John Charles Ryle (1816-1900) or J C Ryle, is one of my favourite authors. As a young laypreacher, I read his Expository Thoughts on the Gospels with delight. Not only does Ryle write devotionally; he sticks closely to the text and demonstrates his grasp of the meaning of the text through his wide reading. This is especially evident in the volume on the Gospel of John where there are copious notes at the end of each section. To read these series is a lesson in how one ought to read the Bible and how a preacher should go about ordering his sermon! Since then, I have read Holiness (one of the best books on Christian sanctification), Old Paths (on Bible doctrines), Knots United (on difficult doctrines), The Upper Room (devotional), Warnings to the Churches (polemical), Evangelical Leaders of the 18th Century (Church history), and Light From Old Times (Church history).
There are two characteristics of his writings which I admire. The first is his courage. He is never afraid of controversy if he feels that it is necessary to the purity of the Church and the glory of God. Neither is he afraid to engage in polemics within his own tradition, often chiding and correcting his own denomination (the Church of England), especially as the ritualism of the Roman Catholic Church seemed so much more attractive then to his fellow clergymen. Which reminds us, by the way, that recent defections from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church is nothing new. Ryle was the first Bishop of Liverpool for many years, and during his tenure more than 300 young men entered the ministry under his great influence. It thus cannot be said that he did not love his own tradition! He loved it enough to fight to preserve its adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A second characteristic I admire is his simplicity and clarity. He writes in plain, simple, understandable English. It was not something which came naturally to him as a young minister and especially as an Oxford graduate ministering in a village. He had to master the art, as he readily confesses. He had to work at it. He wrote pamphlets (or tracts) to improve on it. He has been called the greatest pamphleteer in his day! Indeed, some of his books are but collections of his pamphlets. This does not mean Ryle’s works are simplistic. He never is because he has drunk deeply from the wells of the great masters of the Scripture, especially the 16th century Reformers and the Puritans. In this respect he has helped me tremendously.
This piece by Ryle comes as a timely reminder to us today, Even though it was written more than a century ago, it addresses a very current issue, namely, the danger of according to God’s servants the honour due God alone. Indeed, the worship of men has been a perpetual temptation and sin of God’s people down through the ages. We can think of the Israelites’ clamour for a king. Then, there was Paul, Peter and Apollos (1 Cor 1:12). It was Paul Yonggi Cho three decades ago. It is now Rick Warren, or John Piper, or whoever you might admire most, or should I say, adore most. It could be your favourite lecturer in seminary or the minister of your Church! Ryle’s piece sets us back on the right track.
As the piece is far too long for a post, I have divided into three parts. This is the first of them.
There are two characteristics of his writings which I admire. The first is his courage. He is never afraid of controversy if he feels that it is necessary to the purity of the Church and the glory of God. Neither is he afraid to engage in polemics within his own tradition, often chiding and correcting his own denomination (the Church of England), especially as the ritualism of the Roman Catholic Church seemed so much more attractive then to his fellow clergymen. Which reminds us, by the way, that recent defections from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church is nothing new. Ryle was the first Bishop of Liverpool for many years, and during his tenure more than 300 young men entered the ministry under his great influence. It thus cannot be said that he did not love his own tradition! He loved it enough to fight to preserve its adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A second characteristic I admire is his simplicity and clarity. He writes in plain, simple, understandable English. It was not something which came naturally to him as a young minister and especially as an Oxford graduate ministering in a village. He had to master the art, as he readily confesses. He had to work at it. He wrote pamphlets (or tracts) to improve on it. He has been called the greatest pamphleteer in his day! Indeed, some of his books are but collections of his pamphlets. This does not mean Ryle’s works are simplistic. He never is because he has drunk deeply from the wells of the great masters of the Scripture, especially the 16th century Reformers and the Puritans. In this respect he has helped me tremendously.
This piece by Ryle comes as a timely reminder to us today, Even though it was written more than a century ago, it addresses a very current issue, namely, the danger of according to God’s servants the honour due God alone. Indeed, the worship of men has been a perpetual temptation and sin of God’s people down through the ages. We can think of the Israelites’ clamour for a king. Then, there was Paul, Peter and Apollos (1 Cor 1:12). It was Paul Yonggi Cho three decades ago. It is now Rick Warren, or John Piper, or whoever you might admire most, or should I say, adore most. It could be your favourite lecturer in seminary or the minister of your Church! Ryle’s piece sets us back on the right track.
As the piece is far too long for a post, I have divided into three parts. This is the first of them.
_____________
But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before certain Jews came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Galatians 2:11-16).
Have we ever considered what the Apostle Peter once 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. Roman Catholic writers furnish us with many stories about this. 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 withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” He does more than this: He 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 Ghost means 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 imposter, like Mahomet, 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:
1. The first lesson is that great ministers may make great mistakes.
2. The second is that to keep the truth of Christ in his Church is even more important than to keep peace.
3. The third is that there is no doctrine about which we ought to be so jealous as justification by faith without the deeds of the law.
1. 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 Lord’s private teaching, been numbered among the Lord’s 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 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 tempt God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” And yet here this very Peter, this same Apostle, plainly falls into a great mistake. The Apostle Paul tells us, “I withstood him to the face.” He tells us that “he was to be blamed.” He says, “he feared them of the circumcision.” He says of him and his companions that “they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.” He speaks of their “dissimulation.” He tells us that by this dissimulation even Barnabas, his old companion in missionary labours, “was carried away.”
What a striking fact this is. This is Simon Peter! This is the third great error of his which the Holy Ghost 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. Then we find him denying the Lord three times, and with an oath. Here again we find him endangering the leading truth of Christ’s Gospel. Surely we may say, “Lord, what is man?” The Church of Rome boasts that the Apostle Peter is her founder and first Bishop. Be it so: Grant it for a moment. Let us only remember 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. Upon her own showing the Church of Rome was founded by the most fallible 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 Ghost, 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 Pope or a Cardinal, an Archbishop or a Bishop, a Dean or an Archdeacon, a Priest or Deacon. He is still a fallible man. Neither the crown, nor the diadem, nor the anointing oil, nor the mitre, nor the imposition 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 bishops by the hundred; but, when gathered together, they are still liable to err. You may call them a council or a synod 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. Well says the twenty-first Article of the Church of England, “General councils may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.”
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 Nathan the prophet telling David to build a temple? Do we not remember Solomon, the wisest of men, allowing his wives to build their high places? Do we not remember Asa, the good king of Judah, seeking not the Lord, but the physicians? Do we not remember Jehoshaphat, 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 Judah’s 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 countenanced monkery, and nearly all sowed the seeds of many superstitions. The Reformers were honoured 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 pertinaciously the doctrine of consubstantiation. Melanchthon 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 popish doctrines for fear of death. Hooper disturbed the Church of England by over scrupulosity about vestments. The Puritans, in after times, denounced toleration as Abaddon and Apollyon. 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. All these things speak with a loud voice. They all lift up a beacon to the Church of Christ. They all say, “Cease from man;” “Call no man master;” “Call no man father upon 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 Bishop and High Priest, who is invisible. We need to be continually warned and set upon 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, for example, to the English Episcopalian to make idols of Bishop Pearson and “the Judicious Hooker.” It is a snare to the Scotch Presbyterian to pin his faith on John Knox, the Covenanters, and Dr. Chalmers. It is a snare to the Methodists in our day to worship the memory of John Wesley. It is a snare to the Independent to see no fault in any opinion of Owen and Doddridge. It is a snare to the Baptist to exaggerate the wisdom of Gill and Fuller and Robert Hall. 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 gap 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:
For one thing, let us learn not to put implicit confidence in any man’s 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 primitive 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 Church of Christ are often at variance with one another. What are the best of ministers but men – dust, ashes, and clay – men of like passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable to weaknesses and infirmities?
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.
For another thing, let us learn not to put implicit confidence in any man’s opinion, merely because of his office as a minister. Peter was one of the very chiefest 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 Bishop.” But what are bishops, priests, and deacons? What are the best of ministers but men – dust, ashes, and clay – men of like passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable to weaknesses and infirmities? What saith the Scripture, “Who is Paul and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?” (1 Corinthians 3:5). Bishops 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. Arius, that great heresiarch, was a minister. 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 saith the Lord;” but further than this we are not to go. Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men, but in the Bible.
For another thing, let us learn not to place implicit confidence in any man’s opinion, merely because of his learning. Peter was a man who had miraculous gifts and could speak with 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 Duns Scotus 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 irrefragable” doctor, “the seraphic” doctor, “the incomparable” doctor – and seemed to think that whatever these doctors said must be true!
But what is the most learned of men, if he be not taught by the Holy Ghost? 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 God’s 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 M’Cheyne’s Memoirs and Sermons have done more positive good to the souls of men than any one folio that Origen or Cyprian ever wrote. I doubt not that the one volume of Pilgrim’s 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 man’s 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, Whitefield, Berridge, or Venn. But they knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility is not to be found among learned men, but in the Bible.
For another thing, let us take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own minister’s 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 practice; 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 that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days 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 – may change, and your religion may change – may go away, and your religion may go. Oh, be not satisfied with a religion built upon man! Be not 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 work’s 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment