Human Nature In Its Third Estate

Regeneration, Atonement, Psychology

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Doctrinal Studies

Lesson: 4-20

Genre: Speech

Track: 24

Dictation Name: RR131N25

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s - 1970’s

[Dr. Rushdoony] John 3:1-6 with particular emphasis on verse 6. And our subject, the implications of regeneration and atonement for psychology. John 3:1-6, verse 6 in particular.

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In recent years Christianity has had a very serious threat and invasion. The invasion of humanistic psychologies into the Church. And especially into the pastoral relationship. One of the most popular of book clubs among the clergy today is the pastoral psychology book club. The books sold by this organization have had virtually a determinating influence on the pastoral relationship in recent years, in that they have prescribed the kind of psychology to be used by the pastor in counseling. As a result counseling has become based on very radically anti-foundations which do serious harm. It has been motivated, instead of by Christian morality, a humanistic relativism. Now a few writers have been aware of this problem. Curiously one of the most notable has been, himself a non-Christian, Dr. O. Hobart Mower, who has denied there is any such thing as mental sickness.

As has Dr. Sotz{?}. The thesis of these men is that what is called mental sickness is actually a moral problem. An evasion of moral responsibility. And they have documented this very thoroughly. Now one writer in the area of pastoral counseling, a churchman, Jay Adams, in his book ‘Competent to Counsel’ has followed Dr. Mower and Dr. Soz{?}. He has recognized that mental sicknesses are really moral problems, that they are escapes from responsibility. And that the cure means a resumption of sound moral responsibility. So far so good. But apart from that, Adams has contributed nothing. Nor has he developed from this any genuine Christian approach to counseling or to psychology. There is in Adams, who is the one man in the field of Christian pastoral psychology who has dealt with the problem, no recognition of the very different natures of man and the state of depravity and the state of grace. There cannot be a Christian psychology until these differences are recognized. For the differences are very, very real. Let us illustrate. Recently a report on rape was published by Susan Griffin. Who pointed out that it is the fastest growing crime in the United States. Moreover, although the statistics indicate this, the statistics are like an iceberg. Very little of a very small percentage of the actual number of rapes is ever reported. And a even smaller percentage is ever successfully prosecuted. The treatment of the victims of rape is extremely brutal. Not only by the perpetrator of the crime, but by all law enforcement agencies.

Susan Griffin says, and I quote, “The same culture which expects aggression from the male expects passivity from the female. Conveniently the companion myth about the nature of female sexuality is that all women secretly want to be raped. Working beneath her modest female exterior is a subconscious desire to be ravished.” Unquote. And this type of questioning is followed by defense attorney’s, and the juries are very prone to believe that she really wanted it or asked for it. Susan Griffin cites one case which she says is typical. She found this repeatedly in the cases she followed out. In this case the criminal, after his release on bail, tried to see the victim. She, to quote her, “A young woman who was raped by the husband of a friend, said that days after the incident the man returned to her home, pounded on the door and screamed to her, “Jane, Jane, you loved it, you know you loved it.”” Unquote. Now can we say the psychology of this man is identical with the psychology with a man in the state of grace? A true believer? Susan Griffin does point out that what this man represented does lurk in the mentality of people. She generalized for all people. There we would not agree. But the evidence that is forthcoming from jury trials, the discussion that goes on in a jury room, the kind of questioning allowed in the court room, which is a rape all over again, very clearly indicates that among unregenerate men there is a belief that violence is gratefully received. We must say that a sadomasochistic culture, a culture which believes in self atonement, believes in the need for violence, either sadistic or masochistic. It wants violence. And therefore it refuses to believe that a victim really doesn’t want it. Whenever you have had an ungodly age you have not only had an increase in the crimes of violence, a rapid skyrocketing increase, but you have had a love of violence in every kind of entertainment.

Today of course violence is commonplace of television, in the movies, in novels, everywhere. There is a delight in it. A delight in giving violence and receiving violence. Demonstrations invite violence. There’s a pleasure on the part of students and demonstrators in being beaten by the police. A sadomasochistic culture, a culture which does not have atonement through Jesus Christ, will seek self atonement through sadistic acts or through masochistic acts which receive violence. This is so deeply ingrained in our culture today that increasingly a very common factor in the younger generation is this. That even where there are consenting acts of sexuality there is a need for violence, so that even when a girl consents, very savage violence often ensues. We cannot say that this kind of mentality, this sadomasochistic mentality which characterizes an unregenerate generation and has over and over again, is also the psychology of the Christian. One the one hand, the ungodly, the more they manifest this, the more urgently they need atonement and the more they step up the pace of violence, as sadomasochistic violence. This is why as it progressed in the Roman Empire there was the need for violence more and more on the stage until finally if murder were depicted it had to be performed on stage. We haven’t quite come to that point yet but perhaps we will. Now both fallen and redeemed men have their common origin in Adam. Both hunger and thirst, both have appetites and desires.

But their means of satisfaction differs. The one is governed by sin and the other by a desire for godly fulfillment. Sin is a way of life to the unbeliever. He wants to break the law, for him freedom is in breaking the law. But sin is distressing to the believer. For the godly freedom means life under God and His law. But for the ungodly it means escape from God and His law. Thus we must say in terms of John 3:6, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. In terms of this verse it is impossible to equate the psychology of the unregenerate and the redeemed. But this precisely what all modern psychologies, by Christians and non-Christians, insist on doing. We must therefore say, first of all, there is a difference in the psychology of the regenerate and the unregenerate.

We must say second that this difference rests in fundamental differences of nature. And the ground of this difference is the supernatural act of God in regenerating man. That he who is born again has a different mainspring for his actions. Dr. Hendrickson in commenting on this verse, John 3:6, has written, and I quote, “One could paraphrase as follows. Sinful human nature produces sinful human nature. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. The Holy Spirit produces the sanctified human nature.” Unquote. Moreover Jean Alfred, one of the great scholars of the Church of England in the last century, commenting on the same verse said, and I quote, “The neuter{?} gender, that which is born, denotes not only the universal application of this truth, but the very first beginnings of life in the embryo before sex can be predicated. The Lord here answers Nicodemus’ hypothetical question of verse 4, by telling him that even could it be so it would not accomplish the birth of which he speaks, that is, even if one could return to his mothers womb and be born again, be could not shake off that which is of the fallen human nature. In this flesh is included every part of that which is born after the ordinary method of generation. Even the spirit of man, which receptive as it is of the Spirit of God, is yet in the natural state, dead. Sunk in trespasses and sin and in a state of wrath.

Such flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But when the man is born again of the Spirit, the water does not appear any more, being merely the outward form of reception, the less included in the greater, then just as flesh generates flesh, so spirit generates spirit, after its own image. And since the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, such only who are so born can enter into it.” Unquote.

Now there is a third area of difference too, which we have already pointed out. With respect to atonement, there’s a fundamental difference between men. Sin and guilt in those who are unregenerate leads to self atonement. Whereas in the redeemed there is a release from the burden of sin and guilt, rather than an endless working out of it in masochistic and sadistic activities. As St. Paul declares in Romans 8 verses 1 and 2, there is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. What St. Paul said was that when we are born again we are free from the death penalty of the law. And we are freed from the workings of the old fallen human nature. There is no condemnation, so that we are no longer concerned with self atonement. Atonement has been made by Jesus Christ. And so we have been made free. As a result, the psychic energy of the redeemed man is released from destructive to constructive channels.

Then fourth we must say that the desire of the unredeemed is for autonomy. Freedom from God, and also freedom from man.

Whereas the redeemed seek to place themselves under God and His law. We cannot expect the two to act the same. Their psychologies are difference. And therefore it is the height of folly for any man to expect of the unregenerate the same response as from the regenerate. About three centuries ago the great English divine, Robert Sal{?}, in a sermon on gratitude, called attention to this fact. And he said it was such a mistake of the part of people to expect genuine gratitude from an unregenerate man. He might say thank you very readily in very flowery language, but real gratitude, when it costs the person something, when the chips are down, came from a different wellspring. And so commenting on this he said, “And therefore wherein{?} gratitude begins remarkably to show itself, he surely judges most wisely who takes alarm betimes, and auguring the fountain from the stream, concludes that there is ill nature at the bottom. And so reducing his judgment into practice, timely withdraws his frustraneous{?} baffled kindnesses and sees the folly of endeavoring to stroke a tiger into a lamb, or to court an Ethiopian out of his color.” Unquote.

Then fifth we must say that the autonomous man has a different view of sanctification, of what constitutes holiness and righteousness. A few weeks ago we cited Henry Miller on regeneration, which means to be dead to God and His law and alive totally to sin, to evil. Carl Shapero{?} an admirer of Henry Miller has written and I quote, “Morally I regard Miller as a holy man as most of his adherents do.” Unquote. And quite rightly so. Because their view of sanctification is different than that of the regenerate man. Whereas for the godly the view of sanctification I think is summed up in the psalm 119, where the psalmist in every verse expresses his delight in obeying God. Oh how I love Thy law, it is my meditation all the day. To obey God and to know better how to obey Him and to serve Him, to follow Him in all things.

Thus John 3:6 very powerfully tells us how we should serve God. Whereas for the ungodly as Shipero{?} points out, and I quote, “Miller says in a little essay on immorality and morality, what is moral and what is immoral? Nobody can ever answer this question satisfactorily. Not because moral {?} evolved, but because the principle on which they depend is factitious, that is, mythical. Morality is for slaves, for beings without spirit, and when I say spirit I mean the holy spirit. And he ends this little piece with a quotation from ancient Hindu scripture. Evil does not exist.” Unquote. In other words, Miller very plainly says that sanctification means to be without morality and the holy spirit is that spirit which possesses those who are without morality. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. And we cannot, we cannot have a common psychology for both.

To turn again to that same verse in Ellicott’s commentary, he wrote and I quote, “The first step is to remind Nicodemus of the law of likeness in natural generation. Flesh, as distinct from spirit, is human nature in so far it is common with animal nature, consisting of the bodily frame and its animal life, feelings and passions. Flesh as opposed to spirit, is this nature as not under the guidance of the human spirit, which is itself the shrine of the divine spirit and therefore it is sinful. It is this nature in its material constitution and subject to sin which transmitted from father to son, the physical life itself is dependent upon birth. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. There is an {?} spiritual generation. Spirit as opposed to flesh is the differentia as man as distinct from all other creatures. It is the image of God in him, the seat of the capacity for the communion with God, which is the true principle of life.

In the natural man this is crushed and dormant. In the spiritual man it has been quickened by the influence of the Holy Ghost. This is a new life in him. And the spiritual life like the physical is dependent upon birth. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.” Unquote. Thus the pulpit, pastoral counseling, Christian psychology, should have as its central task to stress this fundamental difference. To declare the necessity of rebirth and the centrality of atonement for psychology. Pastoral counseling should ascertain first is the person regenerate. And then to seek further growth in sanctification. Thus we must declare as Christians, and we cannot consent to any psychology which holds that there is one common psychology to regenerate and unregenerate. And the fact that without an exception this has been the course of the psychology both in and out of the Church for the past fifty years tells us why the Church has become riddled with humanism. By pastoral counseling more often than not does more harm than good. It has forgotten the word of our Lord, that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. And has followed Freud, Yung, and a host of others who have denied the Word of God and created a view of man in their own image. To this no Christian can give assent. Thus pastoral counseling, preaching, psychology, education, all must be structured in terms of this the Word of God. {?}. Let us pray.

Almighty God our heavenly Father we give thanks unto Thee that that which is born of spirit is spirit. We thank Thee that through Jesus Christ Thou hast called us to be Thy people and regenerated us after His image. And we pray that we may be renewed day after day in that selfsame image. Ever striving to serve Thee, ever rejoicing in Thy calling, ever growing in terms of Thy Word and by Thy Spirit.

Bless us to this purpose, in Jesus name, Amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all with respect to our lesson? Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Dr. Rushdoony] Very good question. In case you did not hear it, the point was that among the unregenerate is there not a difference because many have been reared in a Christian background, in a Christian home or in a Christian society? And therefore they do have characteristics and traits, which we might call a Christian hangover. And the answer is emphatically yes. And this hangover of Christian culture is all around us. And this is of course the thing that the Spanish scholar Ortega Egassa{?} called attention to. And he said that modern men were barbarians in that they took for granted all these things that were an inheritance of their Christian past as though they were part of nature. A part of everyone. This is why the unregenerate, say, in the heart of Africa, and in the heart of India, or of China, are very different from the unregenerate around us. Because the unregenerate around us have the benefit of Christian discipline, Christian training, a Christian society and culture. However what happens when they begin to dominate a society is that they progressively lose all these things which are a part of their background. Because their true nature comes out. And this is why of course we’re having such rapid decline in social and moral standards. Because they are rapidly throwing this overboard. I illustrated this point about a year or two ago in pointing out that conmen have to be from a very strict background. The great conmen have been people who have come, say, a very strict Christian home or a very strict Orthodox Jewish home, one of the great ones was the son of a rabbi.

They have to have a background that gives them the appearance of being good men. But after a certain point, as they proceed in their sin, suddenly they lose all credibility and overnight, from having conned people out of millions, they can only get a laugh from people as they try to pull all the same con jobs. You see, they have outgrown their inheritance. They’ve had the manner, the self discipline, the ways that characterized them. So it is with our culture today, we’re rapidly outgrowing all the forms of Christianity. This is why crime is skyrocketing, this is why the public standards are dropping. This last week I read that in London they are appalled by the fact that the first six months of this year saw over far, far more crimes of violence committed in London than in all of last year. And last year it had increased over the year before. So that authorities said that we will quickly be on a level with New York and Washington D.C. And why not? All big cities and many, many more are going the same way. They are outgrowing the background of Christian discipline. So while they have a root nature you see, which is the same, the unregenerate in the heart of Africa and in the heart of New York or Los Angeles, the one has a background which is a hangover, as it were. Some years ago J.D. {?} made a study, which I referred to in a Chalcedon report, I think about three months ago, ‘Sex and Culture’. And he said that if there is a radical breakdown of pre and post marital family, in three generations a culture will go from a high level to the point of the savages who cannot count beyond the fingers of their hands. In the transition period there is still a hangover of the benefits, but if there are three generations where there is a total breakdown, it’ll go from the one to the other.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Right. If you produced a regenerate character, wherever you do, you will also have the same kind of advance. To cite an example of that. At one time North Africa was the center of Christianity.

But today it’s a very degenerate area. Why? Because by the sixth century its faith had become, we would say, modernistic. Their whole perspective was humanistic. And as a result they had become decadent, also they were a very ready pushover when the Muslims hit that area. By the same token about that time the first missionaries were hitting the British Isles. And their attitude was that this a hopeless task. These people are such wild, savage people. They’re so hard to discipline. They are such a violent people. One king, about three, four centuries later was so weary with the violence and the rape that was commonplace that he finally said that we’ll either castrate or execute everyone who was guilty of rape. And he did it, full sale, for a number of years. It didn’t seem to stem the tide. But what happened? Well, the worst area was Scotland. But with the Reformation overnight Scotland became one of the most disciplined areas in the world. And Britain as a whole, Scotland and England, became the most powerful, the most progressive nation in the world. And the history of the modern world is largely the history of what Britain has done for the past two, three centuries. So you see what can be accomplished.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] But whose work basically is to carry humanistic psychology. To which they will add occasionally a Christian word of counsel, so it’s schizophrenic. And so there is a place for a genuine Christian psychology. Then, we must say, the unregenerate can be helped by Christian psychologists. Because the Christian psychologist dealing with an unregenerate man could force him to recognize what he is, what he is doing, what he needs. You see.

So he can tell him your actions are masochistic or they’re sadistic. You are inviting punishment because you do not have a regenerate nature, and what you need is Jesus Christ. So he can make quite an elegant witness there.

The word psychology has been taken over by the humanists as has the word anthropology. Psychology literally made up, the word is, of two Greek words, psyche, soul, and logos, the word, or, the doctrine concerning the soul. And anthropology is the word or doctrine concerning man. Those are both branches of theology. And humanism has taken them and separated them from theology to give a radically different slant.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] A great deal of it is, very clearly. But at times we do need counsel so that someone can make clear the Word of God more fully to us and apply it, say, in the realm of psychology. But there is to great a running to others as though he can give me a formula, something like a pill, and that’ll take care of all my problems. And this is why the humanistic answer has been so successful in its appeal to people. Mental sickness is not your fault, it could happen to anybody, this was one advertising approach a few years ago. The whole point is to dissolve responsibility.

Yes.

[Audience]…{?}…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes. Sociology comes from {?} the founder of sociology, and his basic thesis, which is now the thesis of the Federal Government, formally made so with John F. Kennedy’s Yale commencement speech. His thesis was that the history of man was divided into three ages. The first was the age of religion and myth, the second was the age of philosophy and speculation, and both these first two ages were trying to understand the world and to find a meaning and a purpose in it. But the third age, the age of science, is the age of methodology, you no longer concern yourself about meaning because there is no such thing as meaning. You just have a method whereby you get what you want.

And so you develop methodology. And as a result you see it’s a totally amoral perspective, and in the Yale commencement speech Kennedy said that we had come to the end of ideologies and of conflicting ideas and meanings. Our problems we now recognize are purely methodological, what method are we going to use to get what we want? And what we want is a question that has no moral connotation. That’s the theology.

Our time is just about up, I mentioned Cromwell last time and several of you asked questions about him afterward. And all the questions virtually were about the same. Well didn’t Cromwell do a great deal to destroy churches? And this is a common impression. Now just to cite one authority alone, Dr. {?} a historian at Oxford, who would not share my theology for a moment. He is one of the great experts on seventeenth century, has written several books on the subject, including one on Cromwell alone. And he states, with regard to the destruction of churches, that there was some destruction by the soldiers, the Puritan soldiers, after the civil war, of some stained glasses in a few churches, and some altar screens. But that Cromwell was not in command at the time, in fact he was not in the army. His commission had been terminated and he was in Parliament. Moreover on some occasions he actually warned some the churchmen to beware of these things, because some of these {?} were on the rampage. As long as he was in control there was strict discipline. Moreover the ruin of the churches actually was under Henry the 8th when the churches were seized and destroyed. Their properties confiscated by Henry the 8th for financial purposes.

At the same time, it should be added, similar things were being done in Spain by Catholic monarchs, and in France and elsewhere, by Catholic monarchs as well as by Henry the 8th in England. As a matter of fact the worst destruction was under Charles the 5th, the sack of Rome. And that was a thoroughly Catholic operation. The picture at the time of the destruction of churches in Europe by monarchs for monetary purposes in order to seize the lands and the treasures, was a fearful one. And it produced, incidentally, a great deal of trouble in that these church establishments were providing for the welfare of the day, and immediately after he had a great many beggars, a great many poor people, who had no visible means of support, who were a real problem to the countries, they had been taken care of by many of these church foundations. Well, if you want to see some of the ruins of a few of the churches destroyed by Henry the 8th and this book by Rose McColly{?}, pages 160 to 181 up puts this here. And you’ll find it very interesting to examine some of the destruction. It was one of the worst disasters in European history at that period. And it’s ironic that the blame is given to Cromwell who had nothing to do with it. It’s part of the prejudice against him.

I believe we have an announcement, do we not? Excuse me, don’t we have another dinner on the nineteenth of September in two weeks? We’ll have the address for you next week, but it’s very close by. And if there’s any problem with regards to transportation, if you come here by bus, we’ll see to it you get there and get back home afterwards. This dinner is to enable all of us to get a little better acquainted with one another. There’s no charge for it, it’s being put on by the Chalcedon guild, the women of the Chalcedon guild. Two weeks from today, the 19th. Am I correct on the date? So please put that on your calendar and plan to be there. We’d very much like to have all of you present at that time.

Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Dr. Rushdoony] Just after our noon meeting. Yes. So we’ll go from here to directly over there.

Then our subject the next week, since I rearranged the schedule of it, will be on the state of grace. So we’ll cover that next week. Are there any other announcements?

If not, let’s bow our heads for the benediction.

Now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, Amen.