Miracles Of The Bible Versus Miracles Of Modernism (I)

By Ron Halbrook

Since the Bible claims to be the Word of God, the Bible lays claim to the miraculous. The first verse records the miracle of creation and the last chapter forbids any change of Divine testimony. In addition to particular miracles recorded in the Old Testament, predictive prophecy foretold the coming of the Savior. Matthew 1 shows how that Savior came, entering the world through a miraculous conception. Jesus performed many miracles in His own ministry and also performed them through the ministry of his Apostles. Faith in God is faith in a supernatural Being, in the Bible sense; that faith includes confidence in God when He speaks of things beyond the realm of nature. All spiritual blessings are in Jesus Christ, the Son of God; remission of sins; the gathering of a people unto God and the establishment of his church; the hope of resurrection and of eternal life with God; Judgment Day and the threat of hell fire – all of these things and many others taught in the Bible speak of a reality beyond the realm of nature.

A mighty movement of doubt and disbelief under the name of Christianity began about 100 years ago. The movement has been called Liberalism, Higher Criticism, and Modernism. The latter term was popularized partly by the encyclical Pascendi Gregis issued by Roman Catholic Pope Pius X in 1907, condemning the new tendencies. Modernism is “a method and a spirit, having many common presuppositions, to be sure, but differing widely in specific doctrinal positions” (Smith, Handy, and Loetscher, American Christianity, II, P. 341). Though quite diverse in doctrinal affirmations, Modernism held common premises which helped to define common enemies and which resulted in a rather unified, negative program. The authority of custom and tradition, of ecclesiastical hierarchy, and of Scripture itself were the common enemies. The negative thrust of Modernism brought the verbal inspiration of Scripture, the miracles recorded, and even the Deity of Jesus Christ into question. The concept that the Bible settled religious issues, or any appeal to an authority . outside of man himself, fell under scathing criticism. Well before 1950, Modernism had gone to such radical limits that many religious leaders who embraced its premises pulled back to a middle-of-the-road position, a relatively conservative reaction called Neo-Orthodoxy.

Underlying premises which initiated Modernism 100 years ago and which are widely accepted to this day are: (1) each man’s religious experience is his own authority, excluding external authority whether tradition, ecclesiastical organization, or Scripture; (2) rather than revealing His will once-for-all in the Bible, God is always expanding the revelation of His will in nature, society, and civil government. The Bible reveals God’s will in much the same sense that all of nature and history do, though perhaps to a higher degree. It is evident that in the on-going course, of nature and history God reveals Himself without going beyond that course, i.e. without daily miracles. Therefore, it is safe to say that the miracles recorded in the Bible are not true, at least not literally true. In the Modernist’s reconstruction of Christianity, the miracles of the Bible must be denied as untrue or else reinterpreted as theological, parabolic, mythological, figurative, literary or some other kind of “truth.”

Obviously, two systems are at war, both claiming to be Christianity. One appeals to the miraculous as literal truth, while other rejects the miracles of Scripture as literal truth. What is not so evident is that Modernism, while rejecting the miracles of the Bible, has its own miracles to offer. If we claim to be Christians, we must choose between the two systems, the two messages, the two sets of miracles. These opposite claims cannot both be true any more than “Christian Science and Roman Catholicism” can both “be true at the same time unless the universe is a madhouse” (Brightman, An Introduction to Philosophy, p. 56.).

Miracles of the Bible

Miracles recording in the Bible are not recorded as parables but as historical events. In first-century Samaria, Simon by sorcery snared the populace into regarding him as “the great power of God.” When Phillip came “and preached Christ unto them,” they recognized Divine authority in that message because he performed actual miracles. The sick were truly healed, a thing which Simon’s sorcery had not accomplished. The difference was so great that even Simon himself believed and was baptized. While beholding the signs and great powerful deeds which were done, he could not deny the Divine authority of the gospel. Simon tire sorcerer was converted by a gospel which could be authenticated by truly supernatural acts (see Acts 8:6-13).

John 2:1-11 records the presence of Jesus at a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. When the guests had enjoyed the supply of wine, consuming it all, Jesus ordered six containers holding a total of about 125-150 gallons to be filled with water. Subsequently, when the liquid was drawn out, the people found themselves drinking juice which was far better than the original supply. This was only the beginning of the miraculous deeds or signs by which Jesus “manifested forth His glory,” proving Himself to be Divine. By such acts, He demonstrated an unqualified power over nature and time.

Once Peter healed a man who had been “lame from his mother’s womb.” When enemies of the gospel examined Peter, rather than denying the miracle they asked, “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” Peter answered that it was the name of Jesus Christ, in whose name alone “we must be saved.” Refusing to accept the authority which had been demonstrated and determined to stop the preaching, these enemies of Christ threatened Peter to shut him up. They had counseled among themselves saying, “What shall we do . . . for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. ” The pretensions to authority made by these men was blunted in the eyes of the public by the obvious presence of Divine power and authority with the Apostles (see Acts 3-4).

The Bible certainly claims that literal miracles have occurred and that they authenticate the gospel message. Not only are these miracles treated as historical events, they are inseparably interwoven with the record of other historical acts. If the miracles are not true, what assurance do we have that any of the other accounts are accurate? Was there a wedding feast? Did Jesus attend? Why did people believe on him at all, if the miracle is discounted? Did Phillip go to Samaria? Did he preach there? What did he preach? Why did the populace displace Simon’s claims by accepting the gospel, if Phillip performed no true miracles? Why did the authorities find it necessary to examine Peter? Why did the people accept Peter’s preaching? If the miracles of the Bible are not true events of history, why should the Bible’s message be counted as the will of God?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, pp. 423-424
June 26, 1980

Bible Basics: Husbands Love Your Wives

By Earl Robertson

Our world knows little of what God says to man and much less what He teaches concerning the responsibilities of the husband to the wife. The failure to know this teaching and have respect for it has, no doubt, contributed much to the many problems we have of asocial and moral nature. We have no earthly relationships so close as the one in marriage. Nothing in all the word of God degrades marriage, but, to the contrary, exalts and honors the bond (Heb. 13:4).

The love which the husband gives to his wife is self giving. It is inconceivable that a human being could do more than this. But this is exactly what the Bible teaches the husband to do. Ephesians 5:25, 28, 33 gives most plainly this responsibility. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”; “so ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” These verses declare the love which comprehends what the Almighty intends marriage to be. Verse 25 is a parallelism: it is emphatic in placing the husband (with love toward his wife) with Christ and his love for the church. The church is the body of Christ and, in this sense, the wife is the body of the husband. They are joined and are one flesh (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5, 6; Eph. 5:31). So, as Christ loved His own body, the husband is to love his wife as being his own body. The word love in these three verses is the greatest and most comprehensive of all the words our English word love renders. The word is agapao and is used in the singular case in all three verses. Verse 25 is marking the husband as the one who must love. This love never works ill for its object: it is the love God has for man.

Marriage creates moral duties. “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies” is a moral duty. This is one of the very basic truths of good living. Loving his wife as being his own flesh; they are joined, they are not two, but one flesh, and in this union he “nourisheth and cherisheth it” (5:29), that is, he cares for his own flesh and fosters with tenderness his very own. This is a different love than that of the wife to her husband (Titus 2:4). The husband’s love is shown in his headship and provisions for her, and she, in turn, has warm subjective feelings for him being his wife. Her love is earned, not demanded.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, p. 423
June 26, 1980

Denominational Trends In Church Attendance

By Mike Willis

Across America, many mainline Protestant denominations are becoming alarmed at the loss of membership which is occurring in their respective denominations. Recent statistics have shown that approximately “80 million Americans, roughly 40 percent of the United States population” (J. Russell Hale, Who Are The Unchurched?, p. 2), are “unchurched Americans.” Every major denomination in the United States has suffered numerical losses during the last decade.

The number of people who are attending church in any given week has slipped to 40%. “Four in 10 adults nationwide attended church or synagogue in a typical week in 1979” (George Gallup, “Sunday Worship,” Dayton Journal Herald, 29 December 1979, p. 34). Despite this loss of numbers in attendance, Gallup polls show that “more than eight of every ten persons believe Jesus Christ is divine” (Christianity Today, 21 December 1979, p. 14). However, most people believe that one can be a good Christian or Jew without attending worship services. “Can a person be a good Christian or Jew if he or she doesn’t attend church or synagogue? Seven out of 10 of the churched segment, and eight persons in 10 of the unchurched, answer in the affirmative” (The Unchurched American, p. 9).

Churches Analyze Their Losses

“According to a report prepared by Constant Jacquet, Jr. in 1973 there were eleven Protestant churches which had a membership of one million or more. Eight of the eleven had fewer members in 1973 than they did in 1965. The percentage loss ranged from 30.63 % to 2.35 % . One of the three remaining denominations has shown a slight loss since 1970, thus leaving only two denominations with more than one million members which reported more members in 1973 than in any previous year” (Warren J. Hartman, Membership Trends: A Study of Decline and Growth in the United Methodist Church 1939-1975, p. 48). Here is the specific data:

  1965 1975 Percentage Change
American Baptist 1,538,988 1,603,033 4.2
Assemblies of God 572,123 785,348 37.3
Church of the Nazarene 343,380 441,093 28.4
Episcopal 3,429,153 2,857,513 -16.7
Lutheran Church of America 3,106,844 2,986,078 -3.9
Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod 2,692,889 2,763,545 2.6
Presbyterian Church, U.S. 950,139 878,126 -8.6
Roman Catholic Church 46,246,175 48,881,872 5.7
Seventh Day Adventist 364,666 495,699 35.9
Southern Baptist Convention 10,770,573 12,733,124 18.2
United Church of Christ 2,070,413 1,818,762 -12.1
United Methodist Church 11,082,024 9,975,710 -10.0
United Presbyterian Church U.S.A. 3,034,321 2,657,699 -12.4

These figures are taken from “The Church In The World” by Jackson W. Carroll, Theology Today (35:70-80, April 1978).

A study of these statistics is rather interesting. Across the board, these figures show that fundamental or evangelical groups are growing numerically whereas liberal groups are declining in membership. Consequently, Dean Kelley has written a book entitled Why Conservative Churches Are Growing which basically ties growth to conservative beliefs and decline in membership to liberal beliefs. This thesis, obviously, has not been totally accepted as Jackson W. Carroll’s response (Ibid.) demonstrates. However, self-analysis studies by the different denominations throws more light on the subject.

1. United Methodist Church. Warren J. Hartman published a 60-page study of Membership Trends in the United Methodist Church in 1976. While not stating that the membership loss in the Methodist Church was attributed to members becoming dissatisfied with liberal preaching and leaving the church, I am convinced that this study demonstrates that liberalism is leading to self destruction. Hartman wrote,

Between 1949 and the present there have been a number of radical changes in the larger society, in the religious subculture, and in the church. The causes for change are many and complex. Within the church there have been mood changes, new ideas about the mission of the church, and constant reordering of priorities. The effect of these changes is seen among the agencies of the church in the shifting program emphasis and in the allocation of financial resources (p. 20).

The result has been that the amount spent by the United Methodist church in converting people has dwindled with their increase in emphasis on social justice. Compare these figures to see how emphasis on programs other than evangelism has consumed the resources of the United Methodist Church (p. 22):

Comparing these figures with those of the local church with which I am affiliated, I can hardly imagine that the entire Methodist denomination is only spending 2.8% of its total revenue ($52,434,368) for evangelism; that amounts to $1,510,109.70 per quadrennium or approximately $500,000 per year. The local congregation of which I am a member (which has approximately 190 in attendance each Lord’s day) will spend approximately $45,000 this year in the support of gospel preachers in addition to purchasing $6500 in radio time, literature, tracts, and other evangelistic material. It is small wonder that the United Methodist Church is not growing. It is more concerned with making this world a better place to live than in preparing souls for eternity! (See chart below)

Quadrennium

Contributions To All General Causes

Distributions To:

Local Church Education Evangelism Education and Evangelism Percent of All Money
1949-52 $1,419,4678 630,383 90,411 720,784 5.8
1953-56 17,724,958 667,673 195,675 863,348 4.87
1957-60 23,316,995 752,648 254,505 1,007,153 4.32
1961-64 30,353,357 967,269 355,441 1,322,710 4.36
1965-68 34,406,518 1,059,309 384,944 1,444,253 4.20
1969-72 45,779,002 1,211,397 463,463 1,674,860 3.66
1973-75 52,434,368 1,205,069 304,309 1,509,378 2.88

2. United Presbyterian Church. The problem of declining membership is discussed in A Summary Report of The Committee on Membership Trends which was approved by the 188th General Assembly (1976). The report stated the seriousness of the problem.

For ten years our church has agonized over the continued loss of members which has occurred after twenty-five years of almost uninterrupted membership growth. The same decline was experienced by most other mainline Protestant denominations beginning in the mid 1960’s but was even more serious in our church than in others – 577,084 (a 17% loss) since 1965 (p. 11).

The study of the United Presbyterian Church discounted theological liberalism as having anything to do with the loss in membership stating, “We cannot conclude that the more conservative the approach or stance in the life of a congregation the more likely it is to grow” (p. 15). However, the relationship between liberalism and lack of motivation in evangelism is too obvious to be discounted. The United Presbyterian Church Committee on Membership Trends reported that “when choosing from a list of 21 possibilities, the recruitment of new members rated among the three most important aspects of church life for only 9% of respondents in growing churches and for 10% in those rapidly declining. Christian witness to the community was affirmed by only 5% to 7%. Only 4% to 6% could affirm evangelism” (p. 20). To furthermore demonstrate the relationship between theological liberalism and lack of evangelism, resulting in declining church membership, consider the following quotation:

Two of the most important convictions in the UPC are the centrality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the authority of the Scripture as the Word of God. However, among our respondents, less than 30% perceived the “personal experience of the salvation in Christ” as among the three most important aspects of the faith of their congregation. When the respondents were asked the extent to which they could agree with the statement that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, only one-fourth could not. Forty percent of the Presbyterian Panel could not agree with this statement.

“Ministering to the needs of others,” “the sense of purpose, strength, and the security the faith gives,” and “personal guidance in daily decisions” more frequently emerged than did the “personal experience of salvation” as a key aspect of the respondent’s faith. While each of these is an important aspect of the Christian faith and life, we are concerned that many tend to place generalized religious experience and relation ahead of the personal relation to Christ as Savior in one’s daily life.

When rating 21 different aspects of their congregation’s life, only 7% to 8% could say that members’ understanding of the faith was among the three aspects getting the most attention. There is a widespread conviction that it is important for people to share their Christian beliefs with others, but they themselves do so only occasionally.

The above data perhaps throws a different light on the strength of the agreement by our respondents with the statement that “no one has the right to impose his belief on another.” The fairly strong opinion on that may come from a respect of other persons and the desire to be tolerant. It may also be that we aren’t clear about what we believe, and thus feel uncomfortable when talking about our faith (pp. 21-22).

Like the United Methodist Church, the United Presbyterian Church has continued to spend less on missions .

. . . What about our concern for mission in the USA and overseas? It is a fact that despite larger total giving per capita by our decreased membership, we have increasingly allocated a larger proportion of those dollars to the local church program and plant. Much less is now allocated to the national and international mission of the church. More is allocated to non-United Presbyterian mission causes. Slightly more is now allocated to presbytery and synod general mission (p. 18).

Hence, the United Presbyterian Church continues to lose membership. My personal assessment, as confirmed by these quotations, is that preaching the saving gospel of Jesus Christ is not important to those who believe there is no salvation beyond the grave and that, if there were salvation available, one could obtain it without faith in Jesus Christ.

3. The Episcopal Church. A remarkably frank discussion of liberalism and membership loss in the Episcopal Church was written by Wayne B. Williamson, Growth and Decline in the Episcopal Church (1979). The Episcopal Church has been hit extremely hard by membership loss; they have had a loss of 16.7% in membership in the decade from 1965 to 1975. During this same period, extreme theological liberalism has controlled the Episcopal Church. After detailing the entrance of theological liberalism in the Episcopal Church, Williamson wrote, “Many clergy openly denied the Virgin Birth, some denied the historicity of Jesus, and some even the existence of a personal God . . . . By 1967 Bishop James A. Pike could openly deny the Virgin Birth and virtually dare the House of Bishops to take action against him, which they refused to do” (p 17). He lamented, “We have all but said that we hold there is no heresy except in the case of those who would hold that there is such a thing as heresy” (p. 142). The religious tolerance of the Episcopal Church with its “unity-in-diversity” extends to include all forms of religion.

Something of the morass into which comprehensiveness can lead is discerned in a report of recent happenings in two of our major cathedrals. It was widely reported that during “a recent service at the Washington Cathedral a Muslim Azan, A Jewish Baruch, and aspirations from the Hindu Pali Prayer Book issued from the pulpit” (Rutler 1978:4). The other episode took place in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. It hosted a Shinto ceremony in the name of ecumenicity. In gratitude for this recognition the Japanese Shintoists gave an altar (Shinto) which the Cathedral received and ensconced within the Cathedral as a gesture of ecumenical solidarity (p. 21).

Obviously, such a group is not going to be concerned with converting Muslims, Jews, and Shintoists. Williamson commented, “The price of comprehensiveness almost inevitably involves compromise” (p. 20).

What can one say of this “comprehensiveness” when he is persuaded that tolerance of error is not a virtue; indeed, such tolerance will eventually sound the deathknell of true religion. The Christian religion is a religion of deep convictions, not of facile compromises (p. 21).

Liberalism is obviously in control of the Episcopal Church.

The result of this liberalism has been that the funds of the church have been expended on nearly everything but evangelism.

For those who hold the activist politico-economic advocacy point of view, growth in numbers is a secondary concern for the church, at best. They have little interest in, or patience with, evangelism that seeks to win men and women to Christ. It is a part of my argument that because the liberal view has gained the ascendancy among Episcopal leaders, over against the more traditional and conservative view of the “salvation of souls,” they have lost touch with their people in the parishes. As a result the church has suffered numerical loss, seen its missionary and evangelizing spirit greatly diminished, and largely lost the semblance of biblical direction (p. 2).

Instead, the church has been diverted into the social gospel to the extent that its mission has been grossly perverted, according to Williamson.

This stems from the religious liberalism which has gotten control of the denomination. Notice his assessment of the liberalism in the church and its influence on the mission of the denomination. In this first citation from Williamson’s book, he is quoting John Stott.

Nothing hinders evangelism more today than the widespread loss of confidence in the truth, relevance, and power of the Gospel. When this ceases to be good news from God, and becomes instead “rumors of God,” we can hardly expect to exhibit much evangelistic enthusiasm (p. 54).

In his own words, he adds,

Probably the greatest impediment to Church Growth for the Episcopal Church is that so few, clergy or laity, really believe that apart from Christ people are eternally lost. Lacking this conviction, the major incentive for membership growth tends to focus around maintaining the institution and its programs (p. 61).

Be this as it may, I still search in vain in our church literature for any compelling reason as to why anyone should become a Christian and a member of the Church (p. 63).

Instead of the Episcopal Church being interested in leading lost souls to the salvation which is available in Christ, the denomination has been involved in every form of social work. It has imbibed the social gospel.

Because of its overarching concern for the world and its problems, the Church’s priorities change frequently. The Vietnam war, industrial unrest, social injustice, racial discrimination, the exploitation of minority peoples, urban decay, multinational corporations, Capitalism’s corrupting consumerism -the list is long and the possibilities for “relevant” crusades are endless. Whereas few serious-minded Christians would contend that the Church should not involve itself in resisting all that dehumanizes people (Williamson seems to want just a little social gospel, mw), many would question the wisdom of transforming the Church into a cluster of social action committees. They would argue from Scripture that the Church has been given a unique task to perform in society, a task which is significantly different from the most enlightened of social action programs. The tragedy is that social concerns have consumed so much energy and money that the Church has been unable to devote much strength to this primary task (pp. 18-19).

The revolutionary social upheaval of the last decade or so has left many churches in such a state of uncertainty as to their proper role that they have tended to lose all sense of direction. Some of them, feeling driven by the charges of the irrelevancy of the Church in the modern world, have opted to let the world set their agenda. In the laudable desire to see a more perfect justice, some congregations have chosen to become neo-Marxist humanist institutions (p. 39).

The Episcopal Church has tended to define evangelism as whatever it happens to be doing at the time . . . . For those who hold such views, the notion of making disciples as a definite goal is somewhat distasteful. Christian mission simply becomes another form of social involvement rather than a deliberate attempt to proclaim the gospel and persuade people to become Christians. In short, churches may choose to emphasize functions other than bringing people to God. They may desire to become exemplary agencies for affecting social reforms – this has been the major emphasis for the Episcopal Church in the last decade or so (55).

Because of this lack of emphasis on evangelism, Williamson was pessimistic about the future of the Episcopal Church. He reported, “A recent report by the Hartford Seminary Foundation and Duke University Divinity School revealed that at our present rate of ordination by the year 2004 there will be `one priest for every lay member”‘ (p. 4). Indeed, “Those who marry the spirit of this age are bound to be widowers in the next!” (p. 132).

Conclusion

The theological liberalism of the mainstream Protestant denomination has certainly gotten them into serious trouble. Their membership rolls are declining. Likely we will see many church mergers during the near future in an attempt to keep the denominations afloat and financially solvent; this is one means of showing church growth on the books.

However, other denominations are experiencing rapid growth. I intend to consider some of the reasons for this in next week’s article.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, pp. 419-422
June 26, 1980

“Judge Not, That Ye Be Not Judged”

By Ben M. Shropshire

A woman told me once that she could not agree with me in what I was teaching because I was too “judgmental,” implying that I had no right to judge anyone. Somehow it did not occur to her that she was judging me and my teaching in her statement. Such is the problem in trying to apply the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7:1-5. In her view, ,l was violating the teaching of Jesus in this passage, but her own judging was no violation thereof. This, of course, is precisely the thing that Jesus was condemning in this passage.

The word “judge” in the New Testament has two basic and related meanings: (1) “to separate, select, choose, to make a determination” as in Luke 7:43 and Acts 4:19; and (2) “to condemn or find fault with as a result of the selecting” as in John 12:48, 3:17, and James 4:11. These definitions need to be kept in mind in any study of what the Bible says about judging.

It is true that Jesus forbids our judging others in such places as Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37, and His teaching is amplified in James 4:11, 12 and Rom. 14:13. On the other hand, in other passages we find that we are commanded to do a certain kind and amount of judging, as in John 7:24, Luke 12-57, and I Corinthians 5:12, 13. Obviously, the New Testament is not contradicting itself in these passages; therefore, there must be a kind of judgment on our part that is prohibited and another kind of judgment that is commanded. We must be careful to discern one from the other so as to be void of offense unto the day of Christ (Phil. 1:9-11).

First, let us take a quick look at the passages which require us to make some judgment, even to the extent of finding others wrong and subject to being lost: (1) The civil courts (the “powers that be”) must judge to determine those who are evil doers (that is, those who violate civil law) in order to administer punishment (Rom. 13:1-5); (2) A local congregation must judge its own members in order to determine those who are living ungodly lives or are walking disorderly so that the congregation may withdraw themselves from such (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 1 Thess. 3:6, 14); (3) Individual Christians are to decide between teachers in order to be able to determine the ones who are teaching error and to reject them (Matt. 7:6, 15; 3 Jn. 9-11; Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Jn. 4:1); (4) Christians must also judge the actions of other Christians in order to decide who has been “overtaken in any trespass” in an effort to restore such a one to faithfulness (Gal. 6:1; Matt. 7:5; Jas. 5:19, 20); (5) Gospel preachers must draw the line between truth and error, right and wrong, the saved and the lost, in order to convict men of sin to lead them to obey the gospel (2 Tim. 4:1-5); and (6) False teachers must be identified at times as being such (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:16-18) and this cannot be done without their being judged by someone else. It should be obvious that these tasks, as unpleasant as they may be to us in doing them, cannot be performed without our doing some “judging,” even to the extent of determining that some are in error and subject to being lost.

It is important to note in all of these cases of required judging, though, that the one doing the judging is never allowed to judge another on the basis of his own law, opinions or prejudices. With the exception of judgement by the civil courts, which are ordained of God and which may judge on the basis of the civil laws that are arrived at by human procedures (but a judge may never decide on the basis of his own will, but only on the basis of the civil law which he is sworn to uphold), all of the required kinds of judging is to be done only on the basis of God’s law as it is revealed in the scriptures. Thus, when a judgment (even of condemnation) is rendered on this basis, it is not really the person doing the judging (deciding) who has made the judgment (condemnation), but the judgment has really been pronounced by God. Of course, for this to be true, a correct interpretation and application of the scriptures is essential, but the scriptures themselves presume that such is possible. I recognize that this is the difficulty for most -people today when it comes to judging.

We have been so influenced by subjectivism that most people do not feel they can ever be sure of their own understanding and application of scriptural teaching, and they are equally positive that no one else can know whether they are right either. Hence, if no one can ever be sure of what is right, how can anyone dare to judge anyone else to be wrong? Such uncertainty about truth is to say that God has miserably failed in giving us a revelation of truth in the scriptures which we can understand and apply (compare 2 Timothy 2:15). Who would dare charge God in such a way? The fact that God has charged us with such tasks as the kinds of judging mentioned above is indicative that He has also given us an understandable and applicable law on which to base such judging, and for us to fail in the discharge of these duties is for us to be judged by His law ourselves!

If the above kinds of judging are required of us, what then are the kinds of judging which we are prohibited as Christians from exercising? We will look at these in next week’s article.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, p. 418
June 26, 1980