Systematic Theology -- Salvation

Salvation – Anthropology or Theology?

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 04

Dictation Name: 04 Salvation – Anthropology or Theology?

Year: 1960’s – 1970’s

Salvation, Anthropology or Theology? There is a reason for the title. Man’s thinking in the modern age has become increasingly man-centered, so that preaching theology and church life generally has been governed by considerations of psychology and sociology. It has become anthropological, or man-centered, in its focus.

As a result, the Bible itself is read as though man is God’s focus rather than his kingdom and glory, but the purpose of salvation is not to provide man with life and fire insurance. All too many people feel that salvation is life and fire insurance. If it is such, then God is bound by a contract to bail man out whenever man has problems, but rather, men are saved that they may serve and glorify God, and apply God’s necessary word to every area of life and thought. Men are saved that they might know and obey their Lord.

Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:14-16, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Now what does Paul tell Timothy in these few sentences. First, that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Then second, he declares that the Bible is profitable. That is, it perfects or matures man in God’s service unto all good works. In other words, man’s salvation trains man to the purposes of God. It harnesses him to God’s calling.

Then third, what Paul tells Timothy here are that some of these specific areas where man is to be trained by the word of God are, and he first gives a general statement, “unto all good works.” Then, he become specific, hitting the high points: doctrine, knowledge of the scripture so that we might apply them, reproof, not that we may be able to go out and tick people off and reprove them, but that we might be reproved and corrected, and strengthened by scripture, to be made right in all our ways.

Correction. God’s word tells us how to correct our ways and wherein to walk. Instruction in righteousness; that is, training in God’s justice, and whatever conforms to the full and revealed word of God. Remember, it’s important because so often we have forgotten this. When the Bible says righteousness, the word is exactly the same word we have in modern English as justice. The righteousness of God is the justice of God, and when we are summoned to righteousness, we are summoned to justice, and to set forth the justice of God in every area of life and thought, and this is why today, the doctrine of justice that prevails is so evil. It is social justice. Justice as it is determined by society, but God’s righteousness or justice is that which he determines in his word, and we are told that the Bible is given by inspiration of God for instruction in righteousness, or justice, but it certainly gives us no ground to hole up in a corner with our faith.

Neither the Bible nor our salvation tells us that we are freed from death, from the penalty of the law, into our own devices. Rather, scripture summons us to be in all our being, the faithful and obedient servants of the Most High. Our Lord says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself,” but modern man is man-centered. He views all things in terms of himself, “What’s in it for me? How does it affect me? Where do I stand in the big picture?”

As a result, theology, in the modern world, has become anthropology. I’m going to read to you some statements by a contemporary theologian who teaches theology and ethics as Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. Lewis B. Smedes. Smedes, in writing on homosexuality, set forth eight thesis, and I’d like to quote them. 1. Human life is inlaid with certain channels which form the limits of certain kinds of behavior. 2. Heterosexual union is the inlaid channel within which human sexuality is meant to be given its full expression. 3. The question of whether or not a homosexual person is responsible for his or her sexual orientation is not pertinent to the question of the rightness of homosexual behavior. 4. Sufferings endured unfairly by homosexual people are not a reason for moral approval of homosexual activity. 5. That personal relationships between people in homosexual union can be loving and enduring does not determine whether the sexual nature of the union is morally right. 6. The judgment that homosexual activity embodies a disorder in human sexuality does not imply that all persons who engage in it are equally accountable for doing so. 7. That homosexual behavior is judged morally wrong by the Bible is not a warrant for excluding homosexual people from their vocations as teachers in public schools. 8. The calling of the Christian community to acknowledge homosexual believers as Christians is not a reason for concluding that homosexual persons are not disqualified from the Christian ministry.

Now, what Smedes gives us here is logical thinking again, but its logic is humanism. There is no absolute law of God for Smedes. Everything depends on the human contexts. Smedes holds, “Homosexual people may be deprived of a civil right only if it can be shown on evidence accepted by believers and non-believers that a teacher’s homosexuality is very likely to harm his or her students.” Now, what a statement. He’s not saying that what determines our attitude on homosexuality is God’s word. He says they can only be barred from teaching in schools if believer and non-believer, together, can agree that they are harming the children. Now, since when can you get believers and non-believers to share a common principle objection?

Moreover, Smedes is not saying anything about God’s word as the determining word. It’s the human context for Smedes that determines. Moreover, Smedes says about his eighth point, “This thesis does not say that every homosexual person is disqualified from the Christian ministry. It leaves open the possibility that some homosexual persons might, in spite of their homosexuality, be thus qualified for some special reason. It also leaves open the possibility that one’s homosexuality by itself, openly admitted, might disqualify him or her. What thesis eight asserts is that qualification for participation within the Christian community is not identical to qualification for the ministry.” No where does Smedes speak of the Bible as God’s law. For him, man’s faith is detached from the Bible into a free-floating association.

In another context, Smedes wrote concerning the Presbyterian ordination of homosexuals to the ministry, which was before the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1978, and will probably be before them again. Smedes said, “The data coming from psychology may tell us more about what homosexuality is than the Bible tells us. Any sophomore today is likely to know more about homosexuality than St. Paul knew.” Quite a statement. “But,” said the Presbyterians, very correctly, “when it comes to deciding rights and wrongs, what is really important is not what homosexuality is, but what we believe about it. Do we value it? Do we think it bad? Do we think it morally neutral? It all depends on what moral authority we live by, and in the last analysis, we live here by faith. It was on this basis that the Presbyterian Assembly concluded that homosexuality is not God’s wish for humanity. It is neither a gift from God nor a state or condition like race. It is a result of our living in a fallen world.”

Well, Smedes was right on one point when he said it all depends on whose moral authority we live by. Now, up to a point he’s against homosexuality, but on humanistic grounds. Never, in three writings on the subject, has he turned to scripture and said, unequivocally, “Thus saith the Lord.” That is never a consideration for him. As a matter of fact, in one of his articles, Smedes says concerning homosexuality, “The disorder is not an immoral condition so much as a tragic condition.” You see what has happened? There are many men in the church who will tell you that prostitution is bad, adultery is bad, homosexuality is bad, but not that they are sins, but that they are disorders. What then have they said? They have denied that man is the sinner. He is the victim. He is the victim, and if he’s the victim, here speaking of homosexuality, who then is the offender? Why, it’s God for having so created him. This is where Smedes’ humanism leads him. There is no way of escaping that dilemma. Men like Smedes may claim to be evangelicals or Reformed. Smedes happens to be a minister in the Christian Reformed Church, but what they are proclaiming is actually humanism.

Other churchmen are even bolder in condemning the Bible. In fact, in speaking of it as a hate-creating book, let me quote. “The United Church of Christ has gone on record at its synod meeting as affirming civil liberties without discrimination relating to sexual of affectional preference, and called upon individual members, local churches, and others to work in that direction. The Reverend Lincoln Wyread{?}, senior minister of the First Congregational Church of Portland agrees, and backs a statement that deplores the use of scripture to generate hated for gay and bisexual persons. He told his congregation in a sermon a year ago that they should live and let live.” In other words, once you see it as a disorder, then you say, “These are the victims, they are the people to be pitied,” and when you turn to the Bible, why you have to speak of it as a book that generates hatred, and God is the great offender.

Such thinking may call itself theology, but it is anthropology, and men like Smedes may call themselves professors of theology, but they are professors of anthropology, of humanism.

The Psalmist says in Psalm 115:1, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth’s sake.” That all things, in other words, must be God-centered, God-ordered, but the focus can never be man. It has to be God. It cannot be man’s salvation because the goal of our salvation is not us, but the glory of God. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (of justice), and all these things” that the Gentiles and the humanists seek “will be added unto you.” Salvation, in other words, must not be preached as a human {?}. It must not be offered as giving peace of mind, or solving problems, or giving us a happier life, because it isn’t necessarily so. Certainly, some of the greatest saints in history didn’t find peace of mind and trouble-free life by serving the Lord. Remember Elijah or Athanasius? Their life, when they stood for the Lord, became very troubled.

St. Paul says at the end of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, chapter of all scripture, “For thy sake we are slaughtered like sheep all the day long.” Doesn’t fit in well with some types of preaching today which tell us, “Just believe and, oh, life will be so wonderful.” But you see, in this world, you’re going to have war. You’re going to be either at war with God, or you’re going to be at war with man. Just pick your fight, in other words. Do you want to take on God or do you want to take on men? If you’re going to stand with the Lord, you’re going to be at war with the world and its humanism, and the world can make you feel its wrath and its pain, but the world is no match for God.

Thus, we are saved by the Lord to appear before him, to be commanded by him, to be sent out by him and to be directed by him. “Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain, and that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” But humanism passes over this requirement to serve. I have called you and ordained you that you should bring forth fruit, and it only goes to the Bible to claim the precious promises, you know. I’ve seen people with Bibles that are marked with all the promises where God offers to give them something, but they don’t mark what God requires of them. Now, I believe that it’s wonderful to memorize those promises, to strengthen and comfort yourself, but you treat the Bible as though it were only promises by God to us, and not requirements, is to deny God and forfeit his promises.

Salvation, in other words, does not free us from God, but to God, and the curse is removed by our salvation from work, so that we may serve God freely and to his glory. Salvation is not an humanistic concern, but a theological, a God-centered concern, and only when the church again sees that the focus of our salvation is not in us, but in the Lord, will the redeemed men of God begin again to march and become a power on earth.

A good many years ago, twenty years, not too many, a study made of the Puritan commonwealth showed that only four percent of the population of England was Puritan, but those men were set on fire by the word of God. They were under orders, and they conquered a country. They changed the course of history. Didn’t take many. Four percent. Today, with 55 million in the United States to be born again Christians, 55 million adults alone, what is happening? Is it not because their concern is humanistic? That they have been buying fire insurance and life insurance rather than been called of the Lord, and ordained to go forth, and bring forth fruit. Let us bow our heads in prayer.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we thank thee that thou hast saved us, and thy purpose shall prevail. Send us forth to bring forth fruit unto thee. Make us strong in thy word and zealous for thy kingdom. Make us ever mindful, Lord, that we have been drafted into thine army, in the great battle of the ages, but in this war there are no neutrals, nor spectators. Teach us thy word. Make us strong in doctrine unto all good works. In Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now?

[Audience] Rush, this is not just in this one particular seminary, doesn’t this hold true in most of the seminaries in this country today, in the theological colleges?

[Rushdoony] Yes, I’m sorry to say, almost all seminaries have that humanistic approach, and Liberation Theology, which is really Marxism, is the governing influence in one seminary after another today, including those that claim to be thoroughly evangelical. Liberation Theology is pure Marxism. Yes?

[Audience] Would you recommend any seminaries at all?

[Rushdoony] Would I recommend any seminaries? At the present time, no. I would say that the Atlanta Christian Training School, which will start this Fall, is perhaps the best. I would say that it would be well worth going there, and for those who can’t afford to go, you can take your work by mail through Brainerd Theological Seminary. Yes?

[Audience] Wasn’t there a study by Masters & Johnson {?} homosexuality was a learned behavior?

[Rushdoony] Yes, of course, they said a lot of other things, apparently, judging by the report, but Masters & Johnson did say that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Well, we knew that from scripture all along. It is a learned behavior, or better, it’s a sin. Again and again, it’s been disproven that it’s biological. From the time I was very young, that’s been advanced again and again and disproven, and then the next decade they come along and assert the same thing. Yes?

[Audience] {?} Masters & Johnson, and {?} saying was that that was learned, but that heterosexuality was also a learned response.

[Rushdoony] Yes. Well, that really then says man, that’s pure Lockian psychology. Man is a blank piece of paper, and everything, whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual, is learned behavior. Yes?

[Audience] Well, one thing that I noticed is that whenever they try to justify homosexuality, they always say, “Well, it’s prevalent in all the animal kingdom,” which is sort of, is exactly how God looks at it there. {?}

[Rushdoony] However, some of the evidence that they brought out of late that you find such behavior in the animal kingdom is proven to be false.

[Audience] {?} zoos {?} weird behavior in animals.

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience] There’s something that bothers me. The humanist is constantly at war with God, and you must choose your enemy, either God or man. Sometimes you will see cults, or you’ll see groups who are obviously humanists, and they take on an appearance of righteousness, the Mormon church would be a good example, where they are strong in the family, and some areas very, very righteous, but yet they have a theology, and they are humanism, or they have a false Christ that they are worshiping.

[Rushdoony] Yes, there are a number of groups that seemingly are, to use the illustration you cited, strong in their family orientation. Then we have to ask, is the family they have a godly one? Old China had the family system, very strong in it, but the family system of old China was a godless thing, and definitely anti-scriptural. It made ancestor worship, it worshipped the family as a unit, and made it the ultimate rather than God. The Mormon family unit is the same. The husband is a god in process, and the whole theology is the epitome of humanism. So, they simply made the locale of their humanism the family, so this seems to give them a strong resemblance to scripture, but it’s the antithesis of it. Yes?

[Audience] On that, the thing is whenever you have true authority, God’s authority always takes a back seat to the human authority, and it’s a big problem. As soon as we think that somebody, I mean, anybody, human being, interprets the Bible and they accept that as an authority rather than the Bible itself, is a seed of another authority, you see, and so what happens ultimately is that, I think the counterfeit can be seen very clearly, is when who is in the driver’s seat? You know, we’re taught today in evangelicalism that man is the sovereign, or in control of his salvation, or of his life, and God is the servant, you see? Instead of God being the authority, man becomes the authority, and you see that in the prayers, you see that in salvation, the whole thing boils down, and it’s because of the fact that God and man, that the first sin, you know, “to be as God.” So, like the Mormons, you know, everyone eventually is going to become God. I mean, that’s the ultimate. The guru is the same way, all the Eastern religions will be as God, they are god, that’s the ultimate.

[Rushdoony] Very well put. Incidentally, this is Dr. Alvarian who is speaking, and we do owe a thanks to Mrs. Alvarian{?} for the refreshments we’ve been enjoying. She’s gone now briefly to get the girls. Please give her our gratitude. Yes?

[Audience] {?} you mentioned rock and roll, rock and roll music?

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience] You said, someone said that rock and roll music can change your life.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience] Now, what is the mechanism {?}. Is it the words associated, or is it something in the nature of the music itself?

[Rushdoony] Yes, question is Tucker said that rock and roll can change your life. How does it change your life? The whole point of rock and roll music is that {?}

End of tape