Ryle on the character of Lot

[MarieP]

My pastor is currently teaching through Ryle's Holiness in Sunday School, and he just spent two lessons on the chapter on Lot.

Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I'm surprised at how generous Ryle is toward whether or not someone can be a true believer. My pastor said this himself. I know Ryle was not a fan of what we today call the "Carnal Christian" theory, but honestly I'm struggling to see how this chapter is different than some of the very arguments that theory makes. My pastor did point out that Ryle is mistaken when he says that someone can be a Christian and not take up their cross. And yet, earlier in the book, Ryle says things like sanctification being just as necessary to salvation as justification.

Don't get me wrong, I love Ryle! And yes, Peter does call Lot "righteous." I'm just a bit confused and wondering if Ryle's going too far in pressing the issue of Lot further than it was actually.

 

[Wayne]

Compare the commentaries of Wm. Jenkyn on Jude and Thomas Adams on 2 Peter. also Jenkyn's sermon "How ought we to bewail the sins of the places we live?", which is found in The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate (aka, Puritan Sermons, 6 vol. set published by Richard Owen Roberts).

 

[JonathanHunt]

In one sense, I don't really need to know what even Peter says about Lot when I can see what the LORD says about him in the book of Job itself. Does Ryle press too far? Probably.

 

[MarieP]

Thomas Adams on 2 Peter

Loving this commentary! There is so much gold to mine from it!

I also found Tom Schreiner helpful, as well as a sermon from D. Martyn Lloyd Jones. I looked at various commentaries at the library, and it's fairly evenly split between those who say Lot was a backslidden man through and through versus those who say he really was godly but had his faults and sins. Though, I think the arguments for the latter view win out (not only in number but in historicity and backing up claims). As Adams writes, "Now whom God calls just, let no man call unrighteous. Such is the difference, not of sins, but of men."

Ironically, it's Ryle who is the hardest on Lot when he wrote, "As a general rule, lingering souls do no good to the world and bring no credit to God’s cause. Their salt has too little savour to season the corruption around them. They are not 'Epistles of Christ' who can be 'known and read of all.' (2 Cor. iii. 2.) There is nothing magnetic, and attractive, and Christ-reflecting about their ways."

I think Lloyd-Jones and Thomas Adams have proven that Lot wasn't the person spoken of in that quote. (Luther, interestingly enough, only comments on the good Lot did- which surprised me a bit!)

 

[christiana]

I'm loving this thread as I so loved reading Holiness and will read again to see what it declares about Lot as its been such a while! When Lot is declared righteous how does that differ from David being 'a man after God's own heart' when he committed such sins as he did?

 

[Peairtach]

Marie P

And yet, earlier in the book, Ryle says things like sanctification being just as necessary to salvation as justification.

Yes, but who's saying that Lot hadn't experienced both definitive and some progressive sanctification, yet was still a sinner - as the best of saints are - or even backslidden.

 

[Wayne]

I've come to the conclusion that judgment falls on Sodom and the other cities precisely because of Lot's prayers (2Peter 2:8)

 

[bookslover]

Sounds like you people are getting all Ryled up! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[bookslover]

Compare the commentaries of Wm. Jenkyn on Jude and Thomas Adams on 2 Peter. also Jenkyn's sermon "How ought we to bewail the sins of the places we live?", which is found in The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate (aka, Puritan Sermons, 6 vol. set published by Richard Owen Roberts).

As it happens, I have a long quote from Adams up at my "Reiterations" blog, titled: "On Lot." Check it out.