Profound Questions and Answers

Who are the Saints

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels, and Sermons

Lesson: 6-24

Genre: Talk

Track: 6

Dictation Name: RR205F12

Location/Venue:

Year:

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, Gnosis in Greek means knowledge. The Gnostics were people who claimed to have special hidden knowledge, and it was their fundamental thesis that knowledge is power and knowledge is salvation. They were basically and fundamentally a subversive group, statist to the core, and thoroughly humanistic. They tried for a time to capture the church; we still have them with us. Agnostic means people who instead of claiming to have a special knowledge, say where God is concerned: “We don’t know anything because no one can know anything.” The agnostics claim to know a great deal about everything, but they are insistent that no one can know anything about God. But they go back to the same word and the same frame of mind, humanism. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] No, Syncretism is also a humanistic approach, but its idea is fundamentally this: that there is truth in all religions, and “Make it a matter of choice, go to this religion, to that one, smorgasbord style, and pick and choose what you like from each of them, and then you will have an ideal situation.” And of course today the ecumenical movement is essentially Syncretistic. And of course, the Baal worship of the Northern kingdom was Syncretism, they were trying to combine Jehovah worship with Baal worship, making the two identical because, well, they wanted the truth of both. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?... pray for, including the United Nations, so on the way out of the church I said to them that I could not join them in praying for the United Nations, that my prayer would be that God would destroy the United Nations since it was clearly anti God. And he said: “Well, I agree with you, however we still can pray for things without condemning them.” and the prayer being that they will do something good. Now, I know that (?) good Christian and American, however I am still having trouble.

[Rushdoony] Yes, and the answer to that is in the second epistle of John: “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” And then the 10th verse, and 11: “For if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” You cannot wish well to anyone who is deliberately, systematically, propagating evil. Then you become partaker in his evil deeds.

Speaking of Syncretism I would like to call to your attention a statement; and there is nothing new in this, I have documented some of this time and again, it concerns Billy Graham, and this is by the Reverend R.C. Harback, and the title is Billy Graham’s Ministry of Error, and I would like to cite a few things. It is at least extremely inaccurate, if not false, to portray Billy Graham as a fundamentalist, he neither needs nor wants such a camouflage. He does not consider himself in the fundamentalist camp, but in the Liberal camp. In Saint Louis he said: “I am not a fundamentalist, I consider myself to be a conservative liberal.” In Europe he has said: “I am not a fundamentalist, I am not a modernist, I am a constructionist.” That is another word for activist. The more we read of Graham, the more apparent it becomes that he is not a fundamentalist, but a liberal ecumenist. In the (Princa Lima Peru?) newspaper, February 8, 1963, he eulogized the attitude of Pope John and his efforts to obtain greater tolerance and the final union between all Christians. According to Graham: “There is now greater understanding and comprehension between the religions.” This reveals a desire not only to unite all the Christians but all the religions in one universal ecclesiastical body.

Very hard does Graham push the cause of modern ecumenism, his crusade after the Nashville meetings donated about $65,000 toward a stadium at Vanderbilt University, an extremely liberal Methodist institution on whose faculty the blasphemous (Nells Pereigh?) was then serving. As a result of the New York crusade the Graham organization presented a gratuity of $67,000 to the New York Protestant council of churches. Do you ever know a fundamentalist to associate with a Modernist Liberalist, National Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches? Yet this does Billy Graham. The San Francisco Examiner of December 5, 1960 reports that Evangelist Billy Graham preached to an overflowing audience in Grace Cathedral, and warned yesterday that America’s race problem will get worse. Graham spoke in a program sponsored by the Christian men’s assembly in conjunction with the opening of the meeting of the National Council of Churches.

Two years before this in Grace Episcopal Cathedral, Graham was an honored guest at Bishop Pike’s consecration. When Graham was at the (Cow?) palace he had Pike on the platform to read the evening prayer after warm words of praise. Pike had Graham in the Grace Cathedral for the National Council Address, and so on.

Graham at the Graham Pavilion in the World’s Fair said quote: “The Pavilion will also be of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, or Protestant faith, or some other religious affiliation.” How can a Unitarian religion, Judaism, be thought to express faith in God? And then it goes on to speak of his various associations, and that he will be speaking at a conference in Berlin this November, the largest event, Evangelical Trans-denominational gathering, and the theme will be ‘One race, one gospel, one task,’ and so on. But then in another article Graham said that: “Verbal inspiration of scripture is only a theory and not a matter of great importance for the Christian faith.” And so on.

Now this is a matter of record over and over again, this is Syncretism. I think perhaps as telling a fact as any is that at the National Council General Assembly in Miami this December, he will be the speaker and this conference will adopt a new program which calls for total integration, total socialism, a one world order, and also that the family is now passé even as the tribe is passé. Now whatever he may claim to be, even if he were not so obvious about his theology, this is syncretism, and this is revolutionary activity.

I think this item too was interesting, this of course is nothing new but it concerns an episcopal rector, Milton Moran Weston a Negro, who is a communist and has admitted to his membership in the Communist party in private examination, and he has been a welfare worker in New York State, but was dismissed on a morals charge. He is now rector of the largest single congregation of the Protestant Episcopal church in the USA, with a membership of 3,982; employing 3 assistant directors. (Anna Moran?) Weston is a member of the board of examining chaplains of the diocese of New York, whose responsibility is to examine candidates for holy orders. He is among those chosen and selected who determine who is eligible to enter the sacred ministry.

Now this is the kind of thing that we find all around us, and evidence of the total apostasy of most of the church, and of their syncretism.

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] And are being delivered right now in great numbers, yes.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] I think one of the best ways is to give them the documentation, which you can get in very convenient form in that pamphlet The New Neutralism. And that is an excellent summary of all these facts. There are books written on it now, and perhaps this would be a little too much for the average person, but the pamphlet The New Neutralism is excellent.

Then you leave it at that. If they are not ready to hear the truth it is because they don’t want it, they are rebellious against it. I gave that pamphlet to someone about two years ago who, after checking it out, they were sure it was a pack of lies, found it to be true. But after having first denied that it could be true and then admitting it was true, they still said it wasn’t relevant. In other words, they were not interested in knowing the truth. Then you drop them.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, but first you acquaint them with the information, then if they will not hearken you drop them.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. Last time I promised to give you data on Kurt E Koch and his writings, and I am not sure whether a second edition is out yet of his book of demonism, Between Christ and Satan, that is the title, Between Christ and Satan. And it was published by Bakers book house in Grand Rapids. However, his book is just out: Christian Counseling and Occultism, has just been published by Kregel, Christian Counseling and Occultism and is available at $4.95 from Kregel Publications in Grand Rapids Michigan, 49503. And it is a very thorough book, it goes into the various kinds of occultism, what they tend to produce in people, and the way of liberation from occult subjection. Any other questions?

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] A long time ago, Civil war. Yes. Most peoples believe that they because they built the building, they own it, they hold title to it. But they only hold title to it if they remain within the denomination, but at any time, and this has been done not once but hundreds of times over, the parent church can take the building from them even though 100% of the members resist, nail it shut, and leave it stand there; and this has happened repeatedly.

What happened was this: During the civil war, the border states of course were not in the war, but many of the clergy were very hostile to the radicalism in the Republican party, and a very large percentage of the Republican party then was dominated by the black Republicans or the radical Republicans, who were socialist to the core, and in many instances Marxists. We don’t realize that, but Marxism was already afoot, and these people were radical socialists. And so they were hostile to the administration, and so they decided to take care of the clergy in these areas, and by enabling the parent churches which were ready to play ball with the administration, to seize property, they effected this. What they did was, for example in the Presbyterian church USA at that time, the Northern church, they passed the infamous Gardener Spring resolution, making the test of faith a loyalty oath to the United States.

Well, of course this meant everyone south of the border was immediately read out of the church because he was under the Confederate government and he was a traitor if he took a loyalty oath to the Northern government. But any of the border state pastors who said: “I do not believer that you have a right to ask this loyalty oath of me because I passed my ordination vows, I am not involving myself in politics, and I am trying to keep my people fed in terms of the word of God.” Could be asked: “Subscribe or get out.” And all the members could be asked: “Subscribe or get out.” And if they didn’t they just seized and closed the churches. And in this way, they felt: “We will keep the pulpit from being against the Union.” Now since then that law has been used a number of times and now it is standard; so that unless a particular church when it is organized as a new denomination says in its constitution that- and its incorporation- that property belongs to the local congregation, the Supreme Court rules that it belongs to the denomination, and even in the Southern Baptists who are as unorganized as possible, as of now there are a few cases in process, and the Federal Courts are ruling in favor of the district conference and taking away the property from the congregation.

So, this arose at that time and it is being used and developed as an instrument whereby the properties can be seized. It is a very deadly law.

[Audience Member] How come so few people know about it? Because I have talked to people back in the church and they say: “Well, you’re out of your mind!” and I say: “Well just check it out.” And they see me later on and say they never knew about it.

[Rushdoony] Mhmm. Because this isn’t the kind of knowledge that they want to publicize, because it makes the whole thing look so very obviously tyrannical; and how many people for example, say in this neighborhood, would give sacrificially to build a church, if they knew that it could be seized from them 5 years or 10 years from now? And that this has been done over and over and over again? In some instances where there have been church unions consummated, there have actually been hundreds of churches that have been seized and nailed shut by the sheriffs men, reluctantly on their part but they have been ordered to do it; and in some instances ever last member locked from his own church, and the building left there to rot.

Now this is a reality of our history, and it isn’t something you find much about. It is almost impossible to read anything about it.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Oh yes, the congregation, let us say Saint Andrews church is built across the street. Saint Andrews church, whether it be United church, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, members will believe that this is their property because it is in their name, it belongs to Saint Andrews.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Not necessarily, their trustees sign for them. But actually in case of any quarrel the property reverts to the denomination. There is no possibility of contesting this.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. On top of that as I pointed out in the Nature of the American Systems, zoning laws now make it possible to zone churches out of existence, so that this is being done. Churches are being denied the right to exist in many communities, or only those who are of the selected variety. And this has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, a good many years ago, it has been I would say 10-12 years.

Any other questions? Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] In terms of the New Testament definition yes, in terms of the Civil law, no. The New Testament says that: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” and in the New Testament there is not a single church building such as we know it today, only groups who met in homes. In most cases the wealthy members who had homes where they could get 20-30, or a 100-150 together, would have the church meet in their homes, so that we have references to the ‘church in thy house’ or ‘the church in so and so’s house’ in the New Testament. This is how the churches were identified by the person in whose home they met, so that this was for some time the nature of the church.

Then they faced a double problem later when they began to have property, because they refused to recognize the right of the state, to license them or to tax them. Now this is a fundamental question, and this is what the persecutions were about, because the Roman government was ready to say to the church: “We will recognize you as an official religion if you will pay your taxes and if you will be under our general supervision, and become a licensed religion.” But the whole point that the church stood on firmly and went through ten major persecutions as well as minor ones, was: “Jesus Christ is the only king and head of the church. Therefore we cannot be under any ordinance of men with respect to the church. As citizens we are completely under Caesar, and we-” and they reminded Caesar again and again- “are your most law-abiding citizens.” But the church has, to use a modern term, extra-territorial rights.

Now, an English embassy in Los Angeles, or a consulate, is under English law, and it constitutes English soil, the house or building they own. So that the U.S. Police, the Los Angeles City Police, have no jurisdiction there; that is a little piece of England. In the same way, the fundamental thesis of the church was this, and rightfully so: “The church will cease to be the kingdom of Christ, it will cease to be under Christ, if we allow Caesar to say to the slightest degree that he has any power over us, as a church.” And so they refused to become a licensed religion, and this would have meant immediately of course, state control. And of course, this is the fundamental thesis behind the tax-exempt status of the church. It is not that they are a non-profit group.

There is such a thing as non-profit exemption, but we are saying there is only one kind of exemption now, a non-profit. And things that are non-profit should be tax exempt, things that are not, whoever governs them or operates them they should be taxed whether it is a religious group or a non religious group; but the church as such, the church in itself, is not a part of man’s domain, it is God’s kingdom. And so the thesis always has been from New Testament times to the present: “We cannot be licensed by Caesar, we do not ask Caesar for the right to exist, and the place of worship cannot be under the rule, the taxation, or jurisdiction of Caesar.”

And you see, this they are trying to destroy because they know the minute they take it away can destroy the churches; and they will plan to do so, to take away the taxation, and then of course all the major denominations which already have, virtually any church of any size getting federal (?) and your religious settlement houses and organizations in Watts alone are getting between or have applied and will probably get between 10-11 million dollars for this year. These are operated by Presbyterian and other churches in the Watts area. So they are already a part of the establishment, and it is no problem for them to survive when they are living off the trough already; but any new organization that seeks to establish itself can be wiped out by Government regulations and by taxation, and the zoning laws are already one step in that direction, the attempt to remove tax exemption is another step. It is a way of destroying the church without ever saying you are against religion, and of course in the Soviet Union there is perfect freedom of religion according to the law; but the only freedom you have actually is to have it in your head, because the church can be wiped out, the church is totally governed by the state, its officials are hand-picked agents of the state, it has no real existence, it is a puppet.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Right, exactly; and that is why we have to be again a Christian country. And we have to intolerant at a certain point. Ultimately every government is based on a religious faith, and today we are anti Christian increasingly because we are pro-humanist as a government. No one ever heard of the idea that a government could be neutral in religion, that is an impossibility; until, with the French Revolution and thereafter, people began to propagate that idea. But when this country was established it was established as a Christian Republic, you had to fulfill certain requirements in every state in order to vote.

(?) state regulation, the first amendment stated that the Federal government had no jurisdiction, this was a matter of state rights, and every state had some kind of regulation or else they had an established church, and at least you had to believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God and affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, or you could not vote. And people who did vote, but didn’t believe these, confirmed them outwardly as Jefferson did. No one actually knew that they had held to ideas such as they have indicated they held to in some of their writings, which were never published at that time. This was the requirement.

This was a Christian country, and a country has to have a theological principle for its foundation, nothing else is possible because what is law? Law is a statement of what is right and what is wrong, or procedures for maintaining what is right and wrong. Now, your idea of right and wrong or your morality or your law rests on a religious faith, and as sir Patrick (Devlin?) who doesn’t agree with what I would say, but he does agree (?) our problem today is we are trying to say that a state need not hold to a religious faith; and as a result our law is collapsing, because our law is Christian and the state no longer is, and how can you maintain a Christian foundation of law if you deny the Christian (?)? And so he says we are conspiring in our courts to destroy the law, so he says: “Let’s get down to business and pick our religion, and then have our laws.”

Well of course our answer is to that, we were established on the Christian faith, our laws reflect it, and our courts today are busy (establishing religion?) and that is why they are breaking everything down.

[Audience Member] Well, don’t you think there are a lot of people who would take an oath and believe in the Bible …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, but this is what you would have if you would reestablish again as you did have in early America, a Christian foundation. You would have some hypocrites, but what would you do? First you would deny at least publicly and legally, humanism as a principal. So your public school system would be replaced by Christian schools. Now consider what that would do in a generation to the country, and what it would do if you would deny a lot of these other things that are now destroying our foundations through the Supreme Court? These things would immediately become impossible, they would become illegal. You couldn’t have a court affirming the pornography it does now in the name of freedom; you couldn’t have them giving the criminal more privileges than the free citizen; you wouldn’t have the break down of law and order today, when the real criminal seems to be policeman and the good citizen. He is blamed for everything, he is responsible for the Negro and his condition, and he is responsible for the criminal and for the juvenile delinquent, he is the criminal. You see, you would destroy that, and so you would create the possibility of health again.

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Most of these articles including the life articles, while they tell us how much these people are talking about killing all of us and giving some frightening facts, what they end up usually saying is: “We must open up a dialogue, we must further the forces of love.” So that they are trying in effect to frighten us into more submission, I would say. And this is nonsense…

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. And of course this is the tactic being used by (?) and other groups, ‘forty cities will go up in smoke this summer if our demands are not met’ that is what he said in effect. And of course, what they are calling for is the reign of evil.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, it is exactly that. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” means that man does not have the right to take life, apart from the word of God. This means, therefore, that both murder and suicide are sinful. Our life is not our own, it is the gift of God. Therefore we cannot take our life, it is a sin, and according to our law because our law is still to a great extent Christian, you are guilty of a criminal offense if you attempt to commit suicide.

Now, increasingly it is becoming rarer and rarer for anyone to be arrested for a suicide attempt, but this used to be the case. It is a criminal offense because our law is still in essence geared to a Christian framework. The only condition under which life can be taken is when God requires it, and far, far back at least to the days of Noah we have in the scripture the explicit statement: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” And the Mosaic law spells out the various offenses for which capital punishment is to be required; kidnapping is one of them, incidentally, premeditated murder is another, and there are several other offenses whereby the penalty of death is incurred.

Now, it is the duty of all civil officials to abide by the law of God, they are responsible to God, they have been given a fearful power, the power of God to exercise it for God; that is the power to kill, and the power to enforce justice. Therefore this is mandatory, and they are going to answer to God if they fail to abide by it.

Now with respect to this young man who murdered the 8 nurses. There is no question that the plea will be something like ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and this is a subterfuge, there is no ground whatsoever in scripture, for any such plea. The scripture holds that a man is morally responsible, in fact the scripture holds that an animal is responsible, and capital punishment must be exercised on any animal that kills a man, so that if an ox gores a person, and kills him, the ox must be executed; and if the ox has gored someone before but not killed them, and the man has not taken proper precautions, the owner, the owner is also responsible under law.

The essence of this whole ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ plea is that man is not a responsible creature, because what the plea basically involves is this, and this is what is increasingly advocated, that there is no responsibility in any crime, that what we call crime and sin is really sickness, therefore instead of prisons which should be done away with, we should have hospitals and treatment.

Now, this of course takes away all moral responsibility. Then the implication is moreover, that since there is no sin, what has this person done? Nothing but react to his environment. So he is justified, and the person who goes for any kind of such offense to a mental institution, at worst will be told he is immature, socially immature. The implication will be that society is responsible for what he has done, and therefore society has to make amends to him. He will also be told that there is no basic sin in any action, so that if his offense for example is a sexual crime, “Well, there’s nothing really basically wrong in these things, it’s just that society right now disapproves.” So that this treatment is compounding the crime, and many of these people have a long history of being in and out of such institutions.

It is a very fearful offense, and in this case we can say, wicked though this man’s crime is, the crime of society right now in some respects is the greater; but not in the sense that the psychiatrists mean. In the sense that society has departed so far from God’s law that it’s sympathy is with the criminal rather than the victim; so far from God’s law, that it is does not execute people for fearful offenses, and it has departed so far that it is actually by law favoring the criminal rather than the victim. So we are fearfully guilty as a society in God’s sight that we allow such a thing to stand.

I was interested recently in reading, and I was writing a report on this particular mission and some of these church publications, an account of course on the Watts riot, this was in the same magazine, a church periodical mind you; and it spoke of it as: “Redemption through rioting.” This was a redemptive move that took place in Watts. But another article dealt also with the young man, and I hadn’t known of this because it wasn’t in our papers, who sometime last year walked into Saint Patrick’s church in New York city, which I believe is Cardinal Spellman’s home church, and threw a Molotov cocktail at the altar; and one woman was very severely burnt, as well as others being hurt. But a young woman in her thirties was very dangerously burnt, what finally happened to her they didn’t bother to say. But this church periodical didn’t waste the time after reporting the item, just summarizing what the New York papers had reported, in sympathy for this woman in her agony at these fearful burns, or any of the others who were burned, or for the church or the congregation for this desecration; it was for this young man. He was protesting, and he said: “This was a protest against the injustice of modern life.” and so what a fearful thing our modern world was that it would lead an innocent young man to such a mood of protest. So we were guilty.

Now this is a fearful depravity, and I believe the judgement of God is going to be upon the generation that talks this way.

To cite another example, and this to me is the most shocking: Not too long ago, a girl was subjected to an attack by a particularly depraved pervert, and the father of the girl made the statement, and I have seen it in two sources, one from a statement by J. Edgar Hoover, that he felt sorry for this young man, the criminal, the pervert, and what a terrible thing it was when society so warped the mind of a person.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] The father of the girl. Now we are pretty far gone when righteous indignation is gone to the point that the father of a girl could make a statement like that; he doesn’t deserve to live as far as I am concerned. My pity is for the girl. The most vicious person in the situation is not the pervert, but the father; and when men do not abide by God’s law, then because God having ordained them to exercise His power, justice, the power to kill, what happens? Then God sees to it that it is exercised. He moves into history with his judgement, and we are going to see it. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, this is magic.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Right, the idea there is that they want power over the world, over everything, so that they will eat the blood because the life is in the blood, to gain the power, say, of tigers. Drinking tigers blood is a part of some rituals. They will drink the blood of captives, and cannibalism involves gaining their power. This is to gain divine power. Oh, it’s a religious purpose, and of course you have science today toying with these ideas as though there were something to it…

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] The (worms?) experiment, right, the transfer of memory by eating other worms that have acquired memory. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Right.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Because man’s life is the gift of God, and there is a sanctity about it, so that if it is taken apart from the word of God there is a responsibility, and even the animals are held accountable. They have an appointed place, and God has given them an appointed place.

Now, we are told that even the world is fallen, so that animals are fallen. Animals originally dwelt at peace with man, to this day there is a fear of man on the part of animals; so that there is a warping in animals when they act against this fear or when they kill a man. So that God’s judgement must be exercised on the animals for refusing to keep their appointed place, and for taking life which God has said no one can take apart from His word. So that we see when God holds even the animals accountable, how much more so man?

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] At this time we can say only that they had a very faint faith, a real faith, but it was a very, very ignorant one; they were trying to force all kinds of misconceptions upon Christ and trying to get Christ to bend to their mold. But at point after point they were tested, this was one point of testing, and we find that, after a number of them left Him, and Jesus turned to them and said, verse 67 of the 6th chapter, to the twelve: “Will ye also go away?” Then Simon and Peter answered Him: “Lord. To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Now, they therefore believed in Him, this did not mean that they still were ready to take Him on his terms, they kept expecting Him somehow to fulfill their expectations, so it was a continual testing. A very short time after that of course, Peter told our Lord that He should not go to Jerusalem to be crucified, the atonement wasn’t necessary; and our Lord said: “Get thee behind me Satan.” ‘the words you speak are not of me but of Satan.’ So they came through the testing and were finally at Pentecost filled with power from above and commissioned to be His apostles.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Well, of course according to the New Testament usage, all believers are saints, and the epistles of Paul for example speak of a congregation as the saints which are in Philippi and the Saints in Corinth and the Saints at Ephesus. So all believers are saints. Saint means ‘the separated’ or ‘holy ones’ those that are separated to God, that have separated themselves from the world by faith.

Now, in the usage of the church very early, certain persons who were outstanding as fathers of the church, as theologians or thinkers, were either formally or informally designated as saints, so that Augustine, Saint Augustine, and so on.

Yes, I believe you had a question?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] That’s right. Yes, there are differences in the celebration of the sacrament, and it varies from church to church; and I don’t want to get into doctrines of the church, we are dealing with more general things, but some churches do hold to closed communion, only those who are members of that particular church in some instances, in others those who are members of that particular local congregation can partake of the sacrament, and there are different ways of administration. Now, the theory in closed communion is that you have no way of knowing whether the person who partakes is truly a believer unless you have them directly under the government of the local congregation, or of your particular church, so that they have passed an examination of say the Missouri Synod Lutherans, or of the Southern Baptists, and so on.

Now, I think this presumes too much, because it presumes that a group of men can discern the heart, and the basic precept in the scripture is that: “Let a man examine himself.” And that those who participate unworthily incur unto themselves damnation, so that God who sees the hearts is the one who makes the judgement, and it is spoken of as very sinful to participate unworthily, that is without faith. But all are encouraged who are believers to come; not because they are worthy but because Christ who is worthy has invited them, and if they come in His righteousness they are welcomed.

Yes?

[Audience Member] The law that says that an animal who kills a man should be killed; there are instances when the man is beating the animal, in that case should the animal be killed?

[Rushdoony] There are laws in the Bible against abuse of animals, but this does not do away with the crime of manslaughter by an animal, so that it may be that if it is a master who has been killed, certainly he is guilty for abusing the animal; but one guilt doesn’t cancel out another guilt.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] I don’t think this is a matter for theological discussion, because I don’t think that this is an area where the scripture has spoken, and I believe we should speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.

I mentioned last week or the week before this book, and I had mentioned it earlier but some of you wanted reference to it again on Billy Graham and his position; those of you who are interested I will repeat both titles: this one, The New Neutralism by William E. Ashbrook. William E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism. And it can be obtained for 35 cents, or three for a dollar, from the Reverend William E. Ashbrook, 115 West Weisheimer Rd. Columbus 14 Ohio. 35 cents, three for a dollar.

Then this paper back book on the same subject just published about 6 weeks ago, by Gary G. Cowen, who is a member of the faculty of Faith Theological Seminary in Philadelphia: Biblical Separation Defended. Gary G. Cowen, Biblical Separation Defended, it is a dollar and a half, and it can be ordered from the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing company, the order department is Box 185 Nutley New Jersey. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, he does that quite consistently, and he has come out in the past week for less money for foreign aid, and millions to rebuild the slums and give the Negro’s everything they need. Yes. Any further questions, yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] No, because many people are often in positions where there is no place to go for communion, there is no place in the area where they can honestly partake of communion, because they are apostate churches and the communion there cannot be a communion in Christ, so it is often a situation where people cannot, sometimes for long, long periods of time, participate in holy communion. Yes?

[Audience Member] Why do you have to take communion?

[Rushdoony] By taking communion, first it is a symbolic act, but it is more than that: first, as a symbolic act it is commanded by our Lord that it is a setting forth of His atoning death, resurrection, and the fact that He is our bread of life, so that it has this significance, it is a memorial, it is a commemoration, a celebration of something that has happened, just as for example Christmas celebrates the birthday of our Lord, and Easter the Resurrection. Holy Communion celebrates the fact that our life is through His atoning death and resurrection, and He is our bread of life.

Now, it is more than that however, it is not only of commemoration, but it is also a sacrament, a means of grace whereby we are literally fed, spiritually we are nourished, we come to Him in humility, and God by His grace feeds us and strengthens us spiritually and blesses us, so it has we are told in scripture, definite spiritual and material consequences.

Now, this does not mean if we are unable to partake of the communion because there is no place we can partake of it, we are denied these things by Christ. But it means we must avail ourselves of the means of grace when we can, and where there is a church where we can so do. Does that help explain it?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] They were a relatively small handful. They were those who waited for the hope of Israel, we are told. There was no name for them, they were just individuals. Just as I believe the true church today is almost without name; it is in groups like ours across country, and there are thousands of them. But the church is losing its name because the true church is departing from the visible church.

Now, as near as Church historians are able to figure, by the end of the first century, in other words almost seventy years after the death of our Lord, the total number of believers, Jew and Gentile, was approximately 500,000. This included believers in North Africa, in Asia, and in Europe. So, this means that a very small percentage of Israel actually believed. Most of them turned their back on it. They had forsaken the true faith for a false one, and we can take a principle that our Lord Himself applied to Sodom and Gomorrah, and He said: “If there are ten righteous ones there I will spare the city.” And apparently in terms of the population of Jerusalem and of Judea and Galilee, the ten righteous ones were not there. In other words, God is ready to honor and preserve something if there is a handful, a handful that will truly stand. And Jeremiah was told, even though we know from his experiences there were a number of secret believers, that there was a remnant, that apart from him there was no one that had the faith to make an open stand, so that God said if Daniel or who was the other one… Job?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Daniel and Noah, stand up for these people, God would not spare them because they were so far gone in their apostasy. And of course the greater apostasy was at the fall of Jerusalem, the rejection of our Lord, which our Lord in Matthew 24 speaks of as the greatest tragedy, the greatest horror that will overtake the world. Some people see that as something that is yet to come, I don’t. I believe that great tragedy, that great horror took place then, and I think it is fitting that it did, that the people who rejected Christ, the most fearful offense in all history, and crucified Him, should also suffer the greatest horror. And there has never been anything in any war to equal the destruction and the loss of life in the Jewish Roman war of 66-70 A.D. It is almost unbelievable. Read Josephus some time and you will have the graphic details.

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the Bible says judgement begins at the house of God, and if a church becomes totally humanistic as it has become, then it is going to have epilepsy Sunday and it is going to have heart Sunday, and it is going to have just about every kind of Sunday, that is certainly a commentary. Well, our time is up.