendous power over him.

It was very interesting to me that before I ever heard about Oral Roberts, these Indians,

many of whom could speak very little English, knew a great deal about Oral Roberts, who was

just beginning then.

And it was only because I suddenly began to hear a lot of Indians and broken English

And it was only because I suddenly began to hear a lot of Indians and broken English.

ask questions excited about Oral Roberts that I first started to investigate who he was.

"Ask questions excited about Oral Roberts that I first started to investigate who he was."

I hadn't heard of him.

And they were amazed.

Why?

Waarom?

Doesn't every white man follow him?

Doesn't every white man believe in Oral Roberts?

Going of oral Roberts?

Going of Oral Roberts?

And for them it was obvious.

And you, after about five days they told you that, this man will follow you.

And you, after about five days they told you that this man will follow you.

Why?

Waarom?

was supposedly a great healer and healing was the essence of religion therefore all robert

was supposedly a great healer and healing was the essence of religion therefore all Robert

certainly if he was what they had heard he was was the man every white man was following this

Certainly, if he was what they had heard he was, he was the man every white man was following.

was the essence of religion it had become totally anthropocentric totally man-centered

but what had happened with that healing in the old indian life in the days when the white man

but what had happened with that healing in the old Indian life in the days when the white man

first came still was very important but the more indian life collapsed the more humanistic it

First, came still was very important, but the more Indian life collapsed, the more humanistic it became.

became it went from humanism to even greater humanism so that the culture of the indian was

became it went from humanism to even greater humanism so that the culture of the Indian was

totally broken

there was nothing in life for him that had any meaning except at this point

There was nothing in life for him that had any meaning except at this point.

healing and as a broken culture he was unable to do anything for himself indian family life

was broken indian community life was broken the indian was a broken person an alcoholic

was broken Indian community life was broken the Indian was a broken person an alcoholic

if he wasn't an alcoholic he was almost inevitably taking p.o.s

If he wasn't an alcoholic, he was almost inevitably taking p.o.s.

a narcotic and was a member of the beauty cult the only ones who weren't on one or the other were

christians and the whole reason for this was that there was no longer any kind of faith which could

Christians and the whole reason for this was that there was no longer any kind of faith which could.

find man to man there was no world life world in my field there was only a piecemeal faith

Find man to man there was no world life world in my field there was only a piecemeal faith.

and a piecemeal faith ultimately

around the individual and his faith and this is the be all and end all of his life

around the individual and his faith, and this is the be-all and end-all of his life.

if the salvation of man is made central we take the beginning of the road to the indians

the indians therefore felt close not only to earl roberts they could feel that

The Indians therefore felt close not only to Earl Roberts; they could feel that.

billy graham uh was

Billy Graham uh was

on the right road

bc

these were non-christian indians talking

these were non-Christian Indians talking

that wasn't that they

wanted to accept

christ

Christ

or ever believe what billy graham had to offer

or ever believe what Billy Graham had to offer

in fact none of them ever did

in feite heeft geen van hen dat ooit gedaan

not those people

but they liked it that the total concern was about their own soul

their own life their own help ultimately this was everything

and a piecemeal apologetics ultimately puts us on the collapsed level of indian culture

and a piecemeal apologetics ultimately puts us on the collapsed level of Indian culture

and the only way these people could be saved was by saying whether you are healed or not

whether you live or die now that you are ill is not the important issue

Whether you live or die now that you are ill is not the important issue.

the world is bigger than you

it's bigger than i am

It's bigger than I am.

it's bigger than your problems and bigger than mine because i have problems too

Het is groter dan jouw problemen en groter dan de mijne, omdat ik ook problemen heb.

there is a god

and he has a claim upon us

and he has a claim on us

and his claim upon us

en zijn claim op ons

and his judgment upon us

en zijn oordeel over ons

must occupy our mind

before we think about our sickness

before we think about our illness

or our problems

or our troubles

or anything else

the sovereign claim

of the sovereign god

of the sovereign God

this was the only way the indian could be shaken out of this

this was the only way the Indian could be shaken out of this

total isolation in his own world of need

totale isolatie in zijn eigen wereld van behoefte

you see if we follow the course we end up with the indian

You see, if we follow the course, we end up with the Indian.

and on the other hand we end up with

en aan de andere kant komen we uit op

puerboch

puerboch said in his day early in the last century

that all theology is disguised anthropology

this was his indictment of christianity

this was his indictment of Christianity

in his day it was true

In his day it was true.

because pietism ruled the scene

because pietism dominated the scene

and pietism was concerned essentially with man

And pietism was essentially concerned with man.

pietism did not want to hear about the sovereignty of god

Pietism did not want to hear about the sovereignty of God.

or about predestination

or about god's judgment upon man

or about God's judgment upon man

and certainly pietism regarded with horror

and certainly pietism was regarded with horror

such statements as the chief

end of man is to glorify

the purpose of man is to glorify

God and to enjoy

God en genieten

him forever.

hem voor altijd.

Pietism made a concerted

assault upon

all of this as irrelevant.

And so, Furebach said,

theology

is disguised anthropology.

As a consequence,

since then,

sindsdien,

the world has drifted

from one crisis to another

because it has not had

omdat het niet heeft gehad

a true apologetics.

An apologetics that begins

with God and

sets forth the sovereign

claims of God.

That shakes man out of

That shakes man out of.

this self-hypnotism,

this concern

endlessly with himself.

oneindig met zichzelf.

Now, there were some Puritan theologians

Now, there were some Puritan theologians.

in the period from about

1750 to

about 1815

around 1815

in the United States

in de Verenigde Staten

who recognized this trend

as it was coming in.

It made them lean over

Het deed hen naar voren leunen.

backwards to be a little

more

aggressive and hostile against it

aggressief en vijandig ertegenover

and they formulated a test question

as a kind of

something to wake

iets om wakker te worden

up people with.

This nurse who told

me about the hospital said,

he told me about the hospital,

we get a lot of people

come in who are in such

hysteria and shock that

what we must do immediately

is to put ammonia under

is to apply ammonia.

their nose. And he said, they come to

hun neus. En hij zei, ze komen naar

with a jerk.

met een ruk.

It snaps them out of their

hysteria

and he said they will be babbling

wildly and he said it's no different

woest en hij zei dat het geen verschil maakt

than the tongues manifestations

than the manifestations of tongues

I have seen in some churches.

But the ammonia just

brings them to like that.

And then you can talk to them and they're calm and rational.

Well, this was the purpose that Hopkins and Bellamy

Well, this was the purpose that Hopkins and Bellamy.

and others of our American theologians devised this question.

They knew the answer was impossible,

but in effect the answer was like this ammonia under the nose.

but in effect the answer was like ammonia under the nose.

They would ask people who had become converts,

are you willing to be damned for the glory of God?

Are you willing to be damned for the glory of God?

Now, in a sense, they knew that no man can,

and God doesn't ask us to do that,

but in a practical sense, are you ready to take what God gives you

but in a practical sense, are you ready to accept what God gives you?

and to say it is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good.

And to say it is the Lord, let him do what seems good to him.

Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.

In other words, the point of the question, however phrased for shock purposes,

In andere woorden, het punt van de vraag, hoe geformuleerd voor shockdoeleinden,

was the sovereignty of God.

was de soevereiniteit van God.

And it did have something of a healthy impact.

And it did have a somewhat healthy impact.

Now,

Hopkins and Bellamy are two of the most important of American theologians,

Hopkins en Bellamy zijn twee van de meest belangrijke Amerikaanse theologen.

extremely well worth knowing,

but I'm not saying that everything they said I would agree with.

maar ik zeg niet dat ik het met alles eens ben wat ze zeiden.

And I cite this to indicate that they realized something of the problem that was coming in.

And I quote this to indicate that they realized something of the problem that was coming in.

And they had to cope with some of the very egocentric,

antinomian evangelists like Davenport,

who was going around saying that,

believe in Jesus Christ and do as you please,

and he himself, to prove he was free from the law,

en hij zelf, om te bewijzen dat hij vrij was van de wet,

left his wife and took up with several women.

And he made his theology a total vindication of everything a man wanted to do.

And he turned his theology into a total justification of everything a man wanted to do.

He was now under grace, he could do as he pleased.

And of course you had a whole string of movements,

And of course you had a whole series of movements,

like a little later, John Humphrey noises sexual communism,

that arose out of this type of thing.

So, this is what you have to understand when you read Bellamy and Hopkins

So, this is what you have to understand when you read Bellamy and Hopkins.

with their ammonia under the nose technique.

That they're beautiful reading,

That they're beautiful reads,

in spite of the fact that there is this shock element in them.

This is why the reformed faith, as it confronted the renaissance,

was so emphatic in its apologetics.

was zo emphatisch in zijn apologetiek.

about the sovereignty of God.

The great statement of Luther,

which if he had been true to in all his writings,

would have made Lutheranism stronger,

was the bondage of the will.

was de dwang van de wil.

That's Luther's great classic.

Dat is Luther's grote klassieker.

Now, the renaissance was the main target of the reformation,

Now, the Renaissance was the main target of the Reformation,

even more than the church of Rome,

even more than the Church of Rome,

because it was the renaissance,

because it was the Renaissance,

humanism, that had captured church and state,

philosophy, every area of the church,

every area of life at the time of the reformation.

every area of life at the time of the Reformation.

And so they were waging war against the principles of the renaissance

And so they were waging war against the principles of the Renaissance.

in religion as well as in society.

And they did this in the name of the sovereign God

And they did this in the name of the sovereign God.

and the doctrine of predestination.

The bondage of the will.

If you have not read that, read it.

If you haven't read that, read it.

It is a marvelous reading.

It was the answer of...

Luther to Erasmus.

So that the three great classics of the reformation are

So that the three great classics of the Reformation are

Luther's bondage of the will,

Calvin's Institutes,

Calvins Instituten

and third, the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer.

en ten derde, het Episcoop Boek van de Gemeenschappelijke Gebeden.

And all three are reformed.

The Book of Common Prayer

was written in consultation with Calvin

during Edward VI's reign

during the reign of Edward VI

and with John Knox having a hand in it, too.

en met John Knox die er ook een hand in had.

You may not know this,

but John Knox was one of the fathers

of the Church of England.

So he, in a sense, had a great deal to do

So he, in a sense, had a great deal to do.

with both the Church of Scotland

and the Church of England.

There's a very beautiful book on Knox,

Er is een zeer mooi boek over Knox.

which is very fair to both his virtues and his faults.

Jasper Ridley, R-I-D-L-E-Y.

John Knox.

Published by the Oxford University Press.

Just off the presses recently.

Hot off the presses recently.

It's marvelous reading.

Just a joy to read.

Gewoon een genot om te lezen.

But what they emphasized was

the doctrine of the sovereignty of God

and predestination.

en predestinatie.

Now, they had two things to contend with

Now, they had two things to contend with.

as they emphasized this in their apologetics.

They had on the one hand

doctrines of free will

to a radical degree

and on the other hand

the doctrines of determinism.

And their disagreement was with both.

They could not agree with either.

The doctrine of determinism holds

that a temporal process of cause and effect

governs all things.

Whereas the doctrine of free will

Waar het gaat om de doctrine van de vrije wil

says that a temporal will

governs all things.

In other words,

In andere woorden,

determination in both is in time.

Determination in both is timely.

It's in this world.

It is in history.

Not in the sovereign God.

Whereas predestination says

there is an establishment of all temporal processes

and beings from all eternity

en wezens uit alle eeuwigheid

by the sovereign God.

To give you an idea of

how these two can be reconciled in

humanism and often are.

Humanism and often are.

And why it is that

En waarom dat is

the reformers stood against both of these.

The reformers stood against both of these.

Let me read to you

Laat me je voorlezen.

a passage from

a book which is a very blunt statement of

just what its title describes.

Humanistic Ethics

by Gardner Williams.

Incidentally,

this is totally irrelevant

but it has always tickled me so.

maar het heeft me altijd zo geprikkeld.

Calvin, of course,

argued the matter of predestination

with Pigius.

Or tried to.

Of geprobeerd dat te doen.

Pigius, who was very much against

Pigius, die er sterk tegen was

Calvin's position,

wrote a nasty backbiting attack

schreef een gemene roddelende aanval

on the doctrine and on Calvin.

And Calvin sat down

And Calvin sat down.

to answer Pigius

and to tell off Pigius too

and to reprimand Pigius too

for his ungodliness

and the whole thing

because it was an outrageous document.

Omdat het een schandalig document was.

But to Calvin's annoyance

Maar tot Calvins ergernis

Pigius died

Pigius died.

before he could write anything.

voordat hij iets kon schrijven.

So, Calvin,

who had a temperament

and had a temperament

of a man who was

a man who was

who had a temper

although he usually controlled it

wanted to tell off Pigius

wanted to reprimand Pigius

and here he was dead.

And if he attacked a dead man

it just would not look good.

It just wouldn't look good.

But he wanted to say something

Maar hij wilde iets zeggen.

about Pigius.

So on the first page of his

of the Eternal Predestination of God

he starts out and he says that

he had intended to say something

about Pigius.

But since Pigius

is now dead

is nu dood

he said, I will not do so

lest I be accused

of kicking a dead dog.

Sometime I think

Soms denk ik

someone ought to write a book

iemand zou een boek moeten schrijven

on controversy

at the time of the Reformation

because I think it would be a lot of fun

omdat ik denk dat het veel plezier zou opleveren

to read.

Because there was a lot of

Omdat er veel was van

very heated give and take

very heated exchange

and they weren't afraid

en ze waren niet bang

to dish it out or take it

and sometimes their sense of humor

in so doing was really superb.

In doing so was really superb.

I cite that because sometimes

Calvin is portrayed as though

he were a very humorless person.

He was a very humorless person.

And he wasn't.

En dat was hij niet.

He was a quiet scholarly man.

But he had a good sense of humor.

Maar hij had een goed gevoel voor humor.

And he knew that

En hij wist dat

people would read that

mensen zouden dat lezen

and laugh.

And that's exactly

what he wanted to do.

He got his point across.

His opinion of Pigius

but he did it in a humorous way

so that all Europe laughed

so that all of Europe laughed

when they read that.

wanneer ze dat lezen.

Which is what he wanted.

Dat is wat hij wilde.

Now to get on to

Nu verder met

Gardner, Williams

and what he has to say here

about ethics.

First I'm going to read

First I'm going to read.

what he says about ethics.

So you get the framework of the man.

This axiological theory

is also in the tradition

of the interest theory of value.

The essential truth of which is

that the chief intrinsic good

of any individual

is the satisfaction involved in

and resulting from

en voortvloeiend uit

the fulfillment

of his major interests or desires

such as love, ambition

and the desires for truth

for beauty

voor schoonheid

and for sensuous enjoyment.

en voor zinnenprikkelend genot.

We come now to the definitions

We now come to the definitions.

of right and duty.

These are equivalent terms.

One always has a duty

One always has a duty.

to do what is right

and it is always right

for one to do his duty.

The meanings of these terms

are to be derived

from the meanings

which we have already found

for good and value.

An individual always has a duty

from his own point of view

to obtain as nearly as possible

his high quality rights.

His highest good,

which is what is most deeply

satisfactory to him

in the long run.

An equivalent statement is that

he always ought to do

what will meet his deepest needs.

This duty is the categorical imperative.

It is unconditionally binding

Het is onvoorwaardelijk bindend.

upon every individual

op elke individuele persoon

who is capable of experiencing

satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

It is universal and absolute.

In other words,

In andere woorden,

what you really want to do,

you have an absolute requirement to do.

you have an absolute requirement to fulfill.

I think that we ought to adopt

I think that we ought to adopt.

this definition

because it is the only one

omdat het de enige is

which will help us the most

in understanding

man's moral experience.

It is the meaning which men use

It is the meaning that men use.

when they speak most intelligently

of right and wrong.

Whatever the ultimate right

Wat het ultieme recht ook is

principle of duty is,

the principle of duty is,

it is categorical.

It is categorical.

Any act that is right

Elk handeling die juist is

is so on condition

that it conforms to this

absolute principle.

Also, all that conform

Also, all that conforms.

are right.

If incest, sadism,

matricide, bigamy, and arson

were in accordance with it,

they would be right.

Whatever the principle actually is,

Wat het principe ook werkelijk is,

whether the principle actually is

Kant's, Paley's, St. Thomas',

Kant's, Paley's, St. Thomas'

Calvin's, J.S. Mill's,

Mines', or some others,

these sins and vices,

like all sins and vices,

are wrong only

are only wrong

because they violate

omdat ze in strijd zijn

the correct principle of duty,

whatever it is.

wat het ook is.

In other words,

In andere woorden,

it's what you say it is,

and if you don't do what you say

you want to do, that's wrong.

What you want to do is wrong.

Now, incidentally,

he has a doctrine of God.

God is the sum total of men,

God is de optelsom van mensen,

as they find out

and realize themselves.

Now, he comes out

Now, he comes out.

very strongly in terms

of determinism,

but also

maar ook

winds up identifying it

with free will.

met vrije wil.

Some make the mistake of thinking

that if the future is all

dat als de toekomst alles is

predetermined, then human effort is futile.

Actually, the future

is unalterable.

But still, men can probably

Maar toch kunnen mannen waarschijnlijk

make further progress by

exerting his will

and courage and intelligence.

It is fundamental that the past

cannot be made different from exactly

what it was.

That the present cannot be made different

That the present cannot be changed.

from exactly what it is,

van precies wat het is,

and that the future can never be made

different from exactly

what it will be.

wat het zal zijn.

This is due essentially or formally

This is due essentially or formally.

in Aristotelian terminology

to the determinism of being,

and only efficiently,

en alleen efficiënt,

not essentially, to

ordinary causal

gewone oorzaak

determinism.

The latter has, of course, in fact,

made everything just what it is

at the time that it is it.

But even if everything were partly

Maar zelfs als alles gedeeltelijk was

or wholly uncaused,

of geheel ongeoorzaakt,

still past, present, and future,

could never be different from exactly

kon nooit anders zijn dan precies

what they are,

were, and will be.

All past crimes

and all past social injustice

en alle eerdere sociale ongelijkheid

have been 100%

causally inevitable.

The criminals could have acted

The criminals could have acted.

as they had preferred,

but heredity and environment

caused them not to prefer.

The people who voluntarily

set up social laws,

customs, and institutions

involving social injustice

could have set up other laws,

could have established other laws,

etc., if they had preferred to.

etc., als zij dat liever hadden gewild.

Laws, etc., which would have involved

other forms of social injustice

and perhaps much less of it.

en misschien veel minder ervan.

But heredity and

Maar erfelijkheid en

environment caused them to prefer

environment deed hen de voorkeur geven aan

to set up just the laws,

to establish only the laws,

or they did,

among those which they had

onder degenen die ze hadden

the power to establish.

In the same sense, all present

and future crime and injustice

en toekomstige misdaad en onrecht

are and will be 100%

causally inevitable.

This may make it look futile

This may make it look futile.

to attempt to prevent criminal

to attempt to prevent crime

violation of just laws

and to renovate unjust ones.

We are not permitted to break

We zijn niet toegestaan om te breken.

the laws of natural causation

in order to enforce or to reform

our man-made laws.

onze door de mens gemaakte wetten.

Moral and social reform

Moral en sociale hervorming

is not really futile.

When the causes of crime

are in accordance with the inexorable

laws of nature caused to be removed,

the non-occurrence

of crime will just as

causally,

casually,

will be just as causally

will be just as casually

inevitable as the crimes of

history have been.

When the causes of social justice

are caused to occur,

social justice will be

sociale rechtvaardigheid zal zijn

equally inevitable.

eveneens onontkoombaar.

It is a matter of education

It is a matter of education.

and wise social leadership

en wijs sociaal leiderschap

and possibly a bit of negative

and possibly a bit of negativity

eugenics to wipe out

some of the bad

een deel van het slechte

hereditary strains.

This education and leadership

and eugenics will not occur

unless they are caused."

"tenzij ze veroorzaakt worden."

Now, do you get the point of it?

Now, do you understand the point of it?

He very definitely

recognizes that free will

and determinism are both

in the area of time, of history.

And therefore he says,

En daarom zegt hij,

things that happen, happen

because they were caused.

And causality

is here. And through

the right kind of social leadership,

the scientific socialist elite,

we can

we kunnen

control the lever.

The lever is in time.

The lever is on time.

We can get rid of those

We can get rid of those.

with a bad heredity.

with a bad hereditary background.

We can

have vasectomies

for them

voor hen

so that they won't

zodat ze dat niet zullen

reproduce their kind.

We can remove the causes of crime

We can remove the causes of crime.

through legislation.

door middel van wetgeving.

So we will have determinism

So we will have determinism.

and we will also have free will

because

both of these are determined

beide van deze zijn vastberaden

from within history

vanuit de geschiedenis

and therefore the lever for the control

en daarom de hendel voor de bediening

of history is right there

available if only

beschikbaar als alleen

we produce a society

or an elite group of

philosopher kings

take control.

But,

the whole point of our faith

that we must

stress in our apologetics is

that the lever is not here.

The lever is in eternity

The lever is in eternity.

and predestination means

that the eternal

counsel of God from all

eternity governs all

things and it is not of

man.

And therefore

the kind of tyranny that is

inevitable with this kind of

inevitable met dit soort

society which is the kind that is

dominating our politics today

dominerend in onze politiek van vandaag

the kind which is

planning our future

where men like Skinner

waar mannen zoals Skinner

actually dream of

eigenlijk dromen van

having a lever over all

having leverage over all

of us in the form of an electrode

planted inside of our brain

so that the whole world

can be predestined

in terms of

an elite group

of scientific socialists

you see.

And this becomes impossible.

Yes?

How do you deal with men

How do you deal with men?

kind of

sort of

going after

Karl Barth

and

well,

for

time and space

tijd en ruimte

you can't deal with history

and then it seems like you got

en dan lijkt het alsof je hebt gekregen

just what you did.

Well, I went into that last night

Well, I went into that last night.

and I simply refer you

if you were, were you there?

If you were, were you there?

No. Well, I refer

you to the section in

my By What Standard in which I

quote Hans Ehrenberg

with regard to Karl Barth.

There is

no god that is

beyond the world in my

estimation and in the estimation

of many others including Van Til

except as a limiting concept

behalve als een beperkend concept

and Brunner was

honest enough to admit it.

So his god is

limitless,

spaceless and beingless.

So he is not real.

Yes?

Doctor, it says Gardner Williams

Doctor, it says Gardner Williams.

had just spoken in his classroom

and you now had the chance to answer him.

How would you begin?

How would you start?

Let's say in one minute

Laten we het over één minuut zeggen.

what would be your starting point?

What would be your starting point?

I would say to him

I would say to him.

the inevitable conclusion

of your position

Doctor Williams is

that you want to be God

over me.

about me.

Now, let me

be the God over you

and Skinner and let me put the

electrode in your brain.

How does that set with you?

How does that sit with you?

I don't think

Ik denk het niet.

it would set very well.

It would fit very well.

In other words

In andere woorden

they are all for this

ze zijn hier allemaal voor

because they believe they are the ones

omdat ze geloven dat zij het zijn

who know what's best for you.

who knows what's best for you.

But if we were to turn

Maar als we zouden draaien

tables on them and say

tafels erop en zeggen

it's a very good idea but you are the one

It's a very good idea but you are the one.

who should have the electrode

put into your brain

I think

Ik denk

they would have a different idea of things

especially if you had the power to do it.

Now that's a very

nasty answer

vies antwoord

but I think

maar ik denk

it gets to the grips of the issue.

it gets to the heart of the matter.

You are saying

you are God

but in your world

maar in jouw wereld

I can then play God

I can then play God.

and make you the preacher.

Yes.

How does the difference

between your eschatology and Van Til's

tussen jouw eschatologie en die van Van Til

affect the way

you would like to reconstruct the world

and take back what is ours?

Well, Van Til has never

said much about eschatology

and in

Jerusalem and Athens

Greg Singer

one of your very fine

southern Presbyterian scholars

zuidelijke Presbyteriaanse geleerden

and a good friend of mine

en een goede vriend van mij

told Van Til

that his position was

quite implicitly post-mill

vrij impliciet post-mill

and in the answers

Van Til never

criticized Greg Singer

for that.

voor dat.

Van Til has never wanted to get into

Van Til heeft zich nooit willen bemoeien met

the area of eschatology

he has concentrated just on his area

but I think it's interesting how many

of his

followers and students are post-mill.

I think that says a great deal

Ik denk dat dat veel zegt.

about his position.

So that it is

implicitly post-mill

so that

whether it's Greg Singer or myself

of het nu Greg Singer is of ikzelf

or Gary North or

Dr. Smith here

Dr. Smith hier

we have seen these implications

in his position.

Yes.

I have a question

I have a question.

I'm concerned about

Ik maak me zorgen over

how we use words

and do not use hands

en gebruik geen handen

even small words

and twice today

what is the answer

to the first question

because man's chief hand

is the Lord our God

is de Heer onze God

would you mind defining

Would you mind defining?

man

in that answer?

Yes. Man is that creature

Yes. Man is that creature.

who is created in the image of God

in knowledge

righteousness and holiness

gerechtigheid en heiligheid

and that is

en dat is

the redeemed creature

it is the duty

of every man

to glorify God

and to enjoy Him forever

en Hem voor altijd te genieten

and men who will not do so

are judged by God

now you see

every man is summoned

to obey God

to glorify God

and men who will not do so

are judged

the Bible is

for all men

voor alle mannen

the word of God

is spoken unto all men

is gesproken tot alle mannen

and therefore the judgment of God

en daarom het oordeel van God

applies to all

who will not hear

So the word is man's universe?

Yes

I've got a question

I have a question.

No go ahead

Go ahead.

There is something like

what you said at first

about the Christian view of everything

politics and I have a real problem

Politics and I have a real problem.

with Christianity and politics

it seems to me like governments

It seems to me like governments

all governments are formed

on a humanistic basis

and how can you get Christianity

into government like

it's like saying what's the Christian view

It's like saying what's the Christian view.

of running a gambling joint

of running a gambling operation

it just seems worldly

Het lijkt gewoon werelds.

government is worldly

government is secular

I have a real problem with that

I have a real problem with that.

Yes that's a very good question

Yes, that's a very good question.

very good

no it is very good

it's an important question

because there are many

want er zijn er veel

who feel that the

well

first of all let me

First of all, let me.

call for a

precision in the use of government

we use the word loosely

we gebruiken het woord in ruime zin

and I

fall into the habit myself often

I often fall into the habit myself.

but our Puritan forebears

but our Puritan ancestors

were very

meticulous about the use of it

meticulous about its use

when they said government

they didn't mean Washington

ze bedoelden Washington niet

or the state house or anything like that

they meant the self-government

ze bedoelden het zelfbestuur

of the Christian man

the basic government

they meant then the family

the school

they meant a man's calling

ze bedoelden een mannenroep

they meant the community

ze bedoelden de gemeenschap

which had a governing effect

because you're sensitive to what people around you say

omdat je gevoelig bent voor wat mensen om je heen zeggen

and that governs you to a degree

and civil government

en Burgerlijk Bestuur

their term for what we call the state

hun term voor wat wij de staat noemen

now your question is about

civil government and it is important

there have been

a number of views with regard

to the role of civil government

and this has been

a very

very

significant aspect

of our history

first there has been

the Manichean view

holds that the world

houdt dat de wereld

is hopelessly

is hopeloos

corrupt and evil

corrupt en kwaadaardig

because it belongs

omdat het erbij hoort

to the material world of the evil god

and so

the attitude

of the Manichean is

that government

die overheid

like a cesspool

zoals een rioolput

civil government like a cesspool

is one of those things

which in this life we put up with

which we tolerate in this life

but the further away it is

and the less we have to do with it

the better off we are

because we no more want to be involved

omdat we er niet meer bij betrokken willen zijn

in rolling into a cesspool

than we do into government

you see civil government

now that idea

which is heretical to the core

which comes out of paganism

has nonetheless

nevertheless

corrupted the church

then

second and there are

second en er zijn

a number of

ideas here I'm just hitting

some

there is the classical

view

in terms

of which

there is

a spiritual domain

which religion can concern itself

which religion can be concerned

with but the material world

met enkel de materiële wereld

is under the realm of the state

is onder het rijk van de staat

and the state has the main institution

of man

has also the duty of governing this

because this is not as important

omdat dit niet zo belangrijk is

the important area is

the world

and the state governs the world

and the pagan doctrine

of the state was that the state

had sovereign

sway in every area

Rome was ready to allow any

church any religion

that is

to exist provided they got license

to exist provided they got a license

you see

and the process of

licensing meant that you recognized

licensing betekende dat je erkende

the priority of Caesar

and offered incense at his altar

en bood wierook aan op zijn altaar

so that

the church was just

an aspect of

the life of the state and recognized

the priority of Caesar over God

of the state over

Christian faith

Christian geloof

and the problem with the early church was

that they refused

to apply for licensing

and as an illegal

cult the church was

prosecuted

prosecute

then third

dan derde

now the classical view heavily

influenced

Aquinas

and passed into the Christian tradition

en overging in de christelijke traditie

very heavily

then a third view

is the Lutheran

is de Lutheraan

now I call it

the Lutheran rather than Luther's

because although it is based on

Luther's

I don't think it does justice to Luther

I don't think it does justice to Luther.

but the Lutheran

maar de Lutherse

view is that the state is God's

the view is that the state is God's

hangman

it has a purely negative

function it's a nasty job

but it's one you've got to have

maar het is er een die je moet hebben

in society

the state must simply

eliminate the criminals

and act as the policeman and do the

nasty dirty brutish work

because otherwise

society falls apart

then fourth

dan vierde

we have the reformed view

in which

the state

is an aspect

of the kingdom of God

of het koninkrijk van God

and is required

en is vereist

to work for the establishment

of God's order

God's righteousness upon earth

God's righteousness on earth

now

it is this kind

of view that the Puritans

held emphatically

it was

het was

in terms of the reformed view

in termen van de gereformeerde visie

that the pilgrims felt

that the state had a positive

obligation to serve God

to set forth

a godly law order

a divine law order

to recognize the validity

of scripture for example they simply

enacted as much as the British government

would permit them the bible

would permit them the Bible

as their law

als hun wet

and as late as the 1830's and 40's

en zo laat als in de jaren 1830 en 40

I have found decisions

I have found decisions.

of courts that were

based purely on a verse of scripture

because the common law

omdat het gewoonterecht

of the land was

scripture you see

and

the

well laws like

the

incorrigible son

this was enacted

dit werd ingevoerd

it ended delinquency overnight

by the way

once they passed the law that delinquent children could be executed

they certainly

ze zeker

behaved well after that

now

in terms of the reformed view

in termen van het gereformeerde standpunt

what we must state is

that the

civil government

has a positive duty

to be godly

the point I made yesterday

before the

house of the

legislature was

that all law

is a form

of theological

order

every law structure is a theological

Every legal structure is theological.

establishment

because all law rests on

morality it is enacted

morality

and all morality

en alle moraliteit

is an aspect

the relational

aspect of religion

so every law order

is an establishment of religion

our problem today

ons probleem vandaag

of course is that

of course that is

from a

Christian law order

we are moving to a humanist

law order

and let me

close with this word

sluit af met dit woord

not only as a word of warning

but as a word to urge

maar als een woord om aan te dringen

you to intensive action

as you go out into the pastorate

as you go out into the ministry

and the last year

our supreme court has

made it clear that we are

no longer a Christian law

order that the religious

foundation is humanism

The foundation is humanism.

in the two recent

decisions on abortion

because there were

omdat er waren

two decisions that they ruled on

at one and the same time

and I have both of those

en ik heb allebei die dingen

decisions at home on my desk

I intend to

write on them soon for our

Calcedon report

in those decisions they made it

clear that in coming out

duidelijk dat in uitkomen

for abortion they were

using religion as their authority

but it was paganism

ancient paganism

so they made it clear

that the foundation of law

for us now is no longer

Christianity but

paganism ancient humanism

revised and modernized

herzien en gemoderniseerd

now in the

death penalty decision

they made it virtually impossible

to execute a guilty man

in the abortion

case they said that innocent

In case they said that innocent.

life can be taken

if it can be taken

seven months after conception

why not 60 years

after conception

na de conceptie

so that you can eliminate

everyone at the age of

iedereen op de leeftijd van

65

no problem with social security

then if it goes bankrupt

or you can eliminate all blacks

or all whites

or all Christians

for all Christians

and don't think they won't

try it unless you turn

it around

you are fighting for the life of

Christendom and for the life

Christianity and for the life

of your people because humanism

can do what Rome did

having now a pagan

religious basis for its law

it will use that law against

any other religion ultimately

unless you reestablish

tenzij je herstelt

the foundations

as a result it is very

As a result, it is very

important for us

to stress the reform doctrine

to emphasize the reform doctrine

of the state to have an apologetics

that is a world and life view

that is a worldview

and to go out as

conquerors because we are either

going to conquer or be conquered

gaan veroveren of veroverd worden

I look for

I am looking for

very rough days

zeer zware dagen

in the immediate future

very rough days

zeer zware dagen

a really hard

battle

but I also

maar ik ook

look to the certainty

of victory

and may God bless and prosper you

in that battle because it is going to be one

in die strijd omdat het een strijd gaat worden

thank you

this has been

a Calcedon Foundation production

produced by

Grace Community School and

Nicene Covenant Church

if you enjoyed this lecture

be sure to visit calcedon.edu

for more lectures

voor meer lezingen

and series by R.J. Rushduni

and series by R.J. Rushdoony

and the Calcedon Foundation

3. Apologetics: Part III (Remastered)