Ryle’s Inadequate View of Revelation

In Holiness, Ryle has a chapter devoted to a warning for the visible church drawn on the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3. In this chapter, Ryle remarks,

I never can believe, if a certain form of Church government was so very important as some say, that the great Head of the Church would have said nothing about it here. I should have expected to have found something said about it to Sardis and Laodicea. But I find nothing at all. And I think that silence is a great fact.*

It is no doubt an argument that persuades many. We know this because the same argument is trumpeted about by what are known as “Red-Letter Christians.” The idea is that if Jesus didn’t say something about it the words directly attributed to him, then it isn’t really Christianity. By this means people pick and choose what parts of Scripture they must follow and what parts they can disregard. It is essentially Marcionite in its approach.

The rebuttal to this is simple:

First, there is the teaching that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16-17). We should not devalue some parts of Scripture because it isn’t repeated in other parts. If something is said then we should consider it authoritative when it is rightly understood and applied. It is the discipline of systematic theology to correlate the passages, not to discount them. And once is enough. If God said it, he doesn’t need to repeat it (though he might).

Secondly, there is the reality that much of Scripture is topical in nature, or what theologians call “occasional.” By “occasional,” we don’t mean “every now and then” but “written to address a particular occasion.” This reminds us that a message or a letter in Scripture need not address every single thing but only the things that were important for the recipients of the message at the time of the writing.

So with respect to Ryle’s particular argument, we must not devalue church government because it isn’t mentioned in Revelation 2-3. It may well be that church government wasn’t the problem. It is entirely credible that the churches in these seven cities were indeed in order when it came to their polity. The problem was something else.

Let us be careful not to discount a truth from God because it isn’t in every verse of Scripture.

All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable.

*J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (London: William Hunt and Company, 1889), 326–327.

Common Grace, Systematic Theology, and Your Help

Common grace is “the grace of God by which he give people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 657). Common grace is essentially God’s kindness, even to people who are not believers.

Remember, all people are sinners and are therefore immediately worthy of God’s judgment. Yet God withholds his judgment, has provided for us an orderly world to live in, provides food/air/water/life for all people, brings about some level of moral goodness even from unbelievers (for instance, even though they are totally depraved they do not intentionally run over little old ladies crossing the street, and they might even help them), establishes human government, and more.

But where does the doctrine of common grace fit in the categories of systematic theology? Depends on who you ask.

Under Theology Proper (the doctrine of God himself) – It is a part of God’s rule in his created world (Erickson, p. 401-402, 294, 303; Reymond, pp. 402-03).

Under Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) – It is preparatory for God’s work of special grace, sometimes called saving grace or efficacious grace (C. Hodge, 3:654ff.; A.H. Strong; 3:783; Moody Handbook of Theology, pp. 334-35; Grudem, pp. 657-665; Shedd, pp. 774ff.). 

Under Pneumatology (the doctrine of the Spirit) – It is part of the Spirit’s work of control and conviction in the world (Snoeberger; McCune (Systematic Theology II forthcoming I assume); Walvoord [The Holy Spirit, pp. 107ff.; he connects it with providence and sovereignty on p. 107]). 

Can you help by enlarging this list of where theologians of various stripes stand on the placement of common grace in systematic theology? (Or correct me if I have misunderstood one of the few I have above.)

As for me, Theology Proper seems to be the best place for it. The soteriological aspect of it seems too narrow. Only in the broadest sense of preparation for salvation does it seem that it is soteriological. It also seems too broad to tie solely to the work of the Spirit since it seems that some of it is not directly connected with the work of the Spirit (e.g., rain, food). It seems that it is the work of God’s providence to mitigate the effects of sin and delay judgment in the world, while making the world inhabitable for his creation, particularly his image bearers. 

Can you help with an argument as to why one category would be better than another?