Religious Toleration and the Sovereignty of God

(an adaptation of an essay originally written by James R. Willson)

“the most fervent devotees of tolerance are invariably intolerant of everyone
who speaks about God with certainty.” -- A.W. Tozer

Perhaps there is no word in the English language more abused than the word tolerance. If a writer is found vigorously supporting any cause which he believes to be right, and endeavoring to show that the opposite view is wrong, he is immediately styled intolerant. This is more especially the case in matters of religion. If he is firmly persuaded that the system of doctrines to which he adheres is the system taught in the Bible, he is considered a bigot. If he endeavors to demonstrate that opposing doctrines are erroneous, he is deemed intolerant.

Now nothing should be more evident than the existence of a God. And it should be no less evident that he is the creator of all things. This being the case, it necessarily follows that he is the lawgiver to all of his creatures. Nothing is independent of him. All of his creations, even the lifeless objects, are ruled by some form of his law. Man, in contrast to the animals, was created by God with a moral nature. Obviously, a moral being must be governed by a moral law. Those who acknowledge the Bible to be the word of God, admit that it contains that moral law by which all men are to be governed. Bible believers recognize that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are their only rule of faith and practice. The Holy Scriptures then are God's law, and the Almighty legislator wills that his rational subjects should be governed by them.

Human laws must be imperfect, because men are imperfect. Regarding moral right and wrong, they will necessarily be defective. But this is not the case with divine laws. They are predicated on the eternal and immutable principles of righteousness. Did the divine legislator intend that his laws should be put to use? Are they capable of being understood? To answer either question in the negative would be to declare his laws nullified and to impugn the sovereignty of God. A law that was never to be acted upon would not be entitled to the name of a law. And an unintelligible law would be a disgrace to its maker. Representing the laws of the ruler of the universe either as inoperative or unintelligible, would be to insult him to his face.

So bringing the aforementioned evident truths to bear on the matter of tolerance, we must ask: Is it meant by tolerance, that the divine law in every case, or in some cases, ought to be dispensed with? In effect, that there is no divine law? Or if there be a divine law, that it ought not to be acted upon? What is this thing called tolerance? And again, what is intolerance? Is intolerance a contending that God has a right to rule -- that he has actually given laws -- and that they ought to be obeyed? Is the man an intolerant man, who contends that God has given laws to the universe? Many men would exclude religion from having any place in the world, and it seems that the modern vocabulary of religious toleration is calculated to exclude the Almighty from having any rule in his own creation.

But some will say: No human interference ought to be permitted. If God chooses to make laws, they must not be executed by fallible men.

But what if the divine law actually contemplated, and positively required, a human executor? “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” “ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire” Is this intolerance? It will readily be granted, that there ought to be no human interference without a divine command. Had the Israelites put the Canaanites to death without the command of God, it would, no doubt, have been murder. God has given to every living man his life, and who dare take it away unbidden by the divine giver?

It will be objected: Although God has a right to give laws, yet men will differ about the meaning of these laws, and the law is as everyone understands it.

But if this be accepted as a reason to set aside the divine law, can it not be used to the destruction of all law? Isn't it a fact that all laws are subject to the interpretation of men? Would the United States government allow their man-made laws to be set aside based on the fact that there are variations in the interpretation and application of them? Would any state in the union? Yet the executors of these laws are all fallible and imperfect men, and some of these laws have life and death consequences. No matter what the reason may be, if a law cannot be put into practice, that law is negated.

Still some will object: Nations have a right to make laws, and human laws can be understood.

This is nothing less than an implication that God has not the right to make laws, or that his laws cannot be understood. It will not do to say, (as is often said) that there are many deep, mysterious doctrines in the Bible upon which men differ widely about articles of faith, and so who can be the judge? All that sort of talk is an obvious evasion. The question is not about speculative matters of faith, but matters of clearly commanded practice. It regards the duties required, and the crimes forbidden, by the lawgiver of heaven and earth -- what he commands to be done, and what he commands to be avoided.

It is presumed few would argue that God could not give laws that men ought to act upon. And yet this is the consequence of arguing that fallible and imperfect men have no right to enforce divine laws, even though God has commanded them. Did the divine Lawgiver lose his right to command man, because they are imperfect and fallible? How came they to be imperfect? Was it not by their sin and rebellion against God? And did this put it out of the power of the Almighty to give them a law? Did man sin himself into independence? Did he, by rebelling against God, put himself out of the control of his Maker? This would, indeed, be an easy way to get clear of divine authority.

It may still be alleged that it is not with respect to individual and personal responsibility that the case is argued, but with respect to society. That it is only society that is out of the reach of divine legislation, not individuals.

But why should not the Omnipotent be allowed the right to make laws for society? What attributes of God would prevent his presiding authoritatively over the social compact? Let us enquire into the nature of society. Is it a self-originating thing? Who created society? Was it not God who said, “it is not good that the man should be alone”? Did not the Creator bestow upon man a social nature? And is not social, as well as individual man, amenable to the laws of his Creator? If society be a creation of God's, and not a creature of the creature, then God has a right to prescribe the laws by which society shall be governed. It would seem that wherever there are relations among men, the laws regulating these relations belong to divine government.

It may be yet objected, that this view of the matter will give the Bible a decided preference. And it will be asked: Are not the rights of those who deny the Bible as sacred, as those of the Bible believer?

It will be admitted that this view does indeed give the Bible a preference, while it is readily granted that the rights of Deists are to be held sacred. All rights are, or ought to be, sacred. If murderers have rights, let them be scrupulously respected. A right is a right, wherever it is found. But what the objection really contemplates is whether a Deist has the right to deny divine revelation, or deny that the Bible is divine revelation. Now it may be doubted whether any man has that right, or rather, whether it be a right at all. And to make that determination, it might be enquired: Can God give a revelation of his will to men? It is presumed that this will be acknowledged by all to be within His power. Now if God gives such a revelation, does he have any claim on the faith of those to whom it is made known? Are they bound to believe it? And if it prescribes laws for the regulation of their conduct, are they bound to obey these laws? In short, has God a right to command them? Or have men a right to reject the command? The question at issue is: Who has the paramount authority? God cannot have a right to command their acceptance of his revelation, and they have a right to reject it at the same time. The one destroys the other. Let it be admitted that the paramount authority is on the side of God Almighty, and the supposed right of the Deist will be a non-entity. There is no such right. This, in modern style, may be called persecution, and the sovereignty of God may be called tyranny. No matter, still the Supreme Being will govern, and his law must be obeyed, or men must abide the consequences.

It will, no doubt, be argued that the right of conscience is a sacred right -- that whatever a man's conscience thinks right, is right to him. No matter whether he be a Jew, a Christian, a Pagan, or a Muslim, whether he believes the Bible or the Koran, or that both are an imposition, provided he conscientiously believes what he believes. Every man, it is claimed, has an inalienable and indefeasible right to think, believe, and act, according to the dictates of his own conscience. This is one of the foundational tenets of so-called religious toleration. To call this “right” into question is tyranny, and to attempt to prevent its exercise is persecution.

In answer to this, it is necessary to settle the point: What is conscience, and what is right? Conscience may be considered as a faculty or power of the soul of man, by which, as a judge, he passes sentence, in God's name, upon his own conduct. Conscience is the magistrate of God in the soul, which pronounces in his name, a sentence of approbation, or disapprobation, on human conduct, according as it appears to be morally right or wrong. Respect must be had, in every case, to a law. There is no possibility of knowing what is right or wrong, approvable or disapprovable, without a law. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” The judgment passed by a man's conscience upon his action, is a moral judgment.

Then there is that faculty of the soul which we call the understanding, by which we form judgments. We compare ideas, we examine evidence, and we judge the truth or falsehood of a proposition by the understanding. In reference to a law, we examine actions, and determine their agreement or disagreement therewith, and so pronounce them good or bad, by the exercise of our understanding.

But the conscience is distinguished in its acts of judgment from the understanding, in that all of its judgments are judicial. It acts as a judge on a bench. It pronounces a sentence of acquittal or condemnation according as the understanding has discovered an agreement or disagreement between the action that occurred and the law as it applies to that action. The conscience, therefore, is not a rule or law in itself, but a judge, applying the law to the case at hand and pronouncing sentence accordingly. To identify the law with the judge who applies the law, is a compounding of distinct ideas which is calculated to destroy the precision of language and create confusion. What are the rights of conscience? The same as the rights of a judge. Just as the judge doesn't create law but only applies it, so the rights of conscience are precisely what the law of God allows it -- neither more nor less. So the law of God can never give to the conscience of man a right to act contrary to that law. This would be a sanction from the law to destroy itself. Anything, therefore, which the divine law forbids, never can be found among the rights of conscience.

In order to assist us in forming correct ideas on this subject, it might be helpful to ask: What is a right? It must be something opposite of a wrong, for the two words present contradictory ideas. A right can never be understood in an immoral sense, regardless of what kind of right may be contemplated. Every conceivable kind of right must correspond with its name. It must be moral in its nature. A right must be righteous. An immoral right, i.e., a wrong right, is a contradiction in terms and is self-destructive. And it is obvious that he who created the moral being defines what is right and wrong for that being. All the creatures' rights are derived from God, and God delegates no right to think, speak, or act, otherwise than his law directs.

The legislative character of the Almighty is essentially connected with his divine sovereignty. It is here, in an eminent manner, that he is a jealous God. In article of supremacy, he will bear no competitor. He will not -- he cannot -- share his dominion. The Lord is our Lawgiver. How did it ever come to pass, that the breach of Jehovah's law was denominated a right? That the conscience of man may err, is generally granted. But how is it that an error of the conscience has come to be called a right? The law of God, whenever it is known, is the formal rule and reason of human obedience. God commands that which is right, and we obey because we are commanded. Does God allow a breach of his law, based on the justification that such a breach is a sacred right of conscience? If God has given a well-attested revelation of his law, conscience has no right to present a negative to any part of it. To allow it to do so, is not only to allow the conscience of man to stand in judgment of God, but to allow it to find God guilty of wrongdoing. Thus is the arrogance of those who advocate for the principles of religious toleration based on an erroneous concept of the liberty of man's conscience.

The sovereignty of God requires an acquiescence to the Bible as the law-book of his kingdom. Wherever it comes, it claims -- and justly claims -- a supreme and paramount authority to rule the conscience and regulate the relations of human society. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”

Sola Scriptura vs. The Fallacy of Authority

I once had an email discussion with a man named C. Matthew McMahon, a self-proclaimed Puritan who maintains the "A Puritan's Mind" website, in which he made the following statement :

"The orthodox church of the last 2000 years disagrees with you. Augustine,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory, Polycarp, Calvin, Luther, the Puritans,
et. al. The burden of proof is on you to prove every one else wrong."

Now it's been so long since I had the discussion that I can't even remember what it was that we were discussing. And I don't know if I really was advocating a position which disagreed with anything expressed by anyone among the aforementioned litany of theologians. But I often find that when deceitful men cannot defend their doctrines with their own biblical exegesis and logical argumentation, they resort to a form of logical duplicity known as "the fallacy of authority." This is especially true of many high-minded prelates in the church who often become puffed-up with themselves through the knowledge that they have gained in seminary schools and by the volumes of theology books that they have consumed, though these boobs are just as often unable to mount simple defenses of the assertions they so confidently make. As another man explained:

"The way of the priestly guild, or any self-authenticating dictatorship, is to
maintain that any risky intellectual battles have already been won and are a
settled matter. In the courts this is called 'settled law.' So, for the sake of
convenience, let’s call it 'settled theology.' It consists in the idea that a
topic is beneath discussion, that only the 'crackpot fringe' could think the
point debatable. This is the argument from authority, and as a logical fallacy
it is time-honored. It is trotted out by the 'scientific' guild with great
regularity. It issues in a sort of intellectual fog called 'authorized opinion'
by which means debate is foreclosed by asserting that the answer to a question is
self-evidently what the authority says it is. [Bob] Whitaker calls this
'respectability,' and it is the chief tool of the demagogue."

But not only is giving undue authority to theologians a convenient way of slipping out of a challenge to one's own authority, it also can be a comfortable way to slip into error because it allows one to avoid having to search out the truth of the matter for himself from the Holy Scriptures. A man is walking on shaky ground when he begins allowing the "theologians" to think for him and merely assumes that their collective testimony is faithful to the Bible.

And although the adherents of today's Reformed Faith profess to be following in the footsteps of those who rejected Romanism, I believe that many of them have repeated one of the very foundational errors of Romanism. That is, the belief that the testimony of the historic professing church is the definer of scriptural truth. In accordance with this error, many of them misinterpret John 16:13 as a promise that the Holy Spirit would incrementally lead the church into the truth over a long period of time. But Christians have had the fullness of God's revelation since the first century A.D., and there is no biblical support for the idea that the truth would be progressively revealed to the church over the many centuries after the apostles' ministry. Though some among the Reformed believe it to be so, the Protestant Reformation was not a revealing of any new doctrine, but only the reclaiming of doctrines which had been lost through the centuries.

The only trustworthy testimony that a Christian can rest upon as authoritative, having God's seal, is the testimony of the inspired biblical record, which is contained in the writings of Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul, et al. -- not in the writings of Polycarp, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, et al. (And those who “labour in the word and doctrine” need only to correct the errors being taught by those who live in their own day. There is absolutely no scriptural support for requiring a man to search out and refute the errors of those who lived centuries before him.) Not only does the testimony of the church not determine orthodoxy, but in fact it is not even possible to say what is, and what is not, the true Christian church without subjecting its testimony to the scrutiny of the Holy Scriptures. In other words, Christians are to use the teachings of the Bible to determine which is the true church, rather than using the testimony of the church to determine which are the true teachings of the Bible. Those who do the latter, set the word of man in dominion over the word of God, and despite their claims to being Reformed are no more enlightened than medieval Romanists.

It is true that many of the men named above did declare much truth. But it is a false proposition that, because a certain doctrine is expressed in numerous creeds and has been professed by many learned men, it is therefore to be accepted as the orthodox position and the burden of proof in theological argument is upon those who hold to a differing view. The fact that many highly-regarded men, both today and in the past, have professed a certain belief, has no bearing on its veracity, neither does it to any degree lessen any man's responsibility to biblically prove the same belief when he asserts it himself, nor does it give him license to place the onus on others to disprove his assertions before he himself has exegetically proven them. The sole determiner of truth is the word of God. A man must exegetically prove every doctrine from the Bible before he can be sure of its truth and before he asks others to accept it as truth. The testimony of mere uninspired men -- no matter how numerous or respected they may be -- can never be allowed to be the determiner of orthodoxy.

Every true Christian should understand that one need only prove his doctrine from the Bible in order to establish it as truth. There is no burden upon him to disprove the doctrines of any man who cannot or will not back up his doctrines with his own biblical exegesis, regardless of how many passages he can cite from the works of famous authors or from the decrees of historic councils in support of his doctrines. The testimony of the Scriptures is not just to be the primary determiner of true doctrine, it is to be the sole determiner of true doctrine. Even if a man is only professing the most basic of doctrines, and his position has the backing of a dozen quotes from Augustine, Calvin, Knox, etc. and his belief agrees with all of the creeds written by the so-called historic church during the past 1900 years, he does not know his professed belief to be true until he has proven it himself by his own direct biblical exegesis, and he has no right telling others that they should believe his doctrine until he is both able and willing to prove it directly from the Bible when he is asked to do so. This is the principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) to which those of the modern Reformed Faith profess adherence, but neither practice nor understand.

Taking a Mealy-Mouthed Stand

I found the following two questions and answers within a list of "Fifty Crucial Questions" about gender posted on the website of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, whose stated mission is "to proclaim the truth of God's Word regarding God's wise design for the complementary differences between men and women who share equally in the image of God, in order better to equip evangelical homes, churches, academic institutions, and other ministries to be faithful to His Word and thus to experience the goodness of His created purposes for men and women."

Question 29. But it does look as if Paul really thought Eve was somehow more vulnerable to deception than Adam. Wouldn't this make Paul a culpable chauvinist?

Answer: No. When someone asks if women are weaker than men, or smarter than men, or more easily frightened than men, or something like that, perhaps the best way to answer is this: women are weaker in some ways and men are weaker in some ways; women are smarter in some ways and men are smarter in some ways; women are more easily frightened in some circumstances and men are more easily frightened in others. It is dangerous to put negative values on the so-called weaknesses that each of us has. God intends for all the "weaknesses" that characteristically belong to man to call forth and highlight woman's strengths. And God intends for all the "weaknesses" that characteristically belong to woman to call forth and highlight man's strengths.

Even if 1 Timothy 2:14 meant that in some circumstances women are characteristically more vulnerable to deception, that would not settle anything about the equality or worth of manhood and womanhood. Boasting in either sex as superior to the other is folly. Men and women, as God created us, are different in hundreds of ways. Being created equally in the image of God means at least this: that when the so-called weakness and strength columns for manhood and for womanhood are added up, the value at the bottom is going to be the same for each. And when you take those two columns and put them on top of each other, God intends them to be the perfect complement to each other.

Question 47: If you believe that role distinctions for men and women in the home and the church are rooted in God's created order, why are you not as insistent about applying the rules everywhere in secular life as you are in the home and the church?

Answer: As we move out from the church and the home we move further from what is fairly clear and explicit to what is more ambiguous and inferential. Therefore our emphasis moves more and more away from specific role recommendations (like the ones made in Scripture), and instead focuses on the realization of male and female personhood through the more subjective dimensions of relationship like demeanor, bearing, attitudes, courtesies, initiatives, and numerous spoken and unspoken expectations.

We believe the Bible makes clear that men should take primary responsibility for leadership in the home and that, in the church, the primary teaching and governing leadership should be given by spiritual men. We take this to be a Biblical expression of the goodness and the wisdom of God concerning the nature of leadership in these roles and the nature of manhood and womanhood. That is, rather than leaving to us to judge for ourselves whether mature manhood and womanhood would be preserved and enhanced through the primary leadership of men or women in these spheres, God was explicit about what would be good for us. However, when it comes to all the thousands of occupations and professions, with their endlessly varied structures of management, God has chosen not to be specific about which roles men and women should fill. Therefore we are not as sure in this wider sphere which roles can be carried out by men or women in ways that honor the unique worth of male and female personhood. For this reason we focus (within some limits) on how these roles are carried out rather than which ones are appropriate.

I thought that these answers were very mealy-mouthed and so I sent the following email, including the John Calvin quotes, to Randy Stinson who is the Executive Director of the group. Not surprisingly, I received no reply.

I largely agree with the things posted on the CBMW website. But when I contrast your words above with John Calvin's words below, I must say that your answers sound quite timid and wishy-washy. In Reformation times, men did not shrink back from declaring the truth, in very plain words, that women are the weaker sex (both in body and in mind). Nor did they denigrate women in teaching this, as they also emphasized that the man's strength is to be used in service to the woman, that he is incomplete without her, that he is dependent upon her, and that he is to love her as if she were his own flesh (which she is).

Furthermore, they did not limit the Bible's teaching about male superiority to what is practiced in the home and in a church's meeting place. Evidently, they understood that throughout its pages, the Bible exemplifies a patriarchal society and the dominion of men over women in all spheres of life, and that there is no reason to believe that this is something which God meant to be changed over time.

Stuart DiNenno



John Calvin commenting on the folly of women reigning over men:

"Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highlyesteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men's side. So God is wellpleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, "I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands." This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women."

John Calvin commenting, in regard to 1 Corinthians 11:10, on the superiority of the male sex:

"It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this to God's eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex."

Calvin commenting, in regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34, about the impropriety of feminine rule:

"the office of teaching is a superiority in the Church, and is, consequently, inconsistent with subjection. For how unseemly a thing it were that one who is under subjection to one of the members, should preside over the entire body! It is therefore an argument from things inconsistent -- If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. And unquestionably, whenever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly."

Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:13 speaking about man's "inferior aid":

"Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. ( Genesis 2:21 .) Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed."

Is it Wrong to Judge?

Among many of today's professing Christians, it is commonly believed that judging the sins of others violates the teaching of the Bible. “Judge not that ye be not judged” (Mat. 7:1) seems to be one of the most often quoted Scripture verses in modern Evangelicalism. But isolating one verse in the Scriptures and interpreting it not only outside of its immediate context, but also outside of the context of the entirety of the Bible, almost always produces an erroneous doctrine and such is the case here.

In order to determine what God really says about judgment, let's look at Mat. 7:1 in the context in which God has placed it. Then we shall proceed to see what the rest of the Bible has to say about judgment.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Mat. 7:1-5)

In this passage, is Christ telling us that we are to make no judgments at all about anyone, or is he telling us not to be self-righteous by judging others without first judging ourselves and not to be hypocritical by judging others with a different standard from that with which we judge ourselves? Obviously, the latter is the case. It is self-righteousness and hypocritical judgment that is being condemned here, not all judgment. We have to judge others with the same judgment and by the same measure that we use to judge ourselves. And we are to first cast the beam out of our own eye before we try to pull the mote (a speck of dust) out of our brother's eye. In other words, we must judge ourselves and purge our own lives of wickedness before we judge and try to correct the lesser faults of our brothers.

Again, hypocritical judgment, not judgment itself, is condemned by the word of God in the Epistle to the Romans. Notice that it is those who condemn others but commit the same sins as them (and even take pleasure in others who commit them), who are the ones being admonished:

“Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?” (Rom. 1:29-2:3)

There were particular types of judgment that applied to the transition from the Old Testament dispensation to the New, which were forbidden. Christians were not to judge other Christians who were brought up observing the Old Testament dietary laws and holy days, and continued to do so out of a lack of knowledge or a weakness of faith (Rom. 14), nor were they to allow others to judge them for not observing such things (Col. 2:16-17).

But judgment itself is not forbidden, only unrighteous judgment:

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” (Lev. 19:15)

“It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment.” (Pro. 18:5)

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” (Jam. 2:1-4)

Judgment of other men is, in fact, required by the word of God.

Christians are to disfellowship other professing Christians who profess godliness but continue in wickedness. This requires not only that a judgment be made, but also that action be taken based on that judgment.

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 The. 3:6)

“And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (2 The. 3:14-15)

In fact, Christ specifically instructed His disciples on the procedure for breaking fellowship with those who are in unrepentant sin. Obeying this principle, of course, requires making judgments about other men:

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Mat. 18:15-17)

The Corinthians were explicitly commanded by Paul the apostle to disfellowship a man who had committed fornication with his father's wife. Paul judged the man worthy of excommunication by the testimony of the Corinthian church, and he also instructed them that they should likewise judge and excommunicate other offenders within the church when necessary:

“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Cor. 5:1-13)

God demands that we note and avoid heretics. This requires making judgments of other men.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Rom. 16:17-18)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3-5)

“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.” (2 Joh. 10-11)

We are specifically told to judge who is, and who is not, a false prophet by the fruit that they bear. This requires judging a man's works and manner of life to determine if he is a sheep or whether he is just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Mat. 7:15-20)

If a man bears “the fruit of righteousness” (Heb. 12:11), that is, if he does righteously by keeping the commandments of God (though never perfectly), we know that he is of God. And, conversely, if he does not do righteously -- that is habitually, willfully, and unrepentantly breaks the commandments of God -- then we know that he is not of God.

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.” (1 John 2:3-5)

“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” (1 John 2:29)

“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1 John 3:7-10)

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:2-3)

Discerning the difference, and taking action based upon that difference, requires making judgments about other men.

Christians are also told to judge disputes between fellow Christians rather than take such matters before the ungodly:

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.” (1 Cor. 6:1-6)

So we see that the Lord -- contrary to the belief of many today -- not only permits judgment, He demands it. But it must be asked: Seeing it is quite obvious that the Scriptures require that men make judgments of others, why do so many believe in an anti-judgmental God? Is it only a case of bad theology or a lack of biblical knowledge? Undoubtedly, these are contributing factors to any erroneous view of God. But in this case, it also might be that such a concept of the Almighty serves a purpose for those who adhere to it. Perhaps many of today's Evangelicals need an anti-judgmental Deity because they live selfish, disobedient, and unholy lives. If they were to believe in the God of the Bible -- a God who demands judgment -- they would have to allow themselves to be judged by others according to the word of God. And it may be that such righteous judgment would reveal that many of these professing Christians do not fit the biblical definition of a disciple of Christ.

Under His Wings Shalt Thou Trust

Current events are rarely addressed in the writings that I post on this weblog but in light of the Katrina catastrophe and the fact that most Americans are at the present time being bombarded with horrifying images of destruction and death, I thought it might be comforting for any Christian visiting this site to consider John Calvin’s thoughts on the “inestimable felicity of a pious mind” when consideration is made of all the dangers that daily confront men in the world:

“Innumerable are the ills which beset human life, and present death in as
many different forms. Not to go beyond ourselves, since the body is a
receptacle, nay the nurse, of a thousand diseases, a man cannot move without
carrying along with him many forms of destruction. His life is in a manner
interwoven with death. For what else can be said where heat and cold bring equal
danger? Then, in what direction soever you turn, all surrounding objects not
only may do harm, but almost openly threaten and seem to present immediate
death. Go on board a ship, you are but a plank’s breadth from death. Mount a
horse, the stumbling of a foot endangers your life. Walk along the streets,
every tile upon the roofs is a source of danger. If a sharp instrument is in
your own hand, or that of a friend, the possible harm is manifest. All the
savage beasts you see are so many beings armed for your destruction. Even within
a high walled garden, where everything ministers to delight, a serpent will
sometimes lurk. Your house, constantly exposed to fire, threatens you with
poverty by day, with destruction by night. Your fields, subject to hail, mildew,
drought, and other injuries, denounce barrenness, and thereby famine. I say
nothing of poison, treachery, robbery, some of which beset us at home, others
follow us abroad. Amid these perils, must not man be very miserable, as one who,
more dead than alive, with difficulty draws an anxious and feeble breath, just
as if a drawn sword were constantly suspended over his neck? It may be said that
these things happen seldom, at least not always, or to all, certainly never all
at once. I admit it; but since we are reminded by the example of others, that
they may also happen to us, and that our life is not an exception any more than
theirs, it is impossible not to fear and dread as if they were to befall us.
What can you imagine more grievous than such trepidation? Add that there is
something like an insult to God when it is said, that man, the noblest of the
creatures, stands exposed to every blind and random stroke of fortune. Here,
however, we were only referring to the misery which man should feel, were he
placed under the dominion of chance.

But when once the light of Divine Providence has illumined the believer’s
soul, he is relieved and set free, not only from the extreme fear and anxiety
which formerly oppressed him, but from all care. For as he justly shudders at
the idea of chance, so he can confidently commit himself to God. This, I say, is
his comfort, that his heavenly Father so embraces all things under his power—so
governs them at will by his nod—so regulates them by his wisdom, that nothing
takes place save according to his appointment; that received into his favour,
and entrusted to the care of his angels neither fire, nor water, nor sword, can
do him harm, except in so far as God their master is pleased to permit. For thus
sings the Psalm, “Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and
from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under
his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou
shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by
day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction
that wasteth at noonday” (Psalm 91:2-6). Hence the exulting confidence of the
saints, “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? The
Lord taketh my part with them that help me.” “Though an host should encamp
against me, my heart shall not fear.” “Yea, though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.” (Psalm 118:6; 27:3; 23:4).”