Tag: reformation

The Reformation in England was a Religious Revolution

Introduction

In a 2009 article published in U.S. Catholic, a magazine printed by a community of Roman Catholic priests called Claretian Missionaries, Bryan Cones wrote, “The major churches of the Reformation… split from Rome in the 16thcentury largely over theological differences… The Church of England, however, at least in the first place, separated from Rome largely because of a dispute regarding the validity of [Henry VIII’s] marriage to Catherine of Aragon.”[1] With this statement, Cones represents a common view among many people today that the Church of England (or Anglicanism[2]) is not quite as fundamentally Protestant as the other ecclesiological traditions that find their origin in the Reformation of the sixteenth century. For example, Candice Gage, writing for The North American Anglican, explained her experience with modern Anglicanism, saying, “For me, the journey into Anglicanism is like a trek backward in Reformation history, taking my own small steps away from… Protestantism.”[3] Gage speaks of the Church of England as though it were neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic and of her experience with Anglicanism as a via media (or middle way) between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.[4]

T. H. L. Parker notes the prominence of the view – that the English Reformation was substantially distinct from the Protestant developments elsewhere in Europe – in the opening pages of his book English Reformers. Parker writes, “[Was] Sir Maurice Powicke right to put it so baldly: ‘The one definite thing which can be said about the Reformation is England is that it was an act of State.’ Or Prof. Owen Chadwick: ‘The English Reformation was emphatically a political revolution.’”[5] Parker argues the negative, that the Reformation in England was affected by much more than the mere wearer of the crown. In fact, he says that the Protestant convictions and practices embraced by the Church of England went farther than at least one queen wished, demonstrating that religious belief among the English clergy and laity was (at least in some instances) more influential than the dictates of the monarch. 

This essay will argue that the Reformation in England was centrally focused on exactly the same fundamental theological and practical conviction as was shared by all the reformers across Europe, that Scripture alone is the word of God. Specifically, we will concentrate on a handful of English reformers and primarily those who lived during the sixteenth century in order to demonstrate that they believed in the supremacy and the necessity of Scripture in the life of the church. Though preaching the Bible was not entirely an invention of the Protestant Reformation, this brief treatise will aim to show that the Reformation in England was fundamentally religious since its emphasis on the authority and the necessity of the Scriptures in the life of the church transcends (both chronologically and philosophically) the political changes.

Describing the scene prior to the Reformation, Scott Manetsch wrote, “it would be inaccurate to conclude that Christian preaching was unknown in Catholic Europe… before the Reformation. In fact, scholars have shown that a virtual homiletic revolution occurred in Western Europe in the thirteenth century…”[6] However, Manetsch added, “for the most part, [sermons were] absent from the day-to-day ministry of the Catholic Parish… As a general rule, preaching on the eve of the Reformation was occasional and performed by mendicants and other specialists – not by parish clergy.”[7] Such was the case just before the Reformation, but by the mid-sixteenth century an English reformer named John Hooper did not hesitate to name “the pure preaching of the gospel” as one of the “two marks” of “the true church.”[8] In other words, preaching – especially that which clearly articulated and explained the gospel of Jesus Christ – had become fundamental, not only as the pastoral responsibility but to the essence of the church itself. 

Indeed, in 1547, when Edward VI became king of England at only nine years of age, reformers like Thomas Cranmer began to implement a Protestant pastoral theology throughout England by publishing a textbook for church liturgy, prayer, and teaching. As one modern historian, Michael Reeves, put it, “for those getting ordained [to the pastoral office], there was a new expectation: now it was clear that becoming a minister [in England] was not about being a priest who offers sacrifices… but primarily about preaching… instead of being invested with priestly clothes, [new ministers] were given a Bible.”[9]

We will aim to show that preaching and teaching the text of the Bible was recovered among the English reformers as the fundamental pastoral responsibility because of their belief that Scripture alone is the word of God.[10] And we will demonstrate that this Protestant conviction and practice was present among the English before and during the Reformation period by highlighting the views and practices of several Englishmen. John Wyclif was an English forerunner of the Reformation, having come and gone during the fourteenth century, but he affirms the same emphasis as later Protestants. Wyclif insisted upon the supreme authority of Scripture as well as the central pastoral duty to preach and teach the Bible. Sixteenth-century English reformers in focus below are William Tyndale, Hugh Latimer, John Hooper, John Jewel, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer. 

These men all show a unified vision of pastoral ministry that centers on preaching and teaching the Scriptures as the supreme word of God. Through their writing and by their own examples, these English reformers taught and promoted a pastoral theology that resisted innovation and the outward display of stimulating ceremony. Instead, they aimed to cultivate and to model pastoral faithfulness in the form of reading, explaining, and applying God’s word. In this fundamental conviction and practice, these reformers show us a Reformation in England that is keeping with the broader European Reformation. There certainly were peculiarities in the way the Reformation took shape in England, but all Protestants (whether they be in England or on the continent, ruled by monarch or by emperor) shared a central belief that the Scriptures alone are the word of God.

The English Reformers

John Wyclif (1328-1384)

John Wyclif is often called the Morning Star of the Protestant Reformation because during the fourteenth century he was already promoting and emphasizing the formal dispute which became the beachhead of protest during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. More than four generations before Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the chapel door in Wittenberg, Wyclif had already made it his mission to lift the Scriptures above all earthly authorities. Luther, in his own lifetime, readily accepted the label “Wycliffite” as a derogatory term for his rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation on the grounds that it was not to be found in the biblical text.[11]

It is inevitable, then, that we should begin our survey of English reformers with a look at Wyclif. Not only was Wyclif the first notable Englishman to argue for the authority of the Scriptures above that of any pope or council, but he was also devoted to making the Scriptures available in the language of the English-speaking world. Furthermore, Wyclif’s supreme value of Scripture directly connects to his Bible-centered view of the pastoral ministry. Unequivocally, Wyclif believed that the most important duty of the pastor was the preaching or teaching of Scripture. He wrote, “Preaching the gospel exceeds Prayer and Administration of the sacraments, to an infinite degree… [and] Spreading the gospel has far wider and more evident benefit; it is thus the most precious activity of the Church.”[12]

Indeed, Wyclif thought that each pastor had two basic responsibilities: first, attending to his own character and, second, attending to the task of teaching or preaching. Wyclif said, “There are two things which pertain to the status of pastor: the holiness of the pastor and the wholesomeness of his teaching.”[13] And this was not an isolated comment from Wyclif. He elaborated, “The first condition of the pastor is to cleanse his own spring, that it may not infect the Word of God.”[14] It was fundamental to the pastor’s role that he prevent hindrance to or distraction from his teaching by aiming for personal holiness. Wyclif went on, “as for the second condition… the pastor has a threefold office: first, to feed his sheep spiritually on the Word of God… second… to purge wisely the sheep of disease, that they may not infect themselves and others as well… [and] third… the pastor [must] defend his sheep from ravening wolves, both sensible and insensible.”[15] For Wyclif, these three tasks were all part of the chief duty of “sewing the Word of God among his sheep.”[16]

As was already noted, Wyclif’s view of the pastoral ministry sprang from his understanding of the authority and power of the Scriptures themselves. What is also noteworthy about Wyclif’s pastoral theology was his emphasis on divine judgment at the last day, when “Christ will require a reckoning from them [i.e., pastors] in the day of judgment, of how they have exercised in this ministry the power which he gave them.”[17] Wyclif reasoned, “Since it is necessary that he[i.e., the pastor] answer for the sheep entrusted to him, it is therefore also necessary that he personally feed them.”[18]And that which the under-shepherd should feed the sheep is the food which the Master prepared for them in the form of His word.

The importance of Wyclif’s views on the Scriptures and of the pastoral duty, as briefly summarized here, cannot be overstated with regard to this essay. While some historians and many popular opinions today assume that the Reformation in England was primarily or even totally a political revolution, the continuity of Wyclif’s doctrine and practice among the Church of England shows that government may have been the mere vehicle for the religiousrevolution that was already in motion. In other words, if Wyclif’s doctrine of the Scriptures and his emphasis on the pastoral responsibility of preaching the Bible are echoed in the writings and practices of English reformers nearly 200 years later, then one can hardly argue that the English Reformation was a trifling consequence of a monarchial tangent. 

William Tyndale (c. 1490-1536)

Like Wyclif, William Tyndale also made it his mission to translate the Scriptures from foreign tongues to that of the common man. Unlike Wyclif, Tyndale worked with the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, rather than the Latin text, to draw out his translation to English. Both of these men highly prized the text of Scripture itself, and they both wanted to make it accessible to as many people as possible. It is not surprising, then, to see the same emphases and themes in Tyndale that we observe in Wyclif.

First, Tyndale believed that the word of God is the “light” and “power” by which God “createth [his elect] and shapeth them after the similitude, likeness, and very fashion of Christ.”[19] For Tyndale, the biblical text is the “sustenance, comfort, and strength to courage them, that they may stand fast, and endure.”[20]  Therefore, wrote Tyndale, “are they faithful servants of Christ, and faithful ministers and dispensers of his doctrine, and true-hearted toward their brethren, which have given themselves up into the hand of God… and have translated the scripture purely and with good conscience.”[21] According to Tyndale, a faithful translation of Scripture is the best service any minister might give for his fellow Christians, because it is through the words of the Bible that Christians are shaped into the image of Christ and preserved along the pilgrim path.

Second, Tyndale believed that Christians would be “taught… all truth” by the “Spirit of Christ” through the ministry of faithful pastors.[22] Indeed, Tyndale wrote in his commentary on the epistle of First John, “we have all one master now in heaven, which only teacheth us with his Spirit.”[23] His point was to say that no “master upon earth” could contradict or overtake the seat of authority, which is God’s alone, in teaching believers.[24] But this did not mean that Tyndale wanted Christians to eschew all preachers or pastors. On the contrary, Tyndale said that it was God alone who “teacheth us with his Spirit, though by the administration and office of a faithful preacher.”[25] Such a preacher would prove himself faithful in pastoral office by “sowing the word” and “committing the growing to God.”[26]

Like Wyclif before him, Tyndale was declared a heretic by both the religious and political authorities of his day. Wyclif was condemned posthumously at the Council of Constance in 1415, and thirteen years later his bones were exhumed and burned. In Tyndale’s case, he suffered a heretic’s death at the hands of an executioner. But, quite notably, Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 by order of Henry VIII for promoting fundamentally Protestant ideas, such as the accessibility of the Scriptures in the common tongue. This was two years after the Act of Supremacy that made Henry VIII the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Such a historical fact creates a real difficulty for those who argue that the Reformation in England was largely political. It seems that even politically Protestant English monarchs sometimes tried to thwart the religious developments of the Reformation in England. But it was the religious developments, and not the political ones, that marked the Reformation in England as genuinely Protestant.

Because of the political swings in England, however, Protestant reformers could find themselves promoted one day and then executed the next. During Tyndale’s lifetime, some reforms in England were already well underway, and there was a consistent pastoral theology based upon the authority and necessity of the Scriptures expressed by the English Protestants who came after him. Again and again, whether in advance or retreat, English reformers believed and taught that faithful Christian pastors preach and teach the Bible. And this was especially obvious when Protestants were able to implement their pastoral training and programs across England, as we will see exemplified by Hugh Latimer.

Hugh Latimer (1487-1555)

Hugh Latimer was serving as the bishop of Worcester when he was slated to speak to the convocation of English clergy on June 9, 1537, about a year after the martyrdom of William Tyndale. Latimer centered his sermon upon the biblical text of Luke 16:1-2. This itself is evidence of the high value he placed on biblical exposition since he demonstrated the practice of Bible-based preaching which he called those clergy in front of him to perform in their own office. And yet, the substance of Latimer’s sermon that day gives even more evidence of his view of the fundamental responsibility of pastoral preaching and teaching. 

Applying the biblical parable about a dishonest steward, Latimer told the young ministers that they were to work as stewards in Christ’s household. “These words of Christ do pertain unto us,” he said, “and admonish us of our duty.”[27]Such a duty of pastoral ministry, according to Latimer, is to “feed with his [i.e., Christ’s] word and his sacraments… with all diligence… the church [which] is his household.”[28] Then, quoting the Apostle Paul, Latimer said, “Let men esteem us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of God’s mysteries.”[29] And faithfulness is that which is “to be looked for in a dispenser,” that “he truly dispense, and lay out the goods of the Lord.”[30] Of course “goods,” in Latimer’s analogy here, is referring to the words or mysteries which God Himself has revealed in the form of the written text of Scripture.

Throughout the short sermon, Latimer repeatedly called the newly minted ministers to faithfulness in making use of the “money” of the Master which has been entrusted to them. The valuable investment in Latimer’s mind is, naturally, the Scriptures themselves. The ministers are not to “come” with “new money,” but they are to “take it ready coined of the good man [i.e., the Master] of the house.”[31] They are not to “despise the money of the Lord” either by “adulterating the word of God” or by “blowing out the dreams of men” in the “stead of God’s word.”[32] In short, faithful pastors invest the Scriptures as the only valid currency of the realm, making good deposits in the citizens of the kingdom.

According to Latimer, the fundamental responsibility for pastors is the faithful preaching and teaching of the Scriptures, because the pastoral office and even the institution of the church itself depends upon faithful stewards dealing rightly with the Master’s resources. Latimer’s perspective here is quite valuable to the present essay, because it not only shows his own pastoral theology but also that which was perpetuated and common among the clergy of all England under the tutelage of reformers like Hugh Latimer. Wyclif and Tyndale may have both been political criminals in England, but their religious convictions, especially those regarding the authority and necessity of Scripture, lived on in the English reformers that succeeded them.

John Hooper (1495-1555)

The “sometime bishop of Gloucester,”[33] John Hooper is credited with writing A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith.[34] This text presents a thoroughly Protestant view of the church and of the Scriptures. Sharing the same convictions as many others, Hooper names “three principle signs”[35] or “marks by which we may know” that a church is truly Christ’s.[36] These, he said, are “the word, the sacraments, and discipline.”[37] Specifically, Hooper described “the word” as that “which was revealed by the Holy Ghost unto the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles of Jesus Christ; the which word is contained within the canonical books of the Old and New Testament.”[38] Therefore, according to Hooper, the biblical text is fundamental to the existence of a true church. 

In that same confession of faith, Hooper went on to describe the chief authority of the Scriptures in the life of the church. He said, “I believe, that the same word of God is of a far greater authority than the church; the which word only doth sufficiently shew and teach us all those things, that in any wise concern our salvation; both what we ought to do, and what to leave undone.”[39] Clearly, Hooper believed that the Scriptures were both sufficient and supremely authoritative, and he also believed that these are the basis of all teaching for salvation and living. Good or faithful ministers, asserted Hooper, are those men who teach “faithful people” to “govern and order their lives” according to God’s word “without changing any thing thereof, without putting to it, or taking from it.”[40] We may hear echos here of Latimer’s idea of stewardship. Like Latimer, Hooper understood the fundamental pastoral responsibility to be the teaching and preaching of nothing more or less than the canonical books of the Bible. Whatever one might say about the political developments in England, Hooper’s Confession was a summary of thoroughly Protestant doctrine as embraced by the reformers in England. 

Hooper also wrote A Declaracion of Christe and his offyce, published in 1547, in which he articulated the uniqueness of Christ as priest to the universal church. In this book, he not only excludes Rome’s priests from such an office, he also explains that Christ continues to rule and mediate in His churches through the Scriptures. Hooper wrote, “This knowledge of Christ’s supremity and continual presence in the church admitteth no lieutenant nor general vicar. Likewise,” he said, “it admitteth not the decrees and laws of men, brought into the church contrary unto the word and scripture of God, which is only sufficient to teach all verity and truth for the salvation of man…”[41] With such a statement, Hooper not only denied that any priest of Rome may stand in Christ’s place, he also affirmed that faithful ministers must teach nothing other than or contrary to Scripture. 

According to Hooper, “Nothing can be desired necessary for men, but in this law [specifically referring here to the New Testament] it is prescribed. Of what degree, vocation, or calling soever he be, his duty is showed unto him in the scripture.”[42] Furthermore, he wrote, “It is the office of a good man [i.e., faithful pastor] to teach the church… only by the word of Christ… The church must therefore be bound to none other authority than onto the voice of the gospel and unto the ministry thereof…”[43] Thus, the ministry and voice of pastors ought to do nothing but recite and explain the Scriptures. Such an affirmation certainly has political implications, but it is fundamentally religious and definitional of Protestant theology. 

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, was a major contributor to the Protestant advancement in England during the sixteenth century. His influence and manifold writings are hard to quantify, and it is beyond the ability of the present author to summarize Cranmer’s complicated leadership among the English reformers. However, his Book of Common Prayer, in its two editions (1549 and 1552), is probably one of the most influential writings of all contemporaneous Protestants in England. Cranmer published this text to create a uniformity of biblical instruction and leadership among all English churches. His goal that was achieved, even if one might dispute just how biblical were all the book’s contents.

In the preface to the 1549 edition, Cranmer wrote of the benefits of the regular and systematic reading of Scripture among the gathered church. He said, “the whole Bible… should be read over once in the yeare, intendyng thereby, that the Cleargie, and specially suche as were Ministers of the congregacion, should… be stirred up to godliness themselfes, and be more able also to exhorte other by wholsome doctrine.”[44] Cranmer also set down the standard that all “curates shal nede none other bookes for their publique service, but this boke,” referring to his prayer book, “and the Bible.”[45]Cranmer’s standard text was designed to ensure that every church would have ministers lead them by reading through the Scriptures and by praying according to biblical doctrines and instructions. 

The preface and explanation of the use of Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer is sufficient to demonstrate his view of the importance of Scripture in the life of the church, but it does not necessarily show what Cranmer believed was the fundamental pastoral duty. For that, we may turn to his prayers. For ministers, Cranmer intended the churches to pray “That it maye please [God] to illuminate all Bishops, pastours, and ministers of the churche, with true knowledge and understanding of [God’s] word, and that bothe by theyr preaching and living, they maye set it foorth and shewe it accordyngly.”[46] So too, Cranmer repeatedly placed within his standard text the opportunity for “the minister” to “make” an “exhortacion” or give his “sermon or homely” upon the words” of the Scripture passage read aloud.[47] Often, the written prompt is followed by a sermon or homely manuscript that a minister could read aloud and deliver as his own.

It is true that Cranmer depended upon the authority of political leaders to implement his program and the use of his Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, was himself in an office of great political authority and influence. However, for Cranmer, as with other magisterial reformers, government was the means by which he achieved his end, which was a religious reform and not merely a political one.

Nicholas Ridley (c. 1500-1555)

Nicholas Ridley was the Bishop of London. He, like John Hooper, Hugh Latimer, and Thomas Cranmer, experienced the advance of Protestantism and then a comprehensive setback under the reign of Mary. A faithful Christian witness during good times and bad, Ridley continued the ministry and teaching he had started, even in the face of fatal hostility. While Mary was the queen of England, she outlawed all Protestant reforms, and Ridley wrote A Pituous Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England. Published during better times for Protestants, under the authorization of queen Elizabeth (r. 1558-1603), Ridley’s lament gives us considerable insight into the pastoral theology he held and to his view of the importance of the Scriptures. It also provides an emphatic focus on the religious state of England during a time when the English politics were unstable.

Ridley wrote of blessings of God during previous years when he said, “Of late all that were endued with the light and grace of understanding of God’s holy mysteries, did bless God, which had brought them out of that horrible blindness and ignorance.”[48] “But now, alas!” he said. “England has returned again like a dog to her own vomit and spewing, and is in a worse case than ever she was.”[49] Ridley’s lament and assessment was due to his perceived absence of the faithful preaching of Scripture, not his desire for one government or another. 

Ridley was glad for the previous time when “all ministers that were admitted to the public office and ministry of God’s holy word, in their admission made a solemn profession before the congregation, that they should teach the people nothing… but that which is God’s own holy word.”[50] According to Ridley, the ministers of England were not only fundamentally responsible to preach and teach the Scriptures, they were admitted to the office by swearing to do just that before the congregation they aimed to serve. Furthermore, Ridley exhibits a profoundly Protestant longing for religious practices that center upon Scripture, and his lament is far less about the people or systems of government than it is about the function of the pastoral office within the local church.

In a record of Ridley’s examination before “the Queen’s Commissioners” on September 13, 1555, Ridley disputed with John White, Bishop of Lincoln and representative of “blessed see of Rome” under the authority of queen Mary.[51]After John of Lincoln urged Ridley to return to the church of Rome with apparent sincerity, Ridley responded. He said that the “bishops in the see of Rome” for a “long” time “were great maintainers and setters forth of Christ’s glory” by preaching “the true gospel” and “duly ministering” the sacraments.[52] Indeed, he said that he “cannot nor dare but commend, reverence, and honour the see of Rome, as long as it continued in the promotion and setting forth of God’s glory, and in the due preaching of the gospel, as it did many years after Christ.”[53]

But, said Ridley, the “Romish church” had become a “novelty,” and Ridley preferred “the antiquity of the primitive church,” which continued to be “spread throughout all the world… where Christ’s sacraments are duly ministered [and] his gospel truly preached and followed.”[54] Thus, we observe that even upon the threat of martyrdom, Ridley maintained that the essence of a true church was found in biblical preaching and in the biblical administration of the sacraments, which are both to be administered by faithful pastors. This exchange shows how Ridley understood the ministry of pastors or ministers by contrasting what he perceived to be faithful bishops in earlier centuries with those he perceived to be damnable ones in the present.[55] Faithful bishops or ministers or pastors preach the biblical gospel, according to Ridley, and unfaithful ministers do not.

Ridley was condemned to death under the reign of queen Mary in England because of his unwillingness to embrace the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church. His religious convictions had real political consequences, and the political changes in England that he experienced certainly affected the religious landscape. However, yet again, we may note that Ridley was echoing those notable Protestant convictions that Tyndale had articulated before him. Wyclif too, as a forerunner to the Reformation in England, had emphasized the authority and necessity of the Scriptures. Thus, the political swings seem to be secondary to the religious revolution underway during Ridley’s life.

John Jewel (1522-1571) 

John Jewel was the bishop of Salisbury, and he wrote An Apologie of the church of England (published in 1560 or 1561) to clearly articulate the position of the church of England after an extraordinary swing back-and-forth between Protestantism and Romanism under the rules of competing monarchs. While the political crown may have passed from Edward VI to Jane and then to Mary, the fundamental Protestant convictions of English reformers did not move in the slightest. Jewel argued in his Apologie that only qualified men ought to serve as ministers in the church, “lawfully, duly, and orderly” called by God to be “an interpreter of the Scriptures.”[56] By “lawfully,” Jewel means according to the qualifications set down in the Bible, namely 1 Timothy 3:1-8 and Titus 1:6-9. And the task which these qualified men were to set themselves to doing was that of interpreting or explaining the Scriptures. Like Wyclif, Tyndale, and Latimer before him, Jewel was arguing for a Protestant practice based on religious convictions about the authority and the necessity of God’s word.

Jewel went on to write that ministers have the power “to bind, to loose, to open, [and] to shut” by authorization of the pastoral office, and the doing of all of this is by “preaching of the gospel the merits of Christ.”[57] This is a reference to a common Protestant understanding of the “use of the keys,”[58] by which Jewel understood that ministers “teach” and “publish” the “Gospel.”[59] Jewel said, “seeing then the key, whereby the way and entry to the Kingdom of God is opened unto us, is the word of the Gospel and the expounding of the law and Scriptures, we say plainly, where the same word is not, there is not the key.”[60] Indeed, this, says Jewel, “is but one only power of all ministers.”[61]

Such a view is thoroughly Protestant since the Roman Catholic authority to bind and loose rests in the claim of apostolic authority in the office of the pope. Note also that Jewel’s assertion is that there is a transcendent “Kingdom,” which supersedes that of any earthly one, and that heavenly kingdom is regulated by the Scriptures. Like other reformers who lived in various realms on the European continent, Jewel was not merely interested in a political revolution. He was articulating a religious conviction that focused upon the Scriptures as the word of God, which commanded an authority above any earthly crown.

Conclusion

John Wyclif and the English reformers who followed him all exemplify the Protestant emphasis upon the Scriptures, which most notably manifests itself in the life and function of the local church. Those who lead in the church are ministers or elders or pastors, and their fundamental responsibility, as far as these English reformers were concerned, was to preach and teach the Bible. With unmistakable consistency, all of these men asserted the same essential pastoral duty, based upon the shared conviction that the Scriptures are the word of God and supremely authoritative and necessary in the lives of Christians. In the fourteenth century, John Wyclif had already recovered this focus, and the English reformers who came generations later continued to assert and embody the same. Thus, the Reformation in England was markedly a religious revolution, not merely a political one. 

While politics certainly played a major role in the Protestant Reformation among the English, government was more the apparatus for change and not the substance of it. One may distinguish between those geographical and national occasions through which Protestants worked to affect the religious changes they implemented, but the argument that such distinctions were fundamental or substantial differences seems unfounded. The English Reformation was clearly a transformation of the religious convictions and practices of the people in the English-speaking world. It is precisely this reality that makes it unsurprising that the Reformation in England had a distinct style and political flavor from the Reformation elsewhere in Europe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cones, Brian. “How Similar Are Catholics and Anglicans?” U.S. Catholic (blog), December 9, 2009.

Cummings, Brian, ed. The Book of Common Prayer: The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662. Kindle. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.

D’aubigne, J. H. Merle. History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Logos Research. Vol. 5. 5 vols. Glasgow: Williams Collins, Publisher & Queen’s Printer London: R. Groombridge & Sons, 1862.

Gage, Candice. “Why Do Anglicans Become Roman Catholic?: A Response by an Evangelical Expat.” The North American Anglican (blog), May 11, 2020.

Hanson, B. L. “Tyndale, William.” In The Essential Lexham Dictionary of Church History, edited by Michael Haykin. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2022.

Hooper, John, and Jean Garnier. A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith, Containing an Hundred Articles, According to the Order of the Apostles’ Creed. Kindle. Miami, FL: Hardpress, 2017.

Latimer, Hugh. Sermons by Hugh Latimer. Edited by George Elwes Corrie. The Parker Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844.

Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought. First Fortress Press Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981.

Ozment, Steven. The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe. New Edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2020.

Parker, T. H. L., ed. English Reformers. The Library of Christian Classics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation (1489-1556). Logos Research. New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.

Reeves, Michael. The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010.

Ridley, Nicholas. The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D. Edited by Henry Christmas. Logos Research Edition. Cambridge: University Press, 1843.

Russell, William R., and Timothy F. Lull, eds. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. 3rd Edition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012.

Spinka, Matthew. Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus. The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1953.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.

Turner, M. H. “Why Is Anglicanism a Gateway to Catholicism?” Mere Orthodoxy (blog), April 28, 2020.

Endnotes

[1] Brian Cones, “How Similar Are Catholics and Anglicans?,” U.S. Catholic (blog), December 9, 2009.

[2] The term Anglican Church literally refers to the English Church, but the Anglican Communion is a denomination established in 1867 during the Lambeth Conference. While the Church of England has experienced modern developments, not the least of which is a shift in its common moniker, throughout this paper the terms Anglican Church and Anglicanism will refer synonymously to the Church of England, which was formally established by an Act of Supremacy by Henry VIII in 1534. 

[3] Candice Gage, “Why Do Anglicans Become Roman Catholic?: A Response by an Evangelical Expat,” The North American Anglican(blog), May 11, 2020.

[4] Gage writes imprecisely in her article about what she refers to as “Evangelicalism,” “Protestantism,” “Anglicanism,” and “Roman Catholicism.” She does seem to distinguish between Evangelicalism and Protestantism, but it is not at all clear what specific differences she perceives between them. Most confusingly of all, she says that Anglicanism has in some sense “been welcomed into Roman Catholicism,” and she writes of “‘Protestant’ Anglicans,” as though there is such a thing as Anglicans who are not Protestant. All of her words taken in sum seem to point to the via media perspective.

[5] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). xvi.

[6] Scott M. Manetsch, Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 147.

[7] Ibid. 147.

[8] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 215.

[9] Michael Reeves, The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010). 134-135.

[10] It is beyond the scope of this essay to prove that preaching and teaching Scripture was a central or even fundamental pastoral responsibility at an earlier time in Christian history, but it is the present author’s perspective, nonetheless. It may be noted, however, that one can hardly read much of John Calvin or Martin Luther without seeing citations of preaching which centered upon the exposition of Scripture from the likes of John Chrysostom or Irenaeus of Lyons. And the sixteenth-century English reformers certainly understood themselves to have recovered the primitive doctrine and practice of Christianity, as is demonstrated in this essay by a portion of Nicholas Ridley’s exchange with his Roman inquisitor. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use the word “recovered” here.

[11] Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. William R. Russell and Timothy F. Lull, 3rd Edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012). 206.

[12] Matthew Spinka, Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1953). 49.

[13] Ibid. 32.

[14] Ibid. 48.

[15] Ibid. 48.

[16] Ibid. 48.

[17] Ibid. 60.

[18] Ibid. 56.

[19] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 105.

[20] Ibid. 105.

[21] Ibid. 105.

[22] Ibid. 119.

[23] Ibid. 119.

[24] Ibid. 119.

[25] Ibid. 119.

[26] Ibid. 119.

[27] Hugh Latimer, Sermons by Hugh Latimer, ed. George Elwes Corrie, The Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844). 34.

[28] Ibid. 35.

[29] Ibid. 35.

[30] Ibid. 35.

[31] Ibid. 36.

[32] Ibid. 36.

[33] John Hooper and Jean Garnier, A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith, Containing an Hundred Articles, According to the Order of the Apostles’ Creed, Kindle (Miami, FL: Hardpress, 2017). i.

[34] There is some debate about John Hooper’s original authorship of this confession. It is argued that he merely translated it from Jean Garnier’s French confession. It is not within the scope of this essay to address the matter of genuine authorship. Even if the text is not original with Hooper, it was still published in England at least as early as 1584 by the “Printer to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty” in London. This is the version cited throughout this essay. T. H. L. Parker asserts that Hooper was indeed the author in 1550. At any rate, the text is reflective of the theology held among Protestants in England during the middle and late sixteenth century, including their pastoral theology. T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 188.

[35] This numeration of three marks or signs of a true church is the same as John Calvin’s view, but both Calvin and Hooper were aligned with other reformers who named only two marks. Those who limited the number to two perceived that the right administration of the sacraments or ordinances necessarily included church discipline; therefore, they did not exclude Hooper’s or Calvin’s third mark, but only counted it under the heading of the second. As a matter of fact, Hooper himself once named only the two marks in at least one of his earlier writings cited in the introduction of this essay.

[36] John Hooper and Jean Garnier, A Brief and Clear Confession of the Christian Faith, Containing an Hundred Articles, According to the Order of the Apostles’ Creed, Kindle (Miami, FL: Hardpress, 2017). 24.

[37] Ibid. 24. 

[38] Ibid. 24-25.

[39] Ibid. 25.

[40] Ibid. 25.

[41] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 197.

[42] Ibid. 197.

[43] Ibid. 198.

[44] Brian Cummings, ed., The Book of Common Prayer: The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662, Kindle (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011). 4.

[45] Ibid. 5.

[46] Ibid. 42.

[47] Ibid. 22, 54, 127, 142, etc.

[48] Nicholas Ridley, The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D., ed. Henry Christmas, Logos Research Edition (Cambridge: University Press, 1843). 51.

[49] Ibid. 51.

[50] Ibid. 52.

[51] Ibid. 253-255.

[52] Ibid. 262.

[53] Ibid. 262.

[54] Ibid. 267.

[55] The use of the word “damnable” here is due to Ridley’s frequent ascription of the term “Antichrist” to the bishop of Rome and those priests and bishops who participated in the Roman church of his day. Nicholas Ridley, The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D., ed. Henry Christmas, Logos Research Edition (Cambridge: University Press, 1843). 263, 287-289.

[56] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 23.

[57] Ibid. 23.

[58] There is no shortage of controversy regarding the correct interpretation of Matthew 16:13-20 and 18:15-20. Protestants did not agree with the Roman Church of their day, which argued that Peter received “the keys” in some personal sense, wherein those who literally became his successors would continue to bear some special authority or privilege among the people of Christ in the world. Rather, at least some of the reformers (as exemplified in this essay by Jewel) believed that it was the substance of the message Peter believed and the announcement of blessing (i.e., forgiveness of sins), which Peter heard from Christ, that constituted the substance of “the keys.” Therefore, the preaching of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacraments, in their minds, are “the keys.”

[59] T. H. L. Parker, ed., English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 24.

[60] Ibid. 24.

[61] Ibid. 24.

A (Very) Brief Explanation: Why are there Catholics and Protestants?

It may seem a bit arrogant, but I think this might be the shortest summary of the historical development of the Roman Catholic Church and the basic reason why there is such a thing as a Protestant.

My purpose in this explanation is not to throw negative light on anyone who claims to be Catholic or anyone who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Not all Catholics believe the same things, just like not all Baptists believe the same things, and there are many members of churches (of all sorts) who have no idea what their church actually teaches on a given subject. So, I invite further conversation; I do not purposefully condemn any particular reader or someone you might know.

First, it is complicated, but Catholics have no unique claim on history.

Simply put, the Roman Catholic Church as it is today, in its doctrines and in its administration, did not exist until (at the earliest) the year 1215 AD. The Fourth Lateran Council ratified some of the teachings and most of the organizational forms that are distinctive of and essential to Roman Catholicism today.1 But it was not until the Council of Trent, which met sporadically from 1545 to 1563 that the main doctrines which separate Rome from Protestants were clearly articulated and ratified.2 Therefore, regardless of what my Roman Catholic friends might say, the Roman Church is not the oldest and most united church. It has a complicated past, and it has no unique claim on the Apostles or early Christians.

Second, Catholics and Protestants alike see the need for reform in the late Middle Ages.

Before and during the 1500s, there were many Christians within the Roman Church who were calling for reform. At least as early as the 1300s, with John Wycliffe in England and Jan Hus in Bohemia (as well as many others), good Roman Catholics were writing and preaching and working for reforms within the Roman Catholic Church. By all observers, including Roman Catholics, Western Christianity had become so abusive and scandalous that something had to change.

Many historians look back and see that the leadership of the Roman Church was unwilling to change, so Catholic priests, local friars, and Church theologians started protesting. The quintessential moment which seems to capture the scene in the early 1500s was that evening of October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther (a German monk, Catholic priest, and promising theologian) nailed his invitation to scholarly debate on the castle-church door in Wittenberg. The publishing of the 95 theses was a historic moment, but it was basically an accident. Luther displayed the document in Latin, but others translated it and published copies, using the newly-acquired technic of the printing press.

Events and publications like this were happening all over Europe, and this reality speaks to the environment that was ready for change. Zwingli, in Zurich, encouraged his congregation to eat meat during a Roman fasting day. English men and women were sharing copies of Wycliffe’s translation of the Latin Bible, and they were illegally memorizing passages to recite to one another so that they might all hear the Bible in their own language. Spain and France were killing and exiling those who taught against Rome, and that’s how John Calvin (a Frenchmen) ended up in Geneva. Calvin wrote the first comprehensive systematic theology textbook (from a historic Christian and Protestant perspective) for instructing new Christians.

All of this came to a head when Rome called a council to deal once-and-for-all with the reformers. This was the notorious Council of Trent.

Third, Rome formally and officially condemned all Protestants.

It is a historical and present fact that the Roman Catholic Church has formally set itself against Protestants, and it has never pulled back from that clear and official statement. At the Council of Trent, Rome condemned to hell anyone who believes some of the most fundamental doctrines among all Protestants. The canons (or decrees) of Trent anathematize3 anyone who believes that the Bible is the chief authority over all tradition and papal decrees. They also eternally condemned anyone who believes that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone in the person and work of Christ.4

These statements are clear, they are recorded for anyone to see in the records of that council, and they are repeated in the Roman Catholic Catechism that is still used by Rome today. And these statements are directly aimed at essential Protestant beliefs (specifically, sola scriptura and sola fide).

It seems to me that Protestants and Roman Catholics can indeed be friends today. But it also seems to me that we must recognize the differences between Catholics and Protestants are not mere preference nor are they minor. These two are divided on essential matters, and it is unloving and inconsiderate to pretend otherwise.

As I said above, though, it is likely that many Roman Catholics do not know the official teaching of Rome, just the same as many people who claim to be Protestant do not know what beliefs historically distinguish Protestantism. Therefore, rather than using labels and throwing verbal grenades, I think we all might do well to simply have good conversations about the biblical gospel.

May God help us to know what we believe and why, may He lead us into truth through the study of His word and the work of His Spirit, and may He grant us wisdom and grace to talk about these things with one another for our mutual benefit.

Endnotes

1. The Roman Catholic Church today shares many common doctrines with Protestants. These are not the doctrines that make Rome distinct as a Church. As time moved on, Rome increasingly articulated and demanded adherence to doctrines and organizational structures that are clearly absent from Scripture.

2. This article by Joe Carter does a good job of summarizing some of the main points of the Council of Trent as a historical moment that continues to impact Protestants and Roman Catholics today. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-council-of-trent/

3. Anathematize is a fancy word that refers to a religious condemnation. The word anathema is a transliteration from the Greek ἀναθεμα. This was the word the Apostle Paul used to condemn any preacher of a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9), and the word was and is used by the Roman Catholic Church to condemn anyone who opposes or diverts from official church teaching.

4. The key word in these doctrinal phrases is “alone.” Rome did teach and still teaches that faith in Christ is necessary for justification. The disagreement was never about the necessity of faith, but the sufficiency of it. Is a sinner justified before God by simply believing or having faith in the finished work of Christ? Rome says, “No!” Protestants say, “Yes!”

Glory to God Alone

“And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13–14).

Glory and honor and praise is God’s due. I don’t know of any Christian who thinks otherwise. And yet, neglecting to give glory and honor and praise to God is the core human insubordination. Even Christians, with renewed hearts, often have some difficulty giving glory to God alone.

Scripture tells us that the human condition is dire, precisely because we naturally exchange God’s glory for a lesser object of praise among created things (Rom. 1:22-23). The most painful reality is, humans always glorify and praise something or someone. Often, however, we give our praise to undeserving created things; and this leaves us feeling unsatisfied and disappointed.

God alone is supremely glorious, and we are most full of delight and joy when we are glorifying Him. Because God is glorious beyond measure, He can satisfy our eager attention. Considering more of God’s works, knowing more of God’s attributes, and more intensely pondering God’s nature will always stir greater amazement and affection.

All glory to God alone. SDG

Christ Alone

“Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us” (Romans 8:34).

Christ alone is the savior of sinners. This exclusive claim is repugnant to our culture of trivial tolerance, and it has always been obnoxious to sinful humans everywhere. And yet, this intolerant declaration is actually quite expansive. Just consider how wide the invitation really is.

While the Gospel of Christ does indeed prohibit the notion of any other savior besides Jesus, this exclusive Gospel also opens the way for any guilty sinner to approach God with confidence and joy. Regardless of pedigree, intellect, geography, wealth, or a host of other demographic descriptors, anyone may find gracious compassion and newness of life in the one-and-only Savior.

God has provided an incomparable gift in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The priceless Redeemer has satisfied God’s wrath for sinners like us; the perfect Justifier has earned righteousness on our behalf; the tireless Intercessor pleads our case even now; and the conquering King of glory welcomes us into His good kingdom forevermore.

Oh, yes… Christ alone is the sufficient savior of sinners!

John Calvin

On May 27, 1564, John Calvin died as a sickly old man in his bed. A sui generis Protestant Reformer, Calvin was a Frenchman who pastored in Geneva and in Strasbourg. Like Martin Luther before him, Calvin had initially set out to study law, but he gave himself to the study of theology after he was converted to Christ.

Calvin was arguably the greatest mind of Christendom since Augustine, and many Reformers, scholars, and civil leaders of his own day even acknowledged him as an intellectual giant.

John Calvin is simultaneously the most loved and hated theologian of the Protestant Reformation (maybe in all of Church history). There are few Christian leaders who have drawn such admiration and such disdain at the same time.

During his time pastoring in Geneva, some of his church members named their dog ‘Calvin,’ so as to insult their pastor-theologian. And yet others gave such sparkling endorsements of him.

Jacobus Arminius (the often-cited counter theologian to Calvin) said,

“Next to the study of the Scriptures… I exhort my students to read Calvin’s Commentaries carefully and thoroughly… for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture.”

The fact is that the Protestant Reformation would simply not have been what it was without John Calvin. Many Protestants today believe what they do because Calvin first thought and wrote about it.

Calvin wrote the first systematic theology, and all those written since have followed his pattern and built on his foundation. Calvin masterfully preached expositional sermons, which were a novelty at the time since the Bible had only recently become available in the common language. Calvin destroyed the wall between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular,’ arguing instead that all things (especially one’s work) could and should be done to the glory of God.

While some assert that Calvin’s theology should suppress evangelism and missions, history and practice have demonstrated the opposite. William Carey is known as the ‘father of modern missions,’ but Calvin organized missionary efforts that preceded him by 200 years and spanned across the globe.

Calvin reminds us of the incredible wealth Christians today have inherited. Our theological debates have all been discussed before. Calvin and many others have thought, argued, and written about things we are just now noticing, and our innovations usually erode faithful theology rather than provide an insightful breakthrough.

We would certainly be foolish to think that Spirit-illumined Christians of the past have nothing to teach us today. Whatever one thinks of Calvin, to neglect his writings is to miss a grand portion of Christian heritage.

May God help us to be Christians who rely preeminently on the Holy Spirit for illumination. And may God also help us to remember that we are not the first generation of Christians to receive brilliant light from God’s Spirit.

Should Protestants Still Protest?

This year marks the 500th anniversary since that fateful day when Martin Luther nailed a document, intended to initiate a collegiate theological discussion, to the chapel door in Wittenburg, Germany. Unintentionally (it seems), Luther struck the match that ignited a powder keg.

Germany, Switzerland, England, Scottland, and several other lands experienced an upheaval of the established religious system of the day (Roman Catholicism); and there were many and various contributors. Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, and many others played their respective and overlapping parts in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century.

Today, many are asking if the Protestant Reformation is over, and others seem to think it was a vastly overblown misunderstanding to begin with. Should Protestants still protest? Are Protestants who do still protest revealing themselves as merely irreconcilable curmudgeons?

I think it is quite helpful to answer questions like these by first understanding the disagreement. One can hardly seek to reconcile two parties without knowing what has divided them thus far. So, let’s go back to the place where the disagreement was codified.

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, many people believed that some reformation within Christendom was necessary. When the Reformation became undeniable, both Roman Catholics and Protestants still agreed that change was needed, but each side differed considerably on what that reform should look like. The Roman Catholic Church officially responded to their protesting brethren through the forum of a Church Council.

The Council of Trent gathered in Trento and Bologna, Italy, over 18 years (1545-1563). Sometimes infrequent and sometimes intensive, these meetings included discussion and debate on many topics of Roman Catholic theology. Bishops and theologians considered dogma, doctrine, and tradition regarding authority, sacraments, purgatory, indulgences, and much more. Finally, the Council of Trent published its decrees (statements of affirmation) and canons (statements of judgment) in 1564, and these were confirmed by Pope Pius IV.

Specifically addressing some Protestant theological assertions, the Council of Trent clearly presented an opposing position. While there are certainly still many things about which Roman Catholics and Protestants agree (God as Trinity, Jesus as Savior, and grace as necessary), there is a stark contrast on vital matters.

Few questions are as important as, “How is a sinner justified before God?” Rome answered the question by saying (among other things) that the sinner must participate in his/her justification by sacraments and other good works.

The Council of Trent states that baptism is the ‘instrumental cause,’ or the means by which justification is obtained.

“The instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification never befell any man…”

The Council of Trent states that justification can and should be increased through the efforts of obedience on the part of the sinner.

“Having, therefore, been thus justified… they [those who are justified], through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in the justice received through the grace of Christ, and are still more justified…”

The Council of Trent states that faith alone cannot and will not justify any sinner.

“No one ought to flatter himself upon faith alone, deeming that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance [the inheritance of salvation or eternal life in Christ Jesus].”

The Council of Trent not only clarified the Roman Catholic teaching on important matters, it also unequivocally named what is at stake. The strong denials below include the phrase, “let him be anathema,” which is a superlative condemnation of anyone who disagrees with the statement. With intentional language, the Roman Catholic Church condemned all protesters.

The following are some of the Roman Catholic canons on the subject of justification.

Canon 11: If any one shall say, that men are justified by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ… or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.

Canon 12: If any one shall say, that justifying faith is naught else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified; let him be anathema.

Canon 24: If any one shall say, that the justice received is not preserved, and also increased in the sight of God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

The message could not be clearer: believing that justification comes by way of Christ’s righteousness and not by any work or effort on the part of the sinner is a justification condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who believes in justification by faith alone in Christ alone is thus condemned or “anathematized.”

In two major Protestant catechisms, the question of justification is asked and answered. The Westminster Shorter catechism (following the Westminster Confession of 1647) and the Baptist catechism (following the Second London Confession of 1689) both provide an identicle answer (dependent upon translation).

“What is justification?”

“Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”

With the same precision and clarity as the Roman Catholics, Protestants articulated their own understanding of justification, and one cannot miss the antithesis. What Rome said was condemnable, Protestants wholeheartedly affirm. What Rome stated as doctrine, Protestants denied outright.

The only question we are left with now is, Should Protestants still protest?

Well, does Rome still affirm the decrees and canons published from the Council of Trent?

Yes, the current edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, affirms, and cites the Council of Trent throughout (including the section on Justification, pg. 535-537). Furthermore, reversing the official condemnation of “justification by faith alone in Christ alone” would require a new and clear council statement (Vatican I and Vatican II (subsequent councils) reaffirmed the Council of Trent).

Do Evangelical Protestants still affirm the doctrine of justification as articulated in the two catechisms cited above?

Yes, the Westminster Confession is still the authoritative doctrinal body of teaching (under the authority of Scripture) for Presbyterians. Yes, though Baptists are generally a less creedal bunch, this denomination is marked by a fierce affirmation of justification by personal faith alone – apart from any good work – in Christ alone.

So, Should Protestants still protest?

What else can any thinking person expect from a Protestant? The Roman Catholic who seeks to reconcile with Protestants either denies or betrays his/her own ignorance of Rome’s doctrine and dogma. The Protestant who seeks to reconcile with Rome is by definition no longer a Protestant – since he/she has stopped protesting.

Protestants must not only protest, but Protestants must know what and why we are protesting. The very Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and this is no time to capitulate.

 

*If you enjoyed this article, then you will probably also like others in this category, “Reformation Heroes.”

 

The Augsburg Confession

The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, came to realize that there were too many Protestants in Germany for him to kill all of them. In 1521, Charles V had issued the Edict of Worms, which condemned Martin Luther to die at the hands of anyone who could do the job. Now, nearly ten years later, there were many more Germans who followed and protected Luther rather than trying to kill him.

While the Emperor would have been glad to be rid of the problem, those Protestants simply would not go away or realign with the Roman Catholic Church. They were peasants and nobleman, farmers and princes, but they were united by a desire to read and know the Bible – God’s Word – for themselves.

Many people noticed deep-rooted corruption in the religious leaders of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but the Protestant Reformers offered a new hope for a purer faith. Rather than approaching God by way of an aloof clerical substitute, the Reformers read and spoke the words of God Himself from the pages of Scripture. This attracted many, but they needed something around which to unite those who separated from the Roman Catholic Church.

Statements of faith were common in Christianity from the very beginning. These statements (or confessions) are brief and precise declarations of the substance of Christian belief. In the Bible, we find the earliest known statement of faith,

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

Some statements of faith were as short as one sentence (Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior) symbolized by the well-known Christian fish.[1]

In April of 1530, Charles V summoned Protestant leaders to a meeting in Augsburg, Germany. This was the hearing the Reformers had been waiting for, but they quickly realized that much of their agreement thus far had been on matters of divergence from the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants knew what they were protesting, but they had not spent nearly as much time codifying what united them as a group.

Martin Luther’s student and friend, Philip Melanchthon, drafted what came to be known as the Augsburg Confession.[2] In this statement of faith, many Protestants found unity among themselves. While there were still matters of some disagreement, this confession was a declaration of belief regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here is an excerpt from the Augsburg Confession regarding the justification of sinners by faith alone in Christ:

“Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight.”

This confession of faith reminds us that Protestants (more importantly, Christians) must always unite around the essential truths of the Gospel of Christ. There, of course, will inevitably be many other doctrines related to these core truths, and there are good reasons to believe all that you do with deep conviction. However, there is room in the shadow of Christ’s cross for disagreement about how we shall arrange ourselves under it.

It has been said many times, but we would do well to remember: In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

May God unite His people afresh upon the bedrock foundation of His Gospel.

 

[1] ICTHUS (ιχθύος) is the Greek word for “fish,” and the word is an acronym for the Greek words, “Ιησου Χριστου Θεος υιος σωτηρ,” which are translated: “Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior.” Therefore, to display the ‘Christian fish’ was to make a public declaration that one believed Jesus to be the Christ (or Messiah) and the Son of God and the Savior through whom God reconciled sinners to Himself. A fish, no matter how big, was never such a mouthful as this.

[2] The Augsburg Confession is a thoroughly Protestant confession of faith, but it is primarily the heritage of the Lutheran denomination. Since Philip Melanchthon authored much of it, and Martin Luther endorsed it, the doctrines within are Lutheran. All Protestants agree regarding the “Five Solas,” but baptism, Lord’s Supper, and ecclesiology are matters of disagreement among Protestants (then and now). See the Augsburg Confession, including the preface to the Emperor, HERE.

Martin Luther’s Stand

On April 17, 1521, at the Diet of Worms (an imperial meeting in Worms, Germany) Martin Luther stood before the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V, and many high representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. The hall was full of churchmen and civil leaders, governors and nobles, some who supported Luther as a heroic theologian and others who wanted him to burn as a heretic.

Luther must have felt the weight of the whole world upon his shoulders. In fact, he had stood right where he was on the day before and asked for some time to consider how he would answer the lethal question he was being asked, “Will you recant these things you have written and said?” Luther’s life was a stake because he had written and said things that impugned the doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. He would have to withdraw his words or face serious consequences.

Four years earlier, Professor Martin Luther published an academic work on the university bulletin board. He wrote his now famous 95 Theses in Latin, which amounted to a professor’s invitation for scholarly dialogue on the practice of indulgences. Nailing this document to the chapel door in Wittenberg was the pivotal moment that set Luther’s trajectory towards the Diet of Worms.

Now, there Luther stood, surrounded by such an illustrious crowd. If he refused to recant, he would be charged as a heretic and burned alive. If he recanted, he feared the wrath of God would come upon him for not standing for divine truth amidst such tyrannical error. However, it does not seem that fear compelled him most. He was convinced by Scripture, and he simply could not knowingly deny what had gripped him so.

In a clear and distinct voice, Martin Luther answered,

“I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.”[1]

In God’s providence, Luther did not die that day, nor was he ever burned as a heretic. He was certainly condemned as an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. In the Edict of Worms (a decree issued soon after the Diet), Charles V offered a reward for Luther’s capture (dead or alive), but Luther remained a champion of biblical Christianity until he died from various ailments and fatigue at 62 years old.

Like Athanasius before him, Martin Luther lived contra mundum (against the world), but he reminds us that the word of God is true even if the whole world is against it. May God raise up many convinced men and women in our own day, and may we be gripped – above all else – by His word.

[1] Reeves, Michael. The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation (p. 15). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

If you enjoyed this post, see by article Martin Luther’s 95 Theses and my essay Luther & the “Five Solas” of the Reformation.

Diet & Protestation at Speyer

Martin Luther had been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in 1521, but his legend and writings continued to spread. Luther, undaunted by the full fury of Rome, also wrote more pamphlets and books in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrines. Furthermore, he attempted to clarify the Bible’s core teachings on justification through Christ alone, apart from any sacramental necessity. Luther was no political genius, but his voice and pen were certainly fueling reform in the civil realm as much as in the religious.

The Roman Emperor, Charles V, called the Diet of Speyer in order to do something about all the political and religious instability Luther and his followers were causing. A “Diet” is a legislative assembly, a meeting of political and/or religious leaders for the purpose of passing judgments and/or laws. Speyer was the German town in which the Diet was to be held.

On March 15, 1529, Charles V sent his younger brother King Ferdinand to oversee the Diet of Speyer. The Roman Catholic leaders were outraged by the doctrines of the Reformation, and there was no room for agreement. Philip Melanchthon (Luther’s partner and pupil) spoke for the Protestants, asking that there at least be the liberty to believe and practice religion according to one’s own conscience.

Ferdinand wanted no more of this unproductive discussion, so he ruled that Roman Catholicism would be the religion of the land. After demanding a full submission on the part of the Protestants, Ferdinand left without giving a moment of time to any objections. It was ordered that the Protestants of Germany live as Catholics whether they wanted to or not.

Some civil and religious leaders among the Protestants refused to give up on their petition to believe and practice true Christianity as they understood the Bible to teach it. They organized and requested an official opportunity to protest.

One month later, another Diet was arranged at Speyer, this one was called the Protestation at Speyer. It was there that civil leaders and reformers objected to the previous ruling of King Ferdinand. John the Steadfast, Elector or Governor of Saxony, read the protest aloud.

“We are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure preaching of God’s holy Word, such as is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything to it that may be contrary to it. This word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell…

For these reasons, most dear lords and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. …we protest before God, our only Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer and Savior… we, for us and our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree in anything that is contrary to God, to His holy Word, to our right conscience, and to the salvation of souls.

There is no true preaching or doctrine but that which conforms to the Word of God. The Lord forbids the teaching of any other faith… This Holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian and easy to be understood. It shines clearly in its own light, and is found to enlighten the darkness… We therefore reject the yoke that is imposed upon us.”[1]

This protest is the foundation of the label which all Protestants wear today. The Protestation at Speyer remains the protestation among all true Protestants since. We reject any yoke imposed upon us but the yoke of the Lord Jesus Christ. His Word and His Word alone shall rule and govern what we believe and how we live.

May God, our Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer, help us to build on the sure foundation of His Word in order that – come whatever will – we may stand.

[1] Kleyn, Diane. Reformation Heroes (Kindle Locations 1010-1026). Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.

Thomas Cranmer

In the early-to-mid 1500s, Thomas Cranmer was the personal chaplain to King Henry VIII and the archbishop of Canterbury, the highest position in the Church of England. At a time when Protestantism was being celebrated and embraced in England, Cranmer was a political and spiritual ally. Cranmer was instrumental in England’s rejection of papal rule and in getting William Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible placed in every church.

Though chained to the pulpit, the Bible was available for anyone to come and read God’s word in their own language.

Cranmer was such a friend to the Reformation that he tried to assure that a Protestant would take the crown after the death of King Henry VIII and his young and sickly son, Edward VI. Cranmer endorsed Lady Jane Grey (the young nine-day queen), but her half-sister Mary was crowned instead.

Bloody Mary, as she has become known, wanted to reverse all of the Reformation strides that had taken place in England. She was especially angry with those who had defiantly acted against her and her mother, Catherine.

Cranmer and many others were arrested and urged to profess themselves once again faithful children of the Roman Catholic Church. After much ridicule and suffering, Cranmer wrote letters that recanted (gave up) his Protestant faith. In spite of his humiliation, Queen Mary still wanted him to die for his previous words and actions.

On the day of his execution (he was to be tied to a pole and burned alive), Cranmer was allowed to address the crowd. Since he had already renounced his Protestant faith, what he said was a great surprise to all.

Cranmer said, “Now I come to the great thing that troubles my conscience more than any other… in my life… I wrote things against the truth, because I was afraid I would be killed. I now here renounce and refuse these things as written with my hand contrary to the truth which I believed in my heart… My hand has offended in writing contrary to my heart; therefore, my hand shall be burned first.”

Echoing the words of Stephen (the biblical martyr) in the book of Acts, Cranmer said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” On March 21, 1556, at the age of 67, Thomas Cranmer was burned alive as an enemy to the crown and the Roman Catholic Church.

Cranmer reminds us that we too may serve Christ with a less-than-perfect witness. But, we may all decide this day to serve Him well.

God help us all to live for His glory, and may He make us all faithful servants to the end.