[BBC List] do you trust your pastor?

[Mike Abendroth]

The Fallibility of Ministers

J. C. Ryle

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 labors, "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 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 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 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 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 Dodderidge. 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:

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

2. 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 charity. He was
the Apostle who said, "Be of the same mind one toward another;" "Be at peace
among yourselves;" "Mind the same things;" "The servant of God must not
strive." "There is one body and there is one Spirit, even as you are called
in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism." He was the
Apostle who said, "I become all things to all men, that by all means I may
save some" (Romans 12:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:13; Philippians 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.

St. Paul’s 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. 

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 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, to run the chance of
division. They should no more tolerate false doctrine than they should
tolerate sin. They should withstand any adding to or taking away from the
simple message of the Gospel of Christ.

For the truth’s sake our Lord Jesus Christ denounced the Pharisees, though
they sat in Moses’ seat and were the appointed and authorized teachers of
men. "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, 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 truth’s 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 truth’s 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 truth’s 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 truth’s 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 Church’s 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: "Think not that I came to send
peace upon Earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).
Let us remember the praise he gives to one of the Churches in the
Revelation: "You cannot bear them who are evil. You have tried them which
say they are Apostles, and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation
2:2). Let us remember the blame he casts upon another: "You allow that woman
Jezebel to teach" (Revelation 2:20). Never let us be guilty of sacrificing
any portion of truth upon 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 jealous 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 parish 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 parish
church, a parishioner who loves his soul is quite right in not going to that
parish 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 take harm. I see in the New Testament we are plainly told to "prove all
things," and "hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I see in
the Book of Proverbs that we are commanded to "cease to hear instruction
which causes to err from the paths 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 know not what words can.

Does any man mean to tell us that to attend the parish church is absolutely
needful to an Englishman’s salvation? If there is such an one, let him speak
out and give us his name. Does anyone mean to tell us that going to the
parish church will save any man’s soul, if he dies unconverted and ignorant
of Christ? If there is such an one, let him speak out and give us his name.
Does anyone mean to tell us that going to the parish church will teach a man
anything about Christ, or conversion, or faith, or repentance, if these
subjects are hardly ever named in the parish church and never properly
explained? If there is such an one, let him speak out and give us his name.
Does anyone mean to say that a man who repents, believes in Christ, is
converted and holy will lose his soul, because he has forsaken his parish
church and learned his religion elsewhere? If there is such an one, let him
speak out and give us his name. For my part I abhor such monstrous and
extravagant ideas. I see not a jot 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 not a few parishes in England where the religious teaching is
little better than Popery. Ought the laity of such parishes to sit still, be
content, and take it quietly? They ought not. And why? Because, like St.
Paul, they ought to prefer truth to peace.

There are not a few parishes in England where the religious teaching is
little better than morality. The distinctive doctrines of Christianity are
never clearly proclaimed. Plato, or Seneca, or Confucius, or Socinus could
have taught almost as much. Ought the laity in such parishes to sit still,
be content, and take it quietly? They ought not. And why? Because, like St.
Paul, they ought to prefer truth to peace. False doctrine and heresy are
even worse  than schism.

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 laity in some parts
of England, require plain speaking. Souls are perishing in many parishes in
ignorance. Honest members of the Church of England in many districts are
disgusted and perplexed. This is no time for smooth words. I am not ignorant
of those magic expressions, "the parochial system, 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 parochial system of England 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 parish church when the minister of the parish is
ignorant of the Gospel or a lover of the world. 

It is a plain Scriptural duty to "contend earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In such a case we must never be surprised
if men forsake their parish church and seek truth wherever truth is to be
found. If the parochial minister does not preach the Gospel and live the
Gospel, the conditions on which he claims the attention of his parishioners
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 "parochial order." There is no mention of
parishes 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 parish 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. The old saying must never be forgotten, "He is
the schismatic who causes the schism."

(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 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 worshiping 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 pestilential malaria. The one walks in darkness
and poisons us in silence, and we are never safe. The other frightens and
alarms for a little season. But it is soon over, and it clears the air. It
is a plain Scriptural duty to "contend (Jude 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. Three things there are 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 no Churchman." I
hear such accusations unmoved. The day of judgment will show who were the
true friends of the Church of England and who were not. I have learned in
the last thirty-two years that if a clergyman leads a quiet life, lets 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 Churchman." And I have also
learned that if a man studies the Articles and Homilies, labors continually
for the conversion of souls, adheres closely to the great principles of the
Reformation, bears a faithful testimony against popery, and preaches as
Jewell and Latimer used to preach, he will probably be thought a firebrand
and "troubler of Israel," and called no Churchman at all! But I can see
plainly that they are not the best Churchmen who talk most loudly about
Churchmanship. 

I remember that none cried "Treason" so loudly as Athaliah (2 Kings 11:14).
Yet she was a traitor herself. I have observed that many who once talked
most about Churchmanship have ended by forsaking the Church of England and
going over to Rome. Let men say what they will. They are the truest friends
of the Church of England 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.

3. 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 without the deeds of the law.

The proof of this lesson stands out most prominently in the passage of
Scripture which heads this paper. What one article of faith had the Apostle
Peter denied at Antioch? None. What doctrine had he publicly preached that
was false? None. What, then had he done? He had done this: After once
keeping company with the believing Gentiles as "fellow-heirs and partakers
of the promise of Christ in the Gospel" (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 questions, "What shall I do to be saved? " not merely,
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," but "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
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
withstood him," he says, "to the 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
without the deeds of the law. Let us learn here what mighty reasons the
Reformers of the Church of England had for calling it, in our eleventh
Article, "a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort."

(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 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 accounted
righteous before God for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and
not for our own works and deservings." 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 the deeds of the law.

(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
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
"earnest-minded people" are justified by Christ, whether they have faith or
not! The plain truth is that the doctrine is all gall and wormwood 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) The 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 popery may be traced up to rejection of justification by faith.
No Romish teacher, if he is faithful to his church, can say to an anxious
sinner, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall 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 efficacy and neutralizes its power. Purgatory, penance,
priestly absolution, the intercession of saints, the worship of the Virgin,
and many other man-made services of popery 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 minister’s
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 minister’s sermons,
much about Christ and sacramental union with him, much about self-denial,
much about humility, much about charity. But all this will profit little if
his trumpet gives an uncertain sound about justification by faith without
the deeds of the law.

(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 church may have good forms and regularly
ordained ministers, and the sacraments properly administered, but a 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 parish.
Its ecclesiastical buildings may strike the eye all over the land. But there
will be no blessing from God on that 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?
Had they not bishops? They had. Had they not forms and liturgies? They had.
Had they not synods and councils? They had. But they cast away the doctrine
of justification by faith. They lost sight of that mighty truth, and so
fell.

Why did our own church do so little in the last century, and why did the
Independents and Methodists 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 chapels in the present day?
Why do we so often see a splendid Gothic parish church as empty of
worshippers 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 to episcopacy, the prayerbook, the surplice, 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 parish 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 of England, so that they will not even hear truth from its
ministers. But I believe, as a general rule, when the parish 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 withstand Peter to the 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 the deeds of the law.

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-laden 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 soul’s medicine from the physician—are unsafe and
poisonous systems. All systems which cast discredit on the simple Protestant
doctrine which broke the power of Rome 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 have not faith.

The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament ordained by Christ himself, and intended
for the edification and refreshment of true believers. But when the people
are taught that all persons ought to come to the Lord’s table, whether they
have faith or not; and that all alike receive Christ’s 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 Christ’s body and drinks Christ’s blood except the justified man.
And none is justified until he believes.

Membership of the Church of England is a great privilege. No visible church
on Earth, in my opinion, offers so many advantages to its members, when
rightly administered. But when people are taught that because they are
members of the 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. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me first of all ask everyone 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. We shall not see through the
mistakes of an erring Peter. Once let a man get wrong about justification,
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 a worm at the
root.

We shall not be able to imitate the faithfulness of a courageous Paul. An
ignorant laity will always be the bane of a church. A Bible-reading laity
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.

In the next place, let me recommend every member of the Church of England to
make himself acquainted with the Thirty-nine Articles of his own Church.
They are to be found at the end of most prayerbooks. They will abundantly
repay an attentive reading. They are the true standard by which
Churchmanship is to be tried, next to the Bible. They are the test by which
Churchmen should prove the teaching of their ministers, if they want to know
whether it is "Church teaching" or not. I deeply lament the ignorance of
systematic Christianity which prevails among many who attend the services of
the Church of England. It would be well if such books as Archbishop Usher’s
Body of Divinity were more known and studied than they are. If Dean Nowell’s
Catechism had ever been formally accredited as a formulary of the Church of
England, many of the heresies of the last twenty years could never have
lived for a day. But unhappily many persons really know no more about the
true doctrines of their own communion than the heathen or Mahometans. It is
useless to expect the laity of the Church of England to be zealous for the
maintenance of true doctrine, unless they know what their own church has
defined true doctrine to be.

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. True Gospel
in the pulpit, true Gospel in every Religious Society we support, 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.

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 St. Peter in taking a reproof be
as much our example as the boldness of St. Paul in reproving. Happy is the
Christian who can call the person who rebukes him faithfully a "beloved
brother" (2 Peter 3:15). 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.

In the last place, let me entreat all members of the Church of England 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 parishes 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. Nothing is impossible. The Apostle Paul was
once a persecuting Pharisee; Luther was once an unenlightened monk; Bishop
Latimer was once a bigoted Papist; Thomas Scott was once thoroughly opposed
to evangelical truth. Nothing, I repeat, is impossible. The Spirit can make
clergymen preach that Gospel which they now labor to destroy. Let us
therefore be instant 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 St.
Peter at Antioch.

July/August/September 1994

 

 

Charis, 
  
Mike Abendroth 
  
"Make us choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to
be contented with half truth when whole truth can be won.  Endow us with
courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns
to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when right and truth
are in jeopardy."

 - West Point Military Academy Cadet Prayer 

 

HYPERLINK "http://www.bbcchurch.org"www.bbcchurch.org 
  

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 4/10/2006
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20060412/7f9d584a/attachment.htm