[M8] Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God | RC Sproul
Unlike creation, GOD is self-existent, uncaused, & independent.
In this lecture, Dr. Sproul will examine the doctrine of GOD’s Aseity, & explain why it is vital to a proper understanding of who GOD is as Creator & Redeemer.
Let's pray shall we?
FATHER when we consider YOUR Aseity, YOUR eternal self-existence, we know that we enter now into that dimension of YOUR Character--that is perhaps more unfathomable to our minds than any other. If ever, we need YOUR condescension to stoop to our level & lisp for our infantile ears, it is here.
And yet FATHER, when we contemplate these things, we pray that YOU would take us way beyond an exercise in abstract philosophical speculation; & set us in that place
--where our minds are struck with the sense of awe of YOUR Being.
Help me please in this difficult task, for I ask it in JESUS Name, Amen
1.] Profound Concept of Being/Existing
Before I go to the text of SCRIPTURE, I asked that a board to be brought over because there are two things I want to write on the board.
One is a question, & the other is an indicative declarative statement.
And I've prepared you, that this may be difficult to track with me philosophically. We're getting into some heavy things here.
But let's start with these first two things that I'm going to write on the board. And stop me if I'm going too fast.
You've heard this question before, maybe you've heard it already today. How are you?
You’ve ever heard that question? Thank you very much.
Then there is the declarative statement: I AM FINE.
Alright there are a couple of key elements in these statements, that I want us to look at because we take them for granted in our normal converations.
But I want you to notice this word (are) in the question, & this word (AM) in the response.
When we ask the question: How are you? We’re asking a question relating to the state of your existence.
Or to put it another way, the state of your being.
And when we respond: I’m fine.
We’re making a statement about our condition, about the state of our existence, or the state of our being.
Because in both of these statements, we have in common is the use of the most basic verb in the English language.
That we call the verb: To be
Now I understand there are some remote languages in the world that do not have specific verbiage to refer to being, but almost all the languages with which we’re familiar, such as: the Germaic languages, the romance the Greek language & so on, have some form of the verb “to be”
It’s a word that is so common, that those of you who have snow on the roof can still remember the old television series called, “You Bet Your Life”
Groucho Marx hosts a question-&-answer game show. [October 27, 1947 - September 21, 1961]
Where Groucho, you know, would have his guests come out & have a little dialogue for a few moments, but there was a mystery word that was already discerned in advance.
And if the host mentioned the mystery word, inadvertently, the duck would fall down from the ceiling with $100 dollar bill in its mouth.
You remember it, Paul?
And Groucho would say: “Say the magic word & win $100 dollars.”
And George Fenneman would come out & pay.
It’s a household phrase, nothing is more common! Than: Are, am, were, was, will be, is, & so on.
These are all forms of the word to be.
But behind our language, which may be simple, is this profound concept of being. [5:57]
2.] Language of Being
Or in the Greek, the present participial is the word ουσία (ousia), which refers to the stuff by which things are constituted (their essence).
Of what Immanuel Kant called the ‘deeohzeicht’.
Now in our experience, we tend to use this concept of being, sort of in a graduated way.
A step ladder way, where we talk about grades/levels or ranks of being. We talk about the type of being.
That you might find in a box of rocks.
My son-in-law always (no sometimes) says to me: “Pap, you’re dumber than a box of rocks.”
That’s not a complimentary thing.
And so I say to the meathead, in any case, stifle it.
At the bottom of the rung, we’ve got a box of rocks, then we go up from the box of rocks to some plants.
Some trees, & we say that’s kind of a little higher order of being, from the rocks.
Then above the plants & the trees, we go to the animal kingdom, there we talk about the kangeroos & the emus & the ducks & little platypuses & so on.
And talk about their existence & their animal being.
Then we go up the ladder a little bit higher, & we talk about human beings [7:49]
I have a fellow who is one of our original elders in Saint Andrews, whenever we would have personnel difficulties. He’d say, “You know what we have hear?” I’d say: What’s that?
“We have a being problem.” A being problem?!
He’d say, “Yeah human beings.” He said, “they’re the ones”
And above the human beings, we talk about the Spirit Beings, Angels & so on.
Then in our vocabulary, we go to the top of the ladder: we speak then of the SUPREME BEING.
Now I’ve gone over this before, but we need to go over this again & again [8:41], until we get it right!
That this suggests there is such a thing as being.
Of which all things in reality participate in one way or another.
And that difference between GOD, & a box of rocks is just a matter of degrees. We see that the difference is found in the qualifier for being in this distinction:
SUPREME BEING (above) Human Beings
Between human beings & the SUPREME BEING (GOD).
But beloved the difference between the SUPREME BEING & the human being is not the difference in the adjectives.
It's not the difference between human-ness, & supremacy.
The difference really is in this word: BEING.
Because if ever there was a misnomer in language, it's to refer to rocks & trees & flowers & monkeys & people & angels as being.
Because in a strict sense, not one of us is a being [10:11]
3.] Pursuit of Truth
Now to follow that, I want to go back into the past.
Take a little refresher course into ancient thought, where the ancient thinkers of philosophy.
Before Socrates & Plato, & Aristotle, appeared on the scene these ancient thinkers were probing the deepest questions of the pursuit of truth that human beings could be engaged in.
They were searching for what they called the: Arche Principle or the principle of ultimate reality.
Arche is a Greek word with primary senses “beginning”, “origin” or “source of action & later “first principle” or “element”. By extension, it may mean “first place, power,” “method of government”, “empire, realm”, “authorities" (in plural: ἀρχαί), “command.”
The first principle or element corresponds to the “ultimate underlying substance” & “ultimate undemonstrable principle.”
In the philosophical language of the archaic period [8th to 6th century BC], arche [or archai] designates the source, origin or root of things that exist. In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable & intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing.
That transcendent metaphysical proof, that would explain all other truths. [11:00]
They were looking for a transcendent unity that would make sense out of all the diversity in this world.
And we remember the impass that took place between two of the 'great' philosophers, prior to Socrates: Parmenides & Heraclitus
Parmenides words do not survive in tact, only so far as there are vinyetes of his thinking that are quoted from some of his essays & from some of his poems.
And of course the most, famous philosophical insight that comes from the pen are Parmenides is the affirmation (we'll write it up here, so you won't ever forget it): What is, is.
Now he wasn't the president of Greece, but he was concerned about what the meaning of is, is.
And he said, “Whatever is, is”
I’ll never forget the time I was in a college classroom & the philosophy professor introduced us to Parmenides.
And he wrote the same line on the board.
Whatever is, is. And I chuckled out loud.
I said, “This guy’s famous?! All he ever did, as far as achieving philosophical brilliance, was he learned how to stutter: ‘Whatever is, is.’ Big deal.” [12:53]
And yet I have to say to you:
There is no philosophical concept that I’ve been exposed to, in my life, that has driven me more often & more deeply to contemplate than this affirmation from Parmenides.
Which simply means [13:27]:
For something to exist, there has to be being.
Parmenides took the view that nothing changes in reality; only our senses convey the appearance of change. Heraclitus, by contrast, thought that everything changes all the time, & that "we step & do not step into the same river," for new waters flow ever about us.
4.] Constant Change: Becoming
Now, his counterpart Heraclitus challenged this.
And said, "Nothing is."
There is no such thing as pure absolute being—because everything that we observe in the world around us.
Every dimension of our experience, every object of our knowledge is given to change. [14:05]
Heraclitus said, "Everything, that we experience, is in a state of flux."
The only thing constant is change.
And his famous metaphor was: You can't step into the same river twice.
Why not? Because if there is a river flowing through, & I step my one leg into the river, by the time I move the 2nd leg, the river has moved on.
And so the water I plunge my 2nd foot into isn't the same water that I plunged my first foot into.
Not only that but in an infinitesimal level, the bed of that river has changed if only a few unseen atoms have been rearranged.
And not only that, not only that I can't step into the same river twice, but the "I" that is stepping into the same river twice is not the same "I" that was stepping in it a moment ago. [15:15]
I am not the same, as when I stood up here a few moments ago & talked to John & Roger.
Cause if nothing else has changed since then, I'm 5-10 minutes older & grayer, & a few other things.
If anything defines human existence, or the existence of anything—creaturely—it is change. [15:53]
Impermanence, even that rock under the blowing of the wind, & the shining of the sun, & the grains of sand that blow across its surface.
Over eons of time, begins to erode & manifest change.
As it returns to the dust.
And so instead of the concept of being, what Heraclitus substituted was the concept of becoming. [16:35]
So we have to distinguish between that which is, in a permanent/eternal/non-changing/non-state-of-flux,
BEING must be distinguished from anything that manifests the characteristics/attributes of becoming.
For the ancient Greeks, though they weren't embracing the doctrine of the biblical GOD, nevertheless they got some aspects of GOD right.
They understood this:
That BEING, if it is real being must be eternal, unchanging, & must be the basis for everything else that is
Because without being somewhere, there can be no becoming. [17:32]
Let me say it again: Without being, there can’t be any becoming.
Because as Aristotle noted, & we don't worship at the shrine of Aristotle contrary to some opinion.
So what Aristotle understood, was that if something were in a pure state of becoming—if it was only becoming & nothing else, it would be pure potentiality.
Something totally becoming would be potentially anything, but actually nothing.
5.] Pure Potential = Nothing
Now what about GOD. [18:25]
When I was in the 6th grade, I played in a baseball league that went up & included 10th graders.
We had 4 teams in a town & they had general managers, as well as coaches. And they pulled off trades, from time to time.
And I was involved in a multi-player swap, where I was really excited because I was traded from my team to another team for three 10th graders [19:03]
Now these three 10th graders, among them didn't know baseball was blown-up or stuffed.
But I was impressed, here a 6th grader, getting traded for three 10th graders. And the newspaper in our local town; this was my first time in the paper, announced the trade.
And they said the Indians traded for slick-fielding short-stop Sunny Sproul, who lacks a potential bat.
How I hated that word. I would hear it from my teachers, when my sister was the smartest & 3-years ahead of me.
I'd come along behind her, & they'd say, "You're not living up to your potential."
Did you ever hear that? [20:00]
I began to hate the word: potentiality.
And if I'm pure potential, & that's all?! I'm not even worth 3-10th-graders, who can't hit a lick.
But this is our state of existence: Becoming—not being.
6.] Characteristics of Creator
This is what differentiates us from GOD.
Now let me go to my first biblical text briefly.
Where we first encounter this idea, turn to page 1:
In the beginning GOD created the heavens & the earth.
This is the most fundamental assertion of historic Christianity; & it is the single-most bombarded target by secular philosophy & by neo-paganism [21:10]
Because every pagan knows, that if you can get rid of creation—you’re rid of GOD & if you’re rid of GOD?
You can live however you want.
Personal Aside: You can’t get rid of GOD; you can only be permitted by GOD to ignore HIM, but we’re all regardless of acknowledgement bear the consequences of sin—be it discipline as GOD’s chosen people, or wrath-to-come as apostates.
So everything that divides the Christian, from the Pagan is at stake—in that opening assertion of the OT [21:32]
Now let’s think about this for a second, “In the beginning” the first thing that is being said here:
The entire universe as we know it had a beginning!
There was a time when the created universe was NOT!
I mentioned before, a few years ago, at a conference that I heard the famous astro-physicist [22:03] Jack Throw being interviewed when the Hubble Spacecraft was sent aloft.
April 24, 1990, Hubble was carried aloft from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida aboard the space shuttle Discovery, along with a five-astronaut crew.
And he was on the radio & he said: “15-17 billion years ago the universe exploded into being.”
I almost drove my car off the road when I heard that.
The universe exploded into being, what did it explode out of? None-being??
Let me also add to this, several years ago I had the opportunity to exchange correspondence with Carl Sagan.
And in our correspondance, we were talking about the Big Bang Cosmology & about how the astrophysicists of our day—have gone back in time to the last nano-seconds before this eternally organized piece of stable condensation of energy/material—before it blew up!
You see that's as far back as we can go & no further! [23:18]
And I said to Dr. Sagan: How can you call yourself a scientist & stop your inquiry into truth at the most important moment in all of history?
He said, "Well we just don't have to go there." I said: Yeah you do have to go there! [23:42]
Because you have to account for this point of singularity, that for all eternity was stable & organized, immutable, in a state of inertia, & then suddenly & inexplicably on a Tuesday afternoon at 4:00, it blows sky high.
Stop me if I'm lying, but doesn't the law of inertia say: "Anything that is at rest, remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force."
Your theory of the origin of the cosmos screams for a self-existent eternal being [24:30]
You can't have it without it.
The minute you say there is a beginning, to the universe, you've got two options:
Either the universe came out of nothing— all by itself, or the universe was created by something that is self-existent & eternal [24:57]
Those are the only options folks.
Don’t let anybody play games with you on this.
I say it if you want to get a simple grasp of it, let me ask you this simple question: If there was ever a time 15-17 billion years ago, 20 billion years, 100B years ago
If there was ever a time when there was nothing: No BEING, no becoming, no actuality/potentiality—just non-being nothing yet—what would there be now?
What could there possibly be now? Absolutely nothing.
Out of nothing, nothing comes.
His wife, Francis Schafer during his career said: The modern naturalist has both of his feet planted firmly in thin air—because ultimately once they deny the self- existent & eternal BEING, who has aseity...
their only option is some kind of spontaneous generation, which is not science, it’s magic [26:38].
Poof the world pops into being.
I mean have you ever thought about what a tremendous explosion nothingness can cause?
Without GOD there can be no beginning [28:44] Without BEING, there can be no becoming.
And if there was a beginning, nothing screams louder than before the beginning. There was not nothing.
But there was one who has the power of BEING in HIMSELF [29:11]
Life in HIMSELF.
And that’s the difference between GOD & the creature [29:25]
GOD is pure being, there is no becoming in GOD.
GOD doesn’t have a learning curve; HE’s not learning new things every morning. HE’s not evolving into a higher form of being than HE was 6 months ago, or 6B years ago.
HE is as the medieval theologians said: “Entis perfectissimi” [for the sake of religion, they risked redundancy]
The most perfect BEING [Latin translation]
Now what’s the difference between a perfect being, a more perfect being, & the most perfect being? Nothing [30:52]
Because if something is perfect in its being, that perfection of being admits to no degrees.
The medieval theologians were doing two things:
1] Theology & 2] Doxology.
Doxology: is a short hymn of praises to GOD in various forms of Christian worship, often added to the end of canticles, psalms, & hymns.
They were standing back in awe at the contemplation of a being, in whom resides all excellencies at the perfect degree [31:36]
No lack, no weakness, nothing missing in that perfect being that exists in & of HIMSELF—from all eternity.
I mean if anything drives me to my knees, it’s even the momentary contemplation of ONE who is pure eternal self-existent BEING.
WHO needs nothing from my hands, nothing from my bank account to exist or to be in HIS absolute perfection at all times.
Now also in terms of this concept, the medieval theologians spoke about an ends necessary [32:39]
Thomas Aquinas talked about GOD as necessary; there are a lot of thing that I believe that TA was wrong, but this isn’t one of them.
Thomas speaks about GOD & HIS BEING as necessary BEING.
Now the way in which the theologians of that period spoke about the necessary BEING of GOD was two-fold; it had two particular reference points to it.
In the first case, what Aquinas & others meant by necessary being is this:
That GOD as eternal/perfect/self-existent BEING who needs nothing from us—for HIS continuity of HIS existence—has necessary BEING in the sense that a self-existent eternal BEING cannot possibly not be. [34:24]
Any BEING that is pure being, by necessity is eternal, has being in & of ITSELF, derives it’s BEING from nothing outside of itself, can never be confused with a creature—because the thing that defines us, as I said is becoming or as Sinclair was labouring this point about middle knowledge—I hope you really track with him on this middle knowledge point.
My wife sure did, we walked out of here for a minute & my wife was beside herself. She’s beating herself on the chest & says: Oh I can’t stand this; to think about the omniscience of GOD—who has nothing new to learn.
HE knows all the contingencies, but HE knows nothing contingently [35:29]; GOD has never said, “maybe it’s going to be this, or maybe it’s going to be that I have to wait & see how it all works out now.
HE is from everlasting to everlasting, & HIS self-existent eternal being—includes within it the perfection of HIS knowledge of HIS power, of HIS holiness, & all the rest of HIS attributes.
But me, you noticed how I’m doing in this thing: I go from here out the door without having a lady on both arms—keeping me up, so I don’t fall flat on my face.
You know why? Because I’m fragile.
Things changed at the back of my head a year ago [36:19] I might fall down at any second.
You know why? Because I’m a human becoming.
And I’m becoming older & weaker, right.
And so on.
But GOD doesn’t go through that, there aren’t any contingencies in HIS being, there’s no might have been in who HE is.
HE is from everlasting to everlasting.
Pure BEING. Perfect BEING.
And as a necessary being, HE never has to stop & tie HIS shoe. The being in GOD’s shoes are eternally tied.
1.] 1st Reference for this necessary being is this: that GOD is that GOD’s being is ontologically necessary
That is the SEEB, who is dependent on nothing for HIS BEING, derives from nothing upon HIS BEING, has no contingency in HIM.
Cannot not be!
That the very idea of being carries within it conceptually it’s necessity. Because that which is, always (what?) is Thank you.
HE is by eternal necessity.
That can never be said of any creature.
There was a time when you were not, there was a time when I was not. There was a time when the universe was not. But there never was a time when GOD was not. [38:28]
Because GOD cannot, not be.
HIS BEING is eternally necessary.
And so that’s one reference in which we speak of the BEING of GOD.
2.] 2nd Reference is this: GOD’s BEING is necessary not only in the ontological sense, but HIS being is necessary in the logical sense.
This is why I plead with my contemporaries who’ve abondoned all attempts to prove the existence of GOD by arguing from a rational basis.
Why give up? [39:07]
These unstoppable arguments, that the Church has deposited in her faith through 2K years.
That not only is GOD’s being ontologically necessary; it’s logically necessary!
Logic demands that you affirm the reality of a SEEB, as I said a moment ago, without that nothing could possibly be. People say can you prove to me the existence of GOD & I say, “Yes.”
They say: “How?” By this pen. It’s all it takes. If this pen exists, then GOD exists.
Unless this pen is GOD.
But if anything exists, something has to have the power of BEING within itself, or nothing could exist.
Is that clear? Again, if ever there was a time there was nothing, what would there be now? Nothing [40:15]
What could there be now? Nothing, thank you very much.
But if anything does exist, something exists that has the power of being within itself. If anything exists, if there’s any becoming, somewhere along the way there has to be being—because without being there can be no becoming. And that BEING which is the ground of all existence—which may have been true for Aristotle but it’s even more true for Christianity, is the Creator GOD, who’s from everlasting to everslasting.
Who has the power of life within HIMSELF, & the power of BEING within HIMSELF.
And then when Paul, speaks to the philosophers as we’ve already heard [41:04] at Morris Hill in Acts 17
Acts 17:16-19 | While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was deeply disturbed in his spirit to see that the city was full of idols.
So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews & GOD-fearing Gentiles, & in the marketplace with those he met each day.
Some Epicurean & Stoic philosophers also began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” while others said, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.”
They said this because Paul was proclaiming the good news of JESUS & the resurrection.
So they took Paul & brought him to the Areopagus, where they asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
Paul walked into the intellectual center of the ancient Greek culture, & he got off the tour bus & said: “Wow, look at the Parthenon. Oh think of the insights of Socrates & Plato & Aristotle. I’m at the center of the highest level of human achievement—of speculative thought.” [41:56]
No instead his heart was filled with grief.
Because he saw the whole city given to idolatry.
You ever been to Athens? You ever gone to the Acropolis? You ever stood on the steps of the Parthenon?
And look down in this direction over here? The little bald hill with no ruins, nothing there. But it’s haunted. [42:30]
The ghost of the Apostle Paul is on that hill.
Pointing to the Parthenon; pointing to the Acropolis, speaking in the Areopagus, saying: “I see in all things you are very religious, you’ve got a temple for this, a temple for that, & a temple for this. And in case you missed Vesta or Hessia you’ve got one for her.
Then just to be on the safe side, you hedged your bets & got this one over here, the idol to the unknown GOD.
Well that which you worship in ignorance, I’m going to declare to you in power, then he goes on to give probably the most intense & unfathomable profound statement in the whole BIBLE [43:14]
That in HIM, we live & move. And have our being.
Acts 17:28 | ‘For in HIM we live & move & have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are HIS offspring.’
Real quick, last week out in LA I used an illustration like this—I’ve done it here in other context, I had this thing that doesn’t write & I’m going to make it move.
You watch me carefully, in a moment I’m going to throw it up in the air, & try to catch it. You ready?
Now you watch at no time, will my hands ever leave my wrists. 1-2-3-here-we-go, see that? It moved!
It changed it’s position; & what caused that change? You’ve been taught since you were infants what caused that change. It was the inherent power in the strength of my right-arm, coupled by the strength of gravity to bring it back down. These are natural laws that govern every- thing in the universe. [44:29]
At a secondary level, that’s true.
But Paul said, “I can’t move a finger without the power of GOD. I can’t breathe the breath of life apart from GOD”
I cannot exist apart from GOD.
Because in HIM is life, & in HIM is my life.
I’ll talk about this tomorrow.
GOD can’t die; if GOD ever stops living, what happens to your life? It’s over.
Vaporized.
If GOD’s power of motion ceases, remember the game we used to play? Called statues, we’re running around the yard & somebody yells, “Freeze!”
That’s the end of motion; that’s the end of gravity.
And if anything should happen to the BEING of GOD, human becoming becomes potentially everything & actually nothing. [45:57]
As we disappear, from the face of the earth.
I mean everything that the philosophers of antiquity sought to discern, speculatively Paul announced to them at Morris Hill:
In HIM we move, we life & have our being. And in HIM, HE lives, & moves & has HIS BEING.
We can’t move, we can’t move, we can’t be apart from HIM, but before we were: HE lived & moved & was.
Because HE has the power of being in HIMSELF.
And that is the transcendent majesty of who HE is.
You know, we idolize people in the realm of becoming, who reach a higher level of potential than others.
Competitively.
We look at Michael Jordan & say: “How can this be?”
We look at Tiger Woods & say: “How can this be?”
And we’re still at the level of becoming. We’re still at the level of creatureliness.
And we tend to think how great we are, then we turn our eyes to heaven.
And the ONE who is, from everlasting to everlasting.
We owe HIM, whatever participation in being we have & as creatures we owe the ONE who is not a creature the glory of the perfection of HIS very BEING.
Source: oldfarmhouse via thursdaysatthecafe SEEB: Self-existent eternal BEING
A Portrait of God: 2004 National Conference | RC Sproul ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/aseity-of-god/
