The Signs of John’s Gospel

Sign of Truth

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels, & Sermons

Lesson: Sign of Truth

Genre: Speech

Track: 114

Dictation Name: RR125C6

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Let us begin with prayer.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee that in this troubled world, thou art our strength and our defender, our exceeding great reward. Our peace. Our blessed assurance, and so, our Father, we come into thy presence again, knowing that because we are thine, we have the blessed assurance that thou wilt never leave us nor forsake us, so that we may boldly say The Lord is my helper, I shall not fear what man may do unto me. Arm us, O Lord, by thy word and by thy spirit that we may face the world, confident in Christ and as more than conquerors. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture lesson is from the Gospel According to St. John 9. “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: but by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue (that is, excommunicated). Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out (or excommunicated him).

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”

In this passage of scripture, we have another one of the signs and wonders of our Lord, the sign of truth. Our Lord was passing by and saw a blind beggar, blind from birth, soliciting alms, no doubt, and the terms that were common in those days as beggars solicited alms were sentences such as these, “Gain merit by me. O tender hearted, by me gain merit to thine own benefit.” The disciples noted the man and his blindness, and they raised a question, was it this man’s sin or his parents’ sin that he was born blind, and our Lord discounted both opinions as false. These were common opinions among Phariseeism and Judaism in the day, namely that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children. Indeed, it was regarded that up to thirteen years of age, a child was considered, as it were, as a part of his father, and any suffering he endured up to that age was in consequence of his father’s guilt. It was also held that the thoughts of the mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring, and it was actually held that the fearful apostasy of one of the greatest rabbis of Israel had been caused by the sinful thoughts of his mother while passing through a grove of idols.

And our Lord discounted both opinions as false, and said that this particular blind man indeed had been made blind by the providence of God, that the glory of God might be manifested in him. Then he healed him in a way specifically forbidden by rabbinic law, and did it on the Sabbath. Immediately, the miracle was noted. The formerly blind beggar was brought before the Pharisees, before the Sanhedrin, and grilled as to what had happened, who had healed him, and what was his opinion of this man who had healed him.

Now, the Sanhedrin had certain definite ideas already in mind before they heard of the miracle and before they began their questioning, and what we have both on the part of the Sanhedrin and on the part of this formerly blind beggar is a line of logical reasoning, and on both sides the reasoning is logical. This we must understand, because all reasoning is circular reasoning. It reasons within a circle. You begin with a presupposition and all your conclusions are products of your presupposition. In Geometry, for example, you have certain axioms, and therefore, out of these axioms, there {?} a necessary conclusion because your presuppositions as they approach any problem require a certain conclusion. Thus, whatever you believe will govern your reasoning, and your reasoning will be logical in terms of your presupposition, if you’re a good reasoner. So that if you begin with a premise that there is no God and Jesus is not Christ, you will reason logically from that presupposition, and make all data work logically to fit with that presupposition.

And as a result, you have, in this chapter, a series of syllogisms, logical propositions, in which both the presupposition and the conclusion are readily apparent, and the Pharisees approached this miracle that had been performed with a very neat syllogism in mind. Their major premise is this: all people who are from God keep the Sabbath, and of course, the laws of the Sabbath were the laws of the Sanhedrin and not of the Bible. Their minor premise was, This man, Jesus, does not keep the Sabbath. Conclusion: this man, Jesus, is not from God. Very logical. All people who are from God keep the Sabbath. This man, Jesus, does not keep the Sabbath. Therefore, this man is not from God.

But, the beggar had his own reasoning, and he answered them with his own logic, and his premise was, Only people who are from God can open the eyes of those born blind. His minor premise: this man, Jesus, has opened the eyes of one born blind. His conclusion: this man is from God, but the Pharisees countered him with their own logic and their own syllogism as they tried to rule out his testimony, and their major premise was Only the wicked suffer physical affliction, and their minor premise? You suffered physical affliction. Conclusion: You, this man, the beggar, are wicked. Therefore, how can we listen to your testimony?

Then, as they dealt with his own argument, they began with the major premise, only people who are from God can open the eyes of those born blind. We’ll agree with you on that, but our minor premise is that this man, Jesus, is not from God. Conclusion: Therefore, he cannot have opened the eyes of one born blind. It was God, not Jesus, who performed the miracle. He just happened to be there, so don’t give him any credit even though he is the one who seemed to have performed the act. You understand the logic? On both sides you have thoroughly logical argumentation. Reasoning which follows very systematically and consistently from the premise, but was the premise sound? This was the question. An atheist may be excellent in his reasoning, but his premise is totally false, and if the premise be only a partial truth, it is a lie because its outcome is a lie, and so if our premise becomes even a partial truth, its consequence is an ultimate lie.

Those of you who took logic and philosophy in college remember the familiar syllogism. All men are mortal, Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is a man. Very neat, but how easily this could be used for a false syllogism. All men are mortal, major premise. Minor premise, my dog is mortal. Conclusion: my dog is a man. What is wrong? All men are indeed mortal, but this does not identify man nor does it mean that mortality is merely a condition of man. Mortality is a condition of dogs, of all living creatures on this earth, and therefore, when you limit your major premise to a partial truth, and when mortality is not merely the sum total of that which constitutes a man, your major premise is an invalid premise. All men are mortal, but not all mortals are men. Mortality is a broader concept than man, and a syllogism will inevitably be false of its premise is not inclusive of all aspects of the reality under discussion, and therefore, reasoning may be logical outwardly, but if its major premise is false, then it is a false syllogism, and everything constructed upon it is false, and the more you construct upon it, the greater the falsity. If you build a little cabin on a shaky foundation, and on a hillside which is sure to crumble, you’re in for trouble, but how much more trouble are you in for if you build a skyscraper on such a foundation? And today, the sum total of so much of what we call learning is built on shaky major premises, and the only true premise of all thinking is the word of God in Jesus Christ, who said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” All thinking, therefore, is false if Christ is not the premise of all reality.

“By him were all things made and without him was not anything made that was made,” and all thinking must therefore, begin with him in every situation, because apart from him, we can know nothing truly, and the logic of any premise, major premise, which is not Jesus Christ is ultimately the renunciation of all truth, of all learning, of everything save the individual and hence, Existentialism must be honored as the logical form of unbelief, because Existentialism says there is no truth in the world. There is no truth in nature, in anything. The only truth is my own existence, what I affirm, what I want, and by existence, completely uninfluenced by any morals or anything outside of me, any religion, any transcendental god or being, is the only truth I acknowledge, and this is my freedom, to deny all reality apart from me. This is logical, and we {?} recognize today that the logic of the situation today rests with the man who believes in Jesus Christ consistently and thoroughly affirms the whole world of God, and the Existentialist, the beatniks, the people who affirm there is no moral law, no truth, nothing, and they who stand in middle ground are illogical. They are not thinking consistently. Either our premise is Jesus Christ, or our premise is ourself, and there is no law apart from us.

When Jesus said is none so fearfully wicked as those who say, “We see their sin remaineth,” and for their judgment, he was come into the world, but those who confess their blindness and said, “We are blind and we cannot see apart from Jesus Christ, and he is the only ground of our proof. He must be the major premise of our life, of all our thinking, of every area of our knowledge.” These are the ones that see, “For judgment I am come into this world that they which see not might see, and they which see might be made blind,” and today we see the progressive blinding of those who believe they see so that they cannot read the signs of the times and see the disaster that they are creating, which is rapidly beginning to overwhelm the entire world. Either our premise is Jesus Christ, or we blind ourselves. All thinking must begin with him in every situation and in every field, for apart from him, we can know nothing truly.

Christianity is more than a way of life. It is the person Jesus Christ, very God of very God and very man of very man, and all our living, working, thinking, seeing, all our righteousness must be founded on him, or we begin with a false premise, and however logical our thinking and our living, it ends up a lie. We cannot be saved apart from him. “I am the door. By me if any man enter in he shall go in and out and find pasture.” In him we are made rich. Apart from him, famine. In him we find pasture. We are nourished. We are blessed. The meek shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto thee that thou art the major premise of our life, our foundation, and we thank thee, our Father, that in thee we have the blessed security that though the storms of life beat upon our house, yet we stand secure, for having been founded upon the rock, Jesus Christ, nothing can overthrow us, and we pray, our Father, that day by day, thou wouldst enable us to by thy grace to build more firmly on this foundation, and to summon men, women, and children to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. In his name we pray. Amen.

Are there any questions now? Yes?

[Audience] There is a distinction that I’m trying to separate of selflessness, as against {?}. Some of the {?} today have remarked that {?} attitude is a reminder of selfishness in relation to Christ. Some people feel that we should follow him and everything we do is out of ourselves, and yet if Existentialism is opposite of this and whatever we do has a certain responsibility to ourselves, so in spite of false {?}

[Rushdoony] Very good question. Existentialism is the total absorption with one’s self. On the other hand, so much of what passes for religion today claims you should be totally unselfish and never think of yourself. And what is our answer to the two positions? Well, it is that both are false. According to our faith, when we come to Christ we are to renounce ourselves because the old man in us, the old Adam, the old self, is a perverted one, a sinful one, dead in sins and trespasses, and we are to hate the old man and separate ourselves from him, and become the new man, Jesus Christ, become members of his humanity. Now, as members of Jesus Christ, the old man is always there somewhat, but the new man, the true, the basic man in our lives is not Jesus Christ. We cannot hate ourselves now, because we are not the old Adam. That is not the truth about us now, he is still there in the background, but the truth about each of us who are now Christians is Jesus Christ. As Paul said, “I live and yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

Now, as our Lord himself said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Well, he was saying you should love your neighbor and you should love him as you love yourself. Well now, that’s not any talk about hating yourself, is it? What it is saying is that you’ve got to respect the God-given rights that you have just as you respect the God-given rights of others, and you cannot have this respect for others unless you have it for yourself. So that there is what sometime ago, a very great saint of God who has now gone to his Lord said, should be called a holy selfishness, and we should not allow the oriental, the Buddhist type of selflessness to possess us, and in this respect, Iran has attacked not the biblical position, but she has attacked this pseudo idealistic view in our time, and she’s right as far as she goes, but her own answer is an Existential absorption with the ego, which is equally bad, and we must avoid both, for the biblical perspective. We cannot allow ourselves to have preeminence over God, but under God we have to respect ourselves, to love ourselves according to the word of God and according to his requirements, and we cannot love our neighbor if we do not love ourselves. Yes?

[Audience] You mentioned in here, way back to the beginning, that Jesus performed this cure in a way that was forbidden by the Talmud, or by the law. How was that mentioned? Are they forbidden to kill people that way?

[Rushdoony] We don’t know the reason for the regulation, but there was not only all kinds of regulations against healing, but there was also specifically a law against anointing the eyes with spittle and clay.

[Audience] Does that stand to this day?

[Rushdoony] That I don’t know, but we definitely know that at that time, there was such a regulation. So what our Lord did, since he had healed many a man just by saying that he should see, he deliberately broke their Sabbath laws. In other words, he pitted his law as God incarnate against their law, and gave them a miracle which was a violation of their law, to give them a more obvious choice, and their choice of their own self-righteousness was made very obvious thereby. But we find that on several occasions, our Lord deliberately healed on Sabbath, and their perversion of scripture was so apparent, because, as he pointed out, the Mosaic law made it clear that if your pal or donkey, or some of your livestock fell into a well or a pit on the Sabbath day, you should take it out immediately. Now, the whole premise of the Mosaic law is that it takes the minimal case in order to make clear that this applies in everything, so that what it very clear said that works of mercy, works of healing, were certainly valid on the Sabbath day, just as Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treddeth out the corn.” As Paul tells us, of course, it applies to the ox but it has primary reference to man. It makes clear how fundamental this principle is that the laborer is worthy of his hire, because the scripture applies it even to the ox.

Now, this was true of the law with regard to works of mercy on the Sabbath, but the law had no meaning to them and this is what our Lord was driving home with each of these miracles. It was not the law of God. It was the law of man, and this is precisely the situation we have today. What is the sin of all sins to the churches today? It’s breaking with the denomination, or going against the hierarchy, and so on, and you can be guilty of almost anything, but if you knuckle under to the hierarchy, you are alright, and I have seen them forgive any kind of sin including fraudulent use or misappropriation of money, sexual sins, and so on, and in fact, be very ready to do it because now they have a little power over the man, and they can use him so much more readily. They like a sinner in the pulpit, one whose sin they know, they have the information on, because he’s their boy. To them, the only real sin is Thou shalt not violate what the hierarchy in the church says constitutes true Presbyterianism, or Methodism, or Congregationalism, or Roman Catholicism, or what have you, and this is, of course, what Phariseeism was. It’s the same thing. This is the truth, and they begin with their false premises and reason logically to their conclusions, not realizing that the judgment is upon them. Yes?

[Audience] Well, I’ve been at this for a long time, but {?} here’s the thing I would like to have you comment on. When you go into a church say, twenty-five, thirty years ago, you subscribe to a certain thing. Now, over the years since then, they have evangel{?} conferences and all that, and they keep changing this thing, and why you and I {?} time, just where this thing stops.

[Rushdoony] It’s not going to stop until they have the one world religion. The ecumenical movement is just the first step. There will be the one world religion together with the one world state. Already, all of your churches and religions are a part of Unesco, and through Unesco, the UN, so that there is a great deal of cooperation with them. It was not an accident that at the festival of faith, you had the various oriental religions, and the Roman Catholic archbishop, the Council of Churches representatives and all others participating. It was a festival of all faiths, and this is for the public consumption to prepare them for the deeper cooperation that shall come, and already you are getting joint schools and the like set up, and for example, in Berkeley, you have a seminary which I attended, which was established about seventy, eighty years ago. It is in part Congregationalist and part Methodist, although I’m not sure how much money the Methodists put in, but the Pacific School of Religion. Now, notice it’s not the Pacific School of Theology or of Christianity, but of Religion, and the specific purpose is to teach the one world religion, not a particular religion. This is their ultimate purpose.

[audience] When you’re {?} faith {?} Isn’t that near Menlo Park there?

[Rushdoony] Yes, at the Cow Palace in South San Francisco.

[Audience] I know that place out there where they have all those kind of {?}. I’ve been past it several times.

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience] What would you say to somebody that says to you that he prays to God and he’s a good God. Why does he allow the evil to go on in the world today?

[Rushdoony] Yes, that’s a question you often encounter. Now, the answer to that would be, are you a totalitarian? In other words, do you want man to be totally a puppet, so that the possibility of evil would not exist? Then, the possibility of man and of freedom would not exist. In other words, what they are asking for is a world which is an impossibility. Now God has decreed all things, that we know, and it would be impossible for man to have freedom apart from the decree, but what these people want is a logical impossibility, and of course, this is what they ask for in socialism, too, because what do they ask for in socialism? They want the freedom of man together with total control by the state, and it doesn’t work. So on the one hand, our Supreme Court keeps telling us, “We believe in total individual liberty. We’re going to break the shackles of the past,” and on the other hand, they increase the powers of the state, and after awhile you realize that this is only an illusion. It leads to the total breakdown of everything. It’s an impossibility. So, what these people are asking for is something that cannot exist.

[Audience] Rush, they say that {?} who is a just God in that, how do you explain that the world is the way he had planned?

[Rushdoony] And they would say then, “Well, I don’t like his plan.” Yes, and you would have to say, “Well then, let’s hear your plan. Let us suppose you are God. How would you do it? Would you interfere with everybody at every moment and make it impossible for anyone to act in terms of their own nature? Would you overrule them? What kind of a world would you have?” In other words, would you, at every moment be saying, “Now, look, John Jones, I’m not going to let you do this thing because it won’t be fair to your wife and your employees, or to your neighbor.” In other words, what such thinking reveals is a thoroughly totalitarian mentality, a thoroughly totalitarian mentality.

I recall once an argument with one person who never spoke to me afterwards, so apparently the argument was a good one, because I didn’t care to speak to him to begin with, but he started badgering me, I didn’t start the conversation, about what a nasty religion I had. A God who sent people to hell, and he was such a nasty totalitarian God, and I said, “And your God would send everybody to heaven?”

“Oh, absolutely, there’d be no hell.”

And I said, “In other words, you don’t believe in any freedom of choice?”

“I believe in the freedom for people to go to heaven or to hell. Let them decide for themselves.”

And I said, “I think you’ve chosen a different place than I had,” but I said, “That’s up to you. Now are you going to take away that freedom and you’re the one who is talking about totalitarianism? Isn’t yours totalitarian? Maybe your idea of what constitutes heaven is my idea of hell. Are you going to force me to go there?”

Well, he was very, very put out, but you see, they are the ones who want the world exactly one way, and their idea of justice is never God’s idea of justice. Their idea of justice is everything in the world should be exactly as we want it, exactly. Yes?

[Audience] Where did the idea come from that we have to {?} on earth and that everybody goes to heaven? {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, that’s a modern concept. Certainly you have a great deal of hell on earth, but there’s a lot of hell in hell, and this is nonsense. It’s trying to get away from the grim reality of the scripture, and you see these people who want absolutely justice from God and they don’t want hell. How can you have justice if you don’t have hell? What kind of justice is there in a world (this is a good answer to use with such people) if Stalin went to heaven? And if some of our politicians (whom we won’t name at this time) went to heaven, too? There wouldn’t be much justice, and there wouldn’t be much heaven, as far and I’m concerned, but you have to have hell in order to have justice, and when you take hell out of religion, you take justice out of politics, and this is what we’re doing. We’ve taken hell out of religion. Therefore, we’re taking justice out of politics, and we’re saying the criminals shouldn’t be executed, and we are beginning to challenge the whole idea of prisons, and we’re saying they’re not guilty, society is guilty. So, we are taking justice out of our everyday life by taking the idea of hell and of punishment out of our religion, and when you add up what these people think is justice, you get a good picture of hell. Yes?

[Audience] You mean to say that just your absence from being in heaven is the hell {?} would be denying going to heaven? They don’t think there is any torture other than that.

[Rushdoony] Well, we are given a very graphic picture of what hell is like, and it is compared to, the word for it, in fact, in the New Testament is Gahenna, or Henna. I referred to this some time ago when I discussed hell. It was the name for the dung heap at Jerusalem. That’s the thing from whence the name hell came from, and it was a place of perpetual burning and worms. Now, in a junk heap, nothing is related to anything else. In this room, everything is in relationship to everything else, ceiling, floor, walls, pictures, tables, chairs, everything is meaningful. It is related to everything else because this room has a purpose. It has a function, and everything in it is geared to that function, but in a junk heap, nothing has any meaning in relationship to anything else, and hell is a place of total isolation, and this is the gnawing, burning aspect of it. There is no community in hell. No possibility of anyone being interested in anyone else. They are perfect Existentialists. They are totally and eternally wrapped up in themselves. This is the end conclusion of their lives, and their life is unrelated to anything near than or next to them, and this is the perpetual self-torment, and this is what their nature demands

One recent philosopher wrote a book on the love of anxiety. The book is worthless, because his perspective is so far to the left and so irreligious, but he did put his finger on one thing. There is a love of anxiety now a days, and many, many people keep themselves perpetually in a stew, in a fret. They don’t want peace. They don’t want communion. They don’t want any relationship to God or to man. They are living in a perpetual hell of their own choosing, and this is going to be their eternal hell.

As I cited C.S. Lewis once before when I spoke on hell, C.S. Lewis said, “Heaven is the habitation of those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and hell is the habitation of those who say, ‘Thy will be done.’” Yes?

[Audience] Where does the thinking break down in this comment? Now this was made by a person and I heard her say it, that delve into all these different religions and things, that I feel they don’t have a good basic Christian foundation, that they become confused and then arrive at the point that they {?}, but not the {?}. What happens in between there?

[Rushdoony] Yes. What these people are trying to do is to reduce Christ and Christianity to another religious figure and another religion among many religions. So they think Jesus is wonderful, on their terms, and Buddha was very wonderful, and Mohammed was very wonderful. This is what you find in these people. So that they are trying to get away from the necessity for a decision, for a clear-cut faith, a clear-cut stand. So they’re going to affirm everything and this is nonsense. Can you affirm that two plus two equals four, and two plus two equals five, and two plus two equals one? This is nonsense, and they’re affirming that these religions which are mutually contradictory are all the truth. This is an evasion of moral responsibility.

[Audience] I didn’t know how to come back. You know with questions?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Alright. Just one point. In Buddhism, the ultimate truth, the ultimate reality is nothingness. In our faith, Jesus Christ says, “I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life.” Now, can truth be Jesus Christ, and can it be nothingness? Can our goal on the one hand be eternal communion with Christ in heaven and the new creation, and on the other hand, Nirvana, oblivion, extinction, eternal death, which is true? You can’t have both. And, on the one hand, is there such a thing as moral law or, in terms of Buddhism, anything goes that you find your peace and that you find acceptable. So that you can have a way of asceticism and you can have a way of total sensuality. You can have a way that is militarism and a way that is pacifism. Which is your way? Take it. It is the truth, and that’s all you need. Yes?

[Audience] What about the people saying I don’t believe in God, but they believe in their {?} supreme being. What do they mean by supreme being?

[Rushdoony] Well, they don’t mean very much by supreme being, and you might ask them, “Who is this supreme being? Is it by any chance yourself? Because what they are doing, incredulously, by leaving him so vague is to leave the field clear for their will to predominate. In other words, there is some supreme being somewhere, but there is no supreme being who has spoken, who has given us his infallible word, who has a binding law for us. So whose words are those? Well, my words since there isn’t any god who is around who is definitely vocal and active. So, this is a subterfuge and a very poor one. If there is a God, then there is something wrong with that God if he has not clearly revealed himself and spoken so that there is no question as to what he has said. He’s been morally delinquent, hasn’t he? A supreme being who hasn’t made himself vocal. That’s impossible. Yes?

[Audience] You might not have enough time to elaborate on this, but could you explain the Rapture?

[Rushdoony] Yes, and no. This gets into a great area of debate. There are various attitudes towards eschatology. That is, the doctrine of last things, and there are those who believe that before the end of the world, there will be one or more Raptures when the saints of God will be taken from earth, and there are those who deny this and say there will be the Second Coming, and the saints of God will be with the Lord and the new creation will be ushered in. It is all one act at one time. I hold to the latter opinion. Yes?

[Audience] I have two questions, but if time is running out then {?} answer either one, but first, there are many people who still believe as the disciples who asked God if the man or his parents had sinned and caused the suffering. Now, there are many people who feel that any kind of suffering is viewed as sin and who sin. {?} child {?} parents {?} with the child {?}

My second question has something to do with the verse 39 in which “Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that which see not might see; and that they who see might be made blind,” and I think that may have {?} relationship with the statement that Jesus made {?} spoken{?} parables in order that they all might not understand and be converted.

[Rushdoony] Yes. The first part, our Lord denied specifically that all things that you see, such as illness in children or physical conditions are due to the sin of the father or the mother. This he categorically denied, that there was an absolute connection between the two. But, scripture does say that the sins of the fathers descend unto the children, even unto the tenth generation, and there is no getting around this. It is a scriptural truth. Now how do we see that? Well, we’re paying for World War 1, and most of the people are paying for, and we’re paying for the Spanish/American War, and we haven’t closed the books on the Civil War yet, and the people who are paying for it weren’t there. It’s a case of the sins of the fathers descending unto us, and we’re going to paying for awhile for all the socialistic sins of this generation, and for its apostasy. We are paying for the sins of our fathers and our grandfathers, who began after the Civil War to turn away from the faith and go into a very easy-going Christianity. They didn’t want doctrine. They just wanted this love bit. That’s when they started. We’re paying for it now, and we’ll pay for it for awhile yet. So, the sins of the fathers do extend upon the children.

But this does not mean that anything that happens to us by birth means that sin is the only cause, and it was this interpretation that our Lord, on more than one occasion, very, very definitely attacked. In other words, the sins of the fathers descending upon the children is usually, not always, but usually a social situation, the people, the country, sometimes personal. More commonly in the Bible it means a social context.

Then, the second question, the reference there is to what is the most quoted single verse in the entire New Testament, or passage, and it’s in Isaiah 6:9-10. “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” So that what our Lord commanded there, and as I said this is the most quoted single passage in the entire New Testament, from the Old. The next to this is Psalm 2. What Isaiah was there told, and it’s extremely important, is this: Judgment is drawing nigh. It is now question now merely of faith the judgment is drawing nigh, but of sight. Anyone who can see will see what is happening, but these people upon whom judgment must come, I’m blinding them. I’m going to have their own sin blind them so that seeing, they will not see and hearing, they will not understanding, because since they will not believe me by faith, they’re not going to turn to me by sight. So that when they see what is taking place, they’re still going to be blind by virtue of their faith and go onto their destruction.

End of tape.