Written by Bennett W. Rogers |
Thursday, October 14, 2021
Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots proved to be one of Ryle’s most popular works. It is one of the best presentations of Puritan and Reformed spirituality ever written, and thanks to the simplicity and forcefulness of Ryle’s writing style, it is certainly one of the most accessible. Think of Holiness as The Pilgrim’s Progress stated propositionally. And like Bunyan’s masterpiece, it has proved to be remarkably enduring. It went through five editions during Ryle’s lifetime, and it has been republished regularly since the prompting of Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1952.

The second half of the nineteenth century was not kind to Victorian evangelicals.
Darwin’s ideas, which first appeared in print in The Origin of Species in 1859, began to undermine the faith of some, just as German higher criticism of the Old Testament reached British shores in Essays and Reviews. Meanwhile, the Ritualists were busy unprotestantizing the Church of England, as men of “broad views” were insisting that sincerity — not truth — was the “one thing needful.” To make matters worse, relations between evangelical churchmen and dissenters reached new lows, and attacking (or defending) the establishment became a near-universal ecclesiastical obsession.
But in the 1870s, a renewal movement imported from America seemed to offer new spiritual life to embattled evangelicals. It promised full salvation and complete deliverance from all known sin — essentially a second conversion experience — and all one had to do was simply “let go and let God.” A series of popular meetings was held throughout England to promote this new vision of the Christian life, and the Keswick Convention was born.
Holiness Unfolded and Defended
J.C. Ryle (1816–1900), the “Anglican Spurgeon” and undisputed leader of the evangelical party within the Church of England, was entirely unsympathetic with Keswick spirituality. He, along with other evangelical leaders of the old guard, attempted to redirect this new interest in personal holiness into more orthodox channels. Articles were written. Speeches were made. A rival conference was even held in 1875 to promote scriptural holiness. Even so, the Keswick Movement continued to gain steam, especially among younger evangelicals. So, Ryle published his own response in 1877, which was then enlarged in 1879.
Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots proved to be one of Ryle’s most popular works. It is one of the best presentations of Puritan and Reformed spirituality ever written, and thanks to the simplicity and forcefulness of Ryle’s writing style, it is certainly one of the most accessible. Think of Holiness as The Pilgrim’s Progress stated propositionally. And like Bunyan’s masterpiece, it has proved to be remarkably enduring. It went through five editions during Ryle’s lifetime, and it has been republished regularly since the prompting of Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1952.
The enlarged edition of Holiness (1879) contains twenty-one papers, as well as an excellent introduction. The first seven chapters are the heart of Holiness and form a book within a book (this was the original edition of 1877). Here Ryle explains “the real nature of holiness, and the temptations and difficulties which all must expect who follow it” (xiii). The rest of the book consists of a series of holiness-related sermons that are arranged thematically: biblical character studies (chapters 8–12), the church (chapters 13–14), Christ (chapters 15–20), and extracts from Robert Traill and Thomas Brooks (chapter 21).
Rather than discussing each chapter, allow me to introduce you to some of the great themes of this spiritual classic.
Holiness
Holiness takes holiness seriously. Personal holiness is essential for final salvation. Such a claim is neither legalism nor a threat to the precious doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is the clear and sobering truth of Scripture: “Strive . . . for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). If Holiness accomplishes anything, it reminds the reader of this critical and potentially uncomfortable truth. Read the chapter on Lot’s wife (chapter 10), or consider this question Ryle poses to the indifferent:
Suppose for a moment that you were allowed to enter heaven without holiness. What would you do? What possible enjoyment could you feel there? To which of all the saints would you join yourself, and by whose side would you sit down? Their pleasures are not your pleasures, their tastes not your tastes, their character not your character. How could you possibly be happy, if you had not been holy on earth? (53)
Expect to be convicted. Expect to be challenged. And expect to be encouraged if you are determined to pursue holiness with greater zeal.
Sin
Holiness takes sin seriously. Ryle argues that he who “wishes to attain right views about Christian holiness must begin by examining the vast and solemn subject of sin” (1).
Sin is a vast moral disease that affects the whole human race.
Read More

We live in a perilous age and false teachers will come into our midst. They will seek to steal your souls (after emptying your wallets). Do you know how to spot them? Can you contend against them? If not, its time to get started. In the words of Jude, brother of James and Jesus, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”

When, Not If, the False Teachers Come
One of the greatest threats to the Christian church occurs when its own pastors and teachers deny the very gospel which they’ve been entrusted to proclaim. In the Epistle of Jude, we witness a church which has been secretly infiltrated by self-appointed spokesmen for God, who were advocating the false teaching that because we are saved by God’s grace, we are no longer bound to follow the commandments of God. This is classic antinomianism.
These false teachers claimed to be followers of Jesus, while at the same time were themselves engaging in all kinds of sexual immorality closely tied to the paganism of the age. By indulging in sins of the flesh under the guise of God’s grace, Jude says these teachers were denying the gospel of Jesus Christ. Having become aware that this was going on in the churches, Jude writes a short but very powerful exhortation to Christian faithful in these churches to oppose these false teachers with everything in them, and to earnestly “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
About the Author—Jude
The Epistle of Jude is such an interesting and important book because of the fact that Jude is the brother of James and Jesus. Based upon the list of Jesus’ brothers in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, Jude is probably James’ younger brother. It falls to Jude to give us one of the most often-quoted but least practiced exhortations of the New Testament: “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” In a perilous age such as ours, when far too many Christians are ignorant of the most basic of Christian doctrines, and all too prone to compromising with the paganism around us, we need to let Jude’s exhortation to contend for the faith to ring in our ears.
Although the author of this book is the brother of James–who wrote his epistle in the mid-forties of the first century, and prior to the Jerusalem Council–many argue that Jude was written as much as twenty years after the Epistle of James. This would give us a date of composition somewhere in the mid-sixties, although I think a good case can be made for a much earlier date (the early 50’s). Although the date of this epistle is somewhat up in the air, it is very clear that Jude is writing under a completely different set of circumstances than those facing his brother James. For Jude, the issue which prompts the writing of this epistle is that Christians are under the assault of deceptive false teachers. Believers in Jude’s audience need to wake up and resist this group of false teachers who had secretly infiltrated their churches. At the same time they are doing that, Jude’s readers need to make every effort to build themselves up in the most holy faith–one of the surest and best ways to prevent false teachers from destroying the churches.
The Importance of This Short Epistle
Jude is writing in opposition to a group of schwarmerai (charismatics), men, who under the pretense of receiving new revelations from God, were defiling their flesh (a reference to sexual immorality) and speaking blasphemously about matters they claimed to understand but knew nothing about. It is clear from Jude’s comments that his concern is with teachers already in the churches, men whose conduct in many ways mirrors the false teaching plaguing the church in Corinth (2 Corinthians 10-12), as well as two of the churches mentioned in Revelation (Thyatira and Pergamum) who, according to the Apostle John, were facing a similar kind of false teaching associated with a certain “Jezebel.”[1] Based upon some of specific comments made by Jude, a good case can be made that the congregation(s) to which Jude is writing were steeped in Jewish mysticism, and end-times speculation (Jewish apocalypticism). It may be the case that the false teachers were able to appeal to the congregation’s interest in mysticism and end-times as a cover so as to make rapid progress in infiltrating the churches.
Jude opens his brief letter (vv.1-4) with a greeting, and a strong word of warning about the deceptive methods used by these false teachers. Jude also includes a word of explanation about the nature of their error–using the grace of God as a pretext for immoral behavior–as well as reminding his readers of the certainty of God’s judgment upon those who distort the truth for their sinful purposes. In verses 5-16, Jude sets out what amounts to a sermon of sorts on the course of redemptive history, in which Jude makes his case that God has his own ways of dealing with false teachers, and that they will inevitably bring themselves under God’s judgment. Jude appeals to past events in which God’s judgment falls upon the disobedient, before appealing to these events as examples of what will befall the false teachers currently plaguing the churches. Jude calls upon his reader/hearer to learn from God’s dealing with his people in the past as a way to resist the false teachers then present in the churches. In verses 17-23, we come to the heart of the epistle where Jude exhorts his reader to remember that the apostles had predicted the very situation that the churches were now facing. In light of this, it was their duty to build themselves up in the “most holy faith” until Christ returns. And then in the final verses of the epistle (vv. 24-25), Jude closes with one of the most moving doxologies in all the New Testament.
The Connection Between Jude and 2 Peter
Anyone who knows the New Testament knows that the Epistle of Jude is very similar to 2 Peter chapter 2. In fact, the parallels between Jude and 2 Peter are quite remarkable. This has led a number of critical scholars to conclude that an anonymous author copied 2 Peter chapter 2, edited it, and then circulated it as a letter from Jude, the brother of James and Jesus. Others contend the opposite–someone writing in the name of Peter took the material now found in 2 Peter chapter 2 from the epistle of Jude, and then passed it off as the work of the Apostle Peter. But there is nothing in the orthodox view of inspiration which would prevent Peter from incorporating a portion of the Epistle of Jude in his own letter (our 2 Peter). It is likely the case that Peter simply borrowed this material from Jude. Either that is the case, or whoever wrote 2 Peter was lying when he claimed to an eyewitness to many of the events in the life of Jesus (i.e., the transfiguration). The author identifies himself as “Jude” the brother of James and of Jesus–something which, if not true, would have brought howls of protest from anyone reading this letter who knew that not to be the case.[2] If someone were going to forge a letter like this, why do so in the name of Jude, who, apart from this letter, few in the early church even mention?
It is also important to point out that there was never any challenge to the authenticity of this letter in the early church. Some of the earliest letters of the church fathers allude to it–Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. Jude is cited directly by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. So, there is evidence of wide-spread acceptance of Jude (from all parts of the Roman world) and no one seems to have objected to this letter. From the earliest days, the church accepted it as coming from Jude, brother of James and Jesus.[3] Most of the arguments raised by critical scholars against the authenticity of this epistle fall into the category of pure speculation arising from an anti-supernatural bias.
The Date
There is no question that the author is a Jew. Although he uses fourteen words unique to the New Testament (found nowhere else), in his discussion of redemptive history Jude follows the Hebrew Old Testament (not the LXX). Furthermore, he cites from two apocryphal Jewish writings (the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch), which indicates that those to whom he is writing were probably influenced by Jewish apocalyptic (end-times speculation). Jude appeals to their interest in end-times, but reminds them that they must understand these things in light of the coming of Jesus.
As for the date of this epistle, one important key is found in verses 17-18, when Jude says, “But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, `In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.’” If Jude’s audience includes people who personally heard the teaching of the various apostles, then this letter must have been written when such people were still alive. This pushes us toward an earlier date, especially if Peter (or his secretary) did indeed consult this epistle when crafting his second letter. Furthermore, there is also some evidence within the letter that Jude was personally familiar with his readers. In verse 3, Jude uses an intimate personal address–“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” That Jude calls his readers “beloved” (i.e. “dear friends”) and then addresses them in a personal way (“you”), seems to support the notion that although the epistle does not identify its intended audience, Jude knew many of those to whom he is writing.
The Opening Verses of Jude
With the historical background in mind, we turn to the first four verses of the Epistle of Jude. In the opening two verses of the epistle we learn the name of the author, but not much about his intended destination. “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.” Jude identifies himself as the brother of James, and as a servant of Christ–a very common title in the New Testament which is used by Paul, Peter, James, and now Jude. It is important for us to notice that like his brother James, Jude does not appeal to the fact that Jesus is his brother.
Read More
Related Posts:

In 1993, I published a book titled Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview.1 In it, I showed that the various fascist movements in Europe of the 1930s and 1940s were facets of the modernist movement, particularly, the branch of that movement that morphed into postmodernism. I also showed that the intellectual establishment of the 1990s, as represented in the academia of the time, was still holding to the ideas of the intellectual establishment of the 1930s that gave us Adolf Hitler, the Holocaust, and World War II, as if those catastrophes had never happened. But, as I wrote,
My concern is not so much with the current intellectual scene as it is with what might come next. What will the “post-contemporary” movement look like, once the postmodernists have successfully discredited objectivity, freedom, and morality? What sort of society will be erected on the rubble, once the Western tradition is deconstructed?2
“What might come next”? Well, Tabletalk has asked me to revisit my book to see how it stands up nearly three decades later. Reading it again after all these years was an unsettling experience. Much of what I predicted and warned against has come true. And even when I was wrong, I was wrong in underestimating the magnitude of the fascist revival.
As an undergraduate, I took a history seminar on early-twentieth-century Europe in which we studied the rise of fascism, which, to my surprise, was actually an avant-garde form of socialism involving some of the most distinguished thinkers and artists of the day. Then, as a graduate student in literature at a time when deconstruction and postmodern were in vogue, I observed the carefully controlled fallout over Victor Farias’ Heidegger and Nazism, which showed that the godfather of postmodernism, the twentieth-century philosopher Martin Heidegger, was not only a committed Nazi who presided over the purge of Jews in his university but a member of that party’s most radical faction. The same rationalizations accompanied the publication of Wartime Journalism: 1939–1943 by Paul De Man, which showed that the author, one of the fathers of deconstruction in literature, honed his ideas in writings published in Nazi publications in occupied Belgium.
As I started my career in Christian academia, I kept coming across related facts. I read an article by Raymond Surburg in Concordia Theological Quarterly about two important pioneers of the historical-critical approach to the Bible that demonstrated how their attacks on the Old Testament were motivated by their open anti-Semitism and by their desire to purge Christianity of its “Jewish” elements and thus the influence of the Bible. One of my colleagues, William Houser, a communications professor, discussed with me the contrast between Hitler’s ideal of “the triumph of the will,” captured in Leni Riefenstahl’s artistically acclaimed propaganda film of that name, and Luther’s “bondage of the will.” I also read the critique of Christianity and its ethic of love by Friedrich Nietzsche, the nineteenth-century philosopher venerated both by the S.S. concentration camp guards and many of my graduate school professors.
I wanted to connect the dots. Concordia Publishing House had started a monograph series and asked me to contribute something. After much research wherein I found that the connections I was making were fully supported by specialists in the field, I wrote Modern Fascism. That was not my choice for the title, which makes it sound like a book on contemporary political cults. Its subtitle captures my thesis: Fascism was all about “liquidating” the “Jewish elements” in Western civilization—that is to say, the influence of the Bible, specifically transcendent morality, objective truth, the value of the individual, etc.—in favor of reviving a neopagan worldview of power, constructivism, and collectivism.