A Theological & Biblical Analysis of The Four Agreements

Introduction: Two Covenants, Two Paths To Freedom

Don Miguel Ruiz's The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom has achieved remarkable cultural penetration since its publication in 1997. Endorsed by prominent media figures such as Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra, the book has become a perennial bestseller, promising to transform lives through a "powerful code of conduct". This code, as Ruiz explicitly states, is "based on ancient Toltec wisdom," a spiritual tradition of the indigenous peoples of Southern Mexico. Ruiz, identifying as a nagual (shaman) from the Eagle Knight lineage, presents these agreements as a path to "personal freedom, true happiness, and love" by revealing the source of self-limiting beliefs that create needless suffering.

At the heart of Ruiz's philosophy is a specific diagnosis of the human condition, framed by a distinct metaphorical system. The primary problem, he posits, is "domestication". This is a process, beginning in childhood, where individuals form "agreements" with the outside world, parents, school, religion based on a system of reward and punishment. This domestication creates what Ruiz calls a "Book of Law" within the mind, an internal set of rules enforced by a relentless "inner judge". This judge holds us to an impossible "image of perfection," leading to a state of self-judgment and fear. Consequently, humanity lives in a collective "dream" (the mitote), where individual perception is merely a "projection of their own reality". This state is characterized by "self-limiting beliefs that rob us of joy and create needless suffering".

The biblical worldview, as articulated in the KJV Bible, offers a starkly different diagnosis. The fundamental human problem is not a psychological state of "domestication" but a spiritual and legal state of sin. Sin is defined as the transgression of God's holy law, an act of rebellion against a sovereign Creator. As the Apostle Paul writes, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. This condition is not merely a set of bad beliefs; it results in spiritual death—a state of separation from God with a just penalty: "For the wages of sin is death" Romans 6:23. The Bible also speaks of a "Book of Law," but it is not a mere internal construct. The Law of Moses is an external, objective, and divine standard given by God. Its primary purpose, from a New Testament perspective, is not to provide a path to self-perfection but to reveal the depth of human sinfulness: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20. It acts as a "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" Galatians 3:24.

While The Four Agreements presents behavioral maxims that often appear to resonate with Christian ethics, they are rooted in an anthropocentric, self-salvific worldview that is fundamentally antithetical to the theocentric, grace-based gospel of Jesus Christ. The "freedom" offered by Ruiz is liberation from self-imposed psychological limitations, achieved through personal effort. In contrast, the freedom offered by the Bible is liberation from the eternal penalty and enslaving power of sin, accomplished not by human effort but through the substitutionary atonement of Christ and received by faith alone. Let analyze each of the Four Agreements through a biblical lens, demonstrating that despite superficial similarities, their foundational principles, motivations, and ultimate goals represent two irreconcilable covenants and two divergent paths.

Part I: The First Agreement – Be Impeccable With Your Word

Ruiz's Precept Explained

The first and, according to Ruiz, most important agreement is to "Be Impeccable with Your Word." The tenets of this agreement are to "Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the Word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your Word in the direction of truth and love". Ruiz imbues the human word with profound creative power, stating, "Your word is your power to create the events in your life". This power can manifest as a force for good or for destruction.

The linchpin of this agreement is Ruiz's specific definition of the term "impeccable." He explains that "impeccable means 'without sin'". However, he immediately reframes this theological concept into a psychological one. The sin in question is not an offense against God but an offense against oneself. The goal is to "use your word without sin against yourself," which means to stop engaging in self-judgment and self-blame. This establishes a self-referential moral framework where the primary ethical duty is to the self.

Biblical Parallels: The Sanctity of Speech

On the surface, this agreement finds many echoes in Scripture, which consistently emphasizes the importance and power of words.

• The Power of the Tongue: The Bible fully affirms that words carry immense weight. Proverbs 18:21 declares, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof". The Apostle James provides an even more vivid depiction, describing the tongue as "a fire, a world of iniquity" that "defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell." He concludes that it is an "unruly evil, full of deadly poison" James 3:5-8.

• The Command for Truth and Integrity: Scripture is replete with commands to speak truthfully and with integrity. Ephesians 4:25 instructs believers, "Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another". The Apostle Paul, instructing Titus, calls for "sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you" Titus 2:7-8. The book of Proverbs reinforces this, stating that "Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight" Proverbs 12:22.

• The Prohibition of Gossip and Slander: Ruiz's admonition to avoid gossip aligns perfectly with biblical law. The Mosaic Law commands, "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" Leviticus 19:16. Proverbs warns that "a whisperer separateth chief friends" Proverbs 16:28 and that "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly" Proverbs 18:8.

Theological Analysis: A Divergence of Authority & Purpose

Despite these parallels, a deeper theological analysis reveals a fundamental divergence in the authority behind the commands and the purpose for obeying them. The apparent compatibility is achieved through a subtle but total redefinition of core theological terms. Ruiz co-opts words like "impeccable," "sin," "word," and "truth," but empties them of their biblical meaning and refills them with concepts from his Toltec neoshamanic framework.

The most critical divergence is the object of sin. For Ruiz, to be "impeccable" is to be "without sin against yourself". This is a psychological concept focused on avoiding self-harm, guilt, and blame. In the biblical framework, all sin is ultimately an offense against the holy character and law of God. When King David committed adultery and murder (sins with profound human victims) his ultimate confession to God was, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight" Psalm 51:4. This reorientation of sin from a vertical offense against a transcendent God to a horizontal, internal misstep against the self is the foundational error from which all other incompatibilities flow. If sin is merely self-inflicted, its remedy can be self-administered by changing one's internal "agreements," which entirely negates the biblical doctrines of atonement and grace.

Furthermore, the two worldviews differ on the source of truth. Ruiz encourages using the word in the direction of "truth and love," a laudable but vague goal. The Bible defines truth not as an abstract ideal but as a person: Jesus Christ. Jesus declared, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6,) Moreover, the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the eternal "Word" (Greek:
Logos), the divine agent of creation: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made by him" (John 1:1, John 1:3). This leads to a crucial distinction. Ruiz elevates the individual's word to a quasi-divine, creative level, a power to shape one's personal reality. The Bible posits that only God's Word is uniquely creative. Human speech, by contrast, is primarily declarative of what is already in the heart, as Jesus taught: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" Matthew 12:34. Therefore, to be truly "impeccable with your word" from a biblical standpoint is to have a regenerated heart that aligns one's speech with the character and revelation of Jesus Christ, the ultimate Word and Truth.

Finally, the motivation for pure speech differs. In Ruiz's system, the goal is to avoid self-judgment and create a better personal reality. The biblical motivation is twofold: to edify other believers and to glorify God.
Ephesians 4:29 commands, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers". The ultimate purpose is not personal peace but God's honor.

Part II: The Second Agreement – Don't Take Anything Personally

Ruiz's Precept Explained

The second agreement, "Don't Take Anything Personally," builds directly on the first. Its core tenets are: "Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering". The explicit goal is to cultivate an emotional and psychological "immunity" to the words and actions of other people. This is framed as a defensive posture to shield the self from pain. Each person is seen as living in a self-contained reality or "dream," and their actions are merely projections from that dream, having little objective connection to the recipient.

Biblical Parallels: Freedom From The Fear of Man

This precept finds a superficial parallel in the Bible's extensive warnings against living for human approval.

• Seeking God's Approval, Not Man's: Scripture consistently calls believers to prioritize God's opinion over human opinion. Proverbs 29:25 powerfully states, "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe". This sentiment is echoed forcefully by the Apostle Paul, who asks rhetorically, "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" Galatians 1:10.

• Enduring Insults for Christ's Sake: Jesus explicitly prepared His followers to receive insults and persecution. However, He frames this not as something to become immune to, but as a paradoxical source of blessing and joy. "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven" Matthew 5:11-12. The response is not immunity, but joyful endurance rooted in a heavenly hope.

Theological Analysis: Radical Individualism Versus Covenantal Community

The second agreement's solution of "immunity" promotes a radical individualism that is fundamentally at odds with the biblical concept of a covenant community. The Christian faith is not a solitary journey but is lived out within the Body of Christ. Believers are described as being "members one of another" Romans 12:5. This reality demands profound interdependence, not immunity. The command is to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep" Romans 12:15 and to "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" Galatians 6:2. One cannot simultaneously be "immune" to the actions of others and weep with them in their sorrow or carry their burdens.

This leads to a clash in how one responds to negative actions. Ruiz prescribes emotional detachment as a form of self-protection. The Bible prescribes active, sacrificial love as a form of self-giving witness. Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount is the antithesis of immunity: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" Matthew 5:44. This is not a defensive act to preserve personal peace but an offensive act of grace that imitates the character of God the Father.

Furthermore, the premise that "nothing others do is because of you" is a dangerous half-truth that erodes the concept of personal responsibility. While it is true that people are responsible for their own sinful reactions, the Bible clearly teaches that our actions can and do cause others to stumble. Paul warns believers to "judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way" Romans 14:13.The entire framework of church discipline in Matthew 18 is predicated on the idea that believers' actions directly and personally affect one another and that there is a shared responsibility for the holiness of the community.

This agreement's philosophy misdiagnoses the nature of suffering. By labeling all emotional pain caused by others as "needless suffering," Ruiz's system eliminates the category of redemptive suffering. The New Testament, however, presents a robust theology where suffering can be purposeful. It produces "perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope" Romans 5:3-4. Suffering for Christ is the path to being glorified with him Romans 8:17. Paul even goes so far as to "take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake" 2 Corinthians 12:10. Ruiz's philosophy encourages the avoidance of the very circumstances that the Bible frames as opportunities for profound spiritual growth, witness, and communion with Christ.

Part III: The Third Agreement – Don't Make Assumptions

Ruiz's Precept Explained

The third agreement, "Don't Make Assumptions," is perhaps the most pragmatically straightforward. The core instruction is to "Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama". Ruiz argues that a primary source of conflict is the human tendency to make assumptions about what others are thinking or feeling, to believe those assumptions are true, and then to react to and defend those assumptions rather than engaging with reality. The solution is clear communication, which he claims has the power to "completely transform your life".

Biblical Parallels: The Pursuit of Wisdom & Understanding

This advice resonates strongly with the Bible's emphasis on wisdom, understanding, and careful speech.

• Warnings Against Hasty Judgment: The Bible condemns making judgments from a position of ignorance or hypocrisy. Jesus' famous injunction, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matthew 7:1, is a direct command against the kind of proud, assumption-based criticism that Ruiz describes.

• The Value of Seeking Understanding: The wisdom literature of the Old Testament, particularly the book of Proverbs, is a sustained argument for seeking understanding over foolishly relying on one's own perceptions. "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding" Proverbs 4:7. The contrast is drawn sharply: a wise person seeks knowledge, but "Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions" Proverbs 18:2.

• The Goal of Clear Communication: The New Testament encourages believers to communicate in a way that is truthful, clear, and beneficial to others. As previously noted, Paul commands believers to put away falsehood and "speak every man truth with his neighbour" Ephesians 4:25. He further advises that a believer's conversation should "be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man" Colossians 4:6.

Theological Analysis: A Superficial Diagnosis

While the behavioral advice is sound, the third agreement's underlying diagnosis of the problem is superficial from a biblical perspective. It effectively secularizes a deeply spiritual issue. Ruiz identifies the problem as a lack of courage or a deficit in communication skills. The Bible diagnoses the problem at a much deeper level: the human heart. Wrongful assumptions, slander, and hasty judgments are not primarily communication errors; they are symptoms of a heart that is corrupted by pride, selfishness, and deceit. The prophet Jeremiah declares, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9. Jesus taught that we make harsh assumptions about the "mote" in our brother's eye because we are blinded by the "beam" of sin in our own Matthew 7:3.

Therefore, the solution cannot merely be better communication techniques. The solution must be a new heart, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, as promised in Ezekiel 36:26: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." By treating the symptom (poor communication) as the disease itself, Ruiz offers a path to a more peaceful life that bypasses the need for repentance, humility, and divine intervention.

Furthermore, the stated goal of this agreement is primarily negative: to "avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama". While peace is a worthy goal, the biblical purpose for clear and truthful communication is primarily positive: to "minister grace unto the hearers" Ephesians 4:29 and to build one another up in Christ. This positive duty sometimes requires engaging in communication that is difficult and may, in the short term, create the very "drama" Ruiz seeks to avoid. The biblical process for confronting a sinning brother, outlined in Matthew 18:15-17, is a prime example. It involves direct one-on-one confrontation, bringing witnesses, and potentially involving the entire church. This process is inherently risky and can cause sadness and conflict. A strict adherence to Ruiz's agreement, prioritizing the avoidance of drama, could lead a person to shirk this biblical responsibility. This creates a conflict of duties: the duty to one's own emotional comfort versus the duty to the spiritual health of the church and the restoration of a fellow believer. Ruiz's system consistently prioritizes the self, while the biblical system prioritizes the glory of God and the purity of His church.

Part IV: The Fourth Agreement – Always Do Your Best

Ruiz's Precept Explained

The final agreement, "Always Do Your Best," functions as the practical engine of Ruiz's system and the primary defense against the "inner judge." The precept is explained as follows: "Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret".

This agreement is characterized by two key features. First, it employs a fluctuating, relative standard. One's "best" is not an objective, perfect benchmark but is contingent upon one's physical and emotional state. Second, its primary purpose is therapeutic: to provide a mechanism for self-acceptance and self-forgiveness. If an individual can honestly tell themselves they have done their "best" in any given situation, they have a ready-made defense against the internal accusations of guilt, shame, and regret.

Biblical Parallels: The Call to Diligence & Excellence

This agreement appears to align with the biblical call for believers to live with diligence and to work heartily.

• Working with All One's Might: The Bible consistently condemns sloth and commends diligence. The book of Ecclesiastes advises, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might" Ecclesiastes 9:10.The book of Proverbs is filled with such admonitions, promising that "the hand of the diligent maketh rich" and "shall bear rule" Proverbs 10:4, Proverbs 12:24.

• Working for God's Glory: The crucial biblical distinction, however, lies in the motivation and object of this diligent work. The ultimate purpose is not self-acceptance but the glory of God. The Apostle Paul provides the definitive standard: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" 1 Corinthians 10:31. His instruction to the Colossians is even more explicit: "And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men" Colossians 3:23. Excellence is pursued not to satisfy an inner judge, but to honor an outer Lord.

Theological Analysis: Justification By Works Versus Justification By Faith

The fourth agreement, more than any other, lays bare the fundamental conflict between Ruiz's philosophy and the Christian gospel. It presents a clear, albeit subtle, alternative doctrine of salvation (soteriology). In Ruiz's system, acceptance and peace are achieved through performance: if you "simply do your best," you will "avoid self-judgment" and regret. This is a system of justification by works.

The cornerstone of the Protestant Christian faith, however, is the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, entirely apart from works. Ephesians 2:8-9 states unequivocally, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." A Christian's acceptance before God is not contingent upon their "best" effort but is grounded entirely in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. His perfect righteousness is credited, or imputed, to the believer by faith.

This highlights the problem of the standard. While Ruiz's standard of "best" is flexible and self-assessed, the biblical standard of God's moral law is perfect, holy, and inflexible. As James writes, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" James 2:10. From this divine perspective, even our very "best" efforts are tainted by sin and "come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. The prophet Isaiah confesses that, before a holy God, all our "righteousnesses are as filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6. Therefore, the self-assurance that "I did my best" provides no valid defense before the judgment seat of God.

Finally, this agreement promotes a reliance on one's own strength, whereas the Bible teaches that true spiritual power is paradoxically found in the recognition of one's weakness. When the Apostle Paul pleaded with God to remove a "thorn in the flesh," the Lord's response was, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." This revelation caused Paul to declare, "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me" 2 Corinthians 12:9. This is the polar opposite of relying on one's "best" performance to achieve peace. The Christian finds peace not in their own effort, but in resting in Christ's all-sufficient grace and power, which is most evident when human strength fails. While sounding liberating, the command to "Always do your best" can become a new and subtle form of legalism, a tyranny of self-assessment. The question, "Did I really do my best?" can become a new source of torment. The gospel of grace, in contrast, offers true rest from this performance treadmill, calling the weary to find rest not in the quality of their work, but in the perfection of Christ's finished work Matthew 11:28.

Conclusion: A Comparison of Worldviews

A thorough analysis of The Four Agreements through the lens of the Bible reveals that the two systems, despite occasional superficial similarities in ethical advice, are constructed upon mutually exclusive foundations. They represent two distinct and rival gospels. At every critical theological point—the nature of God, the condition of humanity, the definition of sin, the path to salvation, and the ultimate purpose of life—the Toltec wisdom of Ruiz and the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ stand in fundamental opposition.

• The Source of Authority: For Ruiz, authority is internal. The self creates its own reality and achieves freedom by making new "agreements". For the Bible, authority is external, objective, and absolute: it is the triune God and His inspired, inerrant Word.

• The Diagnosis: For Ruiz, the human problem is psychological and informational: a state of "domestication" caused by false beliefs learned from society. For the Bible, the problem is ontological and moral: a state of sin and spiritual death resulting from rebellion against God.

• The Solution: For Ruiz, the solution is a program of self-liberation through disciplined adherence to the Four Agreements—a path of justification by works. For the Bible, the solution is divine rescue through the grace of God, received by faith in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ.

• The Goal: For Ruiz, the ultimate goal is personal freedom, happiness, and the cessation of "needless suffering". For the Bible, the "chief end of man is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever" (Westminster Shorter Catechism), a principle derived from passages 1 Corinthians 10:31.

In essence, The Four Agreements proposes a gospel of self-reliance. It is a system designed to help the individual pull themselves up by their own spiritual bootstraps. The biblical gospel is a gospel of divine grace, announcing that humanity is helpless to save itself and must rely entirely on the finished work of a Savior. While a Christian might find some of the behavioral advice in Ruiz's work to be practically useful in a secular sense, to adopt the underlying philosophy is to embrace a different religion—one that ultimately has no need for the cross, the resurrection, or the grace of Jesus Christ.

Table 1: Comparative Theological Frameworks: The Four Agreements Versus Biblical Christianity

Also see: