reformed blogging.

Ryle wrote the following to an audience of Englishmen, but I think it fair to take “Englishmen” and apply to all who call themselves Christian. Though Ryle speaks specifically of the English Reformation, if there were no Reformation (whether in England or in Europe) there is no sign that anyone but the Pope would have had access to Scripture. It would be wise, therefore, for any Bible believing Christian to go back to the Reformation and resist what Ryle calls the “unprotestantizing” of our Churches.

“To the Reformation Englishmen owe an English Bible, and liberty for every man to read it. To the Reformation they owe the knowledge of the way of peace with God, and of the right of every sinner to go standing in his way. To the Reformation they owe a Scriptural standard of morality and holiness, such as our ancestors never dreamed of. For ever let us be thankful for these inestimable mercies! For ever let us grasp them firmly, and refuse to let them go! For my part, I hold that he who would rob us of these privileges, and draw us back to Pre-Reformation ignorance, superstition, and unholiness, is an enemy to England, and ought to be firmly opposed.” - J.C. Ryle, Five English Reformers, 43-44.

Here is what Ryle strives against:

“Let us not go back to ignorance, superstition, priestcraft, and immorality. Our forefathers tried Popery long ago, and threw it off with disgust and indignation. Let us not put the clock back and return to Egypt. Let us have no peace with Rome, till Rome abjures her errors and is at peace with Christ.
“Let us read our Bibles, and be armed with Scriptural arguments. A Bible-reading laity is a nation’s surest defence against error. I have no fear for English Protestantism, if the laity will only do their duty.
“Let us read history, and see what Rome did in days gone by. Read how she trampled on your country’s liberties, plundered your forefather’s pockets, and kept the whole nation ignorant and immoral. Read Foxe, Strype, and Burnet, and Soames, and Blunt. And do not forget that Rome never changes. It is her boast and glory that she is always the same. Only give her absolute power in England, and she would soon put out the eyes of our country, and make her like Samson, a degraded slave.” - 67-68.

Here are a few passages that seem to be ignored by many professing Christians. When I say ignored, I do not necessarily mean that no mention is made of these passages or that they are verbally rejected, but that understanding of the doctrines herein expounded are nowhere evident in many lives of those who think themselves Christian. How few there are who truly examine themselves to see if they are of the faith! Many, it seems, are content with a superficial examination, perhaps in fear of finding that they do not truly know Christ.

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The gospel as preached today in many Churches does not at all resemble the above quoted passage. Many shudder at such passages thinking that it is far too negative, yet these must not be ignored for they are in the Bible. Make no mistake, these are the words of Christ. Here He preaches the narrow gate as well as the narrow way that leads to life. It is important to note here, that it is not simply entering through a gate by a single action, repeating a prayer once, or having an experience at a certain point in time (though these are not negated) that one is said to find life, but it is a continual lifestyle, walking the narrow way that leads to life. Many comfort themselves thinking they have entered the narrow gate, and so can now live at ease, yet the narrow way implies difficulty that will continue until we die. If all those who have walked the wide path and are now in hell were to be polled, very many would respond that they never expected to be found in hell, that they thought themselves safe, having entered through that “narrow gate” yet they were wrong. No one thinks that God will punish them. All men seem to wrongly suppose that God will show special favors to them alone. God is faithful to His word. He is not like the threatening parent who does not carry through with punishment. Many have grown used to empty threats and thus wrongly suppose hell to be among them. Yet God will not dishonor His name for the sake of an unrepentant sinner. If you are not walking on that narrow way, taking up your cross daily, it is likely that you are on the broad path to destruction, and are self-deceived.

In the same sermon, Christ goes on to speak of two types of hearers:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against the house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Here is another message likely to make many church-goers uncomfortable, namely, that merely hearing the Word being preached is not adequate. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Here Christ shows that two things are necessary: first, hearing, but secondly acting. The two men contrasted here are both hearers of the Word. This is not about a Christian and an atheist, but rather, two people who sit in Church every Sunday listening to the sermon. Yet there are two responses to the word. One hears and acts, the other hears and does not act. It is very simple and straightforward. Those who do not act or obey what Christ has spoken, will fall, while those who obey will be founded on the rock. It is obvious from this passage then, that mere exposure to biblical preaching/teaching is not sufficient. One needs to act upon it. And those who do not act upon it are those who are now traveling the broad path that leads to destruction. This comes as no surprise, for Jesus Himself taught that there would be many who enter through it, this in no way exempts pastors, elders, deacons, praise leaders, or committed members of any church. If there is no obedience to the word, then there is no reason to believe that regeneration of the heart has taken place.

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. (Luke 9:23)

Here is a rather obvious teaching of Christ. Namely, that those who come after Him must deny themselves and take up their crosses daily. The key word here is daily, it is to be a daily activity. Now this goes against the view that once someone “prays a prayer” they have no need for anything else since they have, once and for all, denied themselves. Yet what Christ is describing is a continual self-denial. And only in this can we properly claim to follow Christ. He also says that “No one, after putting his hand on the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). Serious consideration must be given as to what Christ means when He speaks of taking up one’s cross. No doubt this entails all those very small decisions we make to be kind to others, to crucify our desires, yet it is not limited to those small things only, but applies to every aspect of our life. To die, is to become unresponsive to all those things that once held our hearts captive. And only until we do that can we follow Christ. You who cling to worldly treasures, no matter how “good” a person you may be, cannot follow Christ. Thus it was with the rich young ruler, who could not part with all his possessions. Now I am not saying that we all need to sell everything, but what I am saying is that we should have no problem with such a demand. For anyone who has truly committed to Christ has, in a very real sense, already forsaken everything.

1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13

The above passage, 1 Corinthians 13, is perhaps one of the better-known passages in Scripture, and this is not without reason. Paul describes love as the chief virtue and as greater than even faith and hope. There is very little obscurity then, as to what sort of value Paul places on love. Yet, I believe that, as with most oft-quoted passages, it is many times misused, or even abused to convey a message contrary to the gospel. Thus, I will briefly seek to show what the passage first, does not mean, and secondly what is does mean.

First, it is important not simply to look at particular words, or even sentences (though it is not always a bad thing). One must always be aware of the surrounding context of the passage. And context is a relative term, it could be the sentence, paragraph, chapter, book or the whole Bible. And so we must be aware of all the degrees of context. Knowing that, according to 1 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is God-breathed, and so if we come out with an interpretation contrary to other parts of Scripture, either our interpretation of the passage in view is incorrect, or the interpretation of the other verses are incorrect. There may be apparent contradictions, which may be settled (Romans 4 & James 2) but there are no real contradictions in Scripture.

Onto the passage then:

Brief Context: Paul is writing to the Corinthian church, a church undergoing much strife and division within the body (1:10), there is a great party spirit (1:12-15), a desire to be viewed as wise in the world’s eyes (1:26), spiritual immaturity (3:1), ignorance of who they are in God (3:16), wise in their own eyes (3:18), judging the Lord’s servants (4:3), boasting (4:7), selfishness (4:8), arrogance (5:2), lack of church discipline (5:9-13), lawsuits within the church (6:1), stumbling one another (6:12), sexual immorality (6:18), abuse of Christian liberty (8:1), abuse of spiritual gifts (12:1), undue pride with regard to spiritual gifts (12:12).

Now, it is in the context of this last part, namely spiritual gifts that Paul seeks to show forth the greatest of these gifts. Having mentioned the various roles that God has appointed to the church: apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, gifts of healing, helps, administrations, and tongues, Paul admonishes the believers that gifts are appointed by God and will be varied within the church, that God has appointed specific times and people to receive these various gifts. But past all these gifts Paul exhorts that the Corinthians seek something more excellent, what is called “the greater gifts.” And this is love.

Having set the stage then for chapter 13 of Corinthians I will endeavor to first show, negatively, what it does not mean. Or to put it another way, the abuses of the passage.
Its Abuses - Some use it to undermine faith itself, or the object of our faith as unnecessary. Such a love as described in 1 Corinthians 13 presupposes a spiritual rebirth and a faith in the proclaimed gospel. It is impossible the Scripture will undermine the rest of Scripture. It does not mean that faith does not matter, love is the fruition of true faith, but it does not itself replace faith. Faith is still absolutely necessary for salvation, and it is faith alone that saves.
1. Paul is not undermining all these things that he is naming. Tongues, prophecy, knowledge, faith, giving, martyrdom, these are not being undermined at all. What Paul is doing here is showing that these things are nothing if they are lacking in the necessary quality, that is, love. The things mentioned are to be sought after and desired (in agreement with the rest of the book) but they are all meaningless if they are devoid of love. Thus, rather than undermine these things, Paul is saying that their value is derived from the love by which it is motivated. For in the latter part of the passage it is said that all these things will be done away with when “the perfect comes”. Yet this does not mean that these things are unimportant. All these things are necessary, but only when done from a heart of love.
2. A common abuse of this passage is to show that doctrine or theology goes against the spirit of Scripture. No doubt, there are some unessential doctrines that are often blown out of proportion and serve to cause schisms within the body, which is to be regretted and corrected. Yet, there are certain doctrines that are central to the gospel: those doctrines for which Paul stood up and “opposed Peter to his face” (Galatians 2:11), and those that are not to be compromised even if an angel brings a different message (1:8-9). Paul says that anyone, himself included, bringing a different gospel is to be accursed! Thus, to use this passage of Scripture against those essential doctrines is to abuse the passage. To do so would be to redefine love in a manner that does not accord with Scripture. Love, as defined by Christ, is obedience to His commandments (John 14:15).
3. Thus, the passage is clearly not intending to say that faith is unnecessary. The meaning of words ought to be defined by context, and faith here (v.2) clearly does not speak of justifying faith, but a seeming faith. Just as there are two sorts of sorrows (one leading to repentance the other leading to death, 2 Cor. 7:10) so there are two sorts of faith. One is a mere professing faith (James 2, 1 Cor. 13:2, which is by word only, and another that is a true justifying faith (Romans 4, Eph. 2:8,9). The apparent contradiction in the two passages (Rom. 4, justified by faith not works and 1 Cor. 13, faith is nothing without love) is solved by noting this difference between apparent faith and true justifying faith: an apparent faith will not culminate into the sort of love described by this passage, whereas a true justifying faith will.

How ought we to view 1 Corinthians 13? Or, what are its proper uses?
Its Uses - To show what true faith consists of, that faith without works is dead. True love to God is not an abstract thing but ultimately obedience to His word (John 14:15).
1. It shows us the true nature of justifying faith. That it does not consist in external deeds. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 7:21) The implications of this is startling and ought to cause us to examine ourselves. This means that we can prophecy, speak in tongues, have an apparent faith, give all things to the poor, and yes, even be martyred and still not know Christ.
2. It shows us the use of faith, that for the time being we see dimly, but if we persevere in faith, then it will one day become sight. Thus, our faith is not in vain, but if we do see in ourselves this chief virtue of love, we can be more assured of our faith, that it is justifying, and that we are not deceived. For true faith is the ground of true love, which is shown in verses 4-6.
3. This love that never fails is not an abstract sense of love, but true obedience, in the sense that delight for God and His Law are not absent. There is no use for spiritual gifts, for external deeds, for miraculous healings, or professed faith where true love to Christ and God are lacking. True love to God is demonstrated by obedience to His word. The Pharisees were able to keep the external part of the Law, but failed to look at the heart. Here Paul shows that love is more than a matter of external deeds and that God desires true heart obedience not external sacrifice.

It is an oversimplification but true to define man’s depravity according to Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism/Calvinism as such: the first man is healthy, the second man ill, and the third man dead.

Arminianism differs from Semi-Pelagianism mainly in its view of man’s complete or total depravity. This does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, but that every part of man: his will, affections, mind are all affected by original sin. Thus, according to Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fall short, and that no one seeks after God, no one understands. Rightfully, then, are Arminians sometimes referred to as 1-point Calvinists in their affirmation of man’s total depravity and inability to save himself. Yet, they differ from Calvinists in that they do not believe in God’s overcoming grace. They believe that men must respond to God’s grace freely (without any influence upon their volition from God) and that it can ultimately be rejected. God works, then, only up to a point, but respects man’s free-will and will not coerce or force anyone to believe or accept Himself, since such a notion would not be true love, but, as some would say, “divine rape”.

However, a closer look into the Arminian notion of total depravity apart from God’s overcoming or irresistable grace is absolutely incongruous. There is no salvation for a depraved man apart from God’s irresistable grace. To admit the doctrine of total depravity is to admit that a man will never choose God by his own free will, since he is always inclined to sin. An Arminian who acknowledges the need of God’s grace for salvation does so in word only and still holds to the Semi-Pelagian notion of depravity. Namely, that a man is not dead in sin, but unhealthy. A compromise must take place, either men are not totally depraved, or God draws all elect sinners to Himself independent of anything in them, even “foreseen faith”.

If man is totally depraved then any measure of positive response to the gospel would be a direct result of God’s grace since any inclination towards God in man, apart from God, is impossible, his nature being inherently sinful. The difference, then, between one who accepts and one who rejects God’s gospel must be God’s overcoming grace acting in the person. In one God works by grace to cause the person to believe, in the other there is grace in the presentation of the gospel but none to cause the man to believe. The latter, unaffected by the gospel is only that way because he is totally depraved. Can God change his will? Yes! That is exactly what has happened in the first man, his inclinations have been turned from sin and death, to God and life. Such a transformation of the heart can only be due to God’s grace and nothing, absolutely nothing in man. Logically, then, God must go against the will of the depraved man in order to save him, for, on his own, he would never turn to God. Thus a man is saved by grace through faith. God’s grace being the cause of salvation, faith the means to that end which He will provide to those whom He has chosen. Will God fail to provide the means to that salvation which He has called His elect unto?

The only other option for the Arminian, then, is to say that man is not, in fact, totally depraved which brings us back to Semi-Pelagianism. A totally depraved man, needs God’s irresistable grace to change his will, to save him. All those whom God chooses to save, He will.

One thing that cannot be reconciled with the Arminian notion of “free-will” is physical birth. If Arminians will not accept God’s sovereignty in spiritual rebirth, one wonders how they deal with natural birth. After all, not every person has equal exposure to the gospel. In fact, there are some countries where there is no gospel at all! How, then, can Arminians reconcile this to God’s call? For many are called but few are chosen. None will deny that physical birth is due solely to God’s sovereignty, for what choice does a man have in where he will be physically born? That a man is born in the Middle East in a prominently Muslim country is not because God “foresaw” that they would not believe and placed them there, is it? Those who have not heard the gospel and are thus condemned to hell, was there no foreseen faith? Will God condemn these? It is no surprise that so many Arminian churches have turned to Liberalism and Universalism, since there is no way to reconcile man’s “free-will” to respond to God’s grace and the fact that not all have heard/will hear the gospel.

Arminians, to be fair, do not deny that God’s grace is absolutely required for salvation, but so is man’s free-will. That man must choose God as a response to His grace, and this choice must not be coerced or forced by God in any way lest it be a breach of man’s so-called free-will. They hold that predestination and election speak mainly to those with foreseen faith, that God saw down the “tunnel of time” those who would believe and “chose” them. How does this account for those who will die having never heard the gospel? Were they “foreseen” to not have faith? If that be the case, it is still difficult to understand how God will hold them accountable to something they have not heard. Though they hypothetically rejected Christ they never did it in reality never having had the proper opportunity. Thus their rejection, having never occurred in reality cannot be said to be a foreseen lack of faith, unless God foresaw a different world.  An Arminian might object that they are still sinners and thus condemned to judgment, but the next question would be, then, how has Christ properly died for these? Are they not in the world? If Christ did, in fact, die for the whole world without exception, how is His the benefit of His death displayed in these unsaved people? Since they have never heard the gospel the opportunity won by Christ through the atonement (according to Universal Atonement) is not present. In which case an Arminian will either resort to absolute absurdity saying that such people hear the gospel after they die (inclucivism) or universalism. The Arminian is forced to compromise God’s justice, saying that these will not be condemned or to compromise Christ’s atonement saying that Christ’s death for the world was not really for all the world without exception. One cannot have a “universal” view of the atonement and believe in free-will.

The correct view is this, that God unconditionally elected sinners to be saved before the foundation of the world. So that God’s grace is absolutely necessary and is absolutely sufficient to save whoever He desires. God is no respecter of man, there is no “dignity” too great for God to overcome. And though some may resist God’s grace, none can resist it when God wills to save a sinner. For who can thwart God’s plan? Thus the wills of such sinners will (without their own consent) be changed by God to long and desire Him. Therefore, those elect by God are atoned completely through the redemptive work of Christ so that all those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ’s death will not have been in vain for anyone. He will not have died for those in hell, but will have saved completely to eternal life (eternal meaning that the elect can never die or be condemned) those who are the elect. As for those who never heard the gospel they are condemned by their own sinfulness, since, apart from God’s grace, and by their own “free-will” they would never choose God.