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.

“No One Is Saying That”

When making an argument, sometimes the response comes that “No one is saying that.” That is often (usually) used as an argument against the argument. It is used to shut down argument. It is used to assert a straw man: “You have created an imaginary opponent since no one believes what you are arguing against.”

This may be true, but it is not always true.

One of the tactics of argumentation is to show how someone has not followed their argument to its conclusion. The fact that “no one believes that” may be simply because they have not actually embraced their argument. Thus arguing against a “straw man” is actually a tool that shows the fallacy of the actual “man.”

This is often an apologetic tool. By leading people along the road of their belief and helping them to take the next step, it shows them that they can’t really live by their belief.

It is an exegetical and theological tool as well. By leading people along the road of their theology and showing how the next step is untenable, it helps to call into question the theological road.

So when someone says, “No one argues that,” think carefully about it. But realize that it’s not necessarily a deal-breaker because it is entirely possible that someone should be arguing “that.” They just haven’t gotten there yet.

Whosoever Means Whosoever

In December I was treated to another complementary copy of a fundamentalist newspaper. On the front page, just about the fold, is an article by the editor entitled “Whosoever Means Whosoever.”

As you might suspect, the article sets out to show a supposed flaw in Calvinism.

Now, I don’t write to convince you of Calvinism. I don’t really care one way or the other.

I write about it here because I know that some, maybe even many, are convinced by the kind of argument that is put forth by this author.

I write to warn us all of bad arguments, and of the danger that comes from the misuse of Scripture.

Even if the author is right in his belief about salvation, he is wrong in how he uses the Bible to try to prove his point. And that’s the worst problem.

Follow me here.

He says, “In an attempt to show themselves more knowledgeable (smarter) than the rest of us …” (Why did he have to define “more knowledgeable” as “smarter” for his readers? Does he not think they are smart enough to know what “more knowledgeable” means?)

But I digress.

He says, “In an attempt to show themselves more knowledgeable (smarter) than the rest of us some folks, including the Calvinists, garb their ideology in the robes of a misguided scholarship. With something that is so clearly defined by the Bible itself, it is necessary for Calvinists to work the academic angle so that the spurious doctrine they espouse will not be immediately dismissed.”

What follows in the article are twelve examples of the use of “whosever” in the Bible (at least the version he uses).

He concludes by saying “Whosoever in the Bible literally means all of us—red, yellow, black, and white; tall, short, rich, poor, young and old alike! … ‘Whosoever’ just simply means ‘whosoever’!”

However, when we take a quick glance at the twelve examples, not a one of them means “all of us” without exception. All the examples (“all” here really means “all”) contain a qualification.

For instance, Proverbs 20:1 speaks of “whosoever is deceived is not wise.” Solomon is not saying “all of us” are not wise. He is saying that the “not wise” people are all of a certain group—those who are deceived. So it is not referring to “all of us—red, yellow, black, and white; tall, short, rich, poor, young and old alike!” It is only talking to that portion of “all of us” who are deceived by wine and strong drink.

Matthew 7:24 speaks of “whosoever heareth these sayings of mine.” Here again, it is not referring to “all of us—red, yellow, black, and white; tall, short, rich, poor, young and old alike!” It is referring that portion of all of us who hear the words of Jesus, and probably here it is not referring to the aural experience, but those who receive and believe Jesus’ words.

And all the examples he gives contain the exact same problem. The “whosoever” is defined by the text of Scripture as a group with certain characteristics.

Yet the author omits from his argument those parts of Scripture which tell us who the “whosoever” is. He fails to read and explain the words in their contexts.

And, on top of that, he doesn’t even accomplish its goal of showing Calvinism unbiblical.

The Bible says in John 3:16 that “whosoever believes will have everlasting life.”

Here, “whosoever” does not refer to “all of us—red, yellow, black, and white; tall, short, rich, poor, young and old alike!” In the verse, it refers to those who believe.

And every Calvinist that I know believes that “whosoever believes” will have eternal life. Every single one of them. No one who believes will be refused eternal life. That is standard Calvinist theology and has been for two thousand years, long before it got Calvin’s name attached to it.

You see, John 3:16 is a promise of actuality: All who believe will have eternal life. Every single one of them.

The question that this author should be addressing is why some people believe and others do not. That, in my opinion, is the real crux of the issue.

So friends, be cautious of spurious scholarship that fails to actually deal with the words of God in his Bible. Strong speech and dogmatic preaching are no substitute for saying what God says, not even when it’s on the front page of a newspaper.

Refuse to be a Calvinist, if you wish. God will let you do that.

But don’t make bad arguments, even in a good cause.

On Intemperance in Argument

I came across an article recently by Dan Wallace about the history, methods, and critique of the Majority Text theory. I have no real desire to discuss the issue of the article.

What jumped out at me though was this paragraph about Burgon.

Recent MT proponents frequently claim that Burgon’s arguments have never been answered. Yet in part the reason for no point-for-point rebuttal is due to Burgon’s acid pen. Westcott once commented: “I cannot read Mr. Burgon yet. A glance at one or two sentences leads me to think that his violence answers himself.” Had Burgon tempered his arguments, perhaps the discussion would have proved more profitable for both sides. Unfortunately he generated more heat than light. Equally unfortunate, his attitude set the tone for later generations of MT advocates.^[1]

I am reminded by this that many good points can be lost in bad attitudes.

I read a lot of blogs, probably too many to be honest. On the upside, I don’t actually read them. Most I just scan the title and a few lines to see if I am interested.

In many of them, I notice in them a particular attitude at times—an attitude of bravado and bluster. It is the apparent belief that strong words and invective can strengthen an argument.

In general, a bad argument cannot be made better by being a jerk.

And a good arguments are rarely enhanced by being a jerk.

---

^[1] Daniel B. Wallace, “The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods And Critique,” JETS (1994): 189.

Making Charges

I have commented before on the lack of police for the blogosphere. It is a disconcerting thing. The reality is that anyone can say anything on a blog, which is fine. The problem is that some people feel no responsibility to actually make an argument or give evidence in support of their charge, even when directly asked.

This is a basic argumentative distinction: An assertion (or a conclusion) vs. an argument (or a premise). An assertion is a proposition: X is Y. It is, technically, a conclusion in most cases. An argument is a collection of evidences (e.g., logical induction or deduction, citation of quotations, etc.) that support the assertion and shows its foundation. An assertion needs arguments to demonstrate its validity. Arguments show why an assertion should be accepted as true.

I bring this up because recently, I saw a particular charge made, one that I have seen before. Once again, as with every other time I have seen it, there was no evidence put forth for this charge.

When I asked for some evidence, I was told that if I couldn’t already see it, this person did not know what to say to convince me.

I said, (in essence), “That’s easy an easy one. Give me a quote from someone. Point me to something that was said that supports your charge.”

I was met with a stony refusal.

Why? My gut tells me it is because this person knows that they have no evidence that supports this. They know it’s not true,or at least that they can’t show it is true. They know that they cannot make a believable case for it. That’s just my gut. I may be wrong, but to me, it should be easy to show if the evidence is as abundant as this man says it is.

Now, I don’t know this fellow apart from a few exchanges on the blogosphere. I have read his blog perhaps four or five times in my life. I found this article because it was linked somewhere else. So my point is not to go after this person (who is intentionally unnamed), because my point is not really about him per se, but about a bigger problem.

Here’s my point: This lack of argumentation is not a good thing. If you are going to say “X does Y” then show us where X does Y. Show us how you arrived at your conclusion. Or as our elementary school teachers used to say about our math, “Show your work.”

Your word means nothing when it comes to making charges against other people. And don’t bail out with “It’s plain and everyone can see it.” If it’s that plain, then it should be no problem to show it.

There are, in my opinion, some people who think they have the license to say whatever they want with no accountability. Let me be clear that I am not necessarily referring to this man who I don’t know and don’t read. But there are some who believe that their words alone are enough to prove something, and that nothing else should be required. The guy who asks about it is the bad guy, the dumb guy because he can’t already see it.

I wonder if this, in part, hearkens back to the day of pastoral authority that operated on the basis of “Because I said so, and you don’t question the man of God.” It smacks a bit of the appeal to authority, lacking only the authority.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why I am the bad guy for asking for a simple demonstration of how one arrived at a conclusion.

Fundamentalism needs to get past the day where “I said so” was considered an appropriate reason for anything past parenting a toddler. A toddler should be expected to obey because “I said so.” But we, as fellow believers, should not be expected to believe something “because you said so.”

Prove it; it should be easy. Or don’t say it until you can. Asking for evidence is hardly a “bizarre obsession.” It is actually the only reasonable response, isn’t it?

So let me conclude: If you want to say that fundamentalists have a love affair with John Piper, Al Mohler, or whoever else, then make an argument and show us why you think that. And subject yourself to peer criticism. Don’t think that your word is sufficient proof. It’s not. If the evidence is as widespread as you think it is, then it should be a relatively easy task to cut-and-paste a few things (with their links so that we can see them in context) as evidence for your assertion.

NB – If you have evidence for the supposed “love affair” please post it here in the comments, or send it to me privately. I would honestly like to know what in the world is being referenced here.

I am not saying it’s not true. I am saying, I haven’t seen the evidence for it. Now, I admit up front to not reading many fundamentalists blogs. And you may use “love affair” differently than I would. But let’s put the cards on the table—(you better not be playing cards or we will turn you in)—let’s be plain about what we are talking about.

Van Til, Truth, the Smell Test, and Argumentation

In cleaning off my desk, I came across a piece of mail I had previously set aside for further thought. It is a mailer from the Trinity Foundation, reprinting a letter they had received.

As with much of what I see in the Trinity Foundation, this includes some comments on Cornelius Van Til, apparently one of their arch enemies.

This letter from a family looking for a church says,

“We learned that many Reformed churches were troubled by the fruits of the theology of a man named Cornelius Van Til. The elders of churches infected by Vantilianism tell their congregants that man’s logic is different from God’s logic and that man can’t know truth because man cannot know God’s thoughts.”

Now, I am no expert on Van Til, but this doesn’t pass the smell test to me. I think Van Til did affirm that man can know truth. Everything I have read from him indicates that man could know the truth because of revelation in Scripture. There are differences between Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til to be sure. But I don’t think the difference was about whether or not man could know the truth. It was about the type of knowledge that man has and how that relates to God’s knowledge. One of the 7 billion people in the world smarter than me can explain that better than I can.

I am reminded that sometimes people distort what someone actually believes in an attempt to defend their own position or to attack another person. We see this often, particularly of late it seems.

It reminds me of how argumentation in support of an position should be used.

First, it needs to accurately state the opposing position. Otherwise, it becomes a straw man argument, attacking something that no one really believes. This usually means that an argument needs to be stated in a way that the opponent would recognize as his argument, and agree with the statement of it. In other words, the opponent should (in most cases) be able to say, “That’s what I believe.”

I say “in most cases” because there are some instances in which someone states a proposition or holds a position that has implications that they do not recognize. For instance, take the discussion of “watering down the gospel.” Have you ever found any evangelical who says, “We should water down the gospel”? I haven’t.

But many times, I read someone say “We shouldn’t water down the gospel” when in fact they (probably unintentionally) do water down the gospel, or send confusing message, or some such. They simply do not recognize what they are doing. They do not recognize the implications of their position. So we need to carefully show how their position is different than what they affirm.

Secondly, the opposing position needs to actually be addressed. A recent fervor reminds me that sometimes people react vociferously against something that wasn’t actually said. So they commit the first sin of making up an opposing position, and the second sin of not addressing the actual opposing position.

This unfortunately doesn’t keep them silent. It just makes them look silly. And unfortunately, it too often confuses the unsuspecting and undiscerning who often don’t take time to find out for themselves.

So be careful how you oppose an argument.