Considering Packer on the Christian Life

As a new Christian without a clue I stumbled into the Christian bookstore in Kenmore Square, uncertain about what to buy to better understand this new faith I barely understood. Among the various and sundry items I noticed a book that had sold over a million copies and won some award. The title was simply Knowing God by someone by the name of J.I. Packer. I wanted to know God, so I bought it.

That book, which I’ve read a few times since the initial read, has been one of the most important purchases of my life. After finally becoming a certified “Calvinist” I re-read the book and saw all the seeds had been sown by Packer in this book.

While struggling with sanctification and charismatic issues I picked up Keep in Step with the Spirit which also proved to be immensely helpful. While looking at RTS Orlando in 1991, I was able to go to the Ligonier National Conference on The Cross of Christ and Packer’s lectures were profound. He was not the most dynamic speaker in the line up, but his content was amazing. Steve Brown also stands out in my mind as impactful, though he got in “trouble” because people misunderstood him.

I have a long, storied history with J.I. Packer. He’s been one of the most important theological influences in my life, particularly in the early years. He kept me from any number of heresies. I am thankful for J.I. Packer, and was looking forward to reading Samuel Storms book Packer on the Christian Life in the Crossway series. It was time for vacation/study leave and time to read another volume in the series.

Samuel Storms is an interesting choice to write the volume on Packer. Sometimes the editors do that, choose a wild card from outside the person’s theological heritage. Storms is also a Calvinist who loves the Puritans. But Storms falls into the new Calvinist camp (non-denominational, non-confessionalist, baptistic and continuationist) while Packer himself is an old school Anglican who affirms the Westminster Confession (I’m pretty sure) as well as the 39 Articles. He is, therefore, denominational, confessional, paedobaptistic and a cessationist who isn’t too hard on his continuationist brothers and sisters.

“Theology, as I constantly tell my students is for doxology: … Theologies that cannot be sung (or prayed for that matter) are certainly wrong at a deep level, and such theologies leave me, in bot senses cold: cold-hearted and uninterested.”

The subtitle of the book is Knowing God in Christ, Walking by the Spirit, which brings both of the books I’ve mentioned into focus. It also sums up Packer’s understanding of the Christian life. It draws on many of Packer’s numerous books and articles.

As with all the volumes, Storms begins with a short biography of the subject. If you’ve read one of the biographies on Packer, there isn’t much that is new. But if you haven’t, you’ll get a good sketch of the man. One of the key events of his life was an accident as a child that kept him from sports and forced him into the library. Whatever your views of nature and nurture, Packer became an academic that we can’t be sure he’d be if he hadn’t had to wear a metal plate that encouraged the worst out of his peers. One key friendship was with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, centered upon the Puritans. Both men were key in a Puritan conference and Banner of Truth. Lloyd-Jones’ call to separation from the Church of England at the Evangelical Alliance conference in 1966, along with Stott’s response, created a rift between the men. Packer would be despised by the the non-conformists like Lloyd-Jones (whom Packer still spoke highly of) and distrusted by the Anglicans who kept moving to the left (Storms credits Carl Trueman for this observation). Trueman thinks this is behind Packer’s move to Canada, far western Canada at that. He was, in a sense, in exile. Eventually the Church of England would go too far, and Packer along with many others would seek refuge among the African bishops. In many ways Packer has been a man without a home, looking for the city whose builder and architect is God.

“Self-denial is a summons to submit to the authority of God as Father and of Jesus as Lord and to declare lifelong war on one’s instinctive egoism.”

In terms of analyzing his view of the Christian life, Storms begins with the cross of Christ. Apart from this, none of what Packer believes about the Christian life makes sense. What doesn’t make sense, to me anyway, is that Storms doesn’t refer to Packer’s famous introduction to an edition of Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. This is one of the few places where Packer draws a hard line in the sand, calling the various alternative theories to particular atonement false gospels. Packer didn’t usually take such hard stances, but for him this was the place to take the hard stand. Packer didn’t normally do polemics, but when he did he did them well.

Packer affirms the necessity of the atonement due to our sinfulness, Christ’s substitution in our place to pay the penalty of said sinfulness and sin, and its propitiatory nature. Packer held to a cross that saved elect sinners, not to a cross that merely made salvation possible to every sinner to which faith must be added.

As a confessional Christian, Packer affirmed the authority of the Scriptures above all else. It is to this that Storms turns next. Here we see why Packer walked out of the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster. It was their acceptance of same-sex unions contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. He, rightly, saw this as no small thing. Authority rests, not in culture, not in my personal interpretation or even the Church and its interpretation of the Bible, but the Scriptures themselves. There ultimately can be no living of the Christian life without an atonement and the Scriptures as our authority. This is not to reject Confessions and Catechisms. Packer encourages the use of catechisms to disciple believers new and old.

“In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture’s authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so.”

The Christian life, entered by faith (self-abandoning trust) in the person and work of Christ, is about holiness. Storms makes great use of Rediscovering Holiness (a hard to find gem in my opinion) in this chapter. He also refers to Keep in Step with the Spirit to discuss Packer’s early struggle with Keswick theology (let go and let God for victory) from which he was saved by discovering John Owen. Missing is Holiness is about the heart that results in actions, not simply outward conformity to rules. From him I discovered the hard truth that the holier we are the more discontent we will be with our holiness. True holiness is empowered by the Holy Spirit, not by us. Packer writes of the opposition to holiness. We are taken to God’s gym and made to sweat as unholiness leaves the body. Holiness involves a life of repentance driven by self-examination (not simply introspection) and the war on pride in our hearts. It isn’t simply a personal and individual thing, but God places us in a community to help us become holy precisely because holiness is about love and without a community we can’t grow in love (and forgiveness).

“Purity of heart is indeed a matter of willing one thing, namely to live ever day of one’s life loving God.”

Having defined holiness, Storms moves into the process of sanctification. Here he leans on Hot Tub Religion, another hard to find gem. You may begin to think that books on sanctification don’t sell well. Storms returns to the influence of John Owen whom Packer called “God’s chemo for my cancered soul.” He address the synergism of sanctification revealed in the God who works in us to will and work according to His good purpose (Philippians 2). It is the transformation of our desires, disposition and motives.

“God’s method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort.”

The Christian life, as already mentioned, is a struggle. Storms brings us to Romans 7 to discuss the problem of indwelling sin in the life of every Christian. Storms goes through the various views of this passage, but spends particular time explaining Packer’s view that this is the experience of Paul as a Christian (he provides further support for this view in an appendix). Paul affirms God’s law but struggles to do it. In Romans 8 we see that the sinful mind is hostile to the law. If we are honest, our obedience is always less than we desire it to be. We drift. We are prone to wander. This all drives us back to Jesus and Him crucified for our deliverance. And yet we do have the Spirit at work in us to put sin to death (back to Romans 8). We are changed people, but not as thoroughly changed as we ought nor long to be.

In keeping with Romans 8, Storms brings us the Packer’s views on the person of the Spirit who provides the power of Christian living. Like many of the Puritans, Packer held to experiential Christianity, not simply intellectual or rational Christianity. We must be born again, and we must have the Spirit dwelling in us. While personally a cessationist, Packer was not as rigid in addressing charismatics as, say, John MacArthur. But Packer does not limit the work of the Spirit to the gifts of the Spirit. His focus is on the fruit of the Spirit, produced in sanctification. There is that word again. The Christian life is taken up in sanctification; a sanctification that flows out of knowing God in Christ through the atonement we know about through the Scriptures.

“Our lack of love for praying may be an indication of all-round spiritual debility. … Prayer will consume sin, or sin will choke prayer.”

One of the ways this all works out is prayer, which is the next chapter in the volume. He discusses hindrances to prayer as well as the activity of prayer: petition, conversation, meditation, praise, self-examination, and lament. Growth in holiness is produced in part by a commitment to prayer. The same Spirit who works in us to will and work, works in us to draw near to the Father thru the Son to express our hearts.

Connected to prayer (and Scripture) is the role of guidance in the Christian’s life. We do need to discern the will of God. Many of Paul’s prayers for others found in Scripture relate to this need on their part and ours. Packer connects this to the doctrines of adoption and God’s sovereignty. God’s guidance comes primarily from the Scriptures which were written for us upon whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor. 10). Guidance is not helpful without a commitment to submit to God’s guidance. We must accept His will as our own. As such, Packer rejects fleeces and signs as not normative for Christians. That is not how we ought to seek guidance, though we see some saints of old, who didn’t have the whole Bible, did receive guidance this way.

“Discernment comes through listening to Scripture and those means of grace that relay biblical teaching to us in digestible form- sermons, instruction talks, hymns, books, Christian conversations and so forth.”

Christian living takes place in the context of suffering. We can suffer from unwanted temptations and struggles with sin, our bodies that won’t work right, persecution, and hard providences. Suffering is inevitable. Packer does note that God is particularly gentle with new Christians, so often suffering can become more profound the more we mature. Packer, like Luther, was a theologian of the cross. He rejects the triumphal theology of glory that has capture the heart of so many American Christians. Such triumphalism often points to some failure on our part as the cause of suffering. We need to identity the particular (often unconnected secret) sin so God will restore a suffering-free blessing. Such people aren’t growing in perseverance and character (Rom. 5), but remain immature as they reject God’s purposes in their lives. Packer speaks of our weakness and grief as important in helping us grow.

“… a most painful part of the pain of grief is the sense that no one, however sympathetic and supportive in intention, can share what we are feeling.”

In a sense, Storms brings us back to the beginning by talking about the theocentricity of the Christian life. Eternal life is knowing God, and Jesus whom he sent (John 17:3). It isn’t Christian living without Christ as the center of it. We are to believe in Christ, love Christ and hope in Christ. Christianity isn’t just doctrine, intellectual commitment. Christianity is personal commitment to Christ about whom the doctrines speak. It is vital union with Him, and experiential.

“Again, Christianity is Christ relationally. If there is a center or hub to all of Packer’s thought on the Christian life, it is here. Christian living is conscious, joyful, trusting relationship with Jesus of Nazareth.”

The book ends with a chapter on ending well. When Storms wrote the book, Packer was 88. He is still alive, and still writing (though much shorter books). He is increasingly weak, but still has a sharp mind. He is a model of using one’s faculties and energies to live and serve as long as one has them. One may retire from a vocation, but not from living as a Christian.

Overall this was a good and thorough contribution to the series. Storms made ample use of Packer’s writings. As I noted above there were some glaring omissions; not just his introduction to Owen’s book (he wrote introductions galore, actually), but also Faithfulness and Holiness which introduces the read to (and includes) Ryle’s classic Holiness. This is a hard to find volume, but of immense help. I blogged through this in April of 2007 for those who are interested.

In the bowels of the Bird and Babe (1999)

Storms did mention the need for community, but as I get older I see the need for friendship. Jesus had the 12, and the 3. He enjoyed the closest of friendships with Peter, John and James. When I visited England with friends, we spent a few days in Oxford. We had meals and drinks at the Eagle and Child. We went to the Inklings exhibit as well. Friendships are a part of community, but the special relationships that we enjoy that extend beyond our worship communities by geography and time in many cases.

As I go through an extended period of loss, I’m seeing the lack of friendships I have as a pastor. I don’t have enough. Storms mentioned Packer’s friendship with Lloyd-Jones (interrupted by controversy) and John Stott. I’m curious about his friendship with Sproul, which seemed to end with Evangelicals and Catholics Together. What is missing is Packer’s long time relationship with another of the important men in my life, Dr. Roger Nicole. Even Nicole’s biography seems skimpy on this account.

We think of these theologians’ writings, but often don’t think of their friendships (except for C.S. Lewis, it seems). These friendships, and sometimes how they end leave their mark. I know this is true in my life. If the Christian life is largely about love, and it is (!), then there should be more about the long term relationships with the people they loved (including spouses!) in these volumes.

Don’t get me wrong, I truly enjoy this series and that is why I read a volume on each vacation. I’m just pointing out a weakness in the series, and one in my life and in the lives of many men. At a time I find I need my friends, they seem busy. And I can’t point a finger at them for I realize I have not pursued them in their similar times of need and loss. Friendships matter.

Some of the bestest friends a man can have!

Read Full Post »

Considering The Whole Armor of God

Is God trying to tell me something or am I unconsciously seeking to address a present need.? That is an interesting question.

Earlier this year I read one of David Powlison’s final books: Safe and Sound. It is about spiritual warfare. I’ve just finished reading Iain Duguid’s The Whole Armor of God: How Christ’s Victory Strengthens Us for Spiritual Warfare. While I was reading Duguid, Paul Tripp made the same point from Ephesians 6 that both Powlison and Duguid made: that Paul was not changing the subject in Ephesians 6, but that spiritual warfare is the subject of the whole letter. God must be trying to tell me something.

Dealing with a mother’s death is spiritual warfare. Dealing with a pandemic includes spiritual warfare. Parenting kids is spiritual warfare. Session meetings, and especially meetings with the deacons, are spiritual warfare. It is an ever-present reality, not just when I am aware of it happening (like on certain FB groups).

Powlison and Dugud’s books are very similar in many ways. They are both relatively short, unlike William Gurnall’s 3-volume treatise on the subject (you can get a devotional version which is excellent- and I almost re-read it this year until buying Tripp’s devotional for our officers). They are obviously focused on the whole armor of God from Ephesians 6. They both take the approach that Jesus wore this armor, and His victory is what established our victory in spiritual warfare. They are far more concerned with the OT references to this armor than the armor of Paul’s Roman guards.

Let me say that I dislike the word “victory” in the context of our sanctification. We may win a battle, but due to the reality of indwelling sin I will face that battle again. We don’t experience full victory in this life. We have moments of obedience. But that is a personal pet peeve derived from people I used to interact with who went on about the “victorious Christian life.” It didn’t feel all that victorious as I struggled with persistent temptations of various sorts.

Both books do helpfully discuss Christ’s complete victory as the basis for our eventual victory and the source of grace in each conflict we engage in. In other words, both books focus on the objective work of Christ for our salvation (justification, sanctification and glorification).

Powlison writes much of his application within the context of counseling. It is very helpful. Duguid writes much of his application within the broader context of sanctification. It is also very helpful. I can think of a few people that I may give copies.

Duguid begins with the reality of warfare and the reality of our enemy. He is more powerful than we are. But he is far less powerful than Jesus. The spiritual forces of darkness Paul speaks of are behind the unspeakable evil we’ve seen, not simply the human actors. Those people, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pablo Escobar, and others are just pawns. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. This means that the deep state is spiritual in nature, not simply political. The power of the Beast is the demonic force that uses governments as counterfeit Christ’s. But now I’ve oozed into Revelation. Daniel learned there was more to the spiritual battle than he realized when the angel informed him that Michael the archangel had to assist him in a battle with the prince of Persia (Daniel 10).

This means we need to be prepared whether we are pastors, parents, employers, employees, children, rich, poor, majority culture or a minority culture. The Ephesians believed this, and Paul taught this. We should believe this because Paul taught this.

“The choice is not whether you will be a Christian solider or a Christian civilian but whether you will be a prepared Christian soldier or an unprepared one. And an unprepared soldier of flesh and blood will not be able to stand up against the scale of the spiritual forces ranged against him or her.”

The major of Paul’s focus, and Duguid’s focus, is Christ’s provision. The Lord provides armor for us instead of leaving us to our own devices.

“That mighty power of God is at work for our spiritual growth in two distinct ways. First, it was demonstrated outside us in the once-for-all work of Christ in resisting sin and Satan in our place, and, second, it is demonstrated inside us through the ongoing, progressive work of the Spirit, renewing our hearts and minds.”

We see Duguid not only wants us to see the Scriptures, but supports his views confessionally and we see the influence of John Newton. Duguid brings us through the armor of God with this dual focus in mind. In our battle of sanctification (his work in us) we must never lose sight of our justification (his work for us).

At one point he does misspeak. I don’t want to misrepresent the book as flawless. In speaking of the cross he says “God treated the innocent One as guilty so that he could treat us, the guilty ones, as innocent.” He and I know that it goes far beyond this and “innocent” should be replaced by “righteous”. But his unfortunate phraseology understates the reality of Christ’s work and our benefit.

That’s it for the negative really. Duguid gets to the point, repeatedly brings us to Jesus and challenges us to make use of God’s provision by faith. If we were to evaluate this by J.C. Ryle’s 3 questions we say it does indeed exalt Jesus, humble sinners and can also calls them to godliness. It is, as I noted, I book I recommended and hope to teach (along with Powlison’s) after we are able to have Sunday School again. This is what discipleship is about.

Read Full Post »

Considering Simplicity in Preaching

In addition to Tim Keller’s book on preaching, I decided to read a booklet by J.C. Ryle entitled Simplicity in Preaching. I will confess that at times I struggle with being clever. I suspect that at times my preaching could use a little more (or a lot more) simplicity.

Ryle obviously thought many of his peers could also stand to exhibit more simplicity in their preaching. This is why he wrote the pamphlet (what is the difference between a booklet and a pamphlet, if any?).

It was interesting reading this on the heels of Keller’s book on preaching. He exhibited some of what Keller said, and advocated some of the same things. There was overall harmony here. He quoted from a number of “respected” non-Christian voices in the area of oration (Quintilian, Cicero, an Arabian proverb, a painter named Turner), as well as some respected preachers.

Rather than a manifesto, as Keller wrote, Ryle confined himself “to one point”. “That point is simplicity in language and style.”

“Unless you are simple in your sermons you will never be understood, and unless you are understood you cannot do good to those who hear you. … Of course the first object of a minister should be to preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but ‘the truth as it is in Jesus’.”

So, we see the same goals in preaching. We see a different emphasis on how to achieve that goal. We can do all Keller (or Stott or any other author) encourages us to do, but if we aren’t understood it doesn’t matter who awesome it looks on paper.

Simplicity is not to be confused with simplistic or childish preaching. The pastor shouldn’t be talking down to them. He should be speaking so they understand. Ryle is not speaking about using coarse or vulgar speech. Understandably, but as a gentleman is a lesson Mark Driscoll needed.

Ryle then goes ahead to note five points toward simplicity. The first is “Know your subject.” I simplified that for him. It the subject of the sermon isn’t clear to you, it will be even less clear or more obscure to the congregation.

“Never choose a text of which you do not quite know what it means.”

There is much wisdom here. We grow into some texts. I did not preach through Colossians until my mid-late 40’s. There is a spiritual maturity necessary to preaching some portions of the letter well and wisely. While I’ve preached texts in Hebrews and Romans, there are still some I am only now feeling mature enough to preach wisely. It isn’t simply about understanding the commentaries but being able to evaluate them and communicate the truth.

He also warns against “fanciful subjects and accommodated texts”. By the latter he means a whole lotta eisegesis, or reading into a text so that you make it say something it never tries to say. Chose texts that are clear so your point is clear and simple.

Secondly, use simple words. Or, as Keller says, define more complex terms. I rarely use a theological term without defining it for the congregation. Ryle argues that short words are often the “most powerful and forcible words.”

In the midst of this point he gets caught up in a controversy about Saxon words rather than words of French or Latin origin. It seems to be a bit of a hot button issue of his day. His focus is not on the origin of the words, but words people understand.

Thirdly, use a simple style. You can’t preach like John Owen wrote. Keep sentences short rather than complex with a series of colons and semi-colons. He notes to “take care to write as if you were asthmatical or short of breath.” This is because you aren’t writing a book and they aren’t reading a book. The congregants can’t rewind the sermon to hear that phrase until they get it, you keep moving merrily along.

“A hearer of English hears once for all, and if he loses the thread of your sermon in a long involved sentence, he very likely never finds it again.”

In addition to simple style, use proverbs and epigrammatic sayings. They are brief but pointed. This means they communicate well and can be remembered easily.

Fourth, use a direct style. Use “I” and “you” while avoiding “we”. I often use “we” to communicate it applies to me as well as to them. But he has a point in that the composition of “we” is unclear. Whom does it signify? If you clarify that periodically, use “we” as I do. But if you don’t clarify they won’t know what you mean- that they are part of “we”. The directness is for clarity as well as forcefulness. “This applies to you”, not some vague Anybody. He notes that Whitefield was well-known for such directness. It was a large part of his effectiveness.

Fifth, use plenty of anecdotes and illustrations. They are “windows through which light is let in upon your subject.” He advocates reading the Puritans, among others, to see how they use illustrations. He lauds Moody’s use of them.

He notes that a preacher with an eye for them is a happy preacher. Such a man finds them in books, movies, music and real life. He sees how these seemingly ordinary things communicate spiritual truth. Unless you are a good story teller, keep them short. Make sure you aren’t obscuring the truth you want to communicate by a lengthy or poorly told illustration or anecdote.

After repeating his points in summary, he adds a word of application (he’s essentially following the Puritan sermonic pattern). Simplicity is attained with much hard work and trouble.

“You must not think that God will do work for you, though he is ready to do it by you.”

God illuminates the Scriptures as we work in them. He doesn’t bypass our study of the grammar, history, context etc. Likewise, as we put sermons together we are to work hard. Exercise your brains in preparation and putting them together.

Oddly, he notes not to spend time reading the Fathers. They are interesting and sometimes helpful, but he doesn’t want us to read for the sake of reading. Read wisely. Read people who not only provide good information but who model such simplicity (today we’d include listening to podcasts that model it for us).

He also notes that part of your “study” is talking with your people. Keller says something similar in terms of expanding your bubble and getting out of the echo chamber. He noted that his time in Hopewell was helpful because he was able to talk to his congregation about his sermons- what connected and what didn’t. Ryle is essentially saying the same thing. He uses an interesting illustration about a pastor asked about the Fathers noting he usually meets with the mothers when he visits because the fathers are at work.

“We must talk to our people when we are out of church, if we would understand how to preach to them in church.”

The goal is to hit their hearts with the truth. Talking with them means you’ll learn to talk to them and the concerns of their hearts.

He concludes with an important reminder:

“All the simplicity in the world can do no good, unless you preach the simple gospel of Jesus Christ so fully and clearly that everybody can understand it. If Christ crucified has not his rightful place in your sermons, and sin is not exposed as it should be, and your people are not plainly told what they ought to believe and be, and do, your preaching is of no use.“

He also reminds us that simplicity is not a replacement for prayer, particularly for the Spirit’s work. Simplicity, though important, is not a magic bullet that covers a multitude of pastoral sins.

“… let us never forget to accompany our sermons by holy living and fervent prayer.”

Ryle provides preachers with a brief treatise that is helpful and often needful.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Transforming Power of the Gospel

Jerry Bridges’ newest book, The Transforming Power of the Gospel, is what I now call a “blender book”.

I suppose some background is in order. My son recently had surgery and has been on a pureed food diet for 3 weeks. We take what the rest of us are having, usually, toss it in the Ninja (the Magic Bullet broke from overuse, so we moved on) and chop it up. Everything is combined into easy to eat mush, which is really important when you’ve had surgery on your palate.

This book takes the subject matter from Transforming Grace,The Practice of Godliness, The Gospel for Real Life, Growing Your Faith, The Discipline of Grace and more, and puts it in easy to eat chapters. It is not mush, there is a distinct progression to the book. He’s not merely repackaging the material either. He wrote a new book that blends all those together. There are people who would not own (and read) all of those books like I have. Or perhaps they are new to this thing (afterall, I’ve been reading his books since the late 80’s) and this provides a good summary to whet the appetite. Some will choose to read more deeply in some areas, and others will be quite content with what they find here.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Deep Things of God

Earlier this year I made a sad discovery.  I discovered that I have no books on the Trinity.  I have plenty of Systematic Theologies with sections on the Trinity.  The closest thing to a book on the Trinity in my library was probably J.I. Packer’s Knowing God.  While not on the Trinity, as an heir to the Puritans he was quite Trinitarian in his theological approach.  So, in the words of Uncle Duncan in Braveheart, “We’ll have to rectify that.”

“Forget the Trinity and you forget why we do what we do; you forget who we are as gospel Christians; you forget how we got to be like we are.”

One of the books I bought to remedy that was Fred Sanders’ book The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything.  I’m on a combination of vacation and study leave, so I thought this was a good time to read it.  I’d have a bit more time to think on it.

Prior to leaving on vacation the guy who lives with us commented “he keeps talking about evangelicalism”.  Sanders’ point is that Trinitarian thinking has long been foundational to evangelical thinking.  This foundation has been cracking of late as the implicit has been largely forgotten or at least seen as non-essential.  His goal is limited to evangelicalism.  This is the Christian heritage of which he is a part and which he wants to be healthy and growing.  He’s not trying to evaluate and critique other traditions in the visible church.

These means that while Sanders uses Scripture, he’s not putting forth a biblical-theological defense of the Trinity.  He’s more concerned with how our Trinitarianism plays out in our understanding of our faith and practice.  So the reader must keep this focus in mind and not expect something profoundly different.

Sanders does draw on the writings of earlier evangelicals of different stripes to illustrate how deep the heritage runs (and how shallow our present experience).  So you find sections looking at Francis Schaeffer, Susanna Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Adolph Sahpir, Henry Scougal and more.

“A gospel that rearranges the components of your life but does not put you personally in the presence of God is too small.”

Read Full Post »

The Blessing of Assurance

I feel like I’ve been reading Faithfulness and Holiness for a lifetime.  I usually read a book more quickly, but taking on the church history instruction made my reading grind to a near halt.  I had brain gridlock.  So, this is no reflection on the book, but merely my circumstances.  I am assured of God’s love for me, despite feeling like a complete slacker.

The final chapter in J.C. Ryle’s book is Assurance.  This is a much mis-understood doctrine- at least by those who deny it.  Ryle begins by discussing this, and the charge of presumption.  If our assurance were based on our performance, that charge would be true (the Council of Trent therefore calls it a ‘prime error of heretics’).  But assurance is based on the completeness of Jesus’ work on our behalf, which we partake of with even the least faith.

“There never yet was a Scriptural truth without abuses and counterfeits.  God’s election- man’s impotence- salvation by grace- all are alike abused.  There will be fanatics and enthusiasts as long as the world stands.  But, for all this, assurance is a reality and a true thing; and God’s children must not let themselves be driving from the use of a truth, merely because it is abused.”  Ryle then goes on to give lots of Scripture that points to the reality of assurance for the believer.  The point being, we lean upon Jesus our Mediator, and God’s Word. 

However, a “believer may never arrive at this assured hope, which Paul expresses, and yet be saved.”  It is not necessary to have assurance of salvation to actually be saved.  Many Christians have struggled with doubts and depression.  However, there hope is in Christ and they are saved.  Assurance is not infallible.  Nor is it a test of salvation.  “Faith, let us remember, is the root, and assurance is the flower.”  The root can be present, and lively, even if there is no flower to show it.

Why should we desire assurance?  First, it grants us some peace and comfort about our spiritual condition.  It helps us to stand firm under trial and loss.  It removes the fear of abandonment in the midst of great suffering.  This is no small thing (written as one experiencing trial at this time).

Second, it “tends to make a Christian and active working Christian.”  Assurance provides us with the safety to act, not the luxury of leisure.  We act because we believe we have new life, not to earn or maintain new life.  A Christian without assurance tends to become preoccupied with introspection.  This makes with a very unproductive, and counterproductive Christian life.  Such a person is often paralyzed.

Third, it makes a Christian a “decided Christian”.  I think decisive might be a better word choice today.  Lack of assurance creates a great deal of uncertainty and instability in our pursuit of God. 

Fourth, it tends to make the holiest Christians.  “He that is freely forgiven by Christ will always do much for Christ’s glory, and he that enjoys the fullest assurance of this forgiveness will ordinarily keep up the closest walk with God.”  Think the forgiven prostitute versus Simon the Pharisee.  They prize their assurance, and keep a close watch on their own hearts as a result.

“Now, has it never struck you that your neglect of assurance may possibly be the main secret of all your failures- that the low measure of faith which satisfies you may be the cause of your low degree of peace?” 

Why is assurance so seldom attained?  First, a defective view of justification.  People think it some combination of Christ’s work and their own.  It is all Christ’s- his active & passive obedience.  He completely obeyed the law & He endured God’s wrath as our substitute.  We affirm “simul justus et peccator”- at the same time we are just and sinners.  We are justified sinners (Romans 3-5). 

Second, we are slothful in seeking growth in grace.  We misunderstand assurance as an opportunity to be spiritual slackers.  Not seeing progress in sanctification, we certainly lack assurance.

Third, we are inconsistent in our walk.  We vary in our pursuit of Christ by faith.  This inconsistency destroys a peaceful conscience. 

I found this to be a sound & encouraging book.  I hope it won’t take you quite so long to read as it took me- may your circumstances be different.  Click the link, buy, read and apply to the glory of God.

Read Full Post »

Ryle: Growing in Grace

Ryle’s next chapter in Holiness is on Growth in Grace. He addressed 3 topics in this chapter: the reality, marks and means of spiritual growth.  His text is 2 Peter 3:18 (Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.).  This should basically show the reality of spiritual growth (which is concurrent with our growth in our knowledge- both objective and subjective- of Jesus).

The marks of spiritual growth include increased humility, increased faith and love toward Jesus, increased holiness of life, increased spirituality of taste and mind.  The first ones should make sense, and be obvious to any converted person.  The last I mentioned may not be instantly clear. 

“The ways, and fashions, and amusements, and recreations of the world have a continually decreasing place in his heart.  He does not condemn them as downright sinful, nor say that those who have anything to do with them are going to hell.  He only feels that they have a constantly diminishing hold on his own affections, and gradually seem smaller and more trifling in his eyes.”

He does not really specify what he means.  Our hobbies should become less important to us, and we should spend more time cultivating a heart toward him, toward others etc.  One does not want to say that anyone must abstain from indifferent matters (1 Tim. 4).  However, I fear we (me included) have been captivated and be-dazzled by indifferent matters.  We are more concerned with missing our favorite show or game than not having/finding time to be with God.  We can be more focused on a new CD than a new book by someone who will spur us on to holiness and love.

Two other marks are growth in charity (love) and increased zeal and diligence in trying to do good to others.  These are connected.  The grace of God teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and live proper, godly lives in this present age (Titus).  “One of the surest marks of spiritual decline is a decreased interest about the souls of others and the growth of Christ’s kingdom.”

I want to focus on the means of grace.  We can often think that these things earn God’s grace.  Modern Pharisees think this way.  Antinomians avoid these means out of fear of legalism, forgetting that God uses means to give us grace.  “They seem to suppose that those who grow are what they are by some special gift or grant from God. … Cast away for ever the vain thought that if a believer does not grow in grace it is not his fault.”  God has appointed those means.  Those means do not benefit us unless we participate in them believing God has ordained them, and that God will provide the grace He promised.  We do not think the act itself provides grace, but that God does it as He sees fit.  However, if we don’t utilize those means… no grace.  So, what are these means?

Read Full Post »

The Cost of Holiness

In his chapter on The Cost of Holiness, J.C. Ryle builds on the idea of Luke 14:28 about counting the cost.  He laments the “easy-believism” that marked his day, and ours.  He mentions that there is little cost associated with the nominal Christianity that fills many of our churches.

The point is not that we can in any way earn our salvation- only Jesus could do that.  The point is that if we truly believe, there will be a cost we will pay.  We had better count that cost.

1. It will cost us our self-righteousness.  We must forsake all our boasting in the practices that we think may bring us life.  Ryle quotes a Puritan, “it is harder to deny proud self than sinful self.  But it is absolutely necessary.”  The doctrine of free grace is an affront to the flesh.  As Luther has written, there is a little religious zealote in each of us clamoring to earn a part of our salvation.

2. It will cost us our sins. There is a willingness to forsake our sins, particularly our pet sins.  “Our sins are often as dear to us as our children: we love them, hug them, cleave to them, and delight in them.”  We enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.  Yes, they have their pleasures.  Otherwise we would not commit them.  But, “he and sin must quarrel, if he and God are to be friends.”  God hates sin, and to enjoy his fellowship we must begin to break with sin.  As we grow more like God, we will hate sin more and more.

3. It will cost us our love of ease.  Following Jesus will mean a new carefulness to life.  We are more concerned with our use of time, treasures, tongue.  Most of us avoid difficulty, unless there is a sufficient payoff.  The time line on our payoff is pretty long.  We must expend lots of energy first, and this “cuts against the grain of our hearts.”  This is why people drop away so quickly when following Jesus introduces difficulty in their lives.  They love X more than him.  We must don’t want trouble with our faith.

Read Full Post »

The Fight of Sanctification

It was a fight to read this chapter because I was fighting a migraine at the time.  But it served as a good reminder that progressive sanctification is not automatic, nor easy.  There is no passivism to be found in the Bible.  Hebrews 11 is full of people who acted because they believed.

Anyway, Ryle addresses why this is a good fight (1 Timothy 6:12).  He notes the horrible consequences of war in our world.  Consequences that have not changed.  People may choose to be pacifists when it comes to earthly conflicts.  But in our internal battle against sin, no Christian may be a pacifist or appeaser.  We are all to be soldiers of Christ.

Keep in mind, the battle is not between nations, or religions or theological squabbles.  The battle in view is the battle with the flesh, the world and the devil.  “But with a corrupt heart, a busy devil, and an ensnaring world, he must either ‘fight’ or be lost.”

Interestingly, he quotes “the wisest General that ever lived in England”.  I wish I knew to whom to attribute this great quote to, but: “In time of war it is the worst mistake to underrate your enemy, and try to make a little war.”  I can think of some politicians that need to read it.  But the point Ryle is making, and we need to hear, is that we must not underestimate the flesh, the world and the devil.  It is not a minor skirmish, or ‘police action’ or ‘act of terrorism’.  The battle against sin is a full-time, full-blown war.  It is not a hobby, or an option activity for the ‘serious’ Christian.

“Where there is grace there will be conflict.  …. There is no holiness without a warfare.  Saved souls will always be found to have fought a fight.”  This should cause us to recognize our own weakness before our foes.  How we need the work of Christ progressively applied to us by the Spirit through faith!  How we need to recognize it is all of grace, even as we dig in or press on.  We will feel the heat, and pressure, if we are to be purified and transformed.  As John Owen has said, “Be killing sin or it will kill you.”

The key, as Ryle notes, is faith.  Not generic faith- but a faith in Jesus.  We trust in his “person, work and office” as revealed by Scripture and portrayed in the Gospel.  We need our Prophet to reveal our sin, our Priest to cover our sin, and our King to kill our sin.  Faith is also rooted, as Piper often notes, in God’s promises.  We are to believe, and act upon, God’s promises for grace.

We are not alone in this fight, or at least should not be.  Sadly we tend to isolate ourselves from the very helps God has provided.  We have allies in the Word and Spirit.  God has joined them together (Calvin & Owen among others) though sinful men drive them apart.  We have allies in one another (Ephesians 6 speaks of tight ranks to oppose the foe).  Do not go it alone, but stand by your brothers and sisters.  And in the words of a great coach, “Fight, fight, fight!”

Read Full Post »

The Necessity of Holiness

Many view holiness as optional, a bonus if you will.  Ryle’s theme verse for this chapter is Hebrews 12:14: “Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord…”  That ought to grab our attention.

Ryle starts by identifying what it is not: not knowledge, great profession, doing many things, zeal for certain matters in religion, taking pleasure in hearing preachers, not keeping company with godly people.  Holiness is so much more than any and all of these.

It is a “habit of being of one mind with God.”  As a result, a person loves what God love and hates what God hates.  We agree with God that sin is evil, that righteousness is good, and about what is important.

Additionally, it is a great desire, or “decided bent of mind toward God, a hearty desire to do His will.”  This is a commitment to obedience, a mark of grace.

It is striving “to be like our Lord Jesus Christ.”  This is simply the idea expressed in Romans 8:29.  Those God foreknew have been predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.  Our moral character increasingly aligns with the moral perfection of Messiah.

Holy people follow Jesus, obeying God, despite suffering- responding like Jesus would (gentleness, meekness etc.).  They also put their sin to death, denying self.

Lest one think that holiness is austere and cold, holy people also “follow after charity (love) and brotherly kindness.”  As a result of this love and kindness, a holy person strives to “lessen the spiritual wants and misery around him, as far as he can.”  Holiness encompasses the horizontal as well as the vertical.  Vertical holiness results in horizontal holiness.  Love toward God results in love toward people, who are made in his image.

Lest we have an over-realized view, Ryle affirms the remaining presence of indwelling sin (contra the Council of Trent).  “The old man is clogging all of his movements, and, as it were, trying to draw him back at every step he takes.”  Indwelling sin, what Paul calls the flesh, hinders every attempt at obedience and love.  Every pastor must take note of this.  You can lay out great vision (aka a biblical vision), but there will always be resistance.  You, and your leadership, will resist all movements toward obedience.  Holiness does not come easy, but each gain is made with great struggle.  But the presence of blemishes and imperfections does not make it non-holiness.  As Ryle notes, even impure gold is still gold.

Why is holiness so important?  Why should we struggle to make progress in it?  This may sound too obvious, but because God commands it.  This is one of the reasons Jesus came into the world, to make us holy.  Jesus came, not just for pardon, but to break its power.  As a result, it is evidence that one’s faith is a saving faith instead of a dead faith.  Holiness is proof of regeneration, evidence of a new heart and the indwelling of the Spirit.  Holiness reveals that we are part of God’s family as we bear the family likeness.  Our present comfort often depends upon it.  The less we sin, the less of its misery we shall taste.  And lastly, we shall be more prepared for heaven.  The more holy we are, the more we will long for the consummation of the kingdom.

Ryle quotes John Owen to remind us of the root and cause of all true holiness.  “Did Christ die, and shall sin live?  Was he crucified in the world, and shall our affections to the world be quick and lively?”  The cross of Christ is the foundation of our holiness.  Holiness comes from vital, spiritual union with Him by faith.  Holiness is not produced by the working of the flesh (though there is a counterfeit holiness that is).  We must go to Jesus if we desire holiness.  Soli deo Gloria. 

Read Full Post »

Justification and Sanctification: The Difference

This is the final installment on Ryle’s chapter on Sanctification where he compares and contrasts justification and sanctification.  The inability to distinguish them has led to many a departure from biblical Christianity.  This is a very important topic.

So… how are they alike?

1. “Both proceed originally from the free grace of God.”  It all comes back to grace, sovereignly administered by God.  He owes no one, and is free to give grace to whomsoever He will.
2. “Both are part of that great work of salvation which Christ, in the eternal covenant, has undertaken on behalf of His people.”  Often problems arise from equating justification with salvation.  Salvation encompasses justification, but is more than justification.  It includes the graces of regeneration, adoption, sanctification and glorification.  Therefore, the Scriptures talk about us having been saved (justification), being saved (sanctification) and will be saved (glorification).  All are rooted in grace purchased by Christ’s work on our behalf.
3.  “Both are to be found in the same person.”  At the risk of being crass, but it is like one of those special buys on TV… “wait, there’s more.”  If you buy the bamboo steamer you also get everything else.  Those who are justified are also being sanctified.  No truly justified person will not be sanctified.  No one can be sanctified unless they are first justified.  We can distinguish these graces, but cannot separate them.  Just as we can distinguish between the two natures of Christ, but cannot separate them since the Incarnation.
4. “Both begin at the same time.”  The act of justification marks the beginning of sanctification.  You may not feel very sanctified, or at all, but you are.
5. “Both are alike necessary to salvation.”  They are a package deal, by grace.  All inclusive!  All purchased by Jesus’ obedience and sacrifice.

How are they different?

Read Full Post »

What Sanctification is Not and Is

I’m picking up with the second major section in J.C. Ryle’s chapter on Sanctification in his book, Holiness.

1. “True sanctification does not consist in talk about religion.”  We’ve all met that guy (or gal) who talks a good game, but seems quite indifferent to his/her own sin.  This would be the person who does not control their tongue, or likes to get drunk, etc.  Real sanctification is about more than talking doctrine or arguing about (fill in the blank).

2. “True sanctification does not consist in temporary religious feelings.”  Look at the Parable of the Sower.  Counterfeit conversions happen often.  People may be moved by a sermon/speaker.  They may have some emotional moment.  “Many, it may be feared, appear moved and touched and roused under the preaching of the Gospel, while in reality their hearts are not changed at all.”

3. “True sanctification does not consist in outward formalism and external devoutness.”  People can look really good at church.  They can help lead worship, or read Scripture and yet not experience the transforming power of Christ in the Gospel.  “Many followers of this outward, sensuous, and formal style of Christianity are absorbed in worldliness, and plunge headlong into its pomps and vanities.”

Read Full Post »

The Necessities of Sanctification

The general ignorance of biblical theology these days have created great misunderstanding about the necessity and nature of sanctification.  J.C. Ryle’s chapter on Sanctification is a powerhouse which I’ll need 3 posts to cover with any integrity.  After 2 chapters, I’m wondering why I was so foolish as to have never read this book in 20 years of Christian living.  Perhaps it was my fear, that I would have to face some facts I don’t want to have to face.  There are still sins, or inordinate desire for good things, that I need to put to death, and areas of obedience I need to put on.  But Ryle’s treatment of this subject is first rate, and convicting to boot.

He begins with the assertion that justification, regeneration and sanctification are necessary for our salvation.  No one is truly a Christian unless they have experienced the first 2 and are undergoing the third.

Some of you are going.. “duh?” but there are people do refuse the notion that sanctification is necessary to salvation.  They think that though distinct, these 2 saving graces can be separated (this happens with some dispensational theologians like Ryrie & Shaefer).  This is essentially a “Reformed Arminian” position- Arminian in all things except for a pale imitation of Preservation/Perseverence of the Saints viewed as “Once Saved, Always Saved” (think Charles Stanley, or Ryrie’s infamous unbelieving believer).

Some Reformed folks are so afraid of the notion of works in justification (which they should be) that they could be guilty of denying the doctrine of sanctification in the process.  I think some of the guys from the Trinity Foundation are dancing on, if not over, this line.

In sanctification, Jesus “separates him from his natural love of sin and the world, puts a new principle in his heart, and makes him practially godly in life.”  He further sums our salvation up this way: “The Lord Jesus has undertaken everything that His people’s souls require; not only to deliver them from the guilt of their sins by His atoning death, but from the dominion of their sins, by placing in their hearts the Holy Spirit; not only to justify them, but also to sanctify them.”

He then begins to define the exact nature of sanctification.

1. “Sanctification… is the invariable result of that vital union with Christ which true faith gives to a Christian.”  Ryle focuses on the “in Christ” idea without lapsing into a passivity that is foreign to Scripture.  Our election is “in Christ” or in union with him.  All he has done, we too have done because of our spiritual union with him (Galatians 2:20 for instance).  “The union with Christ which produces no effect on heart and life is a mere formal union, which is worthless before God.”  This is counterfeit notion of this life-giving, life-transforming union with Christ.

2.  Sanctification is a necessary “outcome and inseparable consequence of regeneration.”  This is something to which John MacArthur would agree, but didn’t seem to find itself into The Gospel According to Jesus.  As such, an otherwise fine book is hindered in its purpose of promoting gospel holiness.

3. “Sanctification … is the only certain evidence of that indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is essential to salvation.”  The Spirit will be at work to produce fruit in our lives; he will be at work to prompt repentance and faith, as well as the putting to death of sin.  John 3 talks about how the Spirit is like the wind (linguistically as well), he cannot be seen directly but only through the effects produced.  Instead of moving trees and flying debris, it is the movement toward holiness. 

4. “Sanctification is the only sure mark of God’s election.”  There can be counterfeit faith, a faith that does not result in sanctification.  So, we cannot point to faith alone, but a faith that is not alone- one that produces obedience by grace.

Read Full Post »

The Great Burden of Sin in Sanctification

In his important work, Cur Deus Homo (Why the God-Man), Anselm corrects Boso, “You have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin.”  Many misunderstand the atonement as a result.

In a similar way, many misunderstand sanctification because they have not yet estimated the great burden of sin.  This is Ryle’s starting point as he addresses the false theologies of santification of his own day.  “Wrong views about holiness are generally traceable to wrong views about human corruption.”

It is helpful to think about the penalty, power and presence of sin.  The substitutionary death removed the penalty of sin for those who (will) believe.  Jesus endured the wrath of God’s just punishment on our behalf (which Anselm argues for in his book).  We will not be free from the presence of sin until our glorification.  When we either die or Jesus returns, all who believe will be perfected in holiness, perfectly conformed to the likeness of Christ.

Those who believe live between those times.  Sanctification is the gracious process by which we are progressively freed from the power of sin and enabled to increasingly obey God.  Grace works in both directions: saying “no” to disobedience and saying “yes” to obedience.   Sadly, some underestimate the power of sin in the life of a believer and think we can become perfect in this life either thru a second blessing (Wesley, Hannah Whitall Smith etc.) or changing our bad habits (essentially the view of Neil Anderson who denies the power of indwelling sin).

Read Full Post »

Pensee for the Day- Ryle

Dislike of dogma (doctrine) “is an epidemic which is just now doing great harm, and specificially among young people… .  It produces what I must venture to call … a ‘jelly-fish’ Christianity in the land: that is, a Christianity without boned, or muscle, or power.  A jelly-fish … is a pretty and graceful object when it floats in the sea, contracting and expanding like a little, delicate, transparent umbrella.  Yet the same jelly-fish, when cast on the shore, is a mere helpless lump, without capacity for movement, self-defense, or self-preservation.  Alas!  It is a vivid type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, ‘No dogma, no distinct tenets, no positive doctrine.’  We have hundreds of ‘jelly-fish’ clergymen, who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity.  They have no definite opinions; they belong to no school or party; they are so afraid of ‘extreme views’ that they have no views at all.  We have thousands of ‘jelly-fish’ sermons preached every year, sermons without an edge or a point, or a corner, smooth as billiard balls, awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint.  We have Legions of ‘jelly-fish’ young men annually turned out from our Universities, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy, who think it a mark of cleverness and intellect to have no decided opinions about anything in religion, and to be utterly unable to make up their minds as to what is Christian truth.  …. And last, and worst of all, we have myriads of ‘jelly-fish’ worshipers- respectable Church-going people, who have no distinct and definite views about any point in theology.  They cannot discern things that differ, any more than color-blind people can distinguish colors.  They think everybody is right and nobody is wrong, everything is true and nothing is false, ….  . They are ‘tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine’; often carried away by any new excitement and sensational movement;….”  J.C. Ryle quoted by J.I. Packer in Faithfulness and Holiness.  I can think of some people this would apply to today.

Read Full Post »