Systematic Theology

Lesson #9

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject:

Genre: Speech

Track: 9

Dictation Name: RR10??

Location/Venue: ________

Year: 1960’s-1970’s.

Almighty God our heavenly Father, we gather together to learn the things that are of thee. Open our eyes that we may behold wondrous things out of thy law... That we may hear and that we may act, that we may be hearers and doers of thy Word. Oh Lord our God, the enemy today rages against thy kingdom on all sides. Make us strong and faithful in thy Word that we may stand against the enemy, so that the power of thy spirit and word prevails. Arm us by thy Word and by thy Spirit, that we may be more than conquerors through Jesus Christ our Lord. In his name we pray, Amen.

We have been studying the doctrine of God, and as we draw near the conclusion, tonight in our first session we deal with “Why Hast Thou Made Me Thus?” This is a question that of course, Paul himself raises in order to answer humanists. In Romans 9:19-21, we read:

“19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Paul forestalls all objections by raising the question himself, and by setting it in the context of God’s sovereign and creating will. Paul’s argument is very simple. He reminds all those who raise this question, “God is God, and we are his creation.” He illustrates it by a very simple illustration - the potter and the clay. When the potter takes a piece of clay in his hands he can do with it as he wills and make of it whatever kind of vessel he chooses. But the analogy of the potter and the clay does not even begin to describe the difference between God and creation. Now then. Shall the creature reply to God? Or indict God? Or say, “Why hast thou made me thus?

The issue at stake between God and man is sovereignty If God is sovereign, man is responsible to and accountable to God, but if man is sovereign...then God must account to man. Of course, this is the goal man has set. Man’s religious quest is to make all things in heaven and earth answer to him. All things must be made to serve him, to gratify him, and if God is displeasing then man the sinner says, “so much the worse for God.” Man the sinner seeks the fulfilment of his greed. Of an ego centric universe, or at the very least, a man centered universe.

The existentialists do not stop there, they’ve gone beyond normal humanism. It cannot be just man-centered, it has to be self centered; so that, as I’ve pointed out on a previous occasion, {?} Sartridge is not God is not the problem, (?) but his neighbor, because if I am God, then my neighbor has to be the devil. Man must reign in his own individual ego. And man seeks this goal in his religion, in politics, in education, in every area of life. Now, since the fall, man has been a fast master at sniveling self justification. “The woman thou gavest to be with me, she did give me, and I did eat.” Man has always been prone to say that all his sins are somehow God’s fault. All of the grief’s of life are blamed - not on his sin or on his folly - but on God’s supposed hard heartedness.

Man continually complains about life, as though the purpose of life were self fulfillment...having an easy time, having an easy living condition,... This is what everyone wants, and people resent the fact that God does not give it to them. But Paul is emphatic. We were not made for ourselves, but for the Lord and by the Lord. We are the clay, he is the potter.

Now again and again scripture uses that imagery of the clay and the potter, to site a couple of examples, Isaiah 64:8:

“But thou, oh Lord, thou art our Father, we are the clay and thou our potter. We all are the works of thy hands.”

Again, Jeremiah 18:3-6:

“3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Scripture is emphatic that we are absolutely God’s property. He can do with us as he pleases. We have no ground for complaint against God. We must obey him, we must bring all things including ourselves into captivity to Christ the King. ‘All’ is emphatic. We are not our own, he tells the Corinthians, we are doubly his: He made us, he redeemed us. Yet to often the basic cry of man is this: “Why have you made me thus?”

Part of that cry is the denial of God’s right to be God over us. God never asks our consent, the conditions of our lives are entirely of His choosing, and for his purpose. Our calling is to do what he wills. Thus, the doctrine of God and his sovereignty is not a matter of dispute, it is not a matter for discussion; it is the ground and condition of life. We did not make this world, nor ourselves, but God did and we had better live it on God’s terms or we are living in terms of an imaginary God and in an imaginary universe. Thus we have to say that the true theologian is the one who hears the word of God and obeys him. In scripture there are many passages - and sometime I’m going to deal exclusively with the meaning of faith - faith means to hear and to obey. Again and again if you look up those three words in the Bible you will see that they are virtually identical in their meaning in scripture. When people are spoken of in scripture as being unbelieving, God says, “They will not hear, they will not obey, they are a disobedient generation. The three words are identified as virtually the same in their meaning.”

Adam, therefore, was a true theologian when in the garden of Eden he heard the voice of God and he obeyed it. He made the animals, tilled and dressed the Garden of Eden; when he obeyed God he was a true theologian because he heard the word of God, he understood the word of God, he applied the word of God. Theology is not an armchair matter, it has to do with the word of God. The very word ‘theology’ comes from ‘logos’ and ‘theos’: God-word. Anyone who hears the word of God or knows the word of God obeys it and applies it; as long as Adam therefore obeys it and applies it, as long as Adam therefore sought to develop the knowledge of God, worked to enhance God’s righteousness or justice, sought after holiness and exercised dominion over the earth...he was a sound theologian.

He became a false theologian when he raised questions with respect to God. When he listened to the question of the tempter: “Why hast thou made me thus?” Yea hath God said. Theology therefore is not the raising of questions concerning God, but the hearing and obeying of the word of God and the application and the development of its implications for the totality of life and the world. Thus, Adam was a false theologian when he listened to Eve and the tempter, when he raised question with God’s right to command him, and with respect to God’s word and God’s sovereignty. The basic questions of false theology have always been: ‘Yea hath God said’ and ‘Why hast thou made me thus.’

The doctrine of God, you see, and all of theology, is intensely practical. It determines how we live and who rules over us. Is our God the living God of scripture, or the fallen and the dead Adam? Does God reign in our lives, or is He merely a resource for us? A great deal of the church today does not believe in God in the Biblical sense. They believe in God in the humanistic sense as a resource for man. Why not try God? After all you’ve tried marijuana, you tried liquor, you tried sex, and you’ve tried a lot of other things, and they haven’t done all that you’d like to have them do for you...so why not try God? If that sounds familiar it’s because it’s an argument that is often used, and I’ve heard it used. Why not try God?

Another resource for man. That’s not theology, and it is not Christianity. Christian faith, moreover, and Christian theology is more than an academic matter. It is the ground of a man’s life, of his motivation, of his purpose, of his meaning.

When we look at Job in scripture, we find a very troubled man who raised many questions and had doubts...but at the bedrock was a living faith. He could cry out even as he argued with God. “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” Job’s life and his faith were inseparably one. The questions in Job’s mind were peripheral to his life. They were not essential to it. Basic to his life was, “I know that my redeemer liveth, though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” Faith is more than a matter of opinion or belief, it is the nature and character of our life, and it is not separable from us. This is why the doctrine of God is so basic; the doctrine of God is a failure is our theology, and in our pulpits - it does not establish God as the living God who is the foundation of all things, who we can never question and say “Why hast thou made me thus?”, who is God over us. We see ourselves as the clay in his hands.

To have a doctrine of God means to have a faith that we cannot be separated from, one which is the essence of our life. Paul himself faced all the alternatives, and he could say very simply, “For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Thus as against all false theologies and philosophies, Paul stood firm on the doctrine of the living God who is absolute Lord. And he warned the Colossians, “Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and by vain deceit after the tradition of men. After the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

When we talk about the doctrine of God, therefore, we are talking about something that is more important to our life than our heartbeat and our blood. We are talking about the living God who made us, and in whom we live and move and have our being. Are there any questions, now?

No questions, then?

Oh, yes! Alright?

[audience member speaks unintelligibly]

[Rushdoony] An ego-centric universe is one in which essentially you are the universe and everything in the world exists for your pleasure. The best example of an ego-centric concept the universe is existentialism. For existentialism, the only thing that is important is the individual and himself. You are to be influenced by nothing outside of yourself, from the past, the present, the family, church, school, anything else. This is why (Sartre?) could say, as I pointed out, “The village wino was a more consistent existentialist than an existentialist prime minister, because the prime minister would still be thinking about the boulders in the country, while the wino thought only about himself.” Does that help make it clear?

Well let’s take a ten minute break now. [audio ends]