The Introduction to J.C. Ryle’s Holiness
This is the first of what I hope will be many opportunities to read the classics together. You can read more about this effort here: Reading the Classics Together. Today we start into an 8-week study of J.C. Ryle’s Holiness. Written in 1879, this book has stood the test of time and is considered one of the best works on practical holiness. At just eight chapters, it seemed like a great place to begin in our quest to read some Christian classics together.
I hope this will be a collaborative effort, meaning that we will read the book through the week and then discuss it together right here on Thursdays. I believe some seventy or eighty people expressed interest in reading it, so I trust many of you did so and will have your own thoughts to contribute. I will provide a brief overview and then post a few thoughts of my own. The comments section is available for discussion.
Summary
In the Introduction Ryle provides a defense for writing this book. He saw a lot of interest in the subject of holiness, but “had a deep conviction … that practical holiness and entire self-consecration to God are not sufficiently attended to by modern Christians in this country.” Ryle felt as if he had to defend the doctrine of sanctification, assuring the reader that it is “quite as important as justification. Sound Protestant and Evangelical doctrine is useless if it is not accompanied by a holy life. It is worse than useless; it does positive harm.” Tragically, at his time and in ours, any movement towards personal holiness can be “damaged by crude, disproportioned, and one-sided statements.” Satan hates holiness and will do all in his power to stop and destroy it.
As he surveyed the subject of holiness and the reaction to it, Ryle felt deep concern and expressed this in the form of seven questions to the reader, questions that together form the heart of this chapter:
- Is it wise to speak of faith as the one thing needful, and the only thing required, as many seem to do now-a-days in handling the doctrine of sanctification? Is it wise to proclaim … that the holiness of converted people is by faith alone, and not at all by personal exertion?
- I ask, in the second place, whether it is wise to make so little as some appear to do, comparatively, of the many practical exhortations to holiness in daily life which are to be found in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the latter part of most of St. Paul’s epistles?
- I ask in the third place, whether it is wise to use vague language about perfection, and to press on Christians a standard of holiness, as attainable in this world for which there is no warrant to be shown either in Scripture or experience?
- In the fourth place, is it wise to assert so positively and violently, as many do, that the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans does not describe the experience of the advanced saint, but the experience of the unregenerate man, or of the weak and unestablished believer?
- In the fifth place, is it wise to use the language which is often used in the present day about the doctrine of “Christ in us”? I doubt it. Is not this doctrine often exalted to a position which it does not occupy in Scripture? I am afraid that it is.
- In the sixth place, is it wise to draw such a deep, wide, and distinct line of separation between conversion and consecration, or the higher life, so called, as many do draw in the present day?
- In the seventh and last place, is it wise to teach believers that they ought not to think so much of fighting and struggling against sin, but ought rather to “yield themselves to God,” and be passive in the hands of Christ?
He wrapped up (reluctantly, it seems) by providing a brief glimpse of the state of the church and the importance of recovering holiness.
Discussion
Like any true classic, this book has stood the test of time because it deals with issues that are always relevant. Many books come and go because they discuss issues that soon pass away. But in the introduction we see that the concerns of Ryle’s day match the concerns of our own. There may have been different emphases and a different cultural setting, but it is clear that his concerns at the close of the 19th century are very similar to ours at the dawn of the 21st. Consider Ryle’s seven questions:
The first question may not be asked in those terms today simply because so many people within churches have no real sense of the doctrine of justification by faith. But reading the Christian books you might encounter in your local bookstore will show that very few discuss the Christian life as difficult and laborious. Rather, they discuss a life of constant victory where sin and Satan melt before us. Rarely do they discuss just how difficult it is to overcome sin and how this life is a constant battle with evil. They promise an abundant life, but with no abundance of labor.
The second question can be answered in a way that is similar to the first. Look at the books and teaching that arises from contemporary Christianity and you will soon see that there is little time given to true personal holiness. There may be lip service to it, but there is little of the particulars, the nitty-gritty details of how we are to destroy sin in our lives. We are given generalities, but few specifics; we are told to whitewash the tombs but without removing the scent of death.
The third and sixth questions seem to me to deal with very similar issues and ones that still exist today. Great harm has been done by those claiming that there are different “levels” of the Christian life and that we are to strain to be like those who have reached a state of perfection (or even of near-perfection). This teaching exists in the fringes of the charismatic movement but also in more conservative circles. Ryle’s illustration of Christians occupying varied positions along an inclined plane is a good one, for it shows that all Christians exist in a sinful world and that they can never fully rid themselves of its influence. What an encouragement it is to know that even the greatest Christian exists on the same plane as we do, the only difference being his effort in attaining sanctification and God’s subsequent blessing upon his life.
The fourth question confused me just a little bit, but I believe he is pointing to some kind of antinomianism or lawlessness that must have existed at that time. Clearly people were using Romans 7 to defend sinful and lawless practices.
The fifth question discusses the doctrine of “Christ in us” that was clearly denying the importance of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian. People were ascribing to the Son the work of the Spirit. While it is more common today to make the opposite error, focusing almost undue attention upon the Spirit, I can see shadows of the “Christ in us” teaching even now. I think, for example, of those who discuss “being Jesus” to others or those who do not understand that it is the Spirit who does the work of sanctification within us.
The final question discusses a kind of passivity towards holiness that certainly exists in our day. Too many people believe that becoming more godly is not a battle, but simply a process of leaning on Christ and expecting him to change us. But the testimony of Scripture is clear—we are to exert ourselves in pursuing holiness; we are to strive after it.
I say all of this to express confidence that Ryle’s book is relevant to us today, not only because it claims to simply provide what Scripture says on the subject of holiness, but because Ryle was writing it as a reaction to trends we see even today. He could as easily be describing 2007 when he writes:
There is an amazing ignorance of Scriptures among many, and a consequent want of established, solid religion. In no other way can I account for the ease with which people are, like children, “tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” ( Ephesians 4:14.) There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.—There is an incessant craving after any teaching which is sensational, and exciting, and rousing to the feelings.—There is an unhealthy appetite for a sort of spasmodic and hysterical Christianity. The religious life of many is little better then spiritual dram-drinking, and the “meek and quiet spirit” which St. Peter commends is clean forgotten. ( 1 Peter 3:4.) Crowds, and crying, and hot rooms, and high-flown singing, and an incessant rousing of the emotions, are the only things which many care for.—Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and so long as the preacher is “clever” and “earnest,” hundreds seem to think it must be all right, and call you dreadfully “narrow and uncharitable” if you hint that he is unsound!
I think my primary take-away through reading this portion of the book is not so much a point of theology (as I’m sure it will be in subsequent chapters) as it is a sense of how the history of the church is cyclical. The same problems arise time and again; sin continues to manifest itself in the same way from generation to generation. This shows to me the value of turning to the old masters, men like Ryle, to show how they faced these problems in their day and to see how the gospel was the remedy, even then.
Next Time
We’ll continue the book next Thursday (September 6) with the first chapter (“Sin”). If you are interested in joining in, please do. There is still lots of time to purchase the book or to read it online. See this discussion (Read the Classics Together - Holiness) for information.
Your Turn
I am interested in hearing what you took away from the Introduction. I realize that we have not yet struck at the heart of the book, but I am sure you benefited even from reading the Introduction. Feel free to post comments below or to write about this on your own blog (and then post a comment linking us to your thoughts).
Comments (33) »
1. Joshua
August 30, 2007
10:49 AM
Mr. Challies,
As I read the introduction I had to continue to remind myself that I was not reading a book written in 2007 but one written almost 130 years ago. We often believe that what we hear about happening in our church’s today is something new, but as we find, through reading and studying of Scripture and also of our history, we come to learn that “there is nothing new under the sun”. This was true as I read his points. What I find interesting and would like to know if I have misread something or if it is as plainly as it is written is that the Bishop says in his second paragraph, “I have carefully abstained from naming modern teachers and modern books,” which he did as far as books, but within 3 pages we read several names of men and also by the end of this chapter we read more. Now I do not have any difficulty with this as I believe this needs to be done more, especially today, in order to force people to see and think and begin to put 2 and 2 together. But did I read his sentence in his second paragraph incorrectly? Please note, I do not want to diminish anything about what you said and what he is writing, I just find it interesting.
2. Amanda
August 30, 2007
11:31 AM
I think what struck me most about the introduction to this book on holiness was, fittingly, Ryle’s exhortation not to ignore the scriptural teaching on the active pursuit of it. I have been a believer for a little under four years, and in the last year or so I fear I have taken to a view that is unbalanced, sometimes emphasizing dependence on the Lord to the near-exclusion of personal responsibility to fight sin and walk in a manner worthy of the calling we’ve received.
Our God is gracious, though, and has called me out on this and pointed me to his word. Has anyone read Jerry Bridges’ “The Discipline of Grace”? — it has ministered to me in this area as well. I found Ryle’s separation of justification and sanctification quite helpful; I’d never heard it put that way: “In justification the word to be addressed to man is believe—only believe; in sanctification the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse.”
I’m excited to dig into the rest of this work. Cheers!
3. John Hollandsworth
August 30, 2007
11:37 AM
Here’s a link to my comments on my blog: click here. I wrote:
First, I was impressed by the 1952 foreword written by Lloyd-Jones, where he described the work as “strong and virile and entirely free from the sentimentality that is often described as “devotional.”” Hmmm, how many books on the current Christian top 20 would fit that description? This is the kind of book I want to read.
Lloyd-Jones also described the book as “invariably produces that “hunger and thirst after righteousness” which is the only indispensable condition to being “filled”.” Ouch. That really, really hurt. How much am I REALLY hungering and thirsting for righteousness in my life? I don’t mean being “nice” or not committing felonies, but having a deep unquenchable soul ache to have my whole life be holy, stronger than any other desire? I REALLY need to read this book.
In Ryle’s 1879 Preface he addresses real, transforming, substantive change:
Do those who attend these meetings become more holy, meek, unselfish, kind, good-tempered, self-denying, and Christ-like at home? Do they become more content with their position in life, and more free from restless craving after something different from that which God has given them?
His immediate concern was the then current fad of emotional revivalist meetings, but it can be applied to any exercise of religion— going to church, going to excellent Reformed conferences, reading “edifying” blogs, just insert whatever you have done in the past year “to become a better Christian”— did it actually work? Are you actually more holy than you were last year?
In the introduction Ryle makes a statement that is just as true today as a hundred years ago:
Wordly people sometimes complain with reason that “religious” persons, so-called, are not so amiable, and unselfish, and good-natured, as others who make no profession of religion.
Our correct doctrine and sound understanding of the lostness of the world, and sin, and redemption, isn’t worth a plug nickel to others who plainly see that all our talk of “Jesus in our hearts” is just that—talk.
True holiness, we surely ought to remember, does not consist merely of inward sensations and impressions… it is something of “the image of Christ,” which can be seen and observed by others in our private life, and habits, and character, and doings.
I don’t want to just read about holiness & blog about holiness, I want God to stir up a sincere, fervent desire in me to BE holy, and then for me to live it. I am praying that God will use this book as a way of doing that in my life and in others.
4. Leslie
August 30, 2007
11:41 AM
Ryle puts a lot of emphasis on understanding justification and sanctification. One thing, it seems to me, he is saying is that a firm grasp of these two doctrines will help a Christian discern many false teachings regarding holiness.
Read more on my blog…
5. DavidW
August 30, 2007
11:49 AM
I read JI Packer’s brief biography of Ryle ahead of the Introductory chapters and found that my appetite to actually sink my teeth into Ryle himself, so to speak, had been greatly whetted. I found that as I read through Ryle’s Introduction that this feeling only heightened.
I particularly enjoyed his engaging style and found the question-response style he used throughout the introduction of asking, “Is it according to the proportion of God’s Word?”, and answering, “I doubt it” engaging and endearing. At the same time, this also challenged to me to think about Scripture as a whole in terms of the particular point he was making, and reminded me that we have a book that tells a whole story and not just a series of vignettes or, worse still, proof texts ready to fire at anyone who needs convincing of our position.
My favorite passage in the introduction was:
“I frankly confess I prefer the old paths. I think it wiser and safer to press on all converted people the possibility of continual growth in grace, and the absolute necessity of going forward, increasing more and more, and every year dedicating and consecrating themselves more, in spirit, soul, and body, to Christ. By all means let us teach that there is more holiness to be attained, and more of heaven to be enjoyed upon earth than most believers now experience.”
I, too, think I prefer the old paths. Like Ryle, I think I approach the time in my life where my mind becomes inflexible. I don’t think Ryle meant by this that he was no longer open to the teaching and leading of God, through the Holy Spirit. After all, his entire argument herein is directed to the need for continual sanctification of the believer. Rather, I think his point is that we should, as Christians, be developing a systematic theology; a framework, or foundation, if you will, upon which the rest of our critical thinking rests. One reaches a point where his foundation is set and upon which he can build a world and life view. To continually tear down your framework to replace it with every new fangled idea that passes by is counter-intuitive. A time comes when one is convinced by Scripture, experience, and the battering of ideas upon this framework, that the structure is solid. Perfect? No. One may replace a bad section of brickwork, or a sagging beam, but no more the starting from scratch. Some doctrine is trustworthy.
“For myself, I am aware that I am no longer a young minister. My mind perhaps stiffens, and I cannot easily receive any new doctrine. “The old is better.” I suppose I belong to the old school of Evangelical theology, and I am therefore content with such teaching about sanctification as I find in the Life of Faith of Sibbes and of Manton, and in The Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith of William Romaine.”
So what did I take away? I think the big leap out point for me was when he pointed out that the yielding of ourselves to God is an active presentation of oneself. It’s not the ‘Let Go & Let God” bumper-stickerism that one sees so trumpeted these days. Rather, I think of a butler in a Victorian mansion who, after completing a task of his Master’s designation, returns again to the study in expectation of another task. So, it’s not enough for me to simply lay back and wait for God to remove the experience of temptation to particular sins in my life. Rather, I am to fight, to labor, to serve and, having done so, return again to my Commander and again await His direction for the continuation of the battle.
“It is a simple fact that the expression “yield yourselves” is only to be found in one place in the New Testament, as a duty urged upon believers. … ven there the word will not bear the sense of “placing ourselves passively in the hands of another.” [but] the sense is rather that of actively “presenting” ourselves for use, employment, and service … But, on the other hand, it would not be difficult to point out at least twenty-five or thirty distinct passages in the Epistles where believers are plainly taught to use active personal exertion, and are addressed as responsible for doing energetically what Christ would have them do, and are not told to “yield themselves” up as passive agents and sit still, but to arise and work. A holy violence, a conflict, a warfare, a fight, a soldier’s life, a wrestling, are spoken of as characteristic of the true Christian. … Again, it would be easy to show that the doctrine of sanctification without personal exertion, by simply “yielding ourselves to God,” is precisely the doctrine of the antinomian fanatics in the seventeenth century … and that the tendency of it is evil in the extreme.”
6. Matt
August 30, 2007
11:57 AM
I must say I have enjoyed J.I. Packer’s somewhat truncated biogprahy of Ryle. He introduces me to Ryle, even as I meet Ryle in his own writing. Very cool. Great summaries Tim. Related to Ryle’s point three, In the July 07 Christianity Today, there was a brief report on an identity crisis of sorts related to the issue of entire sanctification in the Church of the Nazarene.
I found it interesting, poignant really, as Ryle struggled with his personal age and relevance as a voice to be heard. In the Epigraph he writes:
“The older I grow…” and “to the young…” and “When I was as young as they are, perhaps I should have thought as they do. When they are as old as I am, they will very likely agree with me.”
In the introduction he writes:
“I am aware that I am no longer a young minister. My mind perhaps stiffens, and I cannot easily receive any new doctrine. ‘The old is better.’ I suppose I belong to the old school…”
Well, we continue to marginalize “the old,” now at warp speed.
Is that wise? As Ryle would say, “I doubt it…”
7. Michael Reynolds
August 30, 2007
12:06 PM
“In the fourth place, is it wise to assert so positively and violently, as many do, that the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans does not describe the experience of the advanced saint, but the experience of the unregenerate man, or of the weak and unestablished believer?”
My understanding of Ryle’s fourth question is that he is referencing the age-old debate of the identity of the man in Romans 7 struggling with sin. Is this the struggle of an unregenerate man, a weak Christian, or the mature saint? According to James Boice’s commentary on Romans, that this person can only be an unbeliever was the dominant view of the early church. In any case, if either of the first two views was correct, and yet we find the struggle described so true to our own experience, mature believers would be discouraged, and would have reason to wonder at the intense battle that yet rages within us both for and against holiness.
My apologies if my understanding of the fourth question is incorrect.
8. Jeremiah Fyffe
August 30, 2007
12:37 PM
Is sanctification by faith or by works? Or better yet, it is by Christ or by man. Ryle is quite correct to clarify that if there is no Christ and his imputed righteousness there is no justification and therefore no grounds for sanctification. How could one be called holy who is also called and enemy of the cross.
My mind, as I read the introduction, kept going to an experience of great trial in my life five years ago as I was attending seminary, raising my first child in his first year of life, and trying to hold down a full-time job a high cost of living area of suburban Chicago. This was the most difficult year of my life, but not primarily because of all of these pressures but because I had allowed all of these things to derail my holiness. I was absolutely lost and for the first time in my life I believe in a state of diagnosable depression (what a beautiful picture of a pastor in training, though I don’t believe it is uncommon).
This season lasted a full 9-10 months. What brought me out of this season of spiritual depression? Remember, I felt like I was lost, that my discipleship was hopelessly derailed. I definitely had a sense of my salvation, I knew Christ and had no hope but in him, but I had no sense of holiness. What changed is that I remembered that God had told me that “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” And I know that this means not only salvation from damnation, but also sanctification and glorification. The work that Jesus has begun in me begins with justification by grace through faith, but He WILL continue it with my sanctification.
But where is the effort that Ryle speaks of? My renewed effort and HOPE at the end of this season and through today is to make every effort to “abide” in Christ. Draw close, hope close, read close, pray close, speak close, think close. Christ, Christ, Christ, all the time! I cannot sanctify myself by myself. I need to draw close to the one whose righteousness I have received and whose righteousness I imitate. The who thing is resolved for me in that I draw close to Christ who has first drawn close to me, and abiding in Him and in no other thing (not even in my own efforts to draw close) Christ leads me in “ways everlasting” and straight paths. Drawing close I follow the Holy One of Israel who walks only paths of righteousness.
—-
I look forward to reading further in this book and more importantly in the Word to discover the foundation of my present hope. I am declared righteous, I will be made holy, the Lord will complete what faith assures He has begun in me.
9. ellen b
August 30, 2007
4:04 PM
Ok so I’m not the brightest bulb in the pack. I received my Faithfulness and Holiness book yesterday by J.I. Packer. I’m looking at the front of the book and I can only find a forward, not an introduction. Then you mentioned 8 chapters…duh on closer examination I see there’s the introduction at the back of the book where Ryle’s Classic Edition of Holiness is …I’ll be back next week- hopefully on the same page.
L.O.L.
10. Doug Smith
August 30, 2007
4:46 PM
Tim, thanks for doing this. I am glad to go through this book. I wrote a lengthy article about the introduction at my, blog:
http://glorygazer.blogspot.com/2007/08/reading-for-holiness-summary-and.html
11. Robert N. Landrum
August 30, 2007
6:45 PM
This is an excellent book and a great idea.
12. Jesse Taylor
August 30, 2007
8:17 PM
I have posted on my blog, I would welcome any comments anyone might have especially on my third thought/question. I want to be biblical in my thinking. Thanks.
13. donsands
August 30, 2007
8:37 PM
Just the introduction is so full and rich. I like to underline thoughts that give me that extra perk. (Actually, I could underline the whole really).
Here’s two: “When we speak of ‘Christ being in us’, let us take care to explain what we mean. I fear some neglect this in the present day.”
”.. I ask them to take care where they tread and to explain very clearly and distinctly what they mean.”
I keep this book close at hand. Good food.
14. Robert Weir
August 30, 2007
8:59 PM
Concerning the sixth question, I am encouraged by seeing the interest shown in this endeavor. As tonight I talked to a fellow “christian” who does not read or know the bible. How do we then live “christian”? The sad reality is we do not, I am glad to be in on the read, so I can share with others the race to be run.
Hebrew 12:1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus…
15. Jeff Fuhry
August 30, 2007
9:05 PM
I appreciate the ‘classroom’ Tim has put together here. I’ve enjoyed the discussion, setting the stage for the rest of the book.
As we start into Ryle, I find myself midway through Jerry Bridge’s “The Discipline of Grace”. I hope to gain a deeper understanding of the subject from both men.
Bridges notes in his book that “…justification and sanctification are inseparable. God never gives justification without sanctification. Both have their source in the infinite love and free grace of God…In justification, as well as regeneration, God acts alone. In sanctification He works in us but elicits our response to cooperate with Him.” (p.99)
I think it will do us well to return to foundations, especially at a time when there is a “love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers”. I’m thankful for teachers like Ryle who are able to take us into the Scriptures and let them do the convincing.
As you mentioned, there definitely does seem to be a cyclical nature about church history. The times once again seem to be marked by an ignorance of Bible doctrine, confusion regarding the gospel, and a misunderstanding of the place of God’s law in the life of the Christian. Once again we need to return to the cross. We need to see Christ as the author of sanctification as well as justification. In coming to God, we don’t just gain a divine pardon and an escape from judgment, but a desire to submit to his laws to guide us in our daily lives. Our pastor summed this up in a recent sermon from James by saying that a saving faith is not a lonely faith. It will be evidenced by works. Or as Ryle puts it “True holiness does not consist merely of believing and feeling, but of doing and bearing, and a practical exhibition of active and passive grace.”
16. Danny
August 30, 2007
9:42 PM
The conversation’s on here have been great!
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
It amazes me how this is such a description of our time and how people avoid anything that has gone before us. If the person writing a book or speaking or preaching doesn’t use power point, video clips, a laser pointer, or even uses jokes they must be avoided. We have such a desire for everything new and brand new that to look upon anything old is just not relevant and quite frankly legalistic. I used to look at my Christian walk this way, and I thank God for leading me to John Piper, and C.S. Lewis who show the wisdom in reading the “old beaten path.” I am now made fun of by people in my church because I won’t read the next Rick Warren, Max Lucado, Ed Young Jr. books. It is refreshing and yet discouraging to know that the times have not changed much.
“Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and so long as the preacher is ‘clever’ and ‘earnest,’ hundreds seem to think it must be all right, and call you dreadfully ‘narrow and uncharitable’ if you hint that he is unsound!”
Again this is very relevant today, to be a Berean is in the churches’ eyes in some sense legalistic. Many people tell us to be Berean’s but when we take up the task people are criticized for it.
When Ryle used “Moody, Haweis, Dean Stanley, and Canon Liddon, etc.” who would we put there? Warren, Lucado, Swindoll, Bruce Wilkinson, Rob Bell? I know when I disagree with these men with people in the my church, the conversation don’t stay fun.
Thanks Tim….this really is a great idea.
17. Leslie
August 30, 2007
10:02 PM
Great comments and blog posts from everyone!
18. Ethan
August 31, 2007
2:12 AM
My favorite quote…
I must comment here on how much I appreciate men like Al Mohler. His articles and radio show frequently address very practical issues of holiness in a manner which befits the quote. Many of these issues are avoided all together by the church and the effect of this is that I get to decide what holiness “means to me”. Now they won’t let me do that with the gospel, and I admit that the slippery slope towards legalism is ever present, but it would be nice to see churches make an attempt to address holiness in the way Mohler so aptly does.
19. Rachel from Australia
August 31, 2007
6:45 AM
Thanks for doing this Tim. I really appreciated reading through the introduction to this book (which I’m sure I wouldn’t have done without this encouragement) and then reading your and others interaction with the points raised.
I’m looking forward to continuing with these readings. May God make it bear fruit in our lives.
20. Tim Challies
August 31, 2007
10:05 AM
Just the introduction is so full and rich. I like to underline thoughts that give me that extra perk. (Actually, I could underline the whole really).
I’m with you. Even in the introduction I had to hold back a little bit lest the whole thing end up highlighted!
21. BrettR
August 31, 2007
11:04 AM
I have enjoyed reading everyone’s feedback and really have nothing to add except for my initial impressions. I was raised in a church tradition that believed in “entire sanctification.” I always felt like a second-hand citizen in the kingdom of God in that dynamic; I could never honestly “attain” the higher level of consecration and therefore always questioned justification (“real” conversion). So, a book on holiness can be hard to approach. But Ryle right from the outset let it be known that there is no second conversion to be after and that we are in the battle that I have always felt I have been in (and in the deep recesses of my heart felt guilty about). I am excited to read the rest of this book with a other readers in the same trenches as myself.
22. donsands
August 31, 2007
12:24 PM
” May God make it bear fruit in our lives.”
Amen sister. And for the glory of our heavenly Father, and our Lord and Savior.
23. Ken Shomo
August 31, 2007
12:29 PM
Many good comments here, I’ll just add this thought:
In Reformed circles (such as my own) there has lately been an important return to emphasizing the roles of grace and faith in sanctification. Thus, books by Jerry Bridges, Bryan Chapell, and others on this subject, and an emphasis on this in the preaching of men like Tim Keller.
It is this view that separates Christian sanctification from legalism or a lesser religion’s view of piety. Thus, Paul says to “put to death” sin, but to do so “by the Spirit.” And Jesus said, encompassing all aspects of spiritual growth, “Abide in me…” And so forth.
And yet, J.C. Ryle rightly speaks against a type of passivity that is a misunderstanding or misapplication of our dependence on God’s grace in sanctification.
It will be interesting while reading this book to discern a biblical view and compare this with how we ourselves think / teach / preach on this important subject.
Ken Shomo
24. Jesse Taylor
August 31, 2007
2:09 PM
I am really excited about this opportunity. In fact, since we homeschool our children, my wife and I have decided that our two oldest daughters (7th & 8th grades), would benefit greatly by reading these classics also. This gives me a fun way to have a Daddy/Daughter discussion as well as a weekly deadline (deadlines are good things for homeschoolers!). Blessings!
25. Doug Smith
August 31, 2007
2:25 PM
This book has an amazing relevance to our church-culture of people running after the latest fad or catch phrase (and every wind of doctrine). That said, what about Piper’s term of “Christian Hedonism” - do you think that Ryle would have considered it one of those ‘uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases’ used in teaching sanctification? I don’t disagree with Piper on his main point that we glorify God most when we enjoy Him, having our delight in Him as our treasure, and this is certainly needed if we are to be holy people. But is his terminology helpful?
26. Tim Challies
August 31, 2007
2:55 PM
do you think that Ryle would have considered it one of those ‘uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases’ used in teaching sanctification?
He may well have. There are actually quite a lot of people who took issue with the term, even if they were fully supportive of the idea behind it!
27. McWilliams
August 31, 2007
8:59 PM
Thanks for doing this Tim as ‘Holiness’ has long been a most favorite book! A quote I’ll remember from it is where he says we must actively pursue sanctification and if not the chariot wheels of our soul will run heavy!’(paraphrased) He has such vivid word pictures that plant his meanings deep into our hearts as vital reminders of the seriousness of this subject! Again, thanks!
28. Nick Kennicott
September 1, 2007
11:23 AM
Great discussion — I don’t have a lot to add. I just wanted to post my favorite quote of everything I underlined:
We see this played out over and over again today — all who have commented are correct in that this is speaking into our culture just as clearly today as it did in Ryle’s day. Great stuff so far!
29. Jerry
September 1, 2007
6:32 PM
Ryle states:
In face of such facts as these I must protest against the language used in many quarters, in these last days, about perfection. I must think that those who use it either know very little of the nature of sin, or the attributes of God, or of their own hearts, or of the Bible, or of the meaning of words.
At age 17, after walking with Christ for one year, I felt that I had “overcome” and that Christ was fortunate to have me as one of His disciples. Now, at age 51, I realize that I am but a filthy, rotten sinner, and that I am wholly indebted to the grace of God and unworthy of His love.
Have I thus regressed? Absolutely not. Christ has done a positive work in my life, allowing me to know more about “the nature of sin”, and “the attributes of God”, and my “own heart”. Hopefully, he is also teaching me the “meaning of words” as I study His Word and seek his will.
30. Andrew Lindsey
September 2, 2007
6:15 AM
re: Joshua in comment #1
“But did I read his sentence in his second paragraph incorrectly?”
I think you did. If I’m not mistaken, the names Ryle does mention are from older works, not “modern teachers and modern books” that he says he will refrain from mentioning.
re: Challies
“The fourth question confused me just a little bit,”
I think your conclusion about this question is correct, but I think as well that we must also recognize Ryle’s concern about the historic Arminian interpretation of this text in general. (Arminius first became controversial due to his interpretation of Romans 7.)
31. Marc
September 2, 2007
8:02 AM
There is a lot to “chew on” in the introduction. I am thankful we are not reading this book to fast so we can digest the material and discuss it in our family each week.
32. matthew lipscomb
September 2, 2007
3:08 PM
I also recommend the book by J.I. Packer - holiness, an appreciation. My favorite quote regarding it is:
Some men may think these statements too strong. You fancy that I am going too far, and laying on the colours too thickly. You are secretly saying to yourself, that the men and women of England may surely get to heaven without all this trouble and warfare and fighting. Listen to me for a few minutes and I will show you that I have something to say on God’s behalf.
- Bishop John Charles Ryle, Holiness, 1877
I picked out the book several years ago because I wanted to read it concurrently with other books that I was reading regarding Christian liberty and the issue of alcohol and prohibition. I started working on writing a book that sought to articulate a biblical world view/philosophy of what authentic biblical holiness is in relation to the pietical and potentially gnostic dualist interpretations thereof in certain evangelical circles. Ryle’s Calvinism comes through pretty strongly (of course that would be welcomed by most of you here) but regardless of my stand on that issue, I have marked most of it up, and in the end, when I finally finish what I will give to some editor to par down someday, I will probably have more quotes from him then anybody else. I also felt pretty blessed in that we had a Christian books store go out of business and they had tons of books marked down 70%, I bought about 7 copies of this book for a couple of dollars each and they are in the closet intended to be Christmas presents for a number of friends this coming Christmas.
We truly do have a very distorted view of holiness among those who seek the most to assert the importance thereof.
33. B. Minich
September 7, 2007
9:06 AM
Its interesting - Piper actually addresses this question from the introduction to Holiness (is Christian Hedonism one of those uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases) in his 2003 revision of Desiring God in one of the appendices. Thus, it is obvious that Piper has read Holiness, and that this question resonated with him when he did.
First time I’ve read the classic first, and saw it quoted in a more modern work afterwards.