Studies in Political Philosophy

Judgment and Salvation

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Political Studies

Lesson: Judgment and Salvation

Genre: Speech

Track: 10

Dictation Name: RR124E10

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

According to thy word, our Father, we come to thee, to make our every want and supplication known. We thank thee, our Father, that we can come in the confidence that thou dost hear and answer prayer, and so, our Father, we submit ourselves and all our hopes in Jesus Christ unto thee. Speak to us the word that we need. Refresh us by thy Holy Spirit. Guide us day by day. Bless and prosper us in thy service and to thy praise and glory, in Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture lesson is Genesis 6:5-8. Judgment and Salvation. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”

“Thy kingdom come, and thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” We repeat these words regularly whenever we unite in the Lord’s Prayer. What do they mean? What is involved in the repetition of those words? We cannot, in all honestly and integrity, repeat these words from the Lord’s Prayer without realizing that what we are asking for is judgment. There are many people and many churches who, when they say “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” that they are asking for God’s kingdom and God’s holy order to creep in gradually so that some morning we wake up and go down for breakfast, and pick up the morning paper, and we read that, very quietly and gradually, everything has taken place that we feel is desirable and God’s rule covers the earth from pole to pole, and nobody’s life has been disrupted. Nothing has happened to ruffle a single feather or of hair the world over, but it can’t be done that way, and when we pray “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we are asking for judgment. We are asking that God judge and destroy everything in us and in the world around us that is not in conformity to his holy will, so that we’re asking that God smash a great deal of what now exists, and we cannot repeat the Lord’s Prayer without asking him.

But immediately we encounter the fact of the difficulty of our age to accept the fact that judgment, it has such an unpleasant sound, and so in our age, people wince and cringe at the thought of judgment overwhelming the world.

A few years ago, McNeil Dickson{?} stated it very beautifully and ably when he wrote, “The kind hearted humanitarians of the 19th century decided to improve on Christianity. The thought of hell offended their susceptibilities. They closed it, and to their surprise, the gates of heaven closed also with a melancholy bang. When malignant countenance of Satan disturbed them, they dispensed with him, and at the same time, God took his departure.” This is the reality that we need to face up to. If you say there is no hell, then you’ve also said there is no heaven, and you’ve destroyed man as well, because you have denied to man the status of being a man, of having liberty under God, of chasing a course and pursuing it. There is no heaven nor is there a hell for this table, because this table is never confronted with a choice between heaven and hell, between good and evil, between God and Satan, but from the moment God created the earth and set man and woman in paradise, in the Garden of Eden, the tree was there to confront them with choice. So that every day as they walked back and forth, they had the choice, heaven or hell, good or evil, faith in God and obedience to him, or their own way of life. This is what constitutes humanity, being a creature under God, being alive, and those who would say there will be no hell in our universe are also saying there will be no heaven and there will be no human beings, and we will reduce all men to the status of pieces of furniture, and we will arrange their life from cradle to grave and put them in their proper place and classify them, and they cannot budge an inch without our permission, because we’re going to abolish the necessity of freedom, the necessity of being a man, the necessity of being confronted with God and Satan, heaven and hell.

Judgment is an inescapable fact. Remove judgment from the world and you ultimately remove everything that makes God God and man man. We cannot save men from crime without punishing criminals, can we? Can you imagine a society in which we say, there shall be no crime, but no one shall be judged, no one shall be punished for criminal actions. Criminality will have no consequences. In such a world, it is not crime you abolish, but crime you establish. Abolish hell and you have created it. You have established it. You have assured that that’s all you have, and life will be an unending hell without any hope of escape. Salvation requires judgment.

It is a significant fact that in Hebrew, the very same verb depending on the usage in the sentence, can mean “to punish” or “to deliver.” Because how can there be any deliverance without punishment, and how can we be delivered from our sins if there is not judgment, punishment, upon our sins? Who the Lord loves, Paul declared, he chastens, and Paul went on to declare that those who are not sons, but are bastards, God does not deal with, and we could be sure of nothing else than this, that if there were no judgment in our day and age, or in the years to come, that God, as then, abandoned the world and said, “Let the earth spin off through space, and I’m forgetting about it. Let them go on in their own misery and create their own hell. I am withdrawing my heaven and hell from them. I am withdrawing my judgment. I am withdrawing from them, and then men would be free to create their socialist hells and dehumanize men, and reduce the world to the evil imaginations of their hearts. For salvation requires a judgment, and without judgment, there is no salvation.

The great historical event which first of all, in the Bible, sets this forth, is the flood. Noah and his ark. It is not only one of the landmark historical events of all history, and of biblical history, it is also a type of God’s salvation and of his judgment. At that time, God’s church was reduced to one family, the household of God, but before God judged the world, he summoned his people into an ark that they might be saved, and the ark is the type of Christ and of his true church, and God carried his true church through the waters of the flood to a new land, to a new earth, that he might preserve them and deliver them as he brought judgment upon the earth round about them. So the salvation of the church then was the judgment of the world around them, and God summons us today into his fellowship, into his body, which is not an institution but the true body of Jesus Christ, not that we might think only of ourselves, but that we might be saved for his service, and he summons us into the ark, not that we might decide as we book passage, whether the windows should have lace curtains or some other form of drapery, but that we pass onto the new world to establish God’s order there.

And God judged Egypt, and brought upon it ten plagues, it was so that he might deliver Israel out of captivity, and before he could give them the Promised Land, he had to judge the Canaanites, and over and over again in scripture we see this pattern. Salvation requires judgment, and judgment comes that God’s people might be saved. There is no hope for us tomorrow if there is no judgment on the present order. There is no hope for a Christian order in the years to come unless this anti-Christian order be judged and smashed, and cleared from the ground, and we find the supreme coincidence of judgment and salvation in the cross of Christ where we also find the supreme coincidence of love and law. In the cross, we stand judged. It is our sins that were laid upon him and there nailed to the cross, that Jesus Christ is our representative overthrew the power of sin and death, and arose from the dead. We share in that salvation, his victory over sin and death. We cannot accept salvation if we reject judgment. In order to save us from this evil generation, God must judge it. He must destroy it if he is to remain God, and we must move in terms of this reality. No judgment, no salvation, it’s that simple. No judgment, no salvation.

But we can carry it one step further. No judgment, no God. The fact of judgment in history is one of the clearest indications that God is God, and if there were no judgment in history, there would be no progress in history. Men would remain precisely in their condition and never change if there were no consequences to sin, if there were no judgment upon it.

Centuries ago, one ruler whose dream was of a one world order apart from God, who forcibly moved around populations in order to destroy their national origins and integrity, and to merge them and make them into one integrated people, was celebrating the success of his venture at a banquet. Celebrating it with open and obvious contempt for Almighty God, and called for the sacred vessels of the temple to be used so that he might show his contempt for the Lord of Hosts, and suddenly a finger was seen writing on the wall of that banquet hall, weighed and weighed in the balances and found wanting, and that very night, Belshazzar and Babylon were overthrown.

History does not stand still. History does have progress because every time the Belshazzars of the world raise themselves up, God destroys them, and history has made progress precisely because of the fact of judgment. Apart from biblical faith, there is no concept of progress in any of the philosophies and religions of the world. Their view of history is cyclical. It’s the same thing over and over and over again. It’s just a perpetual treadmill, and so the Greek philosophers, for example, said man’s only hope is to escape from history, and the Hindu philosophers have said the same thing. Man’s only hope is to escape from history, from karma, and to find Nirvana, oblivion, eternal death, because in history there is no change, no progress, no meaning, no hope, but Jesus Christ declared, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I am he by whom all things were made and without him was not anything made that was made.” He is the beginning, he is at the center of history in his incarnation, atonement, death, and resurrection, and he is at the end of history as he who shall come again as the great and eternal judge, and age after age, he is the judge who raises up one and abases another, and therefore, history has progress. It moves from its beginning in him to its end in him.

Judgment frees men and judgment saves men. Those who hate judgment, hate salvation. They hate deliverance, and they want a world in which man is totally delivered into their hands. They want the total enslavement of man. Consider for example, the significance of the mental health movement, and of Sigmund Freud. Freud said there was no cure. He did not judge sin because he did not believe in any deliverance from sin. As I pointed out in my paperback on Freud, when a mother wrote concerning her son who is a pervert, and asked if Freud could cure him, he rebuked her, and said there was no necessity for a cure, nor the possibility of it, nor should there be any judgment on his condition. That what psychoanalysis could do for him was to get him to be free from guilt about his actions, and to accept himself as he is. Thus, for Freud, there was no judgment upon the sin. Therefore, no deliverance was necessary or possible, and his was a perspective that led to the enslavement of men, because it had no element of true judgment, hence, no element of salvation possible.

Judgment gives freedom. When we accept God’s judgment of us in the cross of Christ, we share in the power of his resurrection. We then have the grace and love of God in our hearts, a clean conscience before God by virtue of his atonement, and our hearts are made perfect within us so that, as St. John declared in 1 John 4:17, “Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.” This is the faith we are summoned to. We live in a time of approaching judgment, and the scripture summons us to have boldness in the day of judgment, to have boldness because we move in terms of the word of God, and the law of God. Because we move in terms of faith, in judgment, and salvation. Because we move in terms of faith and obedience. This is what we are asking for when we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” This is a call for judgment.

Those of us who have accepted baptism and the sacrament of the Lord’s table, holy communion, have already accepted the fact that judgment upon ourselves, for baptism is essentially pleading guilty before God and accepting the verdict, and declaring that we need his washing, his regenerating, as well as his judgment, and when we are summoned in holy communion to approach the table of the Lord, St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 declares, “Let a man examine himself {or let a man judge himself}.” For holy communion, according to the word of God, should be preceded by judgment. Otherwise, Paul declared, it will be followed by the divine judgment. Having accepted in baptism and in holy communion the fact of judgment upon ourselves, we must also accept it upon the world, and recognize it as our deliverance, as God’s way to the establishment of his law, of his order, of his kingdom. This is what it means to pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Let us pray.

We give thanks unto thee, Almighty God, that thou hast summoned us out of a world of judgment, and through the judgment upon ourselves in baptism and communion, into the ark of thy salvation, and we thank thee, our Father, that if we, in faith and obedience, commit ourselves unto thee, thine ark we shall be preserved unto thy service, praise, and glory. We thank thee for thy holy calling. We thank thee, our Father, that thou hast given us a citizenship in thy eternal kingdom. Make us faithful unto this calling, obedient unto thy word, and filled with boldness in the day of judgment. In Jesus name. Amen.

Any questions now? Yes?

[Audience] What is the meaning of the word “repent,” and {?} dependence {?} the same as {?}

[Rushdoony] Not exactly. We’re dealing with idioms here, and idioms are very difficult to translate. The significance of this is that God was revolted at what he saw, even though he had created it and ordained it, the whole thing was revolting to him, and so he was determined to pursue the appointed judgment. Yes?

[Audience] A few days ago, I happened to catch this two way radio show, Pine{?} and apparently, their religious leader of some type, he didn’t describe himself, was discussing the fact that if God is omnipotent, well, Joe Pine{?} critical, why did he create people, and then he tried to explain it, and {?} consistently, and {?} went on one morning and then the next morning the same question came up with another man trying to explain it, and Joe{?} Joe finally says, Well, I can’t see any reason, and that was the end of it, and so many people are in this same quandary, thinking. Is there a reasonably simple answer to that, or is the answer {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. I indicated at the beginning that this table has no possibility of good and evil, but when God created man, he created the possibility of evil, because you cannot have moral choice, you cannot have a man as man, without the possibility of a world of good and evil, and when these socialists dream of a world beyond good and evil, they dream of man dehumanized, totally, so that he will be like the ant heap, or even more like pegs that can be moved around in their place, and they are no longer human, because to be a man involves this element of having the capacity to obey God, or to disobey him, of accepting his word or rejecting it.

Now, evil is not a thing, so that it can be created as a thing. Evil is a possibility in terms of moral choice, and you cannot create man as man, human, capable of being obedient or disobedient, a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker, without evil. Now, what these people do is to pursue a very silly error, and to speak of evil as a thing instead of a condition. Now, God did not create you hungry, nor did he create you full to the point that you’re sick because you’ve overeaten. He created you with the capacity to eat and with the possibility of being hungry or too full. These are conditions that are brought about by our conduct.

Now God, of course, in his eternal predestination, knew that these things would develop, but these are aspects of the possibilities of life, rather than things that are created.

[Audience] Well, in relation to that “thing” question, many times people are born {?} or deformed, and {?}

[Rushdoony] Why are they so born?

[Audience] Individual does not have a choice {?}

[Rushdoony] Right. Sin is in the world and so there is evil in the world, and there is material damage in the world as a result of man’s fall, and this is a consequence of our activity and our action, and these things come about because people have, as a result of their own way of living, created these conditions and these children are the innocent victims of it. This is as a result of wrong standards concerning marriage, for example.

Now, I am told that a certain breed of dogs throughout Southern California is no longer fit to have because it’s been over bred in terms of certain show standards to the point that the dogs are defective and not worth having, except as show pieces. Now, this is a product of man’s sin rather than God’s creation. There are some peoples who, with old world standards concerning marriage, such as that you should not marry unless you know something about the ancestry of the prospective girl or boy, the bride or the groom, for so many generations back, where any such thing, any deformity is almost unheard of, and some kinds are never heard of, but in our culture, you see, we have, for some time, been marrying in terms of romantic, rather than godly and sensible ideas.

At the end of the Middle Ages, at the time when Luther began his work, you had a tremendous birth through Europe, and had had for some generations, of human monsters. Why? Because you had a couple of centuries without any strong Christian faith, a gradual drifting into the kind of thing we have today, romanticism, and you had all kinds of cults. You had your beatniks then, you had your Goliards {?}, wandering students, who were subversives who go from one university to another across Europe to nothing but to subvert it. You had your nudist cults all over the place, and some of them parading openly. In fact, they had parades in Amsterdam in the late Middle Ages, and the community had a lot of trouble with these people. You had your communist movements and communist groups, and for a time, they took over certain parts of Western Europe, and you had, as a result, this total breakdown. In Luther’s day, a fantastic amount of fearful births, but little by little, these things began to disappear as we had godly standards. Now, because our standards are breaking down, we’re having more and more trouble, because marriage is not something you enter into in terms of obedience to God and establishing a godly household, of rearing good, healthy, godly children unto the honor and glory of God, but in terms of physical appetites. “He (or she) looks good to me and I don’t care what his past or background is. I’m going to marry them,” and the consequences are devastating.

Now, what about the children who are born to these? We have indications, hints from scripture, that these people, because they do not have the capacity, are like children who die in infancy with the Lord. Beyond that we cannot go. We have hints in that direction. Yes?

[Audience] Isn’t it a Christian foundation for the {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, there is. Now, the Mosaic law specified that there was a rite of divorce for uncleanness. Now what constituted uncleanness, that’s the point of debate, and in the New Testament, the same word appears as fornication. Now, in Matthew 19, I believe verse 9, our Lord says that divorce is forbidden except for cause of fornication, which is the same as the Old Testament word for uncleanness. What does this mean? Some people say this is adultery, but if it had been adultery, you see, our Lord would have specified adultery, which has a very open, obvious, restricted meaning.

Now, there are a number of possible translations for fornication. One means sexual relations. Another can refer to homosexuality. Other meanings refer to lasciviousness, to a flagrant and anti-Christian disobedience, and contempt of authority, to desertion. Now, on these grounds, from the biblical perspective, I believe divorce is justified. It is not in terms of wealth. I don’t love him or her anymore, or I’d like to change a partner, but it has to be this serious ground which is specified in scripture. Now the great conflict in the church today is that some prefer to say no ground whatsoever. Now, this is being holier than God, which I think is Phariseeism compounded. Others would restrict it only to adultery because it’s simpler to deal with it on that basis, but the point is our Lord did not say adultery. He said fornication, which in the Greek, is pornea{?}, and we have to go in terms of what that word means.

[Audience] What would the word mean in Hebrew?

[Rushdoony] I don’t recall now, but it is uncleanness as it is translated into the English, but pornea is used in the Septuagint, so you know that it was regarded as idaical{?}. Any other questions?

[Audience] Could you expound slightly on the flood counts that you hold was the total flood, earth wise, for the {?}

[Rushdoony] No, I don’t believe there is any ground in scripture for the limited flood. There are many, many people today, Bernard Ram, for example, is one of them, who try to get around the objections of your unbelieving scientists to the flood by saying, “Well, there was just a flood in that area,” so there was a valley or two flooded, and Noah got into his boat instead of heading for the mountains, or for the next valley. This is nonsense. It’s reducing scripture to child’s play. The scripture, I think, speaks very clearly that it was a universal flood that covered the entire face of the earth. This has been dealt with by several writers, I think perhaps the best single work is Whitcomb and Morris The Genesis Flood. In the first part of it, Whitcomb, dealing with the biblical evidence in the first ninety or so pages, demonstrates conclusively that the biblical data clearly speaks of a universal flood. Then, in the second part of the book, some 300 or so pages, Dr. Morris, from the scientific perspective, points out that the flood best accounts for the facts of geology. It’s an excellent book and I commend it to your reading. There will be a banquet of the Bible Science Association at Knott’s Berry Farm, I believe, on May 3 or 4.

[Audience] Third.

[Rushdoony] Third, and Dr. Walter Lamricks{?} will be the speaker there and I think it will be well worth your while to make reservations for that. If you want information on that, perhaps someone here can give it to you afterwards, or I can see to it that you get it, but Dr. Lamricks{?} was formerly professor of genetics at UCLA, then went on to be chief of research for Germain Laboratories, and is the head of the Creation Research Society, a group of scientists, mostly research {?} who subscribe to creationism, to a six-day concept of creationism, and are top notch scholars, and their journal by the way, is very interesting reading. They have, in the current issue, several interesting articles, one of them deals with Carbon 14 dating, and heretofore, of course, a number of people have pointed out how if you get back more than just a few thousand years, two, three thousand years, it isn’t very accurate.

Now, one of the men in the society has reported on the fact that young trees, about five or six years old, near airports and big cities have, through the Carbon 14 dating method, been established to be 2,000-3,000 years old, and this is because of the jet blasts on take-off. These trees absorb a tremendous amount of carbon, and trees near a freeway apparently will come out to be quite old, too. So you can see how this doesn’t take into consideration all kinds of factors. Yes?

[Audience] I don’t know if you recall an article from the {?} review, I assumed you {?} praying, {?} U.S. News, {?} church. Now, with humanism, young people, you have to see differently, too, though from the Bible, as a ministry, I mean, you thought differently, and from what I can gather, it seems not true to me. What is your opinion of that? Can you change when you {?}

[Rushdoony] As I recall his statement, his idea was accommodationism. In other words, God accommodated his thinking to the age so, because they were ignorant and childish, he spoke to them as though they were children, but if God were talking to us very wise people now a days, he’d speak on a higher level. Well, I think this is ridiculous. I don’t believe that people in Abraham’s day were any less intelligent than we are, and one of the silliest mistakes that we can make and which people very often make is to assume that children don’t have an IQ equal to that of adults. A child’s mind is just as intelligent, just as capable as an adult’s. The only difference is he hasn’t had as much material accumulating in his memory to work with, but it’s been demonstrated, the Puritans demonstrated very clearly that a child of six and seven could learn Greek and Hebrew, and trigonometry, and everything else. If you told him he was expected to learn it he did, because he looked to the world around him and he figured these were the standards he had to meet and he met them, but you couldn’t today because they’re convinced that all they can at that age is read “Jump, Spot, jump.”

[Audience] {?} I know that it probably comments that I read that if I were {?} a man who speaks on the Bible, and God to me, I would never go back to a person like {?} other than {?}, you don’t get anything out of it.

[Rushdoony] No, there is no accommodationism in the Bible. It speaks with maturity to mature people. Now, the only problem we face is that the idioms are sometimes foreign to us, because idioms sometimes, when you translate them from one language to another, sound outlandish or they sound peculiar. This is a rather ridiculous instance, but I recall some years ago when I was in college, I went to an opera in San Francisco with some friends, and they had this other guest, a rather charming, a woman, and I was introduced to her, and my name sounded very foreign to her, and she assumed I might be a foreign student or something. She was sitting next to me, and she got very restless, and she leaned over and whispered, “You’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got ants in my pants tonight,” and then she started to blush, because she thought, “Well, here is a foreign, a foreign student perhaps, and he’s wondering literally what that means,” so she started to explain herself, and the more she explained herself the worse it got. Now, you can see how if you said something like that to someone in France, in French, the misunderstanding it would create.

Now, there are idioms in the Bible which we need to understand, and sometimes we fail to understand them, but this isn’t a major problem. It’s a very minor and incidental one, and many of the idioms of the Bible have now become idioms in English as a result of centuries of reading the Bible. Any other questions? Yes?

[Audience] You quoted the Lord’s Prayer and I vaguely remember having heard that particular prayer was written rather recently. Do you know if it’s a recent prayer?

[Rushdoony] It was spoken by our Lord at the Sermon on the Mount, and repeated by him later on elsewhere, except for the closing phrase, so that it is definitely a part of the inspired word of God, going back to the early days of his ministry. It’s the only prayer we as Christians pray without saying, “In Jesus name,” because there, we pray in his words. We are summoned to pray “in Jesus name” because it’s in him that we have access to God the Father. He is the mediator, but in this prayer, we do not pray in this name because we pray in his words. Yes?

[Audience] I couldn’t tell you, this happened several years back, and I’d gone to a democratic convention, {?} and they had, the invitation was given by a priest, and it’s Our Father, well, it different {?, and this woman in back of me said, “What kind of man is he? What kind of prayer is that?” And she didn’t recognize it was the Catholic version of the Lord’s Prayer.

[Rushdoony] No there is no real difference. You see, what they use liturgically, and some of the Book of Common Prayer also, some portions of it, use it this way. Instead of saying, “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever. Amen,” they just stop, “But deliver us from evil,” because our Lord used it once in that sense when he was also talking on prayer. He just gave the beginning to that point, and both forms appear, both in the Catholic liturgy and in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. Now, this sometimes disconcerts people who aren’t used to it, but it’s biblical in both cases.

[Audience] {?} religion {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience] I was going to ask about the pastor, the Reverend {?} synod, and he’s been under fire, and {?} because he {?} that was going to be given {?}, I wondered {?} Matthew 18, about praying your brother {?}, and I wondered {?} go and tell him his faults?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Strictly, the scripture requires of us before we attack someone in the church we must go to them first of all, and if they will not listen to reason, then to go to the church authorities. So that the passage is an important one, but what they are forgetting is that Pastor Nee{?} has gone to the authorities over and over and over again, and he’s gotten no where with them so he’s taking his case to the people now, and technically yes, in this particular case he didn’t go to them, but he’s found over and over again it’s useless. So that there is no fault on his part in this case.

I was reading the other day, to change the subject now, in the diary of Harold L. Ickies{?}, if you remember who the man was, this is in volume one, and I thought this passage was very interesting to indicate how well they knew then what they were doing. The date for this entry is Thursday, October 5, 1933. “I took occasion to tell the president that if we only had a fair break of luck so that we didn’t hit anymore economic bumps and were able to hold our own, and perhaps pull out gradually, his administration would go down in history as one of the profound and far-reaching social changes. I told him there wasn’t another man in the United States who could lead the country at this time along the paths that it ought to tread. Of course, he demerged to this, but I profoundly believed it to be true. He said that what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia, and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany, but we are doing them in an orderly way. I said to him that I didn’t know whether, as a candidate, he realized that he had the capacity to give the kind of leadership that he is giving, or that possessing the ability he would give it, but I was sure the country didn’t elect him for any such reason but for entirely different ones. He said that, of course, he had been thinking along these lines for a good many years, but it was evident that he himself had not anticipated the problems that have arisen, nor am I sure that he was certain in his own mind when he came into office how he would meet those problems if they did arise.”

I thought it was interesting that that early in the New Deal, before a year was up, they were opening discussing the fact that they were imitating the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany, and the only difference, “we are doing it in an orderly way.” Yes?

[Audience] Along the same lines, President Woodrow Wilson wrote a letter, and I don’t remember the recipient of the letter, but the paraphrasing part of the context, he was taking a {?} position on the fact that he had picked {?} and that happened to be a representative to Bolshevicie{?} in Russia immediately after the takeover to assist him in their noble{?} experiment {?} kept very closely on the {?} background and was assured that he was in very great alignment with their {?} in Russia. They knew exactly where they were going at that time.

[Rushdoony] That’s why we need judgment. Well, I think our time is about us, so we stand dismissed.

End of tape