With an Open Mind
[EGW
editor's preface: Several years ago I found this transcribed
article of J.C. Ryle on a shareware CD-ROM I had purchased for
its Bible-study resources. In this particular article Ryle
indicates membership of the Church of England, albeit as a somewhat
dissatisfied member. Otherwise, at present I know very
little about J.C. Ryle's background other than what the transcriber
included in his prefaces. Some of what Ryle wrote indicates
to me he practiced and taught a broader definition of Christianity
than what the New Testament teaches. For example, Ryle
emphasizes clearly that we are saved by grace through faith and
not as a result of our own works (Ephesians 2:8-9), but then
he fails to point out that as Christians we are Christs
workmanship created in Him for good works (Ephesians 2:10) or
that a faith without good works is a dead, i.e. unsaving, faith
(James 2:14-26).
Bearing that mind, Ive included
this particular article in this column for three main reasons:
1) In this article, Ryle demonstrated desire and skill
to think both broadly and deeply when he studied a passage of
Scripture. 2) He was willing to present the conclusions
and questions he reached from his studies, even when they challenged
the teachings of popular denominations. 3) He urged his
audience to have an attitude I think is best described in his
own words: It is absurd to suppose that ordained
men cannot go wrong. We should follow them so far as they
teach according to the Bible, but no further. We should
believe them so long as they can say, Thus it is written,
thus says the Lord, but further than this we are not to
go. Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men, but
in the Bible. While I do disagree with some of
what J.C. Ryle believed and taught and said, even in this article,
I do agree with this statement. Likewise, I admire his
courage when he admitted, But I do believe, if false
doctrine is unmistakably preached in a local church, a Christian
who loves his soul is quite right in not going to that local
church. To hear unscriptural teaching fifty-two Sundays in every
year is a serious thing. It is a continual dropping of
slow poison into the mind. I think it almost impossible
for a man willfully to submit himself to it, and not be harmed.
I also heartily commend and encourage the rare attitudes
he asked of his readers in his conclusion
remarks.
Have you read the EGW editors note defining and caveating the
purpose of the With an Open Mind column yet? If
you havent yet, please do so at this time before continuing
with the article.]
The Fallibility
of Ministers
by J.C. Ryle
[Preface:
For more than a century, J. C.
Ryle was best known for his plain and lively writings on practical
and spiritual themes. His great aim in all his ministry,
was to encourage strong and serious Christian living. But
Ryle was not naive in his understanding of how this should be
done. He recognized that, as a pastor of the flock of God, he
had a responsibility to guard Christs sheep and to warn
them whenever he saw approaching dangers. His penetrating
comments are as wise and relevant today as they were when he
first wrote them. His sermons and other writings have been
consistently recognized, and their usefulness and impact have
continued to the present day, even in the outdated English of
the authors own day.
Why then should expositions already
so successful and of such stature and proven usefulness require
adaptation, revision, rewrite or even editing? The answer
is obvious. To increase its usefulness to todays
reader, the language in which it was originally written needs
updating.
Though his sermons have served
other generations well, just as they came from the pen of the
author in the nineteenth century, they still could be lost to
present and future generations, simply because, to them, the
language is neither readily nor fully understandable.
My goal, however, has not been
to reduce the original writing to the vernacular of our day.
It is designed primarily for you who desire to read and
study comfortably and at ease in the language of our time. Only
obviously archaic terminology and passages obscured by expressions
not totally familiar in our day have been revised. However,
neither Ryles meaning nor intent have been tampered with.
Tony
Capoccia
All Scripture
references are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
(C) 1978 by the New York Bible Society, used by permission of
Zondervan Bible Publishers.]
Warning
#6 to the Church
The
Fallibility of Ministers
by
J.
C. Ryle
(1816-1900)
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed
him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before
certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles.
But when they arrived, he began to draw back and
separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those
who belonged to the circumcision group.
The other Jews joined him in his
hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with
the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all,
You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like
a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow
Jewish customs?
We who are Jews by birth and not
Gentile sinners know that a man is not justified
by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So
we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified
by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing
the law no one will be justified.
Galatians
2:11-16
Have we ever
considered what the Apostle Peter did at Antioch? It is
a question that deserves serious consideration.
What the Apostle Peter did at Rome
we are often told, although we have hardly a jot of authentic
information about it. Legends, traditions, and fables abound
on the subject. But unhappily for these writers, Scripture
is utterly silent upon the point. There is nothing in Scripture
to show that the Apostle Peter ever was at Rome at all!
But what did the Apostle Peter
do at Antioch? This is the point to which I want to direct
attention. This is the subject from the passage from the
Epistle to the Galatians, which heads this paper. On this
point, at any rate, the Scripture speaks clearly and unmistakably.
The six verses of the passages
before us are striking on many accounts. They are striking,
if we consider the event which they describe: here is one
Apostle rebuking another! They are striking, when we consider
who the two men are: Paul, the younger, rebukes Peter the
elder! They are striking, when we remark the occasion:
this was no glaring fault, no flagrant sin, at first sight, that
Peter had committed! Yet the Apostle Paul says, I
opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
He does more than thishe reproves Peter publicly
for his error before all the Church at Antioch.
He goes even further he
writes an account of the matter, which is now read in two hundred
languages all over the world.
It is my firm conviction that
the Holy Spirit wants us to take particular notice of this passage
of Scripture. If
Christianity had been an invention of man, these things would
never have been recorded. An impostor would have hushed
up the difference between two Apostles. The Spirit of truth
has caused these verses to be written for our learning, and we
shall do well to take heed to their contents.
There are three great lessons from Antioch, which
I think we ought to learn from this passage.
I. The first
lesson is, That great ministers may make great mistakes.
II. The second
is, That to keep the truth of Christ in His Church is even
more important than to keep peace.
III. The third
is, That there is no doctrine about which we ought to be
so protective about as justification by faith without the deeds
of the law.
[back
to three great lessons from Antioch] [back
to EGW editors preface]
I. The
first great lesson we learn from Antioch is, That great
ministers may make great mistakes.
What clearer proof can we have
than that which is set before us in this place? Peter,
without doubt, was one of the greatest in the company of the
Apostles. He was an old disciple. He was a disciple who
had had peculiar advantages and privileges. He had been
a constant companion of the Lord Jesus. He had heard the
Lord preach, seen the Lord work miracles, enjoyed the benefit
of the Lords private teaching, been numbered among the
Lords intimate friends, and gone out and come in with Him
all the time He ministered upon earth. He was the Apostle
to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, and by
whose hand those keys were first used. He was the first
who opened the door of faith to the Jews, by preaching to them
on the day of Pentecost. He was the first who opened the
door of faith to the Gentiles, by going to the house of Cornelius,
and receiving him into the Church. He was the first to
rise up in the Council of the fifteenth of Acts, and say, Why
do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples
a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
And yet here this very Peter, this same Apostle, plainly
falls into a great mistake.
The Apostle Paul tells us, I
opposed him to his face. He tells us because
he was clearly in the wrong. He says he
was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
He says of him and his companions, that they were
not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. He
speaks of their hypocrisy. He tells
us that by this hypocrisy even Barnabas, his old companion in
missionary labors, was led astray. What a striking
fact this is. This is Simon Peter! This is the third
great error of his, which the Holy Spirit has thought fit to
record! Once we find him trying to keep back our Lord,
as far as he could, from the great work of the cross, and severely
rebuked Him. Then we find him denying the Lord three times,
and with an oath. Here again we find him endangering the
leading truth of Christs Gospel. Surely we may say,
Lord, what is man? Let us note, that of all
the Apostles there is not one, excepting, of course, Judas Iscariot,
of whom we have so many proofs that he was a fallible man.
(Note: It is curious to observe
the shifts to which some writers have been reduced, in order
to explain away the plain meaning of the verses which head this
paper. Some have maintained that Paul did not really rebuke
Peter, but only faked it, for show and appearance sake! Others
have maintained that it was not Peter the Apostle who was rebuked,
but another Peter, one of the seventy! Such interpretations
need no remark. They are simply absurd. The
truth is that the plain honest meaning of the verses strikes
a heavy blow at the favorite Roman Catholic doctrine of the primacy
and superiority of Peter over the rest of the Apostles.)
But it is all meant to teach us
that even the Apostles themselves, when not writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were at times liable to err.
It is meant to teach us that the best men are weak and
fallible so long as they are in the body. Unless the grace
of God holds them up, any one of them may go astray at any time.
It is very humbling, but it is very true. True Christians
are converted, justified, and sanctified. They are living
members of Christ, beloved children of God, and heirs of eternal
life. They are elect, chosen, called, and kept unto salvation.
They have the Spirit. But they are not infallible.
Will not rank and dignity confer
infallibility? No, they will not! It matters nothing
what a man is called. He may be a Czar, an Emperor, a King,
a Prince. He may be a Preacher, Minister, or Deacon. He
is still a fallible man. Neither the crown, nor the anointing
oil, nor the laying on of hands, can prevent a man making mistakes.
Will not numbers confer infallibility?
No, they will not! You may gather together princes
by the score, and ministers by the hundred; but, when gathered
together, they are still liable to err. You may call them
a council, or an assembly, or a conference, or what you please.
It matters nothing. Their conclusions are still the
conclusions of fallible men. Their collective wisdom is
still capable of making enormous mistakes.
The example of the Apostle Peter
at Antioch is one that does not stand alone. It is only
a parallel of many a case that we find written for our learning
in Holy Scripture. Do we not remember Abraham, the father
of the faithful, following the advice of Sarah, and taking Hagar
for a wife? Do we not remember Aaron, the first high priest,
listening to the children of Israel, and making a golden calf?
Do we not remember Solomon, the wisest of men, allowing
his wives to build their high places of false worship? Do
we not remember Jehosaphat, the good king, going down to help
wicked Ahab? Do we not remember Hezekiah, the good king,
receiving the ambassadors of Babylon? Do we not remember
Josiah, the last of Judahs good kings, going forth to fight
with Pharaoh? Do we not remember James and John, wanting
fire to come down from heaven? These things deserve to
be remembered. They were not written without cause. They
cry aloud, No infallibility!
And who does not see, when he
reads the history of the Church of Christ, repeated proofs that
the best of men can err? The early fathers were zealous
according to their knowledge, and ready to die for Christ. But
many of them advocated ritualism, and nearly all sowed the seeds
of many superstitions. The Reformers were honored instruments
in the hand of God for reviving the cause of truth on earth.
Yet hardly one of them can be named who did not make some
great mistake. Martin Luther held tightly to the doctrine
of consubstantiation [believing that during communion the bread
and the wine became the actual body and blood of Christ]. Melancthon
was often timid and undecided. Calvin permitted Servetus
to be burned. Cranmer recanted and fell away for a time
from his first faith. Jewell subscribed to Roman Catholic
Church doctrines for fear of death. Hooper disturbed the
Church of England by demanding the need to wear ceremonial vestments
[priestly type garments] when ministering. The Puritans,
in later times, denounced Christian liberty and freedoms as doctrines
from the pit of Hell. Wesley and Toplady, last century, abused
each other in most shameful language. Irving, in our own
day, gave way to the delusion of speaking in unknown tongues
[babble]. All these things speak with a loud voice. They
all lift up a beacon to the Church of Christ. They all
say, Do not trust man; call no man master; call no man
father [spiritually] on earth; let no man glory in man; He that
glories, let him glory in the Lord. They all cry,
No infallibility!
The lesson is one that we all
need. We are all naturally inclined to lean upon man whom
we can see, rather than upon God whom we cannot see. We
naturally love to lean upon the ministers of the visible Church,
rather than upon the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd and
High Priest, who is invisible. We need to be continually
warned and set on our guard.
I see this tendency to lean on
man everywhere. I know no branch of the Protestant Church
of Christ which does not require to be cautioned upon the point.
It is a snare to the Scottish Christians to pin their faith
on John Knox. It is a snare to the Methodists in our day
to worship the memory of John Wesley. All these are snares,
and into these snares how many fall!
We all naturally love to have
a pope of our own. We are far too ready to think, that
because some great minister or some learned man says a thing,
or because our own minister, whom we love, says a thing, it must
be right, without examining whether it is in Scripture or not.
Most men dislike the trouble of thinking for themselves.
They like following a leader. They are like sheep,
when one goes over the hill all the rest follow. Here at
Antioch even Barnabas was carried away. We can well fancy
that good man saying, An old Apostle, like Peter, surely
cannot be wrong. Following him, I cannot err.
And now let us see what practical
lessons we may learn from this part of our subject.
(a) For one thing, let us learn
not to put implicit confidence in any mans opinion, merely
because he lived many hundred years ago. Peter was a man
who lived in the time of Christ Himself, and yet he could err.
There are many who talk much in the present day about the
voice of the early Church. They would have us believe that
those who lived nearest the time of the Apostles, must of course
know more about truth than we can. There is no foundation
for any such opinion. It is a fact, that the most ancient
writers in the true Church of Christ are often at variance with
one another. It is a fact that they often changed their
own minds, and retracted their own former opinions. It
is a fact that they often wrote foolish and weak things, and
often showed great ignorance in their explanations of Scripture.
It is vain to expect to find them free from mistakes. Infallibility
is not to be found in the early fathers, but in the Bible.
(b) For another thing, let us
learn not to put implicit confidence in any mans opinion,
merely because of his office as a minister. Peter was one
of the very chief Apostles, and yet he could err.
This is a point on which men have
continually gone astray. It is the rock on which the early
Church struck. Men soon took up the saying, Do nothing
contrary to the mind of the minister. But what are
ministers, preachers, and deacons? What are the best of
ministers but mendust, ashes, and claymen of like
passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable
to weaknesses and infirmities? What does the Scripture
say? What,
after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants,
through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned
to each his task (1 Corinthians
3:5).
Ministers have often driven the
truth into the wilderness, and decreed that to be true which
was false. The greatest errors have been begun by ministers.
Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of the high-priest, made
religion to be abhorred by the children of Israel. Annas
and Caiaphas, though in the direct line of descent from Aaron,
crucified the Lord. It is absurd to suppose that ordained
men cannot go wrong. We should follow them so far as they
teach according to the Bible, but no further. We should
believe them so long as they can say, Thus it is written,
thus says the Lord, but further than this we are not to
go. Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men, but
in the Bible.[EGW
editor: emphasis mine]
(c) For another thing, let us
learn not to place implicit confidence in any mans opinion,
merely because of his learning. Peter was a man who had
miraculous gifts, and could speak with the (then valid) gift
of tongues, and yet he could err.
This is a point again on which
many go wrong. This is the rock on which men struck in
the middle ages. Men looked on Thomas Aquinas, and Peter
Lombard, and many of their companions, as almost inspired. They
gave epithets to some of them in token of their admiration. They
talked of the indisputable preacher, the angelic
minister, the incomparable pastor, and seemed to
think that whatever these ministers said must be true! But
what is the most learned of men, if he is not taught by the Holy
Spirit? What is the most learned of all divines but a mere
fallible child of Adam at his very best? Vast knowledge
of books and great ignorance of Gods truth may go side
by side. They have done so, they may do so, and they will
do so in all times. I will engage to say that the two volumes
of Robert McCheynes Memoirs and Sermons, have done more
positive good to the souls of men, than any one folio that Origen
or Cyprian ever wrote. I do not doubt that the one volume
of Pilgrims Progress, written by a man who knew hardly
any book but his Bible, and was ignorant of Greek and Latin,
will prove in the last day to have done more for the benefit
of the world, than all the works of the schoolmen put together.
Learning is a gift that ought not to be despised. It
is an evil day when books are not valued in the Church. But
it is amazing to observe how vast a mans intellectual attainments
may be, and yet how little he may know of the grace of God. I
have no doubt the Authorities of Oxford in the last century,
knew more of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, than Wesley or Whitefield.
But they knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility
is not to be found among learned men, but in the Bible.
(d) For another thing, let us
take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own
ministers opinion, however godly he may be. Peter
was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err.
Your minister may be a man of
God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his preaching and example;
but do not make a pope of him. Do not place his word side
by side with the Word of God. Do not spoil him by flattery.
Do not let him suppose he can make no mistakes. Do
not lean your whole weight on his opinion, or you may find to
your cost that he can err.
It is written of Joash, King of
Judah, that he did
what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoiada
the priest (2 Chronicles
24:2). Jehoiada died, and then died the religion of Joash.
Just so your minister may die, and then your religion may
die too. He may change, and your religion may change. He
may go away, and your religion may go.
Oh, do not be satisfied with a
religion built on man! Do not be content with saying, I
have hope, because my own minister has told me such and such
things. Seek to be able to say, I have hope,
because I find it thus and thus written in the Word of God.
If your peace is to be solid, you must go yourself to the
fountain of all truth. If your comforts are to be lasting,
you must visit the well of life yourself, and draw fresh water
for your own soul. Ministers may depart from the faith.
The visible Church may be broken up. But he who has
the Word of God written in his heart, has a foundation beneath
his feet which will never fail him. Honor your minister
as a faithful ambassador of Christ. Esteem him very highly
in love for his works sake. But never forget that
infallibility is not to be found in godly ministers, but in the
Bible.
The things I have mentioned are
worth remembering. Let us bear them in mind, and we shall
have learned one lesson from Antioch.
[back
to three great lessons from Antioch] [back
to EGW editors preface]
II.
I now pass on to the second lesson that we learn from Antioch.
That lesson is, That to keep Gospel truth in the
Church is of even greater importance than to keep peace.
I suppose no man knew better the
value of peace and unity than the Apostle Paul. He was
the Apostle who wrote to the Corinthians about love. He
was the Apostle who said, Live in harmony with one another; live in peace
with each other; the Lords servant must not quarrel; There
is one body and one Spiritjust as you were called to one
hope when you were calledone Lord, one faith, one baptism. He was the Apostle who said, I have become all things to all
men so that by all possible means I might save some (Romans 12:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:13; Philemon
3:16; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 9:22). Yet see how he
acts here! He withstands Peter to the face. He publicly
rebukes him. He runs the risk of all the consequences that
might follow. He takes the chance of everything that might
be said by the enemies of the Church at Antioch. Above
all, he writes it down for a perpetual memorial, that it never
might be forgotten, that, wherever the Gospel is preached throughout
the world, this public rebuke of an erring Apostle might be known
and read of all men.
Now, why did he do this? Because
he dreaded false doctrine; because he knew that a little leaven
leavens the whole lump, because he would teach us that we ought
to contend for the truth jealously, and to fear the loss of truth
more than the loss of peace.
Pauls example is one we
shall do well to remember in the present day. Many people
will put up with anything in religion, if they may only have
a quiet life. They have a morbid dread of what they call
controversy. They are filled with a morbid
fear of what they style, in a vague way, party spirit,
though they never define clearly what party spirit is. They
are possessed with a morbid desire to keep the peace, and make
all things smooth and pleasant, even though it be at the expense
of truth. So long as they have outward calm, smoothness,
stillness, and order, they seem content to give up everything
else. I believe they would have thought with Ahab that
Elijah was a troubler of Israel, and would have helped the princes
of Judah when they put Jeremiah in prison, to stop his mouth.
I have no doubt that many of these men of whom I speak,
would have thought that Paul at Antioch was a very imprudent
man, and that he went too far!
I believe this is all wrong. We
have no right to expect anything but the pure Gospel of Christ,
unmixed and unadulterated; the same Gospel that was taught by
the Apostles; to do good to the souls of men. I believe
that to maintain this pure truth in the Church men should be
ready to make any sacrifice, to hazard peace, to risk dissension,
and run the chance of division. They should no more tolerate
false doctrine than they would tolerate sin. They should
withstand any adding to or taking away from the simple message
of the Gospel of Christ.
For the truths sake, our
Lord Jesus Christ denounced the Pharisees, though they sat in
Moses seat, and were the appointed and authorized teachers
of men. Woe
to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites, He says, eight times over, in the twenty-third
chapter of Matthew. And who shall dare to breathe a suspicion
that our Lord was wrong?
For the truths sake, Paul
withstood and blamed Peter, though a brother. Where was
the use of unity when pure doctrine was gone? And who shall
dare to say he was wrong?
For the truths sake, Athanasius
stood out against the world to maintain the pure doctrine about
the divinity of Christ, and waged a controversy with the great
majority of the professing Church. And who shall dare to
say he was wrong?
For the truths sake, Luther
broke the unity of the Church in which he was born, denounced
the Pope and all his ways, and laid the foundation of a new teaching.
And who shall dare to say that Luther was wrong?
For the truths sake, Cranmer,
Ridley, and Latimer, the English Reformers, counseled Henry VIII
and Edward VI to separate from Rome, and to risk the consequences
of division. And who shall dare to say that they were wrong?
For the truths sake, Whitefield
and Wesley, a hundred years ago, denounced the mere barren moral
preaching of the clergy of their day, and went out into the highways
and byways to save souls, knowing well that they would be cast
out from the Churchs communion. And who shall dare
to say that they were wrong?
Yes! peace without truth
is a false peace; it is the very peace of the devil. Unity
without the Gospel is a worthless unity; it is the very unity
of hell. Let us never be ensnared by those who speak kindly
of it. Let us remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Do not suppose
that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I
did not come to bring peace, but a sword
(Matthew 10:34). Let us remember the praise He gives to
one of the Churches in Revelation, I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that
you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and
have found them false (Revelation
2:2). Let us remember the blame He casts on another, You tolerate that woman Jezebel,
who calls herself a prophetess
(Revelation 2:20). Never let us be guilty of sacrificing
any portion of truth on the altar of peace. Let us rather
be like the Jews, who, if they found any manuscript copy of the
Old Testament Scriptures incorrect in a single letter, burned
the whole copy, rather than run the risk of losing one jot or
tittle of the Word of God. Let us be content with nothing
short of the whole Gospel of Christ.
In what way are we to make practical
use of the general principles which I have just laid down? I
will give my readers one simple piece of advice. I believe
it is advice which deserves serious consideration.
I warn then every one who loves
his soul, to be very selective as to the preaching he regularly
hears, and the place of worship he regularly attends. He
who deliberately settles down under any ministry which is positively
unsound is a very unwise man. I will never hesitate to
speak my mind on this point. I know well that many think
it a shocking thing for a man to forsake his local church. I
cannot see with the eyes of such people. I draw a wide
distinction between teaching which is defective and teaching
which is thoroughly false; between teaching which errs on the
negative side and teaching which is positively unscriptural.
But I do believe, if false doctrine is unmistakably
preached in a local church, a Christian who loves his soul is
quite right in not going to that local church. To hear
unscriptural teaching fifty-two Sundays in every year is a serious
thing. It is a continual dropping of slow poison into the
mind. I think it almost impossible for a man willfully
to submit himself to it, and not be harmed. [EGW editor:
emphasis mine]
I see in the New Testament we
are plainly told to Test
everything and Hold on to the good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I see in the
Book of Proverbs that we are commanded to Stop listening to instruction,
my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge (Proverbs 19:27). If these words do
not justify a man in ceasing to worship at a church, if positively
false doctrine is preached in it, I do not know what words can.
Does any one mean to tell
us that to attend your local denominational church is absolutely
needful to a persons salvation? If there is such
a one, let him speak out, and give us his name.
Does any one mean to tell
us that going to the denominational church will save any mans
soul, if he dies unconverted and ignorant of Christ? If
there is such a one, let him speak out, and give us his name.
Does any one mean to tell
us that going to the denominational church will teach a man anything
about Christ, or conversion, or faith, or repentance, if these
subjects are hardly ever named in the denomination church, and
never properly explained? If there is such a one, let him
speak out, and give us his name.
Does any one mean to say
that a man who repents, believes in Christ, is converted and
holy, will lose his soul, because he has forsaken his denomination
and learned his religion elsewhere? If there is such a
one, let him speak out, and give us his name.
For my part I abhor such monstrous
and extravagant ideas. I do not see a speck of foundation
for them in the Word of God. I trust that the number of
those who deliberately hold them is exceedingly small.
There are many churches where
the religious teaching is little better than Roman Catholicism.
Ought the congregation of such churches to sit still, be
content, and take it quietly? They ought not. And
why? Because, like Paul, they ought to prefer truth to
peace.
There are many churches where
the religious teaching is little better than morality. The
distinctive doctrines of Christianity are never clearly proclaimed.
Plato, or Seneca, or Confucius, could have taught almost
as much. Ought the congregation in such churches to sit
still, be content, and take it quietly? They ought not.
And why? Because, like Paul, they ought to prefer
truth to peace.
I am using strong language
in dealing with this part of my subject: I know it.
I am trenching on delicate
ground: I know it.
I am handling matters which
are generally let alone, and passed over in silence: I
know it.
I say what I say from a sense
of duty to the Church of which I am a minister. I believe
the state of the times, and the position of the congregation
require plain speaking. Souls are perishing, in many churches,
in ignorance. Honest members of the church are disgusted
and perplexed. This is no time for smooth words. I
am not ignorant of those magic expressions, order, division,
schism, unity, controversy, and the like. I know
the cramping, silencing influence which they seem to exercise
on some minds. I too have considered those expressions
calmly and deliberately, and on each of them I am prepared to
speak my mind.
(a) The denominational church
is an admirable thing in theory. Let it only be well administered,
and worked by truly spiritual ministers, and it is calculated
to confer the greatest blessings on the nation. But it
is useless to expect attachment to the denomination, when the
minister of the denominational church is ignorant of the Gospel
or a lover of the world. In such a case we must never be
surprised if men forsake their denomination, and seek truth wherever
truth is to be found. If the denominational minister does
not preach the Gospel and live the Gospel, the conditions on
which he claims the attention of his congregation are virtually
violated, and his claim to be heard is at an end. It is
absurd to expect the head of a family to endanger the souls of
his children, as well as his own, for the sake of the denomination.
There is no mention of denominations in the Bible, and
we have no right to require men to live and die in ignorance,
in order that they may be able to say at last, I always
attended my local denominational church.
(b) Divisions and separations
are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause
of true Christianity. They give occasion to the enemies
of all godliness to blaspheme. But before we blame people
for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is
deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than
schism. If people separate themselves from teaching which
is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised
rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue
and not a sin. It is easy to make sneering remarks about
itching ears, and love of excitement;
but it is not so easy to convince a plain reader of the Bible
that it is his duty to hear false doctrine every Sunday, when
by a little exertion he can hear truth.
(c) Unity, quiet, and order among
professing Christians are mighty blessings. They give strength,
beauty, and efficiency to the cause of Christ. But even
gold may be bought too dear. Unity which is obtained by
the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not the
unity which pleases God. The Church of Rome boasts loudly
of a unity which does not deserve the name. It is unity
which is obtained by taking away the Bible from the people, by
gagging private judgment, by encouraging ignorance, by forbidding
men to think for themselves. Like the exterminating warriors
of old, the Catholic Church of Rome makes a solitude and calls
it peace. There is quiet and stillness enough in the grave,
but it is not the quiet of health, but of death. It was
the false prophets who cried Peace, when there was
no peace.
(d) Controversy in religion is
a hateful thing. It is hard enough to fight the devil,
the world and the flesh, without private differences in our own
camp. But there is one thing which is even worse than controversy,
and that is false doctrine tolerated, allowed, and permitted
without protest or molestation. It was controversy that
won the battle of Protestant Reformation. If the views
that some men hold were correct, it is plain we never ought to
have had any Reformation at all! For the sake of peace,
we ought to have gone on worshipping the Virgin, and bowing down
to images and relics to this very day! Away with such trifling!
There are times when controversy is not only a duty but
a benefit. Give me the mighty thunderstorm rather than
the deadly malaria. The one walks in darkness and poisons
us in silence, and we are never safe. The other frightens
and alarms for a little while. But it is soon over, and
it clears the air. It is a plain Scriptural duty to contend for the faith that was
once for all entrusted to the saints
(Jude 1:3).
I am quite aware that the things
I have said are exceedingly distasteful to many minds. I
believe many are content with teaching which is not the whole
truth, and fancy it will be all the same in the end.
I am sorry for them. I am convinced that nothing but the
whole truth is likely, as a general rule, to do good to souls.
I am satisfied that those who willfully put up with anything
short of the whole truth, will find at last that their souls
have received much damage. There are three things which
men never ought to trifle with: a little poison, a little false
doctrine, and a little sin.
I am quite aware that when a man
expresses such opinions as those I have just brought forward,
there are many ready to say, He is not faithful to the
Church. I hear such accusations unmoved. The
day of judgment will show who were the true friends of the Church
and who were not. I have learned in the last thirty-two
years that if a minister leads a quiet life, leaves alone the
unconverted part of the world, and preaches so as to offend none
and edify none, he will be called by many a good pastor.
And I have also learned that if
a man studies Scriptures, labors continually for the conversion
of souls, adheres closely to the great principals of the Reformation,
bears a faithful testimony against Romanism, and preaches powerful,
convicting sermons, he will probably be thought a firebrand and
troubler of Israel. Let men say what they will.
They are the truest friends of the Church who labor most
for the preservation of truth.
I lay these things before the
readers of this paper, and invite their serious attention to
them. I charge them never to forget that truth is of more
importance to a Church than peace. I ask them to be ready
to carry out the principles I have laid down, and to contend
zealously, if needs be, for the truth. If we do this, we
shall have learned something from Antioch.
[back
to three great lessons from Antioch] [back
to EGW editors preface]
III.
But I pass on to the third lesson from Antioch. That lesson
is, that There is no doctrine about which we ought to be
so jealous as justification by faith and not by observing the
law.
The proof of this lesson stands
out most prominently in the passage of Scripture which heads
this paper. What one article of the faith had the Apostle
Peter denied at Antioch? None. What doctrine had
he publicly preached which was false? None. What, then,
had he done? He had done this. After once keeping
company with the believing Gentiles as heirs together with Israel, members
together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in
Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:6),
he suddenly became shy of them and withdrew himself. He
seemed to think they were less holy and acceptable to God than
the circumcised Jews. He seemed to imply, that the believing
Gentiles were in a lower state than they who had kept the ceremonies
of the law of Moses. He seemed, in a word, to add something
to simple faith as needful to give man an interest in Jesus Christ.
He seemed to reply to the question, What must I do
to be saved? not merely Believe in the Lord Jesus,
but Believe in the Lord Jesus, and be circumcised, and
keep the ceremonies of the law.
Such conduct as this the Apostle
Paul would not endure for a moment. Nothing so moved him
as the idea of adding anything to the Gospel of Christ. I opposed him, he says, to his face.
He not only rebuked him, but he recorded the whole transaction
fully, when by inspiration of the Spirit he wrote the Epistle
to the Galatians.
I invite special attention to
this point. I ask men to observe the remarkable jealousy
which the Apostle Paul shows about this doctrine, and to consider
the point about which such a stir was made. Let us mark
in this passage of Scripture the immense importance of justification
by faith and not by keeping the law.
(a) This is the doctrine which
is essentially necessary to our own personal comfort. No
man on earth is a real child of God, and a saved soul, till he
sees and receives salvation by faith in Christ Jesus. No
man will ever have solid peace and true assurance, until he embraces
with all his heart the doctrine that we are counted righteous
before God because of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ [on the
cross], by faith, and not for our own works and goodness.
One reason, I believe, why so many professors in this day
are tossed to and fro, enjoy little comfort, and feel little
peace, is their ignorance on this point. They do not see
clearly justification by faith without their own good works.
(b) This is the doctrine which
the great enemy of souls hates, and labors to overthrow. He
knows that it turned the world upside down at the first beginning
of the Gospel, in the days of the Apostles. He knows that
it turned the world upside down again at the time of the Reformation.
He is therefore always tempting men to reject it. He
is always trying to seduce Churches and ministers to deny or
obscure its truth. No wonder that the Council of Trent
[Roman Catholic Council that established their present doctrines]
directed its chief attack against this doctrine, and pronounced
it accursed and heretical. No wonder that many who think
themselves learned in these days denounce the doctrine as theological
jargon, and say that all serious minded people are
justified by Christ, whether they have faith or not! The
plain truth is that the doctrine is all bitterness and poison
to unconverted hearts. It just meets the wants of the awakened
soul. But the proud unhumbled man who knows not his own
sin, and sees not his own weakness, cannot receive its truth.
(c) This is the doctrine, the
absence of which accounts for half the errors of the Roman Catholic
Church. The beginning of half the unscriptural doctrines
of Catholicism may be traced up to rejection of justification
by faith. No Catholic teacher, if he is faithful to his
Church, can say to an anxious sinner, Believe in the Lord
Jesus and you will be saved. He cannot do it without
additions and explanations, which completely destroy the good
news. He dare not give the Gospel medicine, without adding
something which destroys its effectiveness, and neutralizes its
power.
Purgatory, penance, priestly absolution
[confession], the intercession of saints, the worship of the
Virgin, and many other man-made services of Roman Catholicism,
all spring from this source. They are all rotten props
to support weary consciences. But they are rendered necessary
by the denial of justification by faith.
(d) This is the doctrine which
is absolutely essential to a ministers success among his
people. Obscurity on this point spoils all. Absence
of clear statements about justification will prevent the utmost
zeal doing good. There may be much that is pleasing and
nice in a ministers sermons, much about Christ and union
with Him, much about self-denial, much about humility, much about
love. But all this will profit little, if his trumpet gives
an uncertain sound about justification by faith without the attendant
good works.
(e) This is the doctrine which
is absolutely essential to the prosperity of a Church. No
Church is really in a healthy state, in which this doctrine is
not prominently brought forward. A denomination and/or
church may have good forms and regularly ordained ministers,
but a denomination and/or church will not see conversion of souls
going on under its pulpits, when this doctrine is not plainly
preached. Its schools may be found in every town. Its
church buildings may strike the eye all over the land. But
there will be no blessing from God on that denomination and/or
church unless justification by faith is proclaimed from its pulpits.
Sooner or later its candlestick will be taken away.
Why have the Churches of Africa
and the East fallen to their present state? Did they not
have Ministers? They had. Did they not have forms
and ceremony? They had. Did they not have councils?
They had. But they cast away the doctrine of justification
by faith. They lost sight of that mighty truth, and so
they fell.
Why did our own Church (Church
of England) do so little in the last century, and why did the
Independents and Baptists do so much more? Was it that
their system was better than ours? No. Was it that
our Church was not so well adapted to meet the wants of lost
souls? No. But their ministers preached justification
by faith, and our ministers, in too many cases, did not preach
the doctrine at all.
Why do so many English people
go to dissenting churches in the present day? Why do we
so often see a splendid Gothic local church as empty of worshipers
as a barn in July, and a little plain brick building, called
a Meeting House, filled to suffocation? Is it that people
in general have any abstract dislike of formal worship, the Prayer-book,
and the establishment? Not at all! The simple reason
is, in the vast majority of cases, that people do not like preaching
in which justification by faith is not fully proclaimed. When
they cannot hear it in the local church they will seek it elsewhere.
No doubt there are exceptions. No doubt there are
places where a long course of neglect has thoroughly disgusted
people with the Church, so that they will not even hear truth
from its ministers. But I believe, as a general rule, when
the local church is empty and the meeting-house full, it will
be found on inquiry that there is a cause.
If these things be so, the Apostle
Paul might well be jealous for the truth, and oppose Peter to
his face. He might well maintain that anything ought to
be sacrificed, rather than endanger the doctrine of justification
in the Church of Christ. He saw with a prophetical eye
coming things. He left us all an example that we should
do well to follow. Whatever we tolerate, let us never allow
any injury to be done to that blessed doctrine that we
are justified by faith without any of our own good works.
Let us always beware of any teaching
which either directly or indirectly obscures justification by
faith. All religious systems which put anything between
the heavy burdened sinner and Jesus Christ the Savior, except
simple faith, are dangerous and unscriptural. All systems
which make out faith to be anything complicated, anything but
a simple, childlike dependence, the hand which receives the souls
medicine from the physician, are unsafe and poisonous systems.
All systems which cast discredit on the simple Protestant
doctrine which broke the power of Roman Catholicism, carry about
with them a plague-spot, and are dangerous to souls.
Baptism is a sacrament ordained
by Christ Himself, and to be used with reverence and respect
by all professing Christians. When it is used rightly,
worthily and with faith, it is capable of being the instrument
of mighty blessings to the soul. But when people are taught
that all who are baptized are as a matter of course born again,
and that all baptized persons should be addressed as children
of God, I believe their souls are in great danger. Such
teaching about baptism appears to me to overthrow the doctrine
of justification by faith. They only are children of God
who have faith in Christ Jesus. And all men do not have
faith.
The Lords Supper is a sacrament
ordained by Christ Himself, and intended for the edification
and refreshment of true believers. But when people are
taught that all persons ought to come to the Lords table,
whether they have faith or not; and that all alike receive Christs
body and blood who receive the bread and wine, I believe their
souls are in great danger. Such teaching appears to me
to darken the doctrine of justification by faith. No man
eats Christs body and drinks Christs blood except
the justified man. And none are justified until they believe.
Membership in the local church
is a great privilege. But when people are taught that because
they are members of a church, they are as a matter of course
members of Christ, I believe their souls are in great danger.
Such teaching appears to me to overthrow the doctrine of
justification by faith. They only are joined to Christ
who believe. And all men do not believe.
Whenever we hear teaching which
obscures or contradicts justification by faith, we may be sure
there is a screw loose somewhere. We should watch against
such teaching, and be upon our guard. Once let a man turn
away from justification by faith alone, and he will bid a long
farewell to comfort, to peace, to lively hope, to anything like
assurance in his Christianity. An error here is decay at
the root.
[back to EGW editors
preface]
(1)
In conclusion, let me first of all ask every one who reads
this paper, to arm himself with a thorough knowledge of the written
Word of God. Unless we do this we are at the mercy of any
false teacher. (my emphasis, dgc) We shall not
see through the mistakes of an erring Peter. We shall not
be able to imitate the faithfulness of a courageous Paul. An
ignorant congregation will always be the curse of a Church. A
Bible reading congregation may save a Church from ruin. Let
us read the Bible regularly, daily, and with fervent prayer,
and become familiar with its contents. Let us receive nothing,
believe nothing, follow nothing, which is not in the Bible, nor
can be proved by the Bible. Let our rule of faith, our
touchstone of all teaching, be the written Word of God.
(2) In the next place, let me
entreat all who read this paper to be always ready to contend
for the faith of Christ, if needful. I recommend no one
to foster a controversial spirit. I want no man to be like
Goliath, going up and down, saying, Give me a man to fight
with. Always feeding upon controversy is poor work
indeed. It is like feeding upon bones. But
I do say that no love of false peace should prevent us striving
jealously against false doctrine, and seeking to promote true
doctrine wherever we possibly can. (my emphasis, dgc)
True Gospel in the pulpit, true Gospel in the books we
read, true Gospel in the friends we keep company with, let this
be our aim, and never let us be ashamed to let men see that it
is so.
(3) In the next place, let me
entreat all who read this paper to keep a jealous watch over
their own hearts in these controversial times. There is
much need of this caution. In the heat of the battle we
are apt to forget our own inner man. Victory in argument
is not always victory over the world or victory over the devil.
Let the meekness of Peter in taking a reproof, be as much
our example as the boldness of Paul in reproving. Happy
is the Christian who can call the person who rebukes him faithfully,
a dear
brother (2 Peter 3:15). (my emphasis, dgc) Let us strive to be holy
in all manner of conversation, and not least in our tempers.
Let us labor to maintain an uninterrupted communion with
the Father and with the Son, and to keep up constant habits of
private prayer and Bible-reading. Thus we shall be armed
for the battle of life, and have the sword of the Spirit well
fitted to our hand when the day of temptation comes.
(4) In the last place, let me
entreat all members of a church who know what real praying is,
to pray daily for the Church to which they belong. Let
us pray that the Holy Spirit may be poured out upon it, and that
its candlestick may not be taken away. Let us pray
for those churches in which the Gospel is now not preached, that
the darkness may pass away, and the true light shine in them.
Let us pray for those ministers who now neither know nor
preach the truth, that God may take away the veil from their
hearts, and show them a more excellent way. (my emphasis,
dgc) Nothing is impossible. The Apostle Paul was
once a persecuting Pharisee; Luther was once an unenlightened
monk; Bishop Latimer was once a bigoted Catholic; Thomas Scott
was once thoroughly opposed to evangelical truth. Nothing,
I repeat, is impossible. The Spirit can make ministers
preach that Gospel which they now labor to destroy. Let
us therefore be urgent in prayer.
I commend the matters contained
in this paper to serious attention. Let us ponder them
well in our hearts. Let us carry them out in our daily
practice. Let us do this, and we shall have learned something
from the story of Peter at Antioch.
Transcribed by Tony Capoccia of
BIBLE BULLETIN BOARD MODEM (318)-949-1456
BOX 130 1200/2400/9600/14400 DS HST
SHREVEPORT, LA 71110 |