In this sermon, the speaker discusses the concept of good and evil as taught by Jesus in the Bible. They reference several passages, including Matthew 7:17-18, Matthew 12:33-35, and Luke 6:43-45. The speaker emphasizes that the words we speak reflect the condition of our hearts, and that a good person brings forth good things from their heart. They also highlight the idea that the natural man, without the Spirit of God, cannot understand or appreciate spiritual things. The sermon concludes by emphasizing that conformity to the law of God is a key criterion for determining what is good.

Oh Lord, I am God without flesh, but You made me a seed of heat. Just as the seed, but it is flesh, You have the more, more power of the flesh, significant positive judgment that You are the mind of the flesh. is enmity, and when you are dealing with what is the ultimate analysis of things, there's nothing that is more significant than that indictment of fall in the mind of the flesh is enmity. His enemies are the enemies of God. So we must postpone moral and spiritual being, moral and religious being, and indicates that that which is most determinative of human personality in respect of moral, spiritual and religious dedication is enmity. And if that does not involve what we define as total depravity, well, I despair of the adequacy of language. There is not an equation between total depravity and enmity against where we are. So that at every point of God's self-manifestation, at every point the mind of the flesh rises up in contradiction following all lines of divine perfection, and divine perfection as revealed in self-manifestation. And our condition is that at every point sin is the contradiction of God, of His glory. Now it's all right if we don't believe in the witness of Scripture. It's all right, but from theoretical point of view, that one thing, if we don't believe the witness of Scripture, but if we accept the witness of Scripture, then we are absolutely certain of what has in the form of theology been defined as total depravity. I'm not going to continue longer on that. There are various other considerations establishing the doctrine of total depravity, and you'll find a great many considerations in the textbooks, and I would draw your attention particularly to the argument that the only way whereby we can have deliverance from our depravity is by regeneration. Regeneration. We place that on the background of the presupposition. Presupposition, which requires so radical a transformation as regeneration in order to remedy it. But I'm not going to develop any more arguments. What I've given you are the five points of the biblical witness on this question. Conclusion, hypothesis, anything. Now we come to the next point, the subdivision of our inability. After all, this could be very well said. Depravity is an implication, original sin. Nevertheless, because there are, we can deal with it. Now inheritance is implicit because it simply means that so deep-seated is our depravity, deep-seated and pervasive is our depravity, that we are not able to act contrary to us, and therefore are not being native to us. Well, we'll deal with the nature of, and therefore inability means that as a result of a man is not only indisposed and made opposite to all good, but also totally unable to be otherwise. And therefore his total inability to discern, love or choose the things that are well-pleasing to God. To discern, love or choose the things that are well-pleasing to God. He cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned. He cannot love them because his heart is enmity against God. And he cannot will them, cannot choose them, will them because they that are in the flesh. He cannot. So what is particularly emphasized in this doctrine is the ujjhuntai, or the thought of an unregenerate man. The ujjhuntai, or the well-wrapped reserve, metaphysically does not reserve to any limitations from outside. There are, of course, numberless inabilities. And to us, because we are created, and it is necessary to discriminate between that incapacity which belongs to us by reason of our metaphysical age, and the moral, spiritual, and religious inability which belongs to our sinful. As you know, there is great need of emphasizing that distinction, because in the dialectic theology, there is a confusion of this very score, this very question. The side of dialectic affinity, we find it, for example, in Roman Catholicism. We found it, for instance, since he was created, since he was made upright, constituted by God for the fulfillment of all his obligations. We mean when we say man has plenary ability in awe of the will of God. Inability does not mean authority, liberty. Liberty in inability does not mean liberty. Liberty means that man exercises volition in accordance with his character. Inability is concerned with the moral, spiritual, and religious incapacity which inheres in his depraved character. The moral, spiritual, and religious incapacity which inheres in the depravity of his depraved character. And so inability is concerned with the ethic of assessment. Ethic of assessment. Liberty is with what is inherent in man's responsibility, belongs to the morals. The very inability which is predicated of man, we suppose, is liberty. This liberty or inability is an indictment of our character, and only obtain that ability, man's responsibility is real. Ability could be real only if we are endowed with that naturally, forced, absolutely determined to know and solve. I'm going to Matthew 7, 17, and 18. The good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bring forth that which is good, bring forth that which is good. But now he says the opposite. The evil man, the wicked man, out of the wicked, the evil man, the wicked man, the wicked man, out of the wicked treasure of his heart, brings forth that which brings forth evil. The evil man, out of the evil treasure, brings forth evil. Now you see, it's a sequence. Inevitable evil man, evil treasure, brings forth evil. Now I suppose our law goes further. Matthew 7, 18. His dealing, of course, is using this evil fruit. He is a kind of corrupt tree. There you have ooze, do the time. A corrupt tree, that's a corrupt man, good tree, but an evil man. Now surely, now I'm going to get witness of, First of all, Romans 5-8 again. Romans 8-5. This text, this text, not only states that, but you have here again reflections on the impossibility of the opposite. On two occasions, you have this formula, which amounts to ooze, do the time. Ooze, do the time. In that five, they who are in the flesh, cannot please God. They who are in the flesh, ooze, do the time. He that is in the flesh, cannot please God, cannot. And the importance of that is surely, that it is psychologically, morally, religiously impossible for that person to be pleasing God, to do what is well-pleasing to God. It's psychologically, morally, religiously impossible, and there's nothing less than that involved in that. The full statement, all words say, O are well-tried, O do not try. And then, later on, in the same passage, the mind of the flesh is then that he agrees to God, but it's not subject to the law of God. Neither indeed it cannot. Ute gar dunatar. Or indeed it cannot. Ute gar dunatar. There are various ways of enunciating the criterion of what is good. Various ways. For example, likeness to God, pleasing God. But, there is no formula, there is no criterion that is conformity to the law of God. Conformity to the law of God. Now to make a criterion of what is good. It is that criterion that is applied here. And with reference to the person characterized by the flesh, or by the mind of the flesh, by the mind that is then that he agrees to God, that he cannot be subject to the law of God. He cannot. And that amounts again to say that it's a moral, it's a psychological, moral and religious impossibility. Now take 1 Corinthians 2.14. Another one from Paul. 1 Corinthians 2.14. Paul is dealing with Anthroposphicus, the natural man. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually deserved. The formula here again is the same. Udunatai nonai. Glonai perhaps is pronounced. Udunatai glonai. Yes. He cannot know them. Udunatai. And that means simply, the thing capable of deserving and appreciating and receiving the things of the Spirit of God, which Paul has spoken in the preceding context. When he said, we seek the wisdom of God in a mystery, evenly hidden mystery, which none of the persons of this world knew, for as they know it, crucified the Lord of glory, I have not seen, nor he has heard, but God hath revealed them unto us, by which it all seems, yea, it is deep, all in full detail, that the natural man in such condition cannot discern the impossible, and the point being, born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. See. No, our Lord is not dealing with the physical sight, not dealing with the use of scripture, to perceive that. He cannot see the kingdom of God. That is to say, he cannot have any true character, and he cannot have any appreciation of it. And that's what our purpose is, before eloquence. And the other statement which Jesus makes in verse five, that man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the insane, or deeply into the incapacity that belongs to man, that brought upon this radical change, which is called regeneration. Now I'm going to take another few passages from John's Gospel, and conclude. John, verses thirty-seven, thirty-nine, and all of the Old Testament. And Jesus says, first of all, that no man can possess Him, draw Him. Verses forty-four and forty-five. No one can come unto Him except Him. And then verse sixty-five, no one can come unto Him, except it were given to Him of the Father. These two statements we are concerned with. First in the Greek is, udeis dunatai elfen, elfen prasme. Udeis dunatai, elfen prasme. No one can come unto Me. And then in the verse sixty-five, udeis dunatai, elfen prasme. And then made a domain on earth to which to touch on. No one can come unto Me, except it were given unto Him of My Father. Now we cannot question, but Jesus is here talking about what I have repeated in the statement of logical, moral, religious impossibility. And this impossibility with which Jesus is here speaking, they seek the man that devolves upon them as they are confronted with revelation of God's grace. They seek the man devolving upon them as they are confronted with God's self-revelation in His own Son. Now, this point, as they talk to Me, is quite obvious in the way of stating what amounts to faith in Jesus Christ. That's quite obvious in the context. John 6, 37, All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me. I'll come to Me, and Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out. He is preparing Himself to save Himself. And it is that which is under causation, because in John 6, 39, as you would remember, He says, This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everything which He hath given to Me I should not lose of it, but should raise it up in the last day. If you go on in that, it makes perfectly clear that what Jesus is talking of is that coming unto Him is unto eternal salvation. A salvation which reaches its consummation being raised up at the last day. Now, we'll have to wait until next day to show what the implications of Jesus' teaching here really are in reference to this particular subject.