God's Plan - Step III Bringing them home.

We remember the things we have established so far.
First - The problem of sin: Instead of walking with God as his image and friend. sin makes us enemies and rebels against God. We distort the truth which reveals the glory and nature of God so clearly that everyone will be unable to deny that they knew God even when they worshiped and served someone or something else. That sin affects absolutely everyone. Because we sin, we all die.

Second - God made a Plan: His plan was to provide a way of escape sufficient that every single human being could, if they are willing, avoid the punishment due because of sinful human nature and the actual sins they commit themselves. This plan also overcomes sinful nature, establishes a trusting relationship with God and brings some of the human race to enjoy the final blessings of that relationship.

Third - Step I; Paying for Sin: The first step was to ensure the payment due for sin was paid. That required someone who was free of the taint of Adam's sin, who never committed sin and who would lay down his life on behalf of man. No one was able to do that but God, Himself. So, Jesus came and did all required of him including the death of a criminal, though he did no wrong.

Fourth - Step II; Step II; Gathering the Sheep: The second step was to ensure that some of those who were headed for Hell are turned around. This is truly life from death and, as such, God's work. Saints from both Old and New Testaments are saved the same way. And, though unable to be proved, the language of the New Testament implies more will be saved than lost.

Step III; Bringing them Home: Here we have to deal with one of the realities of life. Some of those who begin as Christians do not continue to the end. Persecution puts some off and the cares, pleasures and worries of the world distract others. This is the reason Paul exhorts his readers to strive hard to make their calling and election sure. He reminds them that the prize doesn't go to the starters of the race - you have to finish it. Jesus told the story of the man who went out to hire laborers for his field, it was those who worked (no matter how long) who earned their pay at the end.

Once again we need to remember, when thinking through our salvation, God ordains what will come to pass and so it does. Yet, at the same time, man is responsible for the consequences of every choice he makes. God is not the author of our sins, we are. We may not understand this fully - we may even ask "So why does God still find fault? Who has ever resisted his will?" We should understand that God is like the potter and we are clay - he may do with us exactly what he wills and complaints are not an option. In the same way as each step in executing God's plan has a Godward and a manward aspect and both are true so it is here.

As, for example, conversion is a co-operative thing; the person has to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (even though, seeing the stakes by the work of the Holy Spirit, it seems impossible to do anything else) so it is with becoming Christlike. From our perspective we are required to fight against our sinful tendencies. It's not enough to imagine all we have to do is know Bible teaching, we have to use that teaching to guide our behavior. We need to desire to express our gratitude to God for his wonderful work in saving us. And we need to do it all understanding that some who begin with us do actually make shipwreck of their faith.

It is God's plan, however, that every one of his children will persevere to the end. In the prayer of John 17, Jesus makes a distinction between the eleven faithful disciples and "the son of perdition" Judas. He makes it clear that God had given the eleven to him and he had lost none of them. This does not mean he didn't hold them responsible for the things they did, and thought about, wrongly. He certainly rebuked them and called them "ye of little faith." But he did acknowledge they did have faith, they just needed to use it properly.

So the Holy Spirit works with our spirit guiding our desires so that we love God and wish, above all other things, never to cause a rift between us. He makes the pleasures of this life seem far less important than they once were and even enables us to endure suffering and pain by considering the purpose of it all. The wonderful thing is that, though it is really the work of the Holy Spirit that keeps us following Christ, God counts the works we do as worthy of praise.

Significantly, the distinction between the Christian and the non-Christian pretender becomes clear at this point. The pretender looks at his works and imagines they are worthy of God's praise. The Christian only sees the failure of everything he does to measure up to the standard set by his Lord and Savior. This makes him strive the harder where the pretender, if he even notices that failure, becomes disheartened.

God's Plan - Step II: Gathering the Sheep

We remember the things we have established so far.
First - The problem of sin: Instead of walking with God as his image and friend. sin makes us enemies and rebels against God. We distort the truth which reveals the glory and nature of God so clearly that everyone will be unable to deny that they knew God even when they worshiped and served someone or something else. That sin affects absolutely everyone. Because we sin, we all die.

Second - God made a Plan: His plan was to provide a way of escape sufficient that every single human being could, if they are willing, avoid the punishment due because of sinful human nature and the actual sins they commit themselves. This plan also overcomes sinful nature, establishes a trusting relationship with God and brings some of the human race to enjoy the final blessings of that relationship.

Third - Step I; Paying for Sin: The first step was to ensure the payment due for sin was paid. That required someone who was free of the taint of Adam's sin, who never committed sin and who would lay down his life on behalf of man. No one was able to do that but God, Himself. So, Jesus came and did all required of him including the death of a criminal, though he did no wrong.

Fourth - Step II; Gathering the Sheep: At this point, it is important to remind ourselves that God is not like us. We are bound by time, God is not. We understand events in a linear fashion, God does not. At least two things make this quite clear. Describing himself Jesus says: "Before Abraham was, I am." Abraham's existence is conceived by Jesus differently from us, showing that he does not see time the way we do. Then when he turned water into wine he showed he is able to control the forces of nature even compressing time if need be, to achieve the effect he wanted.

Life from death: So, when we consider the valley of dry bones and God's question to Ezekiel: "Son of man can these bones live?" we already expect the result we see. What we do not expect is that God has Ezekiel pronounce the command which brings the bones to life. So the question becomes, was it God's power that brought the bones to life or Ezekiel's command. The answer depends on what element we are considering at the time, but simply put it was both God's power and Ezekiel's command (at God's behest). The bones represent the two parts of Israel but the principle applies to those who are long dead in sin and with no ordinary hope of ever living again.

This is the picture the Apostle uses when he says we are dead in trespasses and sins. Dead means no life and no ability to do anything. Like Ezekiel's bones sinful people can do nothing to help themselves they are totally unresponsive to anything spiritual. This is the reason why John tells us that when Jesus came to his own, his own did not receive him then goes on to describe why some actually did. He says they were those who were born ... of God. Jesus calls this being born again in his discussion with Nicodemus.

Old and New Testament: What was true of the Old Testament saints who were the "heroes of the faith" is true also of those in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit makes us alive as he did, for example, to those who heard Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost, and the inevitable result is they hearers repent and believe. Debates have gone on whether it was the power of God or Peter's sermon changed the hearts of the hearers but it's like thinking about the dry bones all over again. Is there a difference between Old and New Testaments here? In terms of the way the hearers are saved? No. In the people who were to be saved, yes! That's why the Church was given the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit - so they would recognize it was no longer going to be only Jews added to the flock. God was now gathering his people from every tongue and tribe and nation.

The final extent: One of the things it is heard to find agreement about among Christians today is whether God intends the whole human race to be saved or just a few. Some would agree with those who limit it to 144,000 (on the basis of the Book of Revelation) but I think the language of the New Testament allows us to be more hopeful than that. Paul reminds us that when Jesus ascended on high he took his seat on the throne where he will reign "until all his enemies are put under his feet." The story of the kingdom heaven which Jesus reminded us is like a sower going out to sow implies the seed will fall mostly on prepared ground.

We are not given any more than a hint of these things for a very good reason. God wants us to concentrate on the work we have been given to do. This part of Scripture is designed to remind us that, God's plan will be successful - his sheep will be gathered (all of them), that those sheep include those from Old and New Testaments, from every tribe of man over the whole earth, and that, in the end all will acknowledge Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.

God's Plan - Step I: Paying the price

Where we are so far:
First we talked about the Problem - sin. Because all sin, all deserve punishment and according to God's Justice that punishment has to be borne by each sinner. God's mercy, however, also needs expression. So God planned to save some from their deserved punishment. In order for this to be just (everyone is guilty) there has to be no distinction made on the basis of anything intrinsically a part of the one saved. Today we look at the first step in applying God's plan.

Foreshadowed payment: From the beginning God showed that he was prepared to accept a blood sacrifice in place of the sinner's own life. This was not because the blood of an animal actually took away sin - a fact that some ancient people showed they understood by offering the death of another human being. They showed they truly understood their blood-debt to God and that he would accept a substitute - the point of the symbolic death of an animal. Their concept was right - the substitute, however, was to be sinless in God's eyes.

In the Old Testament God revealed the requirements of an acceptable sacrifice. It had to be without blemish, it had to be accepted as a substitute by the sinner, and it had to be acceptable to God. In the Passover festival all these elements were clearly demonstrated. God appointed the form the sacrifice was to take; a lamb or kid in place of the family. They were to choose an unblemished animal and follow a particular set of rules for the sacrifice to be acceptable. The blood was to mark the entrance to the house and no one was to leave that house till morning. If all these things were done as God commanded the household would be safe from the destroyer.

In reality the Passover lamb was to be a symbol of Jesus the Christ. He was the unblemished "lamb of God." He was chosen by the people (the purpose of the entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey) and was - being sinless - acceptable to God. By his death he purchased the lives of those who are covered by his blood from the destroyer - the life of one who is sinless on behalf of each person who is sinful. This is the plan God offers to man - either pay the price yourself or accept Jesus as a substitute for that life.

Now it is apparent that, because Jesus is God, himself, the price is sufficient for every single man woman and child that has ever lived. And were we mere puppets that would be all there is to it. But God ordained that man's choices would have consequences - so when Adam sinned the race died. Since that is the case our salvation rests on a decision which we make concerning Christ's actions. We have to choose to accept that sacrifice on our behalf.

Now remember the significance of this choice. God makes the provision out of his merciful and loving character. He makes it to those who are acknowledged criminals and rebels. It is his own beloved son who dies to earn the salvation of everyone who believes the offer is genuine. To reject such an offer makes things very much worse because it is choosing to trample on the graciousness of God. Yet, to accept such an offer is to acknowledge God's unbelievable kindness and the extreme viciousness of sin.

It is to say "I am wrong to rebel against you, God; I deserve to die and I can do nothing about it, please forgive me and let me claim the death of your son on my behalf." In the same way that Adam had to be forced to face the implications of his actions (which he never truly took responsibility for) so also does man today. Left to ourselves this wonderfully generous provision is something no one will ever accept. We love our sin too much. We are slaves to our lusts and would rather deny God's goodness than accept anything from his hand. Such is the attitude of those who are Hell-bound.

So, Step 1 seems to leave us no closer to salvation. God has made the provision - that's what the Easter festival is all about. It reminds us of the provision God has made. But, such is our sin that we would happily join those who scourged Christ, who jammed the crown of thorns down on his head, who gambled for his clothes and who gathered to jeer at him as he hung in agony on the cross. The good news is that God even made provision for this result. And that is what we look at tomorrow.

Five Points: II God's Plan

Last time we looked at the problem of sin and how, were God only a God of justice we would all be condemned to eternal damnation. At that point I remarked that, since God is also a God of love and mercy this is a problem for him as well. It is not his intention that the whole human race be wiped out. Even when he decided in the past that the wickedness of man was such that he would act against that sin he saved one family - Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. At that time he set a rainbow in the sky, promising the world would never be destroyed again in the same way.

So, remembering what our wickedness has earned us in the sight of God it would be perfectly just for him to destroy us all. And, however few he decided to save would be a testament to his mercy and love. But that is not God's intention this time. The first destruction and subsequent events are designed to teach us that, such is sin, fear of destruction is not enough to restrain it in any way. In fact our nature is such that even the flood itself is denied along with all the evidence, clearly visible, of God's wrath against sin and his eternal Godhead and Divinity.

God determined that, this time, there would be some who would definitely be saved. Some who, as a result, would be holy and righteous; hating sin and seeking after God so that they might serve him faithfully. He planned to provide an atonement for their sins and also that they would be changed within so that sin would no longer have dominion over them. These he would gather, starting with an obscure man from Ur and, working through his family, would make his name known among the nations. They would be the ones who (though few in number to begin) would be distinct enough so the nations would be faced with his claim on them.

Because this was a matter of mercy, he determined that there would be nothing to distinguish those he chose to receive the atonement, from those who would be lost because they rejected it. As in the Garden of Eden, God determined our choices would have consequences. The details of this plan were in accordance with his justice and mercy - justice because all are as guilty as each other; and mercy in that his choice is made from the totally guilty without regard to any intrinsic worth in those chosen.

This plan we deduce from the way God has dealt with man since the fall and from the clear statements of the Apostles, especially Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans. God's choice becomes the ultimate reason why some will become children of God and some not. It's the ultimate reason because sin, as it did with Adam in the Garden of Eden, prevents any of us from seeking God, or confessing our sins or even accepting God's gracious provision for our salvation. Sin is rebellion and rebels do not make terms with the enemy. God knows this and has made provision in his plan even for that fact.

There is one final point which ought to be mentioned, though not able to be clearly proven from Scripture, the language with which the Kingdom of Heaven is described for our era leaves the impression that those to be ultimately saved do not represent a small number of mankind. This would be in accordance with God's mercy and justice especially as Romans 11:11-32 indicates. Though this may be true, our concern today is to remember that God did not ignore the problem of sin, he has made a plan, involving particular people, which will lead to the salvation of mankind. In the next few days we will consider that plan in more detail.

Five Points: I - the Problem

When it comes to being saved the are at least five things we should consider. In this post we consider the first - The Problem

Adam was created in God's image. He walked with God in the cool of the evening and he was actively doing God's will during the time he was not with him. In a word, he was perfect, but he was alone. So God made a woman as a helper fitted for him, from his rib, and left her to Adam's guidance. They both disobeyed God by eating of a forbidden fruit. Adam's sin was instrumental in the destruction of the whole human race. Death is the result of sinning against God and all die, therefore (says the Bible) all have sinned.

But, that is not all. The Bible reminds us that we add to Adam's sin with sins of our own. Cain killed Abel. The situation got so bad that God destroyed the ancient world in a worldwide flood. The Noah got drunk and two of his sons mocked him. Then there was: Abram who lied to Pharaoh and to Abimalech. Laban who stole from Jacob who stole right back. The record goes on ... even David (the man after God's own heart) had a man murdered in order to hide his affair with the man's wife. Jeremiah describes the situation as: "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately wicked." And the Preacher agrees.

We do not believe the heart of man is as wicked as it could be - God restrains us, even as he did in the time of Noah. But we do believe that every part of man is affected by sin. The body decays and dies. The mind is used to deny what the creation teaches us about God. And we choose to worship and serve something other than God. The desires of our hearts are even turned to self-gratification rather than the service of God and man.

We demonstrate our own hypocrisy by condemning others for the things we do ourselves. And, knowing that the judgment of God falls upon those who do such things we not only do them but we delight in those who do them as well. And there's the nub of the problem. God's justice is impartial and his sentence is: "The soul that sins will die." We receive a partial fulfillment of that sentence at the end of this life, but the ultimate result is banishment from the realm of the blessed.

So, with perfect justice every single human being who has ever lived is guilty of sin and all deserve to perish eternally. I said this was a problem and the problem is that God is not justice alone. He is a God of love and mercy as well. Sin demands his justice punish the sinner for his actions. This is what God has determined will happen. And that leaves every person (with only one exception) under the condemnation of the Law of God.

Easter shows us it is not enough that God's justice is met; there has to be some way he can show mercy and love. And, next time, we begin to look at God's solution to the problem of sin.

Unconverted Ministry

A recent post by Al Mohler raised an important issue. It traced an article about unconverted pastors and pointed to this comment in the article as a key.

"The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked." - Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University (emphasis added)

Since this was written by two atheists it could be easy to dismiss their comments as unworthy of consideration. Nevertheless there is a truth involved in the article and in the comment quoted above. Some Church leaders have been guilty of teaching in accordance with the passage emphasized above, it is true. But that is certainly not the idea intended by those who argued for a disestablished Church in the early days in the USA. In fact it would not be true to assume that the early fathers of the nation believed in pluralism at all. They saw themselves as setting up (as can be seen by the Declaration of Independence) a Christian State where no one denomination was to be given State support.

The problem with such a view is that the benefit of State encouragement to correct errors in the Church and vice versa has been largely attenuated. Though still possible, it is frowned upon as interference in the free exercise of our liberties if either institution dares to speak out against abuses in the other. Now, I am not arguing for a return to an established Church. It is wise, however, to remember that though no Church was established in the USA there was an established religion - Christianity.

While that means no one Church's teaching is to be accepted as completely correct there are certain basic tenets which hold true over all the Christian Churches. So it is patently untrue to say "God is many different things to different people" as if that includes denying he even exists. Christianity as it was accepted by the fathers was clear about the doctrine of God. He is as described in the Apostle's Creed. Most Christians would also accept the Nicene Creed and the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon on the nature of Christ.

The unconverted ministry mentioned in Al Mohler's article have no right to claim ambiguity as a reason for remaining in the role they have chosen. The honorable thing to do would be to acknowledge their unbelief and leave. In this day they would still be allowed to set up their own worshiping community (possibly even made up of their former parishioners) and even to call it a Church. In fairness, however, they should stop using the name Christian to describe their beliefs. That's more than a courtesy, that's ceasing to use the name of God in vain and so is marginally safer when it comes to the Final Judgment, even though it will not change the verdict.

Sermon at Pentecost

Occasion: The Baptism of the Church in the Holy Spirit (promised by the Lord Jesus). The is the only unambiguous example of a baptism in the New Testament. But its significance is not in the method used to baptize but in the result of that baptism. By sending the Holy Spirit Jesus gave notice to the world that he had been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Though we are removed from the events in Acts 2:1-36 by over 20 centuries yet, in principle - by our sins - we are as guilty of crucifying Jesus as the Jews of the time. Peter's sermon on that day is, therefore, something we all need to hear.

The festival of Shavuot celebrates both the end of the wheat harvest (in Israel) and the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. This was the occasion for the gathering of the Jews in Jerusalem. It was a cheerful crowd who gathered. No doubt most had forgotten the events of that last Passover (if they even knew) for the disciples had been out of the public eye.

They had been meeting with Jesus and had been given indisputable proof of his resurrection during this time. Though greatly encouraged by the events of the weeks since Passover and though they did gather together it appears they still followed a policy of not making themselves obvious. The coming of the Holy Spirit changed all that.

Peter's sermon was the first of many that were to trouble some of the Jewish nation for the next 100 years. The theme was particularly troubling. Peter, as others would also do, proclaimed Jesus was the promised Messiah. Scripture, events they had witnessed and God raising him from the dead acknowledged him as such. He finished by reminding them of the contrast between God's treatment of him and theirs.

Content: Peter answered the charge that the disciples were drunk as a "reason" why they were behaving strangely by pointing to the Scripture (Joel 2:28-32) as the real explanation.
1. Jesus is the Christ: He then reminds his hearers of the events they had heard of Jesus of Nazareth and which, no doubt many had actually witnessed. These, events; the miracles, wonders and signs were (as everyone knew) indications of God's favor. Yet, in accordance with God's predetermined plan and foreknowledge they (the Jewish people) had him nailed to a cross, putting him to death.
2. Jesus was resurrected: This was the explanation of a passage in Psalm 16:8-11 which apparently speaks of God not abandoning David's soul to Hell nor allowing God's "Holy One" to see corruption. "We know," says Peter, "that David both died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day..." Obviously it couldn't be David but, being a prophet he looked forward to speak of his descendant Jesus of whom this was true. Peter points to himself and his fellow disciples as witnesses of the fact that God raised him from the dead.
3. Jesus is Lord: Now, having ascended into heaven, Jesus sent forth the Holy Spirit resulting in the manifestations they had heard and seen. For (remember the disciples are witnesses) David did not ascend into heaven but Jesus did, so Psalm 110:1 applies to him, not David. So, because this is so, they need to remember that it was God who made him both Lord and Christ and they had put him to death.

Common Grace and natural theology

Definitions:
Common Grace - the operation of the Holy Spirit whereby he restrains our sinfulness so that we are not as sinful as we might become.
Natural Theology - the idea that we can deduce the character of the gods from what we learn from nature.

Beginning - presuppositions
Romans 1 and 2 teach us about sin. The natural man knows the things of God from nature so that he is without excuse because knowing God he did not worship God nor was he thankful. Changing the truth of God into a lie he worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. He shows the effect of the Law written on his heart when he accuses others of wrong doing because he does the same things.

Common Grace gives a basis to confront the sinful
If Paul is correctly interpreted here we must assume that any identification of the characteristics of God from natural theology by sinful man must be flawed. This is because the intent is to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Yet, such is the effect of common grace that, no matter how consistent the attempt or how ingenious the argumentation, God's truth is still able to be discerned under the dross. Common Grace restrains the impiety of the sinful. Even in his attempts to create gods he retains enough truth for it to be used to show he has no escape from God's just condemnation.

Paul demonstrates the use of this fact when making his dispute on Mar's Hill. He shows that worshiping God does not require temples nor is God like a idol of wood or stone, since we are all his offspring. (The last is claimed to be a quotation from a heathen poet.)

He makes use of the same fact when he brings the Jew to the judgment seat of the Law and shows that according to the Bible no one was ever able to keep the law well enough to merit salvation - indeed the patriarchs received the promises of God before the Law even existed. Salvation comes by faith.

Natural Theology exalts reason over the Bible
Although there have been some very good arguments advanced on the basis of natural theology to describe the characteristics of God, at heart this method makes reason the final test of truth.

What is the truth which the Reformed theologian, who would use natural theology properly, is concerned to maintain? That natural reason, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, can truly interpret nature to understand God correctly. The Reformed theologian points out that this reason is impelled by the Holy Spirit to make statements which are true to reality. Even though the person concerned may never become a Christian. Pythagorus' Theorum, for example, is true even though it was written by a pagan philosopher. Since this deals with something about which the Bible is indifferent or about which it says nothing, it is felt this idea is a safe way to express a guarded acceptance of natural theology.

And the truth the proponents are also concerned to maintain? The plain statement of the Bible that "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show forth his handiwork." To interpret any fact of the universe without seeing it in relation to God's glory is to distort the fact. Pythagorus may be right if we ignore the fact that it is God who set up the relationship in the first place and that this reflects a little of his glory. Otherwise there is a whole dimension which is missing and the interpretation of the universe which it presents is flawed.

It is my contention that the attempt to maintain a natural theology as described above eventually allows the auditor to decide that the Bible is not the final arbiter of everything we need to believe for faith and life. The Bible itself needs to be tested by reason before being accepted as true. This is, I believe, what has led us to the present crisis in evangelical Churches. Far from creationist science being part of the anti-intellectual backlash, it is representative of those who would remind us that reason also is affected by sin and needs to be corrected by the word of God.

Denominational Character

I remember the way my wife used to characterize the Reformed Churches of which we were members: "Whenever there's a problem," she would say, "their solution is to clear the slate and start all over again." Recent debates over what it means to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith in several Presbyterian Churches in the USA have made me think of this once again. Having come from a Reformed denomination with a distinctly New Zealand flavor (we subscribe to both the WCF and the Three Forms of Unity) has given me a somewhat different perspective not only of the issue but also of the issue under debate.

Before we get too involved - and in fairness to you, dear reader, let me say that I think the following statement, by Bishop J C Ryle, expresses fairly well what my time as a minister of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand has taught me. J C Ryle was a 19th Century, Evangelical Bishop in the Church of England (the first Bishop of the new see of Liverpool). He has become one of the best known evangelical authors of that period, equally as well-known as C H Spurgeon.

This to what he had to say about what he considered to be the required characteristics of a national Church:
"To be as comprehensive as possible consistently with reverence for the rule of Scripture should be the aim of every well-constituted National Church. Reason and common sense alike point this out. It should allow large liberty of thought within certain limits. Its necessaria should be few and well defined. Its non-necessaria should be very many. It should make generous allowance for the infinite variety of men’s minds, the curious sensitiveness of scrupulous consciences, and the enormous difficulty of clothing thoughts in language which will not admit of more than one meaning. A sect can afford to be narrow and exclusive; a National Church ought to be liberal, generous, and as ‘large-hearted’ as Solomon (1 Kgs. 4:29). Above all, the heads of a National Church should never forget that it is a body of which the members, from the highest minister down to the humblest layman, are all fallen and corrupt creatures, and that their mental errors, as well as their moral delinquencies, demand very tender dealing. The great Master of all Churches was one who would not ‘break a bruised reed or quench smoking flax’ (Matt. 12: 20), and tolerated much ignorance and many mistakes in His disciples. A National Church must never be ashamed to walk in His steps. To secure the greatest happiness and
wealth of the greatest number in the State is the aim of every wise politician. To comprehend and take in, by a well-devised system of Scriptura"

One of Ryle's famous statements is that made when he took up the role of Bishop of Liverpool. He said: "I ask you to assist me by cultivating and encouraging a spirit of brotherly love, charity and forbearance among Churchmen. In a fallen world like ours, and in a free country like England, it is vain to expect all men to see all things alike and to interpret the language of the formularies precisely in the same way. Let us on no account be colourless Churchmen, destitute of any distinct opinions. But so long as any brother walks loyally within the limits of the Articles and the Prayer Book, let us respect him and treat him courteously, even when we do not altogether agree with him." In Presbyterian terms we would read "the Articles and the Prayer Book" as "The Westminster Confession and the Book of Order" (though how many of the Presbyterian denominations in the US actually still include the Book in their standards is debatable).

It was his intention to defend the evangelical interpretation of the Reformed doctrines as described in the 39 Articles of the Church of England while allowing the freedom for other interpretations of those articles. Bearing in mind the variety from those whose views were very close to Roman Catholic to those who had become enamored of the new German Higher Critical approaches. As long as they ascribed to the confessional standards he would accept that they had the right to belong to the Church. He would defend the standards but he would not be as he said: "a party man." To be so would be to become sectarian.

Now it is true that in England the Anglican Church is an established Church and so what he said was in a different context, but consider the situation where we are talking about a denomination that is supposed to represent those who adhere to a particular confessional standard. If we call ourselves evangelicals and Reformed should we not be very sensitive to the attitude of our Master and Lord? Though he differed forcefully with those teachers of his age who were of different opinions he never left the Church to found a new one. Neither did his disciples unless their message was totally rejected. While there was hope of being heard they remained - they had to be thrown out.

This is why, as an active member of the Church he took part in all the meetings where his voice could be heard always standing for the doctrines of Grace, always defending the standards of the Church and always with respect for those with whom he differed. It was his belief that God is greater than we can comprehend and that, because of that, there will always be differences in how we strive to express our understanding of him. That being the case, in a truly Christian Church, we should grant the expression of those differences as long as the necessary marks are retained. Hence the need for those marks to be few and for us to accept variety in those things which are less necessary. It would seem the Ryle would find himself very much at home in the Confessing Movement and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. It seems that even John Calvin might have felt himself at home in principle - though he might have had difficulties sustaining his membership after some of the members heard his views on their denomination's teachings. The Reformers of his day were, after all, a lot less tolerant than we are today.

Perhaps there is still hope that some of the debates at present in the Churches can be carried on in a manner which will minimize the divisions, some of which may not be as beneficial to the denomination as the protagonists believe. Here's a link to a debate that typifies (in the comments) the way I think such differences can be carried on for the benefit of the Church.