← Back to sermon library

Whichever it is. So we finished 
the book of Leviticus, and we're taking a bit of a break before 
we get back into numbers. I had asked if anybody had any 
suggestions for topics. One suggestion came in specifically 
with reference to Christian liberty, and then there was another one 
that was submitted that had some overlap with that theme. So I 
thought we'd lean on the heavy hitters that wrote our Confession 
of Faith. in order to guide our thoughts as we tease out this 
doctrine of Christian liberty. So I'll read chapter 21 in its 
entirety, beginning in paragraph one. The liberty which Christ 
hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in 
their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath 
of God, the rigor and curse of the law, and in their being delivered 
from this present evil world. Bondage to Satan and dominion 
of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, 
the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation, as also 
in their free access to God and their yielding obedience unto 
him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing 
mind, all which were common also to believers under the law for 
the substance of them. But under the New Testament, 
the liberty of Christians is further enlarged. in their freedom 
from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church 
was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne 
of grace, and in fuller communications of the free spirit of God, than 
believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. God alone is Lord 
of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and 
commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his word 
are not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines 
or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true 
liberty of conscience. And the requiring of an implicit 
faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty 
of conscience and reason also. They who, upon pretense of Christian 
liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as 
they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel 
to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of 
Christian liberty. Which is, that being delivered 
out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without 
fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our 
lives. Amen. Well, we've probably heard 
that term, Christian liberty, and I think we usually think 
in terms of paragraph two. Basically, that we have liberty 
not to have our consciences bound by others. But properly speaking, 
Christian liberty is what we find in paragraph one. That then 
sets the stage for what we have in paragraph two, liberty of 
conscience. So there's two themes being addressed. inextricably connected, to be 
sure, the one builds off the other. So essentially, what you 
have in this chapter is the definition of Christian liberty in paragraph 
1, the protection of liberty of conscience in paragraph 2, 
and then finally, the qualification of Christian liberty in paragraph 
3. Now, it's a very important subject 
in terms of Christianity, generally speaking, but in particularly 
Protestantism. Because at the time of the Protestant 
Reformation, there was a lot of encroachments with reference 
to liberty. Not only had the civil state, 
the history of England, for instance, is all about kings and authorities 
and rulers based on religion carrying out specific acts and 
specific deeds. But as well, you have the Roman 
Catholic Church. And so this section is calculated 
to deal with both civil tyranny, or authoritarianism, as well 
as ecclesiastical tyranny, or authoritarianism. And as well, 
it's a most important doctrine for all that follows in the confession 
of faith. Just going to quote Renahan in 
his exposition of the Second London Confession. He says, the 
doctrine of Christian liberty is central to our understanding 
of the Christian life. As Calvin says it, it has a direct 
relationship to justification. As soon as we submit to human 
laws and religion, we lose our freedom in Christ. He alone has 
a right to command what he wills, and no one may add to his commands. 
We could go so far as to say that this doctrine is placed 
here to serve as the head of the next major section. In the 
way that Renahan breaks down the confession, he speaks of 
the first principles in chapters 1 to 6, and then the covenant 
in chapters 7 to 20, and here in chapters 21 to 30, we have 
the principles of Christian liberty. He says, the order is not accidental. From chapter 21 to chapter 30, 
every doctrine is affected by the theology of Christian liberty. 
Some more than others, some more overtly and directly, but nonetheless 
all are impacted. So basically, what that means 
is that this was a big deal for the Protestants at the time of 
the Reformation. It was a big deal for our forefathers 
who wrote our Confession of Faith. Remember, Baptists typically 
don't do well under state-sponsored religion. Usually Baptists are 
on the outs. Usually Baptists are disenfranchised. Usually Baptists are not treated 
well. And then when we move on through 
the confession, we'll notice that the next section deals with 
religious worship in the Sabbath day. So Christian liberty does 
not mean that we're not supposed to obey God. We're supposed to 
obey God. Christian liberty means we're 
not supposed to obey men that contravene the word of God. So 
chapter 22 emphasizes the religious significance of the Sabbath day 
and worship in general. Chapter 23 speaks of oaths and 
vows as a part of religious worship. And then in chapter 24, you have 
the civil magistrate. Again, all of these things are 
connected to this doctrine of Christian liberty. And then chapter 
25 of marriage, God governs, God has ordained and instituted 
marriage, and it's God alone who has the authority to dictate 
how marriage is carried out. It's not the civil state that 
can contravene that and change the definition from one man and 
one woman to one man and five women. or one man and one man, 
or a woman and a woman. It is not the right of the civil 
state or an ecclesiastical body to contradict or contravene the 
word of God. And of course, the church is 
governed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and so we're not subject to the 
Pope of Rome. We have that liberty. We're no 
longer under that totalitarian figure. The time of the Protestant 
Reformation sort of separated us from him. And thankfully so. And then, of course, in chapters 
28 to 30, you have an emphasis on the sacraments. And again, 
the sacraments are not up to a church to specify how they 
are to be observed. Rather, they are strictly given 
by our Lord Jesus Christ, and we are subject to Him. So we 
might just sort of bring down to its essence, with reference 
to Christian liberty and liberty of conscience, if you look at 
the beginning of paragraph two, this is the most important thing 
that we should take away. God alone is Lord of the conscience, 
and he has the absolute authority to command us. Man does not, 
insofar as he is saying something other than the word of God. So 
let's look first at the definition of Christian liberty in paragraph 
one. Notice the liberty in the New 
Covenant. You see that in that first section. 
And basically it speaks of deliverance. If you turn in your Bibles to 
the Gospel of Luke, You have a wonderful statement by the 
Baptist father, and he underscores this idea of Christian liberty. I don't think he said it specifically 
to deal with the Protestant Reformation and the battle for Christian 
liberty. But notice what we see in Luke chapter 1, specifically 
at verse 74 in Zacharias' prophecy. Well, just backing up to verse, 
yeah, let's say verse 72, "...to perform the mercy promised to 
our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the oath which 
He swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered 
from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear." 
I think that's what this first paragraph is all about. We're 
delivered from our enemies such that now we're enabled and free 
to serve God without fear. So when you look at that first 
paragraph and that first section in the New Covenant, we have 
deliverance. Notice, the liberty which Christ 
hath purchased for believers unto the gospel consists in their 
freedom from the guilt of sin. You see that? Say for instance, 
well you can turn there, Romans chapter 8. Romans chapter 8, 
two passages there underscore this freedom from the guilt of 
sin. Romans 8 verse 1, famously the Apostle Paul tells us, there 
is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, 
who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the 
Spirit. And then over in verse 33 of chapter 8, notice he says, 
who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is 
Christ who died and furthermore is also risen, who is even at 
the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. So 
we have been freed from the guilt of sin through the power of the 
blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice as we move through the 
confession, we're also free from the power of sin. It's always 
good to consider that in our salvation. Not only the penalty 
of sin is something we're freed from, but also the power of sin. So the Lord Jesus Christ and 
His work for us has freed us from that penalty of sin. The 
Spirit's work in us helps us in terms of the power of sin. 
And you see both things in the New Testament. We are freed from 
the curse of the law, Galatians chapter 3, and we now are empowered 
by the Spirit to pursue those things that are pleasing to God 
Almighty. So there's a freedom from guilt, 
there's a freedom from the power of sin, and then notice finally 
there the freedom from the punishment of sin. It goes on. So the liberty 
which Christ hath purchased for believers unto the gospel consists 
in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath 
of God, the rigor and curse of the law, and in their being delivered 
from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, dominion of 
sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, 
the victory of the grave and everlasting damnation. Now, it 
doesn't mean that there'll be no afflictions in the life of 
the Christians, life of the believer, but there'll be no evil in those 
afflictions. The psalmist was able to say, 
it is good for me that I was afflicted. Why? Because prior 
to his affliction, he had gone astray from the Lord. The Lord 
oftentimes uses affliction and difficulty in the lives of his 
people to draw them to himself. And so when it speaks of the 
evil of afflictions, we shouldn't read that in a health, wealth, 
prosperity sort of gospel way. It's not the case that there'll 
be no afflictions in the lives of God's people. That's not what 
we're freed from. Rather, we're freed from the 
evil connected to affliction that comes in terms of judgment 
or chastisement or punishment for unbelief. So then from this 
deliverance, we also have privilege, and specifically the confession 
highlights too. It goes on to say, as also in 
their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto 
Him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing 
mind. So we have this privilege of 
free access to God. We've seen that as we move through 
the book of Ephesians. In fact, you can turn to Ephesians 
chapter 2. Ephesians chapter 2, free access 
to the presence of God Almighty. Ephesians 2, specifically at 
verse 18, for through Him, Christ, we both, Jew and Gentile, have 
access by one Spirit to the Father. So that's Trinitarianism 101, 
but it shows our benefit to come to the Father through the Son 
in the Spirit. And then again in verse 22, in 
whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place 
of God in the Spirit. And then if you look specifically 
at chapter 3 at verse 19, the last petition that the Apostle 
Paul prays in that brief section is that you may be filled with 
all the fullness of God. When I preached that, I argued 
that the background was Old Covenant Temple. Remember when Solomon 
built the temple and they dedicate that temple to God, the Shekinah 
glory of the Lord falls upon the temple. So the temple was 
filled with the fullness of God. Paul is saying that the church 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they gather together on the Lord's 
Day, that he wants them to be filled with all of God's fullness. 
The way the Shekinah glory came down upon Old Covenant Solomon 
is the way that he wants that glory to come upon the people 
of God. And then turn over to the book of Hebrews, Hebrews 
chapter 10. Again, speaking of that free 
access to God that we possess in this new covenant as a result 
of justification. Hebrews 10, 19. having boldness to enter the 
holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which 
he consecrated for us through the veil that is his flesh, and 
having a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near 
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled 
from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 
Let us draw near with a true heart. This free access to God 
that the apostle speaks of is what our confession encapsulates 
here. But not only that, we have the 
rendering of a childlike obedience to God, a childlike love and 
willing mind. We have that because we're born 
again by the power of the Holy Spirit. We have that because 
we've passed from death unto life. We have that because we 
are now blessed adopted sons and daughters of our Lord Jesus 
Christ." And so the confession here highlights what that liberty 
looks like in the New Covenant, and in the latter half of that 
paragraph it deals with the Old Covenant as well. It says, "...all 
which were common also to believers under the law for the substance 
of them." Remember, believers under the law were believers 
in Jesus Christ. They were not those who are, 
you know, satisfying all of the demands of God in terms of the 
revealed law of God. They were not able to do that. 
They were not able to obey, you know, exactly and entirely and 
perpetually. They were looking at the Lord 
Jesus Christ in terms of the promises God had given and in 
terms of the types and sacrifices that they had. So this was present 
under the Old Covenant, but it wasn't by virtue of the Old Covenant. It was by virtue of the New Covenant, 
because the Old Covenant was a republication of the Covenant 
of Works. But when it goes on to say, but 
under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further 
enlarged. They're not saying life was bad 
as a believer under the Old Covenant. They're saying what the Apostle 
essentially says in Hebrews 7 and 8. The New Covenant is a better 
covenant founded on better promises that affords a better hope. And 
so what we have in the New Covenant does surpass what they had in 
the Old Covenant. And one of the blessings that 
we see specifically is in their freedom from the yoke of the 
ceremonial law. If you turn to Galatians chapter 
5, I think that's what Paul is celebrating when he says what 
he says there. if not celebrating, polemicizing. He's attacking the Judaizers 
and their attempt to get the believers to take the sign of 
circumcision and to pay careful obedience to the Jewish calendar 
in addition to belief in the Messiah for their salvation. 
So Paul says, no, you're justified by God's grace through faith 
in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's not a mixture of faith and 
works. It's not a bit of faith and a 
bit of circumcision. It's faith alone and Christ alone. 
Before we look at 5.1, look at Galatians 2.16. Knowing that 
a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith 
in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that 
we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works 
of the law. For by the works of the law no 
flesh shall be justified. And then in 221, I do not set 
aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes to the law, 
then Christ died in vain. This is, in the language of J. 
Gresham Machen, a fighting epistle. The apostle comes out of the 
gate in Galatians 1 to condemn anyone that would teach another 
way to our God. It is by grace alone, through 
faith alone, in Christ alone. It's not Christ plus circumcision, 
Christ plus the calendar, it's Christ alone. And so that's what 
causes Paul to say what he does in chapter 5 in verse 1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty 
by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again 
with a yoke of bondage. So again, I think we listen, 
or we hear that phrase, Christian liberty, and we think it has 
to do with beer. We hear Christian liberty, and 
we think it has to do with dancing. We hear Christian liberty, and 
we think it has to do with wardrobe. Now, it might a little bit later 
on, but the primary emphasis of Christian liberty is the freedom 
that we have as justified by grace through faith in Christ 
alone believers. That's what Christian liberty 
means, and that's the emphasis here. So they have freedom in 
the New Covenant from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which 
the Jewish church was subjected. We just went through the Book 
of Leviticus. Now, there's certainly moral 
law in the Book of Leviticus, but the accent in Leviticus is 
on ceremonial law. It's the approach to God in the 
Old Covenant and all that was necessary in terms of the cult 
there. There was a tabernacle. There 
was a priesthood. There was a sacrificial system. 
all those things fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Christ, and so 
therefore no longer binding upon new covenant believers." And 
it goes on to say, "...and in greater boldness of access to 
the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit 
of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake 
of." It's very important that we get that. Did ordinarily partake 
of. If you're like me and you read 
the Psalms of David, you would like a whole lot more of what 
David had in terms of corporate worship. You would like a whole 
lot more of his free access to God. But in terms of the ordinary 
day-in and day-out life of Old Covenant believers, there is 
a comparatively better situation that obtains in the New Covenant 
because Christ has come to fulfill all that the Old Testament typified 
concerning Him. So that's what Christian liberty 
is. Properly speaking, it is our 
freedom from sin and it is our deliverance to the blessed privileges 
of access to God and a childlike love and willing mind in our 
service to Him. Now that brings us then to paragraph 
two, the really controversial stuff. Paragraph two deals with, 
as I said, the liberty of conscience. This was a corollary to Christian 
liberty that was necessary so that, one, persons wouldn't say, 
well, if you believe paragraph one, then you can just go live 
any way you want. Well, the Apostle Paul had to counter that in his 
own ministry. What shall we say then? Shall 
we continue in sin that grace may abound? People are always 
going to misinterpret. And so what happens is when you 
hear the freedom and the blessedness and the liberty of paragraph 
one, there might be those libertines that come along and say, well, 
then it doesn't really matter how you live. Well, no, the corollary 
here, the addition here in paragraph two, is the protection of liberty 
of conscience. And Van Drunen, David Van Drunen, 
in a book called Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, he says, 
reformed theologians and confessions spoke of Christian liberty in 
regard to the justified individual. Again, that's going back to Calvin. 
Calvin spoke of Christian liberty in specific connection to justification 
by faith. Which makes perfect sense. I 
don't think we think that way. But if we're justified by faith, 
we have liberty and peace with God. And therefore, we are not 
bound to the recommendations or the suggestions of men. Now, 
the recommendations and suggestions aren't a bad thing. I just want 
to make that clear. Preferences aren't a bad thing. 
But what usually happens with recommendations, suggestions, 
and preferences? Well, I don't know, sometimes 
people elevate those to, thus saith the Lord. Sometimes people 
take those and because they see it as the most profitable way 
to live the Christian life, they impose that on their fellows. So back to Van Drunen. Reformed 
theologians and confessions spoke of Christian liberty in regard 
to the justified individual. who was freed in the civil kingdom 
from any obligation to do things contrary to the teachings of 
scripture, and in the spiritual kingdom from any obligation to 
do things beside the teaching of scripture. So if the civil 
state tells you to do something contrary to the Bible, you don't 
have to obey him. If an ecclesiastical authority 
tells you or commands you to do something besides the Bible, 
you are not duty-bound to God to obey him. So that's what's 
in view here. So look first at that foundational 
principle I've already shown you, or I've already read there. 
God alone is the Lord of the conscience. That's it. It's not the Pope, it's not the 
Prime Minister, it's not the President. It is rather God alone. He is the Lord of the conscience. 
And if that's our governing principle, then I think we've got our minds 
pretty well wrapped around this protection of liberty of conscience. So if God alone is Lord of the 
conscience, then what does that mean? It means we're free from 
the doctrines of men. It means that we're free from 
the tyranny of the civil state. Now, I'm not suggesting that 
when you exercise that freedom, the civil state's going to give 
you a pass. I'm not suggesting that at all, because you know 
that you might end up in jail as a result. But you have a freedom 
before God to do what God commands that cannot be contravened by 
what man commands. So that's the foundational principle. Now I want to draw out some implications. 
Notice the freedom given by God. So after that fundamental principle, 
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the 
doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary 
to his word, or not contained in it. None of this should surprise 
any of us. This is what we would expect 
with an open Bible. God has the absolute right, and 
God alone, to command us what we are to do and what we are 
to believe. Nobody has the right in terms 
of your conscience to violate it. And that's what the confession 
is highlighting. And again, this principle of 
liberty that we see here in Galatians 5.1. This isn't simply a new 
covenant principle. Remember the principle of liberty 
in the book of Leviticus in chapter 25. You had the sabbatical year 
every seventh year, and then you had the year of Jubilee. 
What was the predicate for that? Liberty, freedom. God is okay 
with you being free. In fact, God is pro-freedom, 
pro-liberty. You see that in the Exodus. You 
see that there in the celebration of Zacharias when he extols the 
goodness of the God of the covenant. He has delivered us from our 
enemies so that we might now serve Him with fear. So this 
freedom by God protects us first from the contravention of the 
Bible by civil authority. Civil authority does not have 
a right to contravene the written word of God, specifically with 
reference to preaching the gospel. You see that in Acts 4 and Acts 
5. When the authorities commanded the apostles not to preach, the 
apostles said, we must obey God rather than men. As well, the 
authority does not have the right to tell you not to meet for worship. In the book of Hebrews, in chapter 
10, if I would have continued reading, we would read in verse 
24 in chapter 10, Let us consider one another, in order to stir 
up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, 
as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so 
much the more, as you see the day approaching." Now the New 
King James capitalizes the word day there. And I think the idea 
is that it's the Day of Judgment. So as we approach the Day of 
Judgment, we're not supposed to forsake the assembling of 
ourselves together. I think a better understanding 
is the Day of Judgment in A.D. 70. In other words, these Christian, 
these Hebrew Christians are being given a letter by the Apostle 
Paul a couple of years, a few years, prior to the destruction 
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. There was a lot of pressure 
put upon Jewish Christians to leave Jesus and go back to Moses. Well, the whole book of Hebrews 
is about don't leave Jesus to go back to Moses. Jesus is superior. He's over the prophets. He's 
over the angels. He's over Joshua. He's over Moses. He is the mediator of the new 
covenant, a surety of a better covenant. And so if you understand 
it that way, and again, there's some difference in terms of interpretation, 
what is that telling you? So this day of judgment is coming 
in AD 70. What isn't the answer? Sell everything 
and run. That is the answer in Matthew 
24, as the Roman army start to descend upon the city. But at 
this particular stage, what would you be tempted to do? Well, we 
can't go to church. We got to clean our guns. We 
can't go to church. We got to go through our canned 
hams. We can't go to church. We got 
to make sure all our gear is prepped and ready to go. No. 
When the Day of Judgment is coming, that doesn't mean that you are 
not still obligated to go to the house of God to worship our 
blessed Savior. And so when it comes to this 
reality, we are not to be subject to the civil authority insofar 
as they overstep their boundaries that have been given by God. 
Secondly, the contravention of the Bible by ecclesiastical authority. Now our confession deals specifically 
here in paragraph two with this implicit faith and absolute and 
blind obedience. That has in its view Roman Catholicism. We'll look at that in just a 
moment. But the contravention of the Bible by ecclesiastical 
authority. They don't have the right to 
do that. They don't have the right to command things that 
God has not commanded. It's just that simple. And when 
it comes to this, we need to understand that this isn't something 
unique to Roman Catholicism. There is a Protestant potpourri 
as well. I don't mean potpourri, the stuff 
that smells good in your bathroom, but I mean potpourri, the guy 
with the big hat and the big stick that sits on, allegedly, 
Peter's throne in Rome. There is Protestant popery as 
well, and oftentimes it obtains in churches that don't have a 
robust confession of faith. Basically, the pastor ends up 
as the pope, or in those places where they're cultic. I mean, 
the man who commands you to drink Kool-Aid is exercising tyranny 
over you in a way that God has not ordained. So when it comes 
to the contravention of the Bible, civil authority can't do it, 
neither can ecclesiastical authority, but I want to one-up this and 
say the contravention of the Bible by fellow believers. I think this is where we usually 
sort of wage the war when it comes to Christian liberty. Well, 
you know, so-and-so does this, and I don't think it's right, 
and therefore I'm going to talk about him. Well, if it's wrong 
according to God's Word, then you are free to go to Him in 
the manner that God's Word specifies and deal with Him in a manner 
that's consistent with your confession of faith. There is this judgmental 
attitude that the people of God have. We take our suggestions, 
we take our preferences, we take our recommendations, and we give 
them the authority of thus saith the Lord. Charles Hodge, in his 
systematic theology, made this very perceptive observation. 
He says, it is a common saying that every man has a pope in 
his own bosom. That is, the disposition to lord 
it over God's heritage is almost universal. Men wish to have their 
opinions on moral questions made into laws to bind the consciences 
of their brethren. Now, if that has never been your 
experience, then this study isn't for you. But, you know, maybe 
pretend to be awake for the rest of it. But that typically happens. That happens a lot. Let me just 
read that again. The disposition to lord it over 
God's heritage is almost universal. Men wish to have their opinions 
on moral questions made into laws to bind the consciences 
of their brethren. Now, let's go to Matthew's gospel. Some work in the scriptures to 
sort of look at this. Matthew's gospel, chapter seven. 
Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 7. I think it's profitable to look 
at a few texts to sort of substantiate this proposition, that God alone 
is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines 
and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his 
word, or not contained in it. So Matthew chapter 7 is a very 
familiar passage. In fact, 7-1 is probably one 
of those passages that is often quoted, but very much misinterpreted. So notice in 7-1, judge not that 
you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, 
you will be judged. And with the measure you use, 
it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck 
in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your 
own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, let me remove the 
speck from your eye? And look, a plank is in your 
own eye. Hypocrite, first remove the plank 
from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the 
speck from your brother's eye. Do not give what is holy to the 
dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them 
under their feet and turn and tear you in pieces. So the first 
thing I wanna look at with reference to this passage is the legitimacy 
of judgment. You say, Butler, that doesn't 
seem right because Jesus says in verse 1, judge not that you 
be not judged. That seems to contradict your 
statement that this does substantiate judgment. Well, this isn't the 
only passage in the scripture, and this passage of scripture 
actually does condone judging, but notice first in this passage 
of scripture, verse six, do not give what is holy to the dogs, 
nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under 
their feet and turn and tear you in pieces. Now we know Jesus 
doesn't have an ax to grind with canines and pigs. He's talking 
about human beings there. He's talking about people. He's 
talking about people that you've made a judgment call on that 
you are no longer going to give them gospel truth because of 
the way that they treat God or they treat you. So that's a judgment 
for you to determine, hey, this person's a dog. Now, I'm not 
suggesting this is an easy determination. When do I cut someone off and 
consider them a dog or a pig? That's up to you and God, but 
the fact is that Jesus assumes that we can identify dogs and 
pigs and that we will not throw our pearls before them. Secondly, 
we are called to judge in matters of doctrinal orthodoxy. Look 
at chapter 7 and verse 15. of false prophets, who come to 
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." 
If Matthew 7.1 teaches what many think Matthew 7.1 teaches, then 
we couldn't do Matthew 7.15. We couldn't say to somebody, 
you're actually a wolf, you're not a sheep, you're a wolf and 
you're ravenous and you're out to destroy people. What happens 
when you tell a wolf that? Judge not, lest you be judged. 
See, they take the wrong interpretation of 7-1. So whatever Jesus means 
there in that section from 7-1 to 5, it doesn't mean no judgment 
ever. Thirdly, we are called to judge 
in matters of church discipline. Later in Matthew 18, the Lord 
gives specific instruction on how to deal with sinning brethren. 
If your brother sins against you, go to him. If he hears you, 
you warn your brother. If he doesn't hear, take two 
or three witnesses. If he doesn't hear them, tell it to the church. 
If he doesn't hear the church, what happens? Does he say, judge 
not lest you be judged? No, you tell him or you treat 
him like a heathen and a tax collector. You excommunicate 
him. That's a judgment, brethren. We are as well called to judge 
in matters concerning the sins and the eldership. 1 Timothy 
chapter 5. It's very clear. Do not bring 
an accusation against an elder except with two or three witnesses. 
So there is that reality that people in the church see sin 
in their elders, and they go to them. They do it in the proper 
way, but they do it. That's a judgment call. And then 
we are called, as well, to judge in civil disputes in the church, 
1 Corinthians chapter 6, verses 1 to 6, and then in society. Unless we're Anabaptists, and 
we argue that a Christian can never serve in civil government. 
But we're not Anabaptists, and we believe that Christians can 
serve in civil government. What if one of our young men 
or women rises up and they get that promotion and they become 
a judge someday? That's OK. That's righteous behavior. That's good. Well, what are they 
going to be doing in those judgments? They're going to be judging. 
And if the defendant says, judge not, lest you be judged, you're 
going to get laughed right out of the court into the prison 
cell. So what Jesus means in 7, 1 to 5 is not that there's 
no time ever for judgment. Remember, to back up a little 
bit in terms of the Sermon on the Mount, much of what Jesus 
is doing is that he's dealing with things that happen in our 
interpersonal day-to-day relationships. In fact, turn back to Matthew 
chapter 5, just to sort of show this. Specifically in verse 38, 
you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth 
for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But 
whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him 
also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, 
let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go 
one mile, go with him too. Give to him who asks you and 
from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. That's 
interpersonal relationships. That's not the obliteration of 
the civil state. That's not telling you can't 
have a big canine in your backyard to stop criminal offenders. Doesn't 
mean you take all the locks off your window. Doesn't mean you 
take all the guns out of your house. Oh, just turn the other 
cheek. Somebody comes in to rob you or to rape from you or do 
horrible things. Oh yeah, my daughter's down in 
the last room on the left. That's not what he's talking 
about. He's talking about a judgmental sort of nitpicky attitude in 
our interpersonal relationships. And that's what he's doing here 
in chapter 7 at verses 1 to 5. The command forbids a nitpicking, 
fault-finding, petty approach to our brother's shortcomings. 
And interestingly, this is what usually happens with the, you 
know, God's policemen that are out there to enforce all their 
own preferences. They get nitpicky, they're fault-finding, 
and they're petty. Ryle says in this passage, what 
our Lord means to condemn is a censorious and fault-finding 
spirit, a readiness to blame others for trifling offenses, 
or matters of indifference. Remember that phrase, matters 
of indifference. a habit of passing rash and hasty 
judgments, a disposition to magnify the errors and infirmities of 
our neighbors and make the worst of them. This is what our Lord 
forbids. It was common among the Pharisees. 
Now, matters of indifference is what we call adiaphora. And 
adiaphora simply means things indifferent. There are many things 
that the Bible commands very specifically by way of prohibition 
and then positive aspect. Do not murder, for instance. 
We're not supposed to go out and kill people. It's pretty 
clear, pretty simple. By way of implication, we're 
supposed to promote health and supposed to promote life. But 
there's a lot of things that the Bible doesn't specifically 
address. Things indifferent. And the traditional 
approach to things indifferent is that if God has not condemned 
them in his word, then it's okay to do that. In other words, if 
it's not sin, if there's not chapter and verse, if there is 
not a particular commandment that you are transgressing, God 
in his kindness and in his grace has given you liberty. That's 
with life. When it comes to worship, the 
principle is a bit different. With reference to worship, we're 
only to do what God has commanded to do. But in the matter of life, 
if God hasn't forbidden us from, say, having a beer, to be quite 
controversial here, then we're free to have a beer. We're not 
free to have 25 beers because the Bible speaks to that. It 
condemns drunkenness, but it doesn't condemn a moderate use 
of alcohol. And so what we have is adiaphora, 
things indifferent, things that God has not addressed, not because 
he doesn't have attention to detail, but because he's not 
a micromanager. As the more you learn of who 
God is, the more you'll see that the civil state is absolutely 
contrary to God. So when it comes to this, adiaphora, 
or things indifferent, they're matters not regarded as essential 
to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or 
allowed by the church. I don't like that allowed by 
the church. I pulled this definition off the internet. What is specifically, 
this I think was key though, What is specifically considered 
adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view. What is considered 
adiaphora is dependent upon the theology in view. And usually, 
it's my theology or my church's theology. And therefore, that's 
not adiaphora. You need to kowtow and hold the 
line. So basically what you have that 
Jesus is condemning is an unbiblical judgmentalism. And I know probably 
that's not the best way to do this, but it was the only way 
I could think of. You've got righteous judgment that we've 
just talked about before, then you've got this judgmentalism. 
And this judgmentalism is what oftentimes brings a breach between 
the people of God at the level of adiaphora, or things indifferent, 
things that God hasn't condemned, things that God has left up to 
the liberty of conscience. And so what typically happens 
is that believers see their preferences as God's commandments. Now, you 
can hold to your preferences. I can hold to my preferences. 
That's perfectly acceptable. That's okay. Hear me. I'm not 
condemning your preferences. I'm condemning the attitude that 
lifts preferences up to the arena of thus saith the Lord. That's 
problematic. That's when we go against God 
alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the 
doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary 
to his word or not contained in it. If God doesn't say thou 
must not, and there's not a breach in some other way, then you have 
freedom under God to do that. Renaghan says if a commandment 
requires thoughts or actions that contravene the word of God 
or extend beyond its boundaries, there is no religious obligation 
in it. That's the point. You're not 
religiously obligated to civil or ecclesiastical tyranny that 
is operating in addition to or contrary to the Word of God. 
You're just not. Again, you may get in trouble 
from the civil or the ecclesiastical authority. I mean, if you go 
to certain churches and you have a beer at the fellowship lunch, 
they're probably going to deal with you in a very severe and 
harsh way. I'm not going to lie to you. 
I'm not going to tell you everything's going to be hunky dory. But you 
do have freedom of conscience before God. Now, Paul speaks 
to having a beer in front of people that don't want you to 
do that in Romans chapter 14. It's the doctrine of the weaker 
and stronger brother. We're going to get there in just 
a moment. But we are not to unnecessarily offend. We're not supposed to 
parade our liberties in such a way that the brethren stumble. 
That's not righteous either. So a believer will sometimes 
see his preferences as God's commandments. And then the believer 
will see his brother exercising a different preference. And so 
what happens? Brother number one judges brother 
number two. And if this has never happened 
to you, praise God Almighty, I hope it never does. Another 
passage that I think is helpful in this discussion is John's 
Gospel, John chapter seven. I want to end this section, that 
clause, God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left 
it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are 
in anything contrary to his word are not contained in it, with 
the Lord's corrective to the judgmentalism of believers, and 
then the apostle's corrective to the judgmentalism of believers. The Lord's corrective is not 
spoken to believers, but the principle is certainly appropriate 
for believers. Notice in John 7, specifically 
at verse 19, did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you 
keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill me? The 
people answered and said, You have a demon. Who is seeking 
to kill you? Jesus answered and said to them, 
I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision, 
not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers, and you circumcise 
a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision 
on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses should not be broken, 
Are you angry with me because I made a man completely well 
on the Sabbath? Now here's the principle. Do 
not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. So the prohibition is do not 
judge according to appearance. In the context, the appearance 
of Sabbath breaking on the part of the Savior who healed a man 
on the Sabbath day. You just had this visceral reaction. People don't usually do that. 
They don't heal people on the Sabbath day. Ergo, he must be 
in sin. He's transgressing the commandment 
of God. He's breaking the commandment of God. And so the principle, 
do not judge according to appearance. One of the identifiers of Messiah 
or descriptors of Messiah in the prophet Isaiah is that he 
would be blind. And so there was a Jewish expectation 
of a blind savior. The idea was blind in judgment, 
blind in justice. He doesn't judge with partiality. He doesn't judge based on your 
economic status. He doesn't judge based on whether 
you're rich or you're poor. He judges like Lady Justice with 
a blindfold on. It's all about the facts. And 
when the facts are in, and the facts are adjudicated, and the 
facts are then processed, then the judgment can be rendered. So many passages in the Old Testament, 
Exodus 23, 1 to 3 in verse 6, Leviticus 19, 15, Deuteronomy 
1, 17, 10, 17, 16, 19. This is a judging according to 
appearance. Jesus condemns that. Again, take 
our specific situation. You see brother so-and-so doing 
something and you immediately conclude that brother so-and-so 
is in sin. Well, you shouldn't immediately conclude that unless 
you've got good reason and validation in the scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments to confirm that brother so-and-so is in 
sin. How many times have we condemned somebody in sin and they haven't 
been in sin? How many times have we been rash 
in our judgment and somebody's not guilty? So we need to be 
careful that we don't judge according to appearance. We don't just 
look at the surface level situation. Solomon speaks to this in Proverbs 
18. He says, the first to plead his 
cause seems right. until his neighbor comes and 
examines him. You hear the first side of the story, man, that 
guy's guilty. And then the guilty guy comes along, wait a minute, 
wait a minute, wait a minute. I was in Ottawa on the night 
of the robbery in Chilliwack. It couldn't have been me. I got 
an alibi. But, but, but, no, no, no buts. You got to judge 
with righteous judgment. So the prohibition, do not judge 
according to appearance. Then the positive aspect, but 
judge with righteous judgment. Jesus assumes that we're going 
to judge and even commands that we do so. But our judgment must 
be regulated by the word of God. So back to the statement. and 
hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which 
are in anything contrary to his word are not contained in it." 
If we are going to condemn a brother or a sister for sin, or if we're 
gonna look down our noses on a brother or sister because they 
don't do it the way we do it, we better have chapter and verse 
to substantiate and corroborate that, or else we've overstepped 
because God alone is the Lord of the conscience. And if that 
person is willing to stand before Jesus Christ and give an account 
for the deeds that they have done, You're not the boss of 
them. And that's the emphasis in the 
passage. So with reference to this, the 
person guilty of this particular offense judges according to their 
own whims, their own preferences, their own prejudices, and not 
according to biblical law. They do what James condemns in 
James 2, 12 and 13. So speak and so do, as those 
who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without 
mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over 
judgment. So the Lord corrects this censorious 
spirit by highlighting that you're not supposed to judge according 
to appearance, but you're supposed to judge with righteous judgment. 
What's the standard for righteous judgment? The word of God. Those 
things that are in the word of God, contained in it. And then 
the apostles corrective is in Romans 14. Romans 14. There's a lot there, we'll just 
summarize a few key points. Other places that speak to liberty 
is 1 Corinthians chapters 8 to 10 with reference to meat offered 
up to idols and so on. But here specifically in Romans 
14, again, the context in verses 1 to 13 is liberty, adiaphora, 
those things that shouldn't be escalated to the point where 
we've got a big problem between weaker brethren and stronger 
brethren. Notice in verse 1, receive one 
who is weak in faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. So the context specifically is 
about eating meats in verses 2 and 3, likely a reference to 
Jewish food laws. Not likely filet mignon or pork 
steak or anything like that. It's things that were associated 
with the Old Covenant cult. in terms of sacrificial meat. 
I think that's what's happening in 1 Corinthians as well, at 
least in a few places. So the specific issue here is 
food laws and then the observance of the Jewish calendar in verses 
5 and 6. Remember, that's what sort of 
identified the old covenant people of God. We've seen that in our 
studies in the book of Leviticus, the holiness code. What separated 
them from the pagans or the heathen around them? It was these sorts 
of things, what they ate, how they worshipped, when they worshipped, 
all those things put them apart as a holy nation, a different 
people, a sanctified people. And so the Apostle says in this 
New Covenant era, it's not about meats, because that's no longer 
in play, and it's not about the calendar, that's no longer in 
play either. So what we have here is a dispute 
over weaker brethren and over stronger brethren. And notice, 
in this context, the weaker brother is the one who won't eat the 
meat. The stronger brother is the one who will eat the meat. 
But notice the tendency that both groups have to sin against 
God. Both groups have the tendency 
to sin against God. Notice in verse two, for one 
believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only 
vegetables. Let not him who eats despise 
him who does not eat. So what's that mean? You don't 
eat like I do. You don't see your freedom in 
Jesus like I do. You're a loser. You're a nothing. You haven't come to embrace that 
blessed freedom that you have in Jesus. Paul says, don't do 
that. You're not supposed to parade 
your liberty in such a way that you despise a brother for whom 
Jesus died. He's weaker. He's not an unbeliever. He's not an apostate. He's not 
a reprobate. Now, I would say that it's the 
goal to get the weaker to the stronger level. I think that's 
always helpful. Weaker brethren should want to 
get stronger and have their consciences informed by the word of God so 
they're not scrupling over things that needn't be scrupled over. 
So if the stronger brother has the tendency to despise the weaker, 
what do you think the weaker brother's tendency is with reference 
to the stronger? Well, he says that in 3B, let 
not him who does not eat judge him who eats. How dare you eat 
that? That's atrocious. There is that tendency to judge. 
There is that tendency to condemn. There is that tendency to say, 
oh, I don't think that's liberty, but rather I think that's an 
abuse, and I think that's wrong, and I think that's bad. Notice 
how Paul deals with that. He says, for God has received 
him. Both groups, the weaker brother, 
the stronger brother. So stronger brothers, don't despise 
the weaker brother. Weaker brother, don't judge the 
stronger brother. Why? God has received him. And then he says, who are you 
to judge another servant? To his own master he stands or 
falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, 
for God is able to make him stand. You see the principle there? 
Again, we're not talking about adultery. We're not talking about 
murder. We're not talking transgression or lack of conformity unto the 
Ten Commandments. We're talking about things in 
different. In a New Covenant situation, adiaphora includes 
things sacrificed in the Old Covenant, which was at one point 
stipulated only for priestly consumption or associated with 
a particular sacrifice. That's not the way it is in the 
New Covenant. In fact, Paul goes so far in 1 Corinthians chapters 
8 to 10 to say that it's okay to eat meat if you bought it 
in a market where it had been previously used in sacrifice 
to a pagan god, to an idol. You know how he deals with that? 
Don't ask questions for your own conscience' sake. In other 
words, when you sit down at the table, don't say, where'd you 
get this? Was this meat that was previously used in pagan 
sacrifice? If you don't want the answer, 
don't ask the question, is essentially what Paul is saying. And then 
the final principle that we see there in verses 12 and 13, so 
then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore, 
let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, 
not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's 
way. Again, Paul makes that very clear 
in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 to 10. He says, if eating meat as 
a strong brother makes my weaker brother offended, then I will 
gladly give up meat. In other words, he's not going 
to parade his liberty around in front of his weaker brother. 
He's not going to celebrate it. Hey, come on over. We're going 
to have beers and meat that was offered up to idols. I want you 
to participate in it. No, he doesn't do that. He's 
willing to forego that for the sake of the weaker brother. So 
this idea of liberty issues is not something unique to our own 
era, but it was happening in that time as well. But I just 
wanna end here quickly. We're not gonna get to paragraph 
three. But look at what we see here in paragraph two. So after 
that statement that we just teased out, so that to believe such 
doctrines or obey such commands out of conscience. Where do they 
put the onus? There's a responsibility for 
the professing people of God to know God's truth. There is 
a responsibility on the part of the professing people of God 
to know God's truth. They are to obey His commandments, 
Spirit-filled, grace-empowered obedience to that law, not for 
justification, but because we've been justified. But that believer 
as well must be able to see or spot an encroachment or a contravention 
of the Word of God. And when he does that, he is 
duty-bound not to subject himself to that. So that to believe such 
doctrines or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray 
true liberty of conscience. We rightly condemn false teachers, 
and we should. We rightly condemn false preachers, 
and, well, we should. But as well, the Bible seems 
to imagine or envision that there is a responsibility that believers 
have with reference to understanding the truth. If the guy is an authoritarian 
preacher, and he's commanding you things contrary to the word 
of God, Not only are you not supposed to be subject to that, 
one wonders why you continue to sit under that. Because there 
is a responsibility. So that to believe such doctrines 
or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true 
liberty of conscience. If you go with something that 
is beside the word or contrary to the word, you're actually 
betraying liberty of conscience. And this idea of requiring an 
implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy 
liberty of conscience and reason also, is calculated specifically 
against Roman Catholicism. I guess we can deal with paragraph 
three. Paragraph three says, don't hide behind Christian liberty 
to sin. Don't hide behind Christian liberty to sin. Christian liberty 
does not mean the freedom to sin. Christian liberty means 
the freedom to serve God responsibly and acceptably and earnestly 
and wholeheartedly. So it is not a cloak for you 
to engage in sin. Say, well, that's my liberty. 
You're always under the commandments of God. You're always regulated 
by the Word of God. The emphasis is upon the civil 
state or the ecclesiastical authority that commands you something beside 
or contrary to the Word of God. Let us pray. Our Father in heaven, 
we thank you for this wonderful summary of Christian doctrine 
that we find here in chapter 21. We know that this certainly 
doesn't answer all the questions or solve every problem, but help 
us to reflect upon these things, help us to search our own hearts 
and root out that poke that is in our bosom. and help us to 
be faithful brothers and sisters, not nitpicking and fault-finding 
and censorious, but give us grace, Lord God, to live in a manner 
that is consistent with what we've seen tonight. We pray for 
your blessing upon our church. We pray that you would cause 
us all to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond 
of peace and to always make the main thing the main thing, even 
Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And we pray in His most blessed 
name, amen. Well, if anybody has any questions 
or comments, we can save that for after Africa. I'm just kidding. Well, I think you first embrace 
that there's going to be different opinions, because I think that 
is a wise way. When it comes to the express 
or explicit statements of scripture, nobody should have any difference 
of opinion on you shall not murder. But when it comes to things necessarily 
contained, that gives the concrete you know, emphasis to whatever 
is justly deduced by good and necessary consequence is binding, 
is the Word of God. But interpreters of Scripture 
are not infallible, and sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes 
their past or their experiences or things they have seen affect 
their exegesis of texts. I think that's one of the emphases 
there in John 7. Do not judge according to appearance. In other words, it's going to 
take work. It's going to take effort. But 
understanding that sometimes good men do disagree on things, 
I think is a very helpful thing. Because I think when you recognize 
that, you're already in a position to not then lord things over 
the consciences of others. So if you get what you asked 
in terms of an answer, I think that was the answer. I think 
having that understanding that we're not infallible interpreters 
of scripture, that good men have disagreed on things, but ultimately 
it is the Word of God upon which we stand, and those things that 
are explicitly stated, easier, implicitly stated, easy-ish, 
but the further you get away, and that's usually where the 
battles come. I've always thought, you know, 
in terms of applying scripture, you know, if you read Puritans, 
you can read, you know, the Doctrine of the Sermon, and, you know, 
you've got application, application, application, application, application, 
you know, yeah, it kinda does, connect in some way. I've always 
thought in preaching, you throw a pebble or a rock in the pond, 
you get those circles that kind of move outward. The further 
out those circles go, the more difficult it is to root it or 
keep it rooted in the text. So explicit, we shouldn't have 
a problem. Implicit, we really shouldn't, 
especially in our position, 21st century creeds, confessions, 
commentaries and theologies that would fill this building a thousand 
times over. At this point, we should be, 
okay, it's probably okay to have a beer with your pizza, but for 
whatever reason, that's still a tough one. So I think just 
recognizing that, yeah, we can have disagreements and we shouldn't 
condemn each other to the pit of hell over it. When you search 
the scriptures, there's not a lot of condemnation of the pit of 
hell in sanctification matters. There is in justification matters, 
but compare the opening of 1 Corinthians and Galatians. 1 Corinthians, 
Paul speaks glowingly of the church at Corinth, glowingly, 
wonderfully, positively. But when you read through Corinthians, 
what did they have going on there? It's reported among you that 
somebody had his father's wife, He has to prohibit them from 
temple prostitution, the whole liberty thing, the abuse at the 
supper. You know, there's a lot going 
on there, sanctification-wise. Galatians, right out of the chute, 
I marvel that you're so quickly turning away from Him who called 
you in the grace of God. That, I'm not saying go ahead 
and sin. I'm not saying, you know, sanctification 
doesn't matter. But I am saying that when it 
comes to the condemnation that you see in scripture, it's usually 
at the level of those sort of primary doctrines that mean salvation 
or not. So when we get, you know, sort 
of at the bottom here, you know, you got the top, you know, justification, 
Trinity, Christology, when you get down to eschatology, we really 
shouldn't be condemning each other to hell. When it comes 
to, you know, what we eat or what we wear, and again, we need 
to keep that in mind as well, because the Bible does present 
principles of modesty in terms of dress, so there are things 
that, you know, good exegesis will deal with. I was going to 
say, in Baptist symbolics, we have a strong doctrine of solidarity 
as well. So we have to bear this in mind 
that our tradition has historically emphasized an individualist streak 
in terms of soteriology, because we don't believe in covenant 
children, and therefore, in sanctification, because we want everyone to be 
persuaded in his own mind. And so there's supposed to be 
a peaceful disposition before anything else can be debated, 
such as the beer and pizza or whatever. So, that's like the 
premise. Now, in terms of arbitrariness, 
I'm finding in certain theological discussions, there's an arbitrary 
limit as to how much implicit argument is permitted. And I think that's a problem 
to where, just because there's like five steps in my argument, 
maybe there's two steps in yours, that doesn't automatically mean 
I'm wrong. It just means I've done more homework to go from 
A to E instead of A to B. So, that would be the argument 
I'm looking for in that. And then, lastly, in Renneken's 
chapter, It talks a bit about how there's a risk of people 
destroying God's authority, that there's a theology proper issue 
here. We're trying to protect the godhood 
of God here. And that Rome had, quote, dethroned 
God by inserting their clumsy fingers into conscience issues. 
Well, it says in the Bible, it's OK to drink wine. One glass of 
wine, fine. But you're drinking wine. Yeah. 
Margarita. Margarita and alcohol. It says 
in the Bible, drink one wine to help your soul.