I Thought God-Fearing Judges Were a Good Thing

Today in America, a Catholic candidate has faced opposition because her views are Christian.

This video shows Prof. Amy Coney Barrett during her Senate confirmation hearing on September 7, 2017.

By Michael Brown Published on September 11, 2017

In ancient Israel, when judges were being appointed, the first qualification was that they had to be God-fearing. Today in America, it seems that some political leaders view faith in God as a liability for judges. Especially if it is a deeply-grounded Christian faith.

We know that ancient Israel was a theocracy while America is not. We understand that Israelite judges ruled on religious law as well as civil law. In fact, there was hardly any separation between the two. But it was also understood that a God-fearing judge would be a fair and equitable judge, since he knew that he had a Judge standing over him.

That’s why Moses was counseled to “look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe,” and to “let them judge the people at all times” (Exod. 18:21-22).

Centuries later, King Jehoshaphat exhorted the judges in his day, saying, “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for the LORD. He is with you in giving judgment. Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the LORD our God, or partiality or taking bribes” (2 Chr 19:6-7).

Since there is no injustice or partiality with God, a God-fearing judge would presumably be prone to just and impartial decisions. The fear of God would help him to conduct himself honorably. He would not be moved by human opinion or popularity, knowing that one day he would give account to that one just Judge.

I’m not saying that an atheist could not be a good judge or should not be allowed to serve as a judge. Philosophically, I believe there can be ethical, fair-minded atheists. Article VI of the Constitution flatly rejects the idea that one must profess a certain religion in order to serve in public office.

The Constitution’s “No Religious Test” Clause

But this is where things get interesting. Last week three Democratic senators challenged the qualifications of Prof. Amy Coney Barrett. They expressed concern that her Catholic faith could potentially skew her judgment. To many, this was an outrageous line of argument, directly violating the “no religious test” clause of the Constitution.

Yet the reason that clause was put in the Constitution was not to ensure that a person of faith would be allowed to serve. Instead, it was assumed that those serving in public office would likely be Protestant Christians, and the founders did not want a religious test put on them. In other words, they did not want one group of Christians (say, Presbyterians) to restrict other Christians (say, Baptists) from serving.

To the extent we view Christian faith as an enemy, we undermine the very source of our liberties and freedoms.

And what if this opened the door to non-Protestant Christians — or even non-Christians — serving in public office? Indeed, as explained in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, “Jews,” “Turks,” “infidels,” “heathens,” and even “Roman Catholics” might hold national office under the proposed Constitution. That was an eventuality they were willing to accept, but it was clearly viewed as the exception to the expected rule.

In the days of America’s founding, a Catholic candidate for public office might have faced opposition because he was not Protestant. But in the end, his Catholicism could not be held against him. Today, a Catholic candidate has faced opposition because her views are Christian — in other words, because she is a woman of faith.

This represents a radical departure from our Judeo-Christian foundations.

Forgotten Faith Foundations

It also represents a dangerous departure from our origins. To the extent we view Christian faith as an enemy, we undermine the very source of our liberties and freedoms. G. K. Chesterton once remarked, “If I did not believe in God, I should still want my doctor, my lawyer and my banker to do so.”

I would add to that (as a personal preference, not a Constitutional one), “I would want my judge to believe in God too.”

May the Lord grant us a multitude of God-fearing, justice-loving, impartial, and fair judges in the years ahead. And may the Lord restore sanity to those congressional leaders who seem to have forgotten the faith foundations of America.

As I argue at length in Saving a Sick America, recovering those foundations is essential for the future welfare of our country.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Dant e

    The same issue in the UK where Jacob Rees-Mogg has been targeted by the media and all like minded individuals for his profession of faith and concurrent views relating to the murder of unborn children and homosexual “marriage”.

  • Otho Cooley

    Dr. Brown, I totally agree that a person who has Bible-based principles has a stronger foundation for making unbiased, rational decisions as a judge. How we need people of integrity and truth to sit in positions of authority! On the other hand, I totally disagree that that an atheist can make rational, proper decisions without arrogance and bias.

    Psalms 14:1 very clearly states the reason why.

    The fool has said in his heart,
    “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt,
    They have done abominable works,
    There is none who does good.

    • Tom Rath

      Well, of course! After all, who could possibly make RATIONAL decisions without the influence of mythology and superstition?

      LOL!

      • tether

        Decisions based upon truth require integrity and understanding of what truth is. Science is not truth but rather theories based upon the facts or evidence available at the time. Atheism is nothing but a religion based upon the theory that God does not exist. So it is based upon a lie.
        There is only one truth everything else is false. There is only one True God, and He is truth. Everything else is just a copy or counterfeit.

        • John Connor

          Science isn’t truth? Nonsense. Do you go to a doctor for treatment? ALL of the treatments are based in science.

          As far as atheism, it’s simply the disbelief in any gods. Not just yours.

          • tether

            If science were truth it would not change but it does because it is theory based upon evidence believed to be true at the time. Truth however is unchangeable. Truth does not fluctuate it is a constant.

          • John Connor

            Science changes due to ongoing research. Do you see a physician for your care? If so, you’re a hypocrite. Everything we do in medicine is based on scientific research.

          • tether

            Science changes because we are constantly learning and that includes learning that what we once believed to be true is not. Or what we once believed was the best solution really is not. If science was truth it wouldn’t have to change because truth doesn’t change.

          • Yuriy Yakymets

            Second that.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>Everything we do in medicine is based on scientific research

            You need to expand your definition of what is medicine… There are “medicines” that have not come from Western science.

          • GPS Daddy

            That is so not true, John. Atheism is not the disbelief in any gods. That is a redefinition of the word. Atheism is the strong statement that God does not exist. Your definition is more along the lines of agnosticism. But this is what I have found of the “new atheists”… redefining words.

            As far as science being true… science is never sure about anything. There is always a margin of error… an unknown.. a confidence level. While science has enabled us to build many things it gives us no insight into the purpose of life. Science is a tool like a wrench or a screwdriver. Its useful for some things but does not work for others. Meaning and purpose are beyond science.

          • John Connor

            Look at the dictionary. Disbelief in ANY gods.

          • GPS Daddy

            Dictionary(dot)com: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

          • GPS Daddy

            Lets settle it this way, John: are you saying that you “lack” belief in any god?

          • John Connor

            I have zero belief in any gods or supernatural beings

          • GPS Daddy

            Hmmm, the new atheist that claims they “lack” belief is God also claim they have no burden of proof. Do you make the same claim?

          • John Connor

            Yes. There is no proof or evidence of any supernatural beings.

          • GPS Daddy

            Hmm, John, your response sheds doubt that you did not understand my question. Either I asked it incorrectly or you misunderstood what I was asking. I did not ask you if you thought there was proof of supernatural beings.

            I asked you if you think that because you have “zero” belief in supernatural being then you do not believe that you have a burden of proof for that position. This has nothing to do with if there is proof of supernatural beings.

            So, do you believe that because you have zero belief in supernatural beings then you have no burden of proof for that position?

          • Dena

            Science is theory. Old theories can be proven false as we gain more knowledge.

          • GPS Daddy

            So how does your statement apply to my comment?

      • Charles Burge

        The historicity of Jesus Christ’s bodily resurrection is extremely well-documented. If you have a problem with it, then you are the science-denier. 🙂

      • Otho Cooley

        Tom, the Bible gives evidence that demands a verdict. The ruler called Cyrus the Persian was spoken of 145-150 years before his birth and was specifically called by name. (Isaiah 45) Furthermore, 1000 years before the crucifixion of Christ, the Psalmist corrected predicted that they pierced Christ’s hands and feet. (Psalms 22) Jewish law required stoning. Roman law used crucifixion to subdue enemies and render punishment. From Christ’s birth to His death, burial and bodily resurrection some 109 prophetic

      • Shaquille Harvey

        Depends if there is objective good in materialistic universe!?

    • Concerned Christian

      so then atheist should be barred completely from holding any type of public office?

      • Otho Cooley

        Should we choose for a political candidate to serve from their academics, their experience or their character? Past experience have shown that charisma is not character. People of character can recognize others who portray excellence. Righteousness exalts a nation,
        But sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

        • Concerned Christian

          Why don’t we just choose someone who advocates the positions we support and hold them accountable?

      • Jim Walker

        As a concerned Christian you shouldn’t be asking such a question.
        I guess you aren’t very concerned after all.

        • Bezukhov

          Well, should atheists be barred? While your typing a definitive answer to that, show me from your New Testament where Jesus, or any other NT writer encourages Christians to hold Worldly Political Power and lord over and dominate others?

        • Concerned Christian

          of course not. I’m not afraid to be challenged on my beliefs. I believe everyone in a civil society has to have a voice. Has to have a way of expressing their beliefs without fear of retribution.

          Taking away someone’s right to serve, certainly is justification for taking away their right to vote as well. I define that as retribution.

      • Kevin Quillen

        absolutely YES! After all, how does an atheist make a decision concerning morality?

        • Concerned Christian

          the same way billions of people around the world do:

          Romans 2:
          12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

          My guess is most of the Chinese and Russian leaders are atheist. however, there are still laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Most Indians are not Christian and yet, they have a civil society.

      • Andrew Mason

        Is Atheism a religion? Would checking if a candidate is an Atheist count as a religious test? How did the founders view Atheism?

        • Concerned Christian

          Would knowing that the person is an atheist change your vote? If so, then it’s a fair question.

          The notion that understanding what defines someone’s decision making should be off limits is ridiculous. For some reason we think that a persons background, experiences, and exposures, do not affect their interpretation of facts.

          A prime example is look at Clarence Thomas’s decision on the NC gerrymandering case. Thomas has never been known as a champion of civil rights yet he sided with liberals on this case. Why? because his experiences influenced his decision making on this case.

          Conservative Christians are the only ones that have set standards for who they will not vote for. Just pull up the Christian voter guides that are passed out during election season. They constantly state, without stating, vote for this person because they are Christian and vote against person because they are not. I’ve sat in church and listen to a preacher state this person is a homosexual and therefore we should not vote for them.

          I’m not saying conservative Christians are wrong. however, if your argument is that as a Christian i believe xyz and if confirmed or elected I will do xyz because of my beliefs. then proclaim it boldly, others might agree with you.

          Instead, as a society all we do is encourage lying. During a confirmation, all a person does is lie. We encourage this because all we want to hear is OUR truth.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. What civil rights ?
            2. You do realise that concerning Christians voting for Christians there are secular leftists who do the same by also voting for leftists. What is your statement regarding this ?

          • Concerned Christian

            Some blacks vote for blacks because their black
            Some whites vote for whites because their white
            Some women vote for women because their women
            LGBT for LGBT
            Muslim for Muslim
            Christian for Christian

            As an American citizen you do not have to justify who or why you’re voting. You simply have the right to participate in the process.

            However, with the exception of women, I’ve never seen a voting guide from any other non-Christian group.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What do you mean by voting guide ?

          • Concerned Christian

            Here’s a link

            www&cc&org/voterguides

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Yes, but you can find voting guides for many groups, individuals, politics and so on on the internet. Here is a Muslim voting guide;

            https://www(dot)cair(dot)com/press-center/press-releases/13855-cair-mi-releases-2016-muslim-voter-guide(dot)html
            (Please replace dot with dot and remove brackets)

          • Concerned Christian

            Just to clear you’re comparing a voter guide put together for A state election to the ones that Christians put out for local, state, and national elections.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Actually I gave an example.
            You never gave any specifics on what kind of voter guide, which you can find more on the site and internet.
            Also the fact they have any kind of voter guide for a Muslim group, goes against your first argument.

          • Concerned Christian
  • PilgrimGirl

    The problem isn’t the judges; the problem is the legislation. Amy Coney Barrett is strongly pro-life yet abortion is legal. It would be beyond her scope as a judge to legislate from the bench to contradict or change that. The law itself is flawed and, hence, the actual problem. Perhaps she should become a candidate for the legislature, not the bench.

    • davidrev17

      Then you’re advocating that judges should (notice your moral imperative?) conduct all of their legal/judicial responsibilities by the self-referentially incoherent (or logically schizophrenic) principle, referred to as the (now-dismantled) “fact/value split,” or “fact/value dichotomy.” And be very careful how you respond to this.

      Plus, as far as legislating from the bench: Roe v. Wade and its progeny – i.e., Doe v. Bolton & Planned Parenthood v. Casey – have provided textbook examples of this very principle, aka “might makes right”! But what “thinking” justice (or scientist for that matter) would ever openly confess that they brought their subjectivism – to the table of objectivity??

      • PilgrimGirl

        The decisions in Roe v. Wade et al. are the products of the judicial interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The prevailing justices, as is true with all justices, brought their own personal bias to their interpretation WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. Thus, the underlying governing legislation was sufficiently ambiguous to allow for legislative interpretation from the
        bench. Hence, the issue lies with the legislation itself.

        I totally agree that “naturally, all of us (atheists included) desire to impose our morality and/or immorality upon others – either legislatively, or judicially.” Yet, in the end, there is a perfect law to which all of us are accountable and by which all of us, in ourselves, are guilty and deserving of condemnation.

        • davidrev17

          I have a feeling I’m “preaching to the choir” here; but it seems as though the sovereign “Spirit of Truth” Himself wouldn’t allow this to pass, ever since I read your post yesterday afternoon.

          So thank you for the thoughtful reply, however, your view re: the history of our federal judiciary’s manipulation of the 14th Amendment – not to mention the wholly Darwinized “living, breathing, evolving” nature of constitutional jurisprudence in general, of which technically spanned both the 19th & 20th century under that ever-evolving notion of “Judicial Review” – seems rather short-sighted; or at the very least, neglects to incorporate the reason(s) that “judge made law” itself (i.e., “legislating from the bench”) had incongruently become the “norm” in which landmark SCOTUS cases were/are decided, under the man-devised rubric of “Legal Positivism.”

          BTW: The 14th Amendment, especially their reimagining the myriad applications of the Due Process & Equal Protection Clause’s – i.e., seizing-upon those esoterically veiled “emanations and penumbras” – was a primary tool-in-the-hands of many overzealous atheistic/naturalistic ideologues, anxious to eliminate (from the bench) this country’s morally-premised Judeo-Christian heritage; particularly gaining its insidiously disguised momentum during the last-half of the 20th-century. And I’m sure you can see that all it takes is a cursory glance at the moral anarchy on display throughout American pop-culture, in order to realize that “they’ve” been wildly successful in their efforts at this!

          Hence, the subjective ideologies of our federal judges “brought to the bench” – while being insulated and/or protected from serious democratic accountability (or reprisal) through their lifelong appointments – has actually been the real culprit in profoundly altering the moral landscape of this country during the last century, or more, as they’ve continued imposing their imperialistic, “might makes right” [totalitarian] view of the U.S. Constitution.

          Yet tragically, “we the people” have mind-numbingly continued to bow-in-venerable-worship-to-Caesar, while almost slavishly obeying these magisterial dictates of just five (5) robed justices, as the “god of this world” (Lucifer) and his emissaries howl-in-laughter from behind the scenes; all because they’ve literally taken moral-control of this United States of America through the federal judiciary during the last 100-plus years (can you say the “Spirit of antichrist”?), while the professing people of God blissfully slumbered “in the enemy’s lap” – mesmerizingly making-love to the pacifier of prosperity through the dogged, idolatrous pursuit of the “hellish” American Dream.

          Please consider:

          “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.”

          — Woodrow Wilson, “Constitutional Government in the United States,” (1908).

          “You must understand that everything [Woodrow] Wilson wrote in his 1908 treatise [“Constitutional Government in the United States”] reflected his radical progressive presidency to come (1913-21), and had the singular effect of establishing policy, based on an evolutionary/atheistic worldview, while deconstructing and replacing the previous Judeo-Christian/originalism/Natural Law worldview. To Wilson, Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party, the original understanding of the Constitution is utter “nonsense.” Therefore, when Wilson wrote, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice,” [Mark] Levin concluded, “These are not the comments, this is not the philosophy of liberty, of republicanism. These are the comments and philosophy of totalitarianism.”

          — “Mark Levin on President Woodrow Wilson,” by Ellis Washington, World Net Daily, (Jan., 11, 2013).

          ☆ ☆ ☆

          “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.” (1 Peter 4:17-19/ESV)

          • PilgrimGirl

            Again, as you said, “naturally, all of us (atheists included) desire to impose our morality and/or immorality upon others – either legislatively, or judicially.” If the “magisterial dictates of just five (5) robed justices” had gone the other way, if abortion had been declared illegal, would that fix the problem? With the more recent ruling on same-sex “marriage”: if that decision had gone the other way, would that fix the problem? I dare say the very best it could produce is to feed the self-righteous Pharisee within us. We would remain no more than white-washed tombs full of dead men’s bones.

            Don’t misunderstand me; I abhor abortion and same-sex “marriage”. While the Lord’s people desire to walk morally, morality doesn’t make us the Lord’s people. The LORD alone has done that.

            In your latest response to me, you say that “it seems as though the sovereign “Spirit of Truth” Himself wouldn’t allow this to pass, ever since I read your post yesterday afternoon” and proceed to, again, speak to me regarding the state of the judiciary in America. Is that what the Spirit of Truth Himself does? No, as our Lord Jesus Christ teaches in John 16. The Spirit glorifies Christ.

            You tell me “the “god of this world” (Lucifer) and his emissaries howl-in-laughter from behind the scenes; all because they’ve literally taken moral-control of this United States of America through
            the federal judiciary”. Is the god of this world in control? Does his will control what comes to pass? Read Job chapters 1 and 2.

            “The most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will…all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4

          • davidrev17

            I only have a moment here to just make a quick observation. It’s been well-said long-ago, that “all truth is God’s truth.”

            Having said that, if you’re going to reference the Word of God, at least be accurate when doing so; as a quick reading of the John 16 passage you attempted to cite below, makes it abundantly clear how you simply lifted a verse for your own purposes (v. 14) – while totally ignoring the verse in specific context that flatly contradicts your desired emphasis (v. 13) – since as the sovereign “Spirit of Truth” Himself, He also “guides us into all truth.” After all, the Scripture does say “truth is in Jesus.”

            Please forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but It sounded as though you were implying that ALL the Holy Spirit does, is “glorify the Son”? Kindly help me understand that, if you will, then simply refute any of the historically factually occurrences I’ve referenced in my posts; of which should clearly indicate that THE “Teacher” (“Spirit of Truth”) dwelling within me, had nothing whatsoever to do with what I’m describing in this country – meaning spiritually, legally, politically, and morally.

            And one more note: God is obviously and absolutely sovereign…period! As such, the Word of God makes it abundantly clear that the “god of this world,” Lucifer, and his fallen emissaries, can ONLY do what Adonai “allows” – within the confines of His omnisciently inscrutable “will.” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:3-6; 1 John 5:19; the “Parable of the Sower” in Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8 etc.)

            The bottom line however, is simply this: I honestly believe the “God and Father of our Lord Yeshua/Jesus,” Israel’s Messiah, ultimately holds His people accountable for the horrendously reprobate spiritual condition of mankind & our culture here in Godless “God Bless America”! For Pete’s sake: just consider the abysmal spiritual condition of His professing Body here in the U.S.,
            during this critical “time” in redemptive history? (Hence my citing that text from 1 Peter 4:17-19.) Gotta go….thank you & God bless you dear sister!

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            (13) “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (14) He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (15) All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15/ESV)

          • PilgrimGirl

            Please share with me where you get your belief that God ultimately holds His people accountable for the horrendously reprobate spiritual condition of mankind.

          • davidrev17

            Of course I will…that’s a great question too; since we have so many principles & patterns to consider re: Divinely-mandated “accountability” (or responsibility) in both Old/New Covenant, where the people of God are concerned; and not only amongst one another – but while His children live-out their lives in the midst of a “crooked and perverse generation” as well. (e.g., Philippians 2:14-16)

            However, please don’t misconstrue my statement about the believers’ accountability for the moral degradation in this country, in such wooden-literal terms either; meaning our corporate/individual failure to faithfully carry-out our spiritual responsibilities – as though this would somehow abrogate, or render null-and-void, the clear biblical teaching of “personal accountability” for one’s sins. I’m simply stressing the utter gravity of our Divinely-ordained marching-orders!

            Now, since the amount of information in this topic is considerable, I’ll just copy & paste a few examples, then provide the scriptural references for you to consider, in the presence of the Teacher Himself; kinda’ like the pattern we find of the “noble Berean Jewish believers” in Acts 17:10-13.

            As far as I’m concerned, the greatest of these principles/patterns (at least in my unlearned opinion), would have to begin with Yahweh’s Divine “call” upon the nation of Israel, to specifically be “His light to the nations” – thus to make Him known as “a Kingdom of priests and a Holy [set apart] nation”; while paying close attention to the sequence of events that led up to their incredible encounter with Him at Mt. Sinai, beginning with that “salvific pattern” of redemption from slavery in Egypt. (i.e., Exodus 19:1-6ff)

            Additionally, do you remember this classic passage, and “conditional” principle?

            “…IF MY people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, THEN I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14, my emphasis of course; but please read entire passage 7:11-22 for context.)

            Also, consider the Divine command re: the concept of the “watchman on the wall,” in Ezekiel 33:1-11; whose principle we surprisingly find still being observed in the life of the Apostle Paul himself, in texts such as Acts 18:5-6 & 20:25-27. He no doubt took his “calling” & ministry to the Gentiles very seriously! (But see for context, his powerfully compelling conversation before the “elders of the church,” in 20:17-38.)

            Then what of the example we find between God, Jonah, and the Ninevites?? Or how God held Kings, Priests, “Shepherds,” Judges, and Prophets personally responsible for the infusion of His spiritual truth into the lives of Israel’s citizens, during their Theocratic history? He desires to “be known”!

            “And the LORD said [to Moses]: ‘Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.'” (Exodus 34:10ff/re: their entrance and responsibilities in the Promised Land.)

            In fact, that term about “His being known” by the surrounding unbelieving nation’s, is used abundantly in the Book of Ezekiel; particularly where the “latter days” are concerned, and His ultimate return to this planet a “second time.” (i.e, see chapter’s 36-39 in this context.)

            Plus, we find the same pattern/principle of Divinely-mandated responsibility/accountability given to the NT “ekklesia” (or Church) by the risen Lord Jesus, called the “Great Commission,” in Matthew 28:18-20. And something else too: notice the critically relevant difference between the functions of the OT priests – including said responsibility being placed upon fathers/husbands in families too; and that of the brand-new function of the “priesthood of the individual believer” within the Body of Christ, during NT redemptive history. (e.g., 1 Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 5:9-10)

            And here’s another classic pattern/principle:

            “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-16)

            “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17; but see also Acts 13:42-47; 18:1-11, esp. vv. 5-6; 28:17-31)

            “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31) BTW: Just how can Almighty God perfectly, equitably, or justifiably hold people accountable to the above text in 17:30-31 – namely “He commands all people everywhere to repent” – if, or when His people can’t be bothered with diligently carrying-out this responsibility?

            Now, having said all this: simply consider the implications of disobedience, in the lives of those to whom He’s communicated His truth so clearly? For example, just think of Israel’s tragic history due to their sin & disobedience before a Holy God??

            I mean, why would sovereign God, as our Heavenly Father, equip His own with spiritual “gifts/enablements”; or entrust His children with His plans to make His Son known to an unbelieving world – for the eternal salvation of “whosoever will” – for us to simply think we can languish in selfish-living, spiritual anemia/paralysis, or flat-out idolatrous narcissistic lifestyles (i.e., “I’m saved”…or “I got mine”)? Yet in our prideful self-deception, we can somehow still think there would be no consequences for such serious disobedience and/or spiritual lethargy, when His children are one day “called to give an account”?? (i.e., Matthew 25:14-30; Mark 13:32-37; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 19:1-9)

            So I’ll close with the following dear sister; as I hope I’ve provided enough of His truth in this area, whereby you’ll be encouraged, edified, or even have your question adequately answered:

            “According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

          • PilgrimGirl

            Thank you for your lengthy response. You brought several OT scriptures into your answer. The one thing you did not do with them is point me to Christ. He is the sum and substance of all of the scriptures.

            We all enter this world in “the horrendously reprobate spiritual condition”. When the first Adam sinned in the garden, he died and all his people (mankind) died in him. We are born spiritually dead and seek our own way. If we leave this world in that state, we will remain separated from Him for eternity.

            The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He is the Surety for His
            people. Brother Hawker explains surety as it is in God’s word:

            “This is a very important term to be perfectly understood, from being the very character of our Lord
            Jesus Christ, who became the Surety for his church and people. It was an ancient custom among the Hebrews to admit of a surety or sponsor for each other. Thus, if a man became bound for another, he was called his surety. And it should seem to have been the method upon all these occasions, that when one became responsible for another, he struck hands with the creditor. We find Judah pledging himself as a surety to his Father for his brother Benjamin. (Genesis 43:9) And Job and Solomon both take notice of the same under the article of suretyship. (Job 17:3; Proverbs 6:l, 2) But I should not have thought it necessary to have introduced the subject in this place, had it not been with a view to have brought the reader into a more intimate acquaintance with the nature of a surety as it concerns the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here the matter becomes so abundantly interesting, that it merits the closest regard of his people.

            “The Holy Ghost by his servant the apostle Paul, hath informed the church that Jesus “was made
            surety of a better testament,” (Hebrews 7:22) that is the testament or covenant of redemption by Christ’s blood. By which we understand that in the ancient settlement of eternity, the Lord Jesus Christ stood up at the call of his Father, the covenant Head and Surety of his people, to answer both for their debt and their duty. So that he stood in their law, room, and stead, in all he did and suffered, and it was covenanted and agreed upon by the Almighty Covenanters, that all Jesus did and suffered should be put to their account. This is the idea of a surety, and Christ was precisely this. So that when he had fulfilled all righteousness, and by his spotless sacrifice had done away all the penal effects of sin, his people were to all eternity and purposes, righteous in his righteousness, and free from all sin in his blood. Such is the idea of a surety considered with an eye to Christ. Blessed are they who are interested in it, and who no longer seek for justification but in him who is made the Surety of a better testament than the old covenant of a man’s own works. All of this description find the blessedness of being accepted in the Suretyship of the Lord Jesus, and can join the prophet’s declaration: “Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” (Isaiah 45:24, 25)”

            “…thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins”. (Matthew 1:21) And He did. In the words of our Lord, “It is finished”. Amen!!

          • PilgrimGirl

            “The Holy Ghost by his servant the apostle Paul, hath informed the church that Jesus “was made surety of a better testament,” (Hebrews 7:22) that is the testament or covenant of redemption
            by Christ’s blood. By which we understand that in the ancient settlement of eternity, the Lord Jesus Christ stood up at the call of his Father, the covenant Head and Surety of his people, to answer both for their debt and their duty. So that he stood in their law, room, and stead, in all he did and
            suffered, and it was covenanted and agreed upon by the Almighty Covenanters, that all Jesus did and suffered should be put to their account. This is the idea of a surety, and Christ was precisely this. So that when he had fulfilled all righteousness, and by his spotless sacrifice had done away all the penal effects of sin, his people were to all eternity and purposes, righteous in his righteousness, and free from all sin in his blood. Such is the idea of a surety considered with an eye to Christ. Blessed are they who are interested in it, and who no longer seek for justification but in him who is made the Surety of a better testament than the old covenant of a man’s own works. All of this
            description find the blessedness of being accepted in the Suretyship of the Lord Jesus, and can join the prophet’s declaration: “Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” (Isaiah 45:24, 25)”

            “…thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins”. (Matthew 1:21) And He did. In the words of our Lord, “It is finished”. Amen!!

          • PilgrimGirl

            The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He is the Surety for His people. Brother Hawker explains surety as it is in God’s word:

            “This is a very important term to be perfectly understood, from being the very character of our Lord Jesus Christ, who became the Surety for his church and people. It was an ancient custom among the Hebrews to admit of a surety or sponsor for each other. Thus, if a man became bound for another, he was called his surety. And it should seem to have been the method upon all these occasions, that when one became responsible for another, he struck hands with the creditor. We find Judah pledging himself as a surety to his Father for his brother Benjamin. (Genesis 43:9) And Job and Solomon both take notice of the same under the article of suretyship. (Job 17:3; Proverbs 6:l, 2) But I should not have thought it necessary to have introduced the subject in this place, had it not been with a view to have brought the reader into a more intimate acquaintance with the nature of a surety as it concerns the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here the matter becomes so abundantly interesting, that it merits the closest regard of his people. (continued)

          • davidrev17

            You asked me this one question:

            “Please share with me where you get your belief that God ultimately holds His people accountable for the horrendously reprobate spiritual condition of mankind.”

            So I opened-up my reply to you (in the 2nd paragraph) with the following:

            “However, please don’t misconstrue my statement about the believers’ accountability for the moral degradation in this country, in such wooden-literal terms either. And by this I mean our corporate & individual failure to faithfully carry-out our spiritual responsibilities could somehow abrogate – or render null-and-void – the clear biblical teaching of “personal accountability” for one’s sins. I’m simply stressing the utter gravity of our Divinely-ordained marching-orders”!

            What part of that did you NOT understand??? After all, one’s “personal accountability” for their sins before a Holy God, no doubt assumes their “being born physically alive, yet spiritually dead” in their transgressions and sin. Why else would the Lord Jesus have told Nicodemus: “Marvel not that I said, you MUST BE BORN AGAIN”? (John 3:7; see also Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Isaiah 59:1-2; Romans 3:9-18; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 2:15-16; Ephesians 2:1-6)

            Did you even attempt to read what I so painstakingly tried to convey to you; prayerfully hoping you’d recognize the profound seriousness of the Church’s responsibility for their “calling” & “work” in the midst of ANY “crooked and perverse generation”? Plus, based upon your SINGLE question to me: why on earth would I have even attempted to do what you suggested, as in: “You brought several OT scriptures into your answer. The one thing you did not do with them is point me to Christ. He is the sum and substance of all of the scriptures.”

            Now, since I’ve referred to you as my “dear sister” at least twice (meaning “in Christ”); as well as likening my dialogue with you as one’s “preaching to the choir” – please tell me why I would’ve sensed the need to “point you to our Messiah Yeshua/Jesus” in the Old Covenant, of whom (as you said) is obviously found throughout the entire 66-books of Holy Scripture – beginning in the Garden of Eden?? (e.g., Revelation 19:10) That subject wasn’t even on the proverbial table for discussion??

            What I truly believe happened here, however, was that I brought out the immense scriptural evidence re: OUR corporate & individual “accountability” before God (in both OT/NT) as members of the “Body of Messiah Yeshua/Jesus”; yet this critically relevant subject in OUR spiritual lives as His children, appears to represent the unmanageable and/or unwieldy “meat of the word” where you’re concerned, at this point in your “walk with the Lord,” thus your immediate regurgitation of its truth – since it wasn’t the “milk of the word.” And that, dear sister, is a subject that’s solely between you and our Heavenly Father now; especially since you’ve been confronted with the unchanging accountability of its binding-truth upon you.

          • PilgrimGirl

            There are tares among the wheat but those whom Christ sends are preaching Him from the word and His Spirit is quickening His people.

          • PilgrimGirl

            Thank you for your thoughtful response. I replied to you earlier but it got “detected as spam” and deleted. Strangely, this only happens to me on sites like this one… I will separate my response into several posts (last first so as to post in correct reading order) so, hopefully, it won’t get treated as spam again. It’s worked in the past anyway so here goes…

            You brought several OT scriptures into your answer. The one thing you did not do with them is point me to Christ. He is the sum and substance of all of the scriptures.

            We all enter this world in “the horrendously reprobate spiritual condition”. When the first Adam sinned in the garden, he died and all his people (mankind) died in him. We are born spiritually dead and seek our own way. If we leave this world in that state, we will remain separated from Him for eternity. (continued)

          • PilgrimGirl

            Trying my 3rd of 3 posts again because it was deleted, too…

            “The Holy Ghost by his servant the apostle Paul, hath informed the church that Jesus “was made surety of a better testament,” (Hebrews 7:22) that is the testament or covenant of redemption by Christ’s blood. By which we understand that in the ancient settlement of eternity, the Lord Jesus Christ stood up at the call of his Father, the covenant Head and Surety of his people, to answer both for their debt and their duty. So that he stood in their law, room, and stead, in all he did and suffered, and it was covenanted and agreed upon by the Almighty Covenanters, that all Jesus did and suffered should be put to their account. This is the idea of a surety, and Christ was precisely this. So that when he had fulfilled all righteousness, and by his spotless sacrifice had done away all
            the penal effects of sin, his people were to all eternity and purposes, righteous in his righteousness, and free from all sin in his blood. Such is the idea of a surety considered with an eye to Christ. Blessed are they who are interested in it, and who no longer seek for justification but in him who is
            made the Surety of a better testament than the old covenant of a man’s own works. All of this description find the blessedness of being accepted in the Suretyship of the Lord Jesus, and can join the prophet’s declaration: “Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even
            to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” (Isaiah 45:24, 25)”

            “…thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins”. (Matthew 1:21) And He did. In the words of our Lord, “It is finished”. Amen!!

  • Alfy

    Do you swear to tell the truth , the whole truth , so help you ….?

    • Andrew Mason

      What is truth? Isn’t it relative and subjective? 🙂

      • Alfy

        All truth is relative , there is no absolute truth. I am absolutely sure about that !

        • davidrev17

          Alfy & Andrew, I must know: Do you believe your statement(s) are true – either relatively, or absolutely?? 🙂 (Surely y’all gotta be joking!)

          I mean, what are we to do when there’s no such thing as absolute truth; except however, when we’re declaring the absolute truth – that there’s NO such thing as absolute truth?? (Suddenly I’ve become a little dizzy!)

          “Truth by definition is exclusive. If truth were all-inclusive, nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of truth? Furthermore, if nothing were false, would it be true to say that everything is false? It quickly becomes evident that nonsense would follow.”

          — Ravi Zacharias, “Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture,” 1997, (Appendix B: “The Inextinguishable Light”).

          • QuestionMark666

            Ravi’s double talk aside, there is no absolute right or wrong, no good or evil, no absolute anything, that is an absolutely absurd idea. Good is the preferred outcome in any given circumstance from the perspective of the affected. Evil is just a subjective value judgement.

          • Alfy

            Are you” absolutely” sure no statement of truth is absolute ?

          • davidrev17

            Just like Alfy asks below & your “double-talk aside”: is what you’re declaring absolutely true, or just relatively so?? 🙂 Plus, since there’s “no good or evil” in your personal, subjective opinion, does that mean you’re ok with the Holocaust, or genocide in particular; or even “infant-stomping,” whenever and/or wherever it takes place – especially if it was the “law of the land” wherever you’re living, and the participants wanted to stomp a child of yours to death? No big deal either??

            And furthermore, does that mean YOUR “affected,” about-to-die child in this case, would (should/ought? – careful now) view such activity as representing something good – not to mention yourself??? Do tell, please!

    • QuestionMark666

      That is not required anymore. There’s a deity-free oath available in all courts. I used to be an investigator with a DA’s office and then an expert witness in my speciality, so I have a great deal of experience in court appearances.

      • Alfy

        Yes it is not required , although used most the time. Every judge is sworn in on a oath to God.

        • QuestionMark666

          No, not all judge are sworn “under god” that too has alternative versions

  • Christine Wright

    What worries me in general, about anyone, is that their beliefs – regardless of what they are – will be held above our nation’s constitution and the law. The Bible believing protestant can point to the Bible and see a separation of church and state, therefore, their beliefs in God and religion don’t influence (or rather, shouldn’t influence) how they would carry out adjudicating the law. The problem is that most people want the law adjudicated according to their beliefs, rather than adjudication in accordance with the law. This is across the board, be they atheists or Catholics or even many protestants and so forth. When every one starts putting actual stock in a separation of beliefs (which is the religion each man follows, whatever his beliefs or non beliefs are) and the law as it stands, our nation will be better for it. But your right on the no religious test, to demand one for anyone is against the constitution.

  • davidrev17

    For all of those religiously-inclined folk, who seemingly struggle with either understanding, or reconciling the conceptual foundations of applying one’s so-called “faith-based” ideas in a hostile political arena – as this applies to our contributions in a radically anti-Christian culture ruled by the elitists of Secular Humanist thought – I humbly offer a few helpful, powerfully compelling prescient scholarly works by first-rate thinkers, of whom have sorta’ “been there, and done that,” on the frontlines of this titanic worldview struggle between Theism & Naturalism, playing-out in what’s now Godless God Bless America:

    “Nihilism And The End Of Law,” Emeritus Professor of Law, Phillip E. Johnson, University of California, Berkeley.

    “Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith,” (Cambridge University Press, 2015), Philosopher/Professor, Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, Baylor University.

    See also Dr. Beckwith’s:

    “The Court of Disbelief: The Constitution’s Article VI Religious Test Prohibition and the Judiciary’s Religious Motive Analysis,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 33.2&3 (Winter and Spring 2006): 337-360.

    “Taking Theology Seriously: The Status of the Religious Beliefs of Judicial Nominees for the Federal Bench,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 20.1 (2006): 455-471.

    “Must Theology Sit in the Back of the Secular Bus?”: The Federal Courts’ View of Religion and Its Status as Knowledge,” Journal of Law & Religion 24.2 (2008-2009): 547-568.

    “The Courts, Natural Rights, and Religious Claims as Knowledge.” Santa Clara Law Review 49.2 (2009): 429-458.

    “The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America,” (1984), the late influential Christian thinker (i.e., pastor/priest), Richard John Neuhaus.

    “The ‘Naked’ University: What if Theology is Knowledge, Not Belief?” – Theology Today, (2006) 62 (4): 515-527, Professor Dr. James Stoner, LSU.

  • Jeremy L

    The thing is, there actually would be partiality with her because her conception of “God” likely agrees with all her own personal opinions. Also, nice shameless plug of your book at the end.

  • QuestionMark666

    Her statements clearly show she is unqualified to sit as a judge in our secular court system. The Constitution rules supreme in America.

    • davidrev17

      What about violating the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI Religious Prohibition Test? Your personal opinion, of which you’re attempting to IMPOSE upon this professor, and those supporting her in this society – is clearly UNconstitutional my friend! Did you read the entire article, because its author brought this inescapable issue out? I thought you BELIEVED that “the constitution rules supreme in America”??

Inspiration
Football Rivalry? Not Among Brothers and Sisters in the Lord
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us