Systematic Theology

Lesson #5

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject:

Genre: Speech

Track: 5

Dictation Name: RR10??

Location/Venue: ________

Year: 1960’s-1970’s.

[Rushdoony] Almighty God our heavenly Father, we thank thee that thou hast spoken the written word and thy revealed word - thy only begotten son - have been given to us that we might know thee as Lord and Savior. Bless us now as we give ourselves to the study of the things that are of thee. That we might seek to know thee, to magnify thee, and to glorify thee. To serve thee with all our heart, mind, and being, to know that thou art God. Bless us to this purpose we beseech thee, in Jesus name, Amen.

In our first session this evening we shall deal with the doctrine of the aseity of God. The word aseity is spelled a-s-e-i-t-y, it means “self being”. It means that God is God. That he is not derived from anything else nor is there anything apart from him in terms of which he can be judged. There is no idea, for example, of the good or of justice apart from God whereby God can be judged. All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made. So that all creation is the handiwork of God, all things visible and invisible are his creation.

Now, as we study the doctrine of the aseity of God, we need to recognize that too often theologians have been implicit unitarians or subordinationism when they talk about God. The reason for this is that when they say God, they mean the Father. But when we say God, if we are truly Biblical, then we must mean God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. God is three persons and one God. Now Calvin made emphatic the fact that God is three persons without any subordination, so that we cannot speak of the Son or the Spirit being inferior to the Father or any the less God than the Father. He held to the autothotes faith. Each person of the Godhead is God - self derived. In other words, he held to the aseity of each person of the Godhead.

Warfield has said of Calvin’s doctrine, and I quote, “In his assertion of the autothotes of the Son, Calvin then was so far from supposing that he was enunciating a novelty that he was able to quote the Nicene fathers themselves as asserting it in so many words. And yet in his assertion of it he marks an epic in the history of the doctrine of the trinity. Not that men had not before believed in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. Not that men had not before believed in the self existence of the Son, as he is God, but that the current modes of stating the doctrine of the Trinity left a door open for the entrance of defective modes of conceding the deity of the Son; to close which, there was needed some sharp assertion of his absolute deity, as was supplied by the assertion of his autothotes.” Unquote.

In other words, it had become a very commonplace and a very easy habit to deny the Trinity implicitly by speaking of the Father alone as God. This is a problem that again confronts us - so that it leads to an implicit unitarianism. It begins to wipe out the significance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Van Til has written, and I quote again, “We speak of God as a person, yet we also speak of three persons in the Godhead. As we say that each of the attributes of God is too identified with the being of God, while yet we are justified in making a distinction between them; so we say that each of the Persons of the Trinity is exhaustive of divinity itself, while yet there is a genuine distinction between the Persons.

Unity and plurality are equally ultimate in the Godhead. The Persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another, and therefore of the essence of the Godhead. God is a one conscious Being and yet he is a tri-conscious Being.” Unquote.

Now what’s the practical import of all this? We can begin to understand by turning to the comments of a Jesuit theologian, Father Edmund J Fortman. Fortman, as he discusses doctrine of the triune God in his book of that name, comments on Tillich and speaks of Paul Tillich implicit sabellianism. Now this is curious. Why does he treat Tillich’s view with such respect? After all, to call him an implicit sabellian is ridiculous! He has to be called an unbeliever. Tillich said of the doctrine of God that God is neither person nor non-personal. He neither has being nor nonbeing. So we can either say, God exists, or he does not exist.

Moreover, in his personal life, Tillich believed in principle in total sexual freedom and the right to practice adultery! He was radically contemptuous of Biblical law and of Biblical morality. And yet he is called a theologian, and not only Fortman but everyone currently treats his ideas with respect. To talk about Tillich as an example of Christian theology is like discussing Cain and Judas as models of discipleship in obedience. It’s ridiculous.

But why is it done? We need to probe that question. Well, why did Tillich become a theologian? What is the appeal, to men like Tillich who are totally against the faith. Why do they come within the church and develop their thinking... Why is it important for these men to be theologians? Some of the most radical statements of unbelief and hostility to the Christian faith today come from within the ranks of the church; in particular from men who are theologians in various schools. What shall we say of this?

Why did Tillich in particular use the language of theology in its form? His concern was really with anthropology - with the doctrine of man, not with the doctrine of God. Let us look, first of all, at a report of a sermon by Tillich, in 1965, at the Stanford university memorial chapel. According to the Palo Alto Times, and I quote, “Doctor Paul Tillich, internationally known theologian, told worshippers Sunday at Stanford University Memorial Church that the ultimate hope of mankind should be for participation in the eternal. However, explained the University of Chicago professor, this does not mean hope for immortality. This is a foolish hope, for no finite being can genuinely hope for eternal life. Doctor Tillich, guest and resident through tuesday at the Stern Hall dormitory, offered these ideas in a sermon “The Right to Hope” to an estimated thousand people attending standing room only services in the spacious church. Doctor Tillich cautioned that Christians should never forget that throughout the Old Testament hope was never for eternal life, but for this life.

The old belief in the unity of all human races now that they have diverged so far has become a genuine hope for their reunion, he said. Man now controls his world to a high degree and he can actualize all given to him for limitless possibilities, he said. But does this answer the hope of generations past? Doctor Tillich suggested that the hope of such progress is justified only if such progress has a higher meaning and aim of participation in the eternal. Such participation, he concluded, is given to those who are in unity with the universe. All are in us, and we are in them.” Unquote.

Now first of all Tillich’s goal is the unity of man. And in this unity he hopes that man will have a conquest of time and a participation in the eternal. That man in history will rule as God. Of course this is not the goal of scripture, but of the builders of the tower of Babel. Those men at least were more honest than Tillich. Then, second, Tillich reduces God to impotence. And yet he opens up to man limitless possibilities! He sees man’s hope and goal as precisely the realization of limitless possibilities. Tillich thus therefore sees man as having no more than this life - there is no eternal life - but that man will participate in the eternal by being totally a one world, one man kind of order, and by ruling as God.

Now Tillich rightfully sees religion as ultimate concern. But for him, ultimate concern is man, not God. Man’s problem, he says, is to be infinitely concerned. In fact, he says in another place in his book “The New Being”, and I quote, “The one thing needed, this is the first and in some sense the last answer I can give, is to be concerned ultimately unconditionally infinitely.” Unquote.

In other words, man must take his mind off God and be totally concerned with himself and with man. He says, we belong to the eternal order because every man has the infinite within him, and continuing and I quote, “Our disparate self, our inability to escape ourselves in life and in death witnesses to our infinity.” Unquote. So, no matter what man does, whether he fails or not, it’s all proof. Everything that man sees--ahh, Tillich sees--in man proves to him that man has infinite possibility, that he can be God, and is in some sense God. He belongs in two orders; the infinite and the temporal. Now this is not scriptural. In terms of scripture man is in the totality of his being, a creature, the creature of God. There is nothing infinite or eternal in man, man was created in his totality by God.

Tillich’s being a man is Greek, not Christian, and he hopes that man will gain limitless possibilities by finding and realizing the unity of the human race. His god is totally inoperable. Totally impotent.

Then next, Tillich retains the form of Biblical theology and its facade, in order to provide him with a limiting concept for his philosophy. In other words, all his problems he can put on the word of God without giving the word God any meaning, in order to give man a stage for operation without liabilities; the more sophisticated the unbelief in our day, the more it will disguise itself in terms of theology. This is why the centers of atheism in the world are not in Moscow, or {?}, they are in many of our seminars. Many of our theologians. Without God, man can explain nothing; without God, everything collapses...there is no meaning, no order, nothing. And so the most brilliant atheists of our time retain the form of theology in order to provide a stage for man, where he will have insurance, as it were, in the name of God so that he can take over and become his own God.

Of course, this to a degree is what Arminianism does. In a much more limited way. The arminian at least believes there is a God... But God provides him with fire insurance, or life insurance so that he can then act. What these new theologians like Tillich do is to press this to the limit. The form of theology is retained without life, without content, in order to give man a fully free stage without the problems of atheism. With all of this they are determined to play God.

Now let’s turn to an evangelical scholar who claims to be more or less reformed. This is Robert L. Raymond in a book he has written recently, and which was reviewed by (Countess?) who also claims to be Reformed. We’re going into some difficult matters, but very important ones, because we need to understand why unbelief today is so theological, why it uses the language of scripture. In a review by (Countess?) of Raymond’s new book, which appeared in the November 18, 1977, Christianity Today. He deals with Raymond’s criticism of Van Til, and I quote, “Having conceded indebtedness, he Raymond, now reviews the 1945 conflict between these men over epistemology.

Van Til insists that man can know nothing as God knows it, God knows univocally, man only analogically. We dare not maintain that God’s knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point, says Van Til. When Van Til asserts that he refuses to make any attempt at stating clearly any Christian doctrine because he desires to defend Christianity.

Raymond exclaims this is an incredible statement. Van Til’s knowledgeous knowledge becomes no knowledge at all, and this is what Clark has charged. In addition Raymond draws a noteworthy parallel, exceedingly strange it is that as ardent a foe of Vardian irrationalism as is Van Til he comes to nevertheless the same conclusion concerning the nature of truth for man, as does Clark. But neither does Clark escape Raymonds razor, he too is a presuppositionalist. For the Christian apologist, only arguments with conclusions that follow necessarily from correct premises, and therefore which give formally valid demonstrations, are to be embraced. Clarks supreme major premise for all his deductions is that the Bible is the word of God. Now what’s wrong with that? Clark’s problem is that he’s not consistent in that! And what Van Til is saying is that we cannot know God as God, we cannot know the mind of God exhaustively or directively, but only analogically. We know God inescapably but as creatures our knowledge is creaturely. To be able to grasp God as he is in his being, we would have to be God. The very words we apply to God are beyond our ability to comprehend. Eternal. Omnipotent. Without beginning or ending. Unchanging. Our minds stagger and falter as we try to comprehend what God is.

As I said previously, we cannot know God exhaustively, but we can know him truly. Because God is consistent to himself. Our knowledge of God is always creaturely knowledge. But what does Raymond want? He wants to know God as God! He wants to know God by his reason, which, if it were possible, would mean that we could have salvation by reason and all those who were potential philosophers would be saved by their logic. Van Til denies the identity of the mind of God and man. Man knows God in terms of his self revelation and there is no coincidence between the two minds. One is the uncreated mind of God, and ours is a creaturely mind. The incarnation is a unique event.

But what these theologians are trying to do, like Raymond, is to bridge the gap between God and man apart from the incarnation. To say, in effect, there is a bridge other than the incarnation in Jesus Christ: my intellect. And those who are like Tillich are saying, rather, there is no need to bridge the gap because I am that which you see. Only when we realize that humanity can be reborn as God by being reunited can we participate in the eternal and realize what we are. They used the language of theology to assert humanism. It is God’s revelation that declares God, not man’s logic.

Peter tells us in 1st Peter 1:10-12, and Daniel again in Daniel 12:4,8-9 and 8:27 and 10:21, that the men through whom God gave the scriptures studied their own writings in order that they might grasp what God was saying. Because when God spoke through them there was more speaking than they themselves, and more than their own minds could grasp. We do not share the mind of God, we do not have the same being nor the same content, we receive the revelation of God and we understand it as creatures.

The knowledge we have God is inescapable knowledge because it is in every atom of our being. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made, so that every fiber of our being, every atom in the universe witnesses to God! But our ability to apprehend that witness is a creaturely and limited ability. It is limited by the fact that we are sinful and by the fact that we are creatures, so even when in eternity the barrier of sin is removed we remain eternally creatures. Never able to grasp the totality of God, never able to know him absolutely, and always able to know him truly. Because everything in God is in perfect harmony with all else.

I change, and I may not be dependable at all times and I may say one thing one day and another thing another... But God says I am the Lord, I change not. So when we have one word from God, we know it is in line with every other word he will declare. It is in harmony with it. When we have any knowledge of God, therefore, we know the whole being of God truly.

Now, as (Countess?) goes on to deal with this in his review he says of Raymond, “His proposed solution to the Van Til dilemma is that the creature and the creator do have knowledge that coincides as far as content is concerned, but man is never able to know a fact exhaustively. The solution to all of Van Til’s difficulties is to affirm as scripture teaches that both God and man share the same concept of truth and the same theory of language.” Unquote.

So Raymond says, there has to be a coincidence between God and man, which is another way of saying that we shall be God’s {?}. Now is this Christian theology, or is it the theology proposed by Satan when he said, “Ye shall be as gods.” The gap is only bridged by Jesus Christ, not by the mind or logic of man.

But man the theologian wants to make an end run around the Bible. He wants to make an end run around the barrier of the council of Chalcedon. He wants some kind of participation in the eternal, in God. Some kind of coincidence with mind of God. When you tell him, as Van Til does, “That’s impossible.” then he wails as Raymond and (Countess?) do that “oh, you have made any faith in any knowledge of God impossible!” In other words, they refuse to allow man to be a creature. What they are saying is that man cannot know God unless he too has aseity. Unless you can speak about the autothotes, the aseity, of man. This is what they’re aiming at. Again we’re reminded of Genesis 3:5 “Ye shall be as gods.” The great temptation.

But Chalcedon says in terms of scripture there is a barrier. That the incarnation is unique. That even in the incarnation there is a union of the two natures, very God of very God and very man of very man...but without confusion. We cannot confuse the human and the divine. Man knows as God ordains that he shall know.

Calvin tells us in a very beautiful passage in his institutes, and I quote, “On this indeed if on any of the secret mysteries of the scripture we ought to philosophize with great sobriety and moderation, and also with extreme caution lest either our ideas or our language should precede beyond the limits of the divine word. For how can the infinite essence of God be defined by the narrow capacities of the human mind, which could never yet certainly determine the nature of the body of the sun, though the object of our daily contemplation. How can the human mind by its own efforts penetrate into an examination of the essence of God when it is totally ignorant of its own? Wherefore, let us freely leave to God the knowledge of himself, for he alone is a competent witness for himself, being only known by himself; and we shall certainly leave it to him. If our conceptions of God correspond to the manifestations which he has given of himself, then our inquiries concerning him are confined to his word.”

This is a beautiful statement and Calvin is very much to the point. The theologians who formulated the creeds did not seek to penetrate the mind of Gods, but to set forth what God says in his word and to erect barriers to false theologies - to close the door to heretics. {?} has said with regard to the work of true faith as it manifests itself in the great creeds of the faith, and I quote, “It has never tried to explain the mysteries of the Trinity, but only sought to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered it were warded off.” Unquote.

As a result, Calvin’s insistence on the aseity of God the Son, of God the Holy Spirit as well as God the Father barred the door to the use of the Son as a means of access into the life of the Father and into his being. The same is true of God the Spirit. There are many today who through the various charismatic movements seek some kind of penetration into the life of the Spirit. Thus, whether it is Tillich or Raymond or the charismatics, each in their own ways insisting on mans independent exploration and penetration or participation in the eternal, that their effort is ungodly. They are simply looking into a dark mirror, and participating in their own reflection. They do not see God, but only their vain imagination.

God is a trinunity. One Person and three Persons, each distinct, yet each exhaustive of divinity itself. God is one conscious being, as Van Til said, and yet Tri-conscious. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. He is totally personal, hence truth is personal. We know all things in terms of him. As David says in Psalm 39:6, for with thee is the fountain of life, in thy light shall we see light. That man the sinner wants independence from God and that is his original sin. But when he strikes out on his own it leads to collapse! He can know nothing then, and the whole universe becomes meaningless. As a result, man, while denying God in reality, tries through the form of theology to retain the advantages of God while declaring that he is God. His goal is to marry heaven and hell together with man as the king.

But inspite of all this God the Lord remains King, and judgement is in his hands.

In brief, we should not be surprised that the most fearful ungodliness in our day comes from the church - is expressed as theologies. Whether we talk about Tillich or Moltmann or Hanenburg or any of these others, we are talking about theologies that strike at the life of the faith, and substitute something else. Are there any questions now?

[pauses]

We dealt with a very difficult subject, but one that we have to face because this is the factor we are facing more and more in our day - this type of approach to the faith.

[pauses]

No questions? Well then, we’ll take a break and resume in a little while. [audio ends]