Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet by Lyndal Roper

Vintage, 2017, 577pp

"Never meet your heroes" says the old adage. The Martin Luther we 'meet' through the pages of Lyndal Roper's biography is not the heroic figure of popular Protestant folklore. At least, while he was capable of great heroism, Dr. Luther could also be something of a villain. At the heart of the Reformer's teaching was the idea that the believer is at one and the same time 'justified and yet a sinner'. Luther  was certainly both right with God and terribly wrong in many ways. As are we all.

His was not a 'theology of glory' based on human effort to merit God's favour, but a 'theology of the cross' that looked to God alone in Christ for salvation. This was Luther's decisive breakthrough. He came to understand that the 'righteousness of God' by which the 'just shall live by faith' (Romans 1:16-17) is not the righteousness that God is, or demands of us, but the gift of saving righteousness received by faith in Christ. This shaped Luther's reading of the Bible and informed his critique of the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. If we are justified by faith, we have no need of popes, the priestly sacrifice of the Mass, indulgences, and so on.  

Germans seem to have a knack of coming up with a single phrase that says what it would take several words to express in another language. Schadenfreude is one - a malicious glee in the suffering of others. Luther's 'say a lot of stuff in one word' thing was, Anfechtungen. It could mean a sense of terror the sinner experiences in the presence of a holy God, or the trials the believer suffers in this life. The devil may be the immediate cause of many Anfechtungen, but behind the devil is God putting his servants to the test. Let's just say Luther was not an early advocate of prosperity theology. 

Lyndal Roper sets Luther life against the backdrop of his times. She provides a richly detailed picture of the commercial, religious, academic, political and cultural aspects Luther's Germany. There's a wealth of information here. Roper draws on the Freudian Oedipus complex theory as key to understanding Luther's personality. According to the Greek tragic tale, poor old Oedipus unwittingly killed his father and married his mother. On discovering his monstrous error he then poked his own eyes out. Roper detects Oedipal tendencies in Luther's rejection of his father's plan that he should become a lawyer, when he jacked in his legal training to become a monk. But I wonder whether that course of action had more to do with Luther's sense of himself as a sinner before a just God. It was the thunderstorm event that drew out of him the vow, 'Help me St Anne and I will become a monk'. It was only when Luther discovered justification by faith that he understood that the just God is also a gracious Father. 

In the film Darkest Hour, Clemmie encourages Winston to 'just be yourself' when he accepted the role of Prime Minister. Churchill responded, 'Which self shall I be today?' For he was a multi-faceted man. Something similar could be said of Luther. You could almost say there were three of him. The God-terrified monk, the bold 'Here I stand' Reformer of the Diet of Worms, and the somewhat grouchy and paranoid Luther of  his mature years. We sympathise with Luther I, admire Luther II, but find Luther III a bit more difficult to like. 

Luther III is a complex figure. He could be imperious in asserting his leadership of the German Reformation and a temporiser, slowing the pace of reform to keep the Elector of Saxony on side. He could be welcoming and magnanimous, a warm friend, and excluding and vengeful, an implacable enemy. Luther in turns coddled and bullied Philip Melanchthon. They remained 'best friends for ever'. He fell out catastrophically with Andreas Karlstadt, goaded him into making his private criticisms public, and then treated him as the worst of foes. 

I would have liked to have seen more attention given to Luther as a pastor and preacher. Would have made for a more rounded portrait of his life. The focus here is more on Luther as Reformation leader. In that role he had strengths and weaknesses. His courage, conviction and clarity of vision were massive strengths. But Luther's weaknesses were also glaring. His intransigence stopped him being a unifying figure among the Reformed. His view of the Lord's Supper, for example, just had to prevail over and against 'Sacramentarians' such as Zwingli, Bucer and the later Calvinists. Baptists, let's not even go there. 

Perhaps a better key to understanding Luther is not Oedipal tendencies, but  'Founder's Syndrome'. This malady presents itself when the powerful founder of an organisation surrounds themselves with 'yes men and yes women'. The over-mighty founder brooks no rivals and accept no accountability. Their will must prevail at all costs. Think of  Camila Batmanghelidjh of the Kids Company. Luther often reminded those who had the temerity to argue with him that he was the one who stood alone at the Diet of Worms. The Reformation was his. Any threat to it, whether from Karlstadt's hastily implemented reforms at Wittenberg, or the peasants taking his message of freedom as inspiration for revolution had to be stamped out. 

Roper comes down hard on Luther for his antisemitism. Some have tried to suggest that what he was against was Judaism, because as a religion it taught salvation by works, rather than grace. But the statements quoted by Roper from all periods of the Reformer's life reveal a disturbing prejudice against Jewish people. Luther can sometimes be intemperate and potty mouthed when engaging with theological opponents. 'Speaking the truth in love'? Not always. But I question whether Roper is being entirely fair in suggesting he was quite so fueled by hatred and anger. Even in his 'Luther III' Grumpy Old Man phase. 

As I say, Luther was a justified sinner, a flawed characher whom God used to accomplish tremendous things. Among them: the reassertion of the authority of Scripture over and against the church, the translation of the Bible into German, the rediscovery of justification by faith alone, steps towards reforming the church as a priesthood of all believers, marriage and family life as an honourable estate for pastors and people. Luther's ideas had a transformative effect on German politics, culture and national identity. The Reformation he started needed to be taken further. Much further, but it was Luther who ignited the flame of Protestant reform that would engulf first Europe, and then the world. There is no denying he was a great man. But we cannot deny that he also had great faults. 2 Corinthans 4:7. 

Evangelicals and Catholics Together: On the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life

Evangelicals and Catholics Together have produced a joint-statement, Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life. ECT continues on the assumption that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics as those who "accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ". We wish that this were the case, but there has to be real concern that the Roman Catholic negation of justification by faith alone tends to detract from the gospel of grace and obscure the way of salvation.

Now to the statement itself. The opening section attempts to set out the common ground between Evangelicals and Catholics on Mary. Then unresolved differences are spelt out under the headings of, A Catholic Word to Evangelicals and, An Evangelical Word to Catholics. On the whole disagreements are faced honestly rather than fudged. The Evangelicals explain on the basis of Scripture why they do not accept Roman Catholic dogmas such as the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption and Invocation of Mary. However, the Evangelical signatories seem open to further special revelation on Marian teaching saying,

"As a safeguard against the temptation to idolatry and because this pattern of piety is not found in the New Testament, most Evangelicals today do not include prayers to Mary and the saints in their worship and personal devotions. At the same time, we acknowledge that the sovereign Lord may choose to reveal himself in extraordinary ways whenever and however he wills." [Emphasis added].

What is the last sentence in that quote supposed to mean in the light of Evangelical commitment to sola Scriptura? Yes, we are open to the Spirit giving us more light from the Word, but that does not entail the revelation of new doctrines like the 'Bodily Assumption of Mary' which are not found in the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks for all Evangelicals when it says,

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (WCF I:X).

On this issue the Evangelical signatories have conceded too much in the direction of Roman Catholic thinking. That quibble aside, and it is a serious quibble, there is much that is helpful in what the Evangelicals have to say on Mary and her role in redemptive history. Overreacting against the extravagance of Roman Catholic Marian teaching Evangelicals have sometimes failed to give due consideration to Mary. She is indeed 'blessed among women' as the mother of our Lord. We should admire and imitate her faith and love. All Christians need to give careful heed to her admonition concerning her Son, "Whatever he says to you, do it." (John 2:5). The Evangelicals note that the Reformers seemed to have a much 'higher' view of Mary than their theological heirs and successors.

Surprising as it may seem, this document is able to highlight a considerable amount of common understanding between Bible believing Evangelicals and traditional Catholics on Mary. But even as this joint-statement demonstrates, with all the best ecumenical will in the world, serious disagreements remain. In a sense, the big issue is sola Scriptura. Shall we view Mary in the light of the witness of Scripture alone, or will we supplement what the Bible says with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church? On that point, Evangelicals and Catholics are not together.

I believe that dialogue between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics is a worthwhile exercise. But the Evangelicals often seem to be the ones conceding ground. As ever Rome wants unity on its own terms. Writing in The Guardian, Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung despairs of this tendency, exposing the Vatican's ecumenical skulduggery. Evangelicals should take note.

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609)

Arminius and his Arminianism

In what must be one of the great ironies of church history, Jacob Arminius shares an anniversary year with John Calvin. The Genevan Reformer was born 500 years ago on 10th July 1509. Arminius, who did so much to question Calvin’s theology of sovereign grace died 400 years ago today, on 19th October 1609. Like Calvin, he is one of the few figures in Christian history to have lent his name to an “ism”. His teachings, popularly labelled Arminianism have spread far and wide and influenced many. Even evangelicals have not been immune to his views. During the Evangelical Revival in the 18th century, George Whitefield famously fell out with John Wesley over the latter’s Arminianism. In this article we will look at the man behind the “ism” and consider how Jacob Arminius became an “Arminian”. Most importantly we need to ask whether Arminianism stands up to the test of Scripture.

Early life

Jacob Arminius was born in Oudewater, southern Holland in 1560. His father died when he was an infant, but wealthy friends of the family provided for Jacob’s education. He studied at the Universities of Marburg and Leiden before being sent to Geneva, where he sat at the feet of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in the city. Arminius was a diligent scholar and his work impressed his teachers, including Beza.

But student life is not for ever and in 1588 Arminius was invited to return to Holland as one of the pastors of the Reformed Church in Amsterdam. In 1590 he married Elizabeth Reael, daughter of an Amsterdam Magistrate with whom he was to have nine children. The doctrinal basis of the Dutch Reformed Church was the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, both solidly Calvinistic documents. In 1603, Arminius was appointed Professor of Divinity in his old almer mater, the University of Leiden. But it soon became evident that his theology was not in accordance with Reformed orthodoxy. His ideas on predestination proved especially controversial. Arminius rooted election in God’s foreknowledge of which sinners would believe in Christ.

The origin of his ideas

It used to be thought that Arminius’ problems with the Reformed doctrine of predestination began when he was asked to refute the unorthodox views of Dirck Coonhert, an opponent of Calvinistic theology. But this account has been challenged by more recent scholarship (See God, Creation and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1991). To understand Arminius properly we need to set him in his proper historical context.

In the early 17th century orthodox Reformed theologians began to draw heavily on the resources of medieval scholastic theology. They looked to the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and others as they sought to develop a more systematic approach to theology. Scholasticism offered a sophisticated theological method that came with its own ready made technical arguments and special terms. All this was very handy for discussing the finer points of Reformed theology. Arminius would have received a thorough grounding in the scholastics during his student years.

In looking back to scholasticism, the orthodox Reformed were following in the footsteps of John Calvin himself. Calvin rejected the wilder speculative excesses of the scholastic theologians. But he used their arguments and terminology when it suited his purpose. Like Calvin, later Reformation leaders found Aquinas especially helpful. He emphasised the sovereignty of divine grace in salvation, harking back to the teachings of Augustine of Hippo. The orthodox Reformed were not only familiar with the older scholastic tradition, they also engaged with the leading Roman Catholic theologians of the day. Some in the Roman Catholic Church were beginning to question the Augustinian thread in Aquinas’ teaching. Amongst the critics was Luis de Molina, an early Jesuit theologian. Molina tried to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human freedom. He posited a theory of “middle knowledge”, where God’s knowledge of future events is dependent on the free actions of human beings.

The influence of Molina can be traced in Arminius’ thinking on the relationship between God and humanity. He too spoke in terms of “middle knowledge”. The Leiden professor taught that God has placed limits upon himself so that human beings may act with freedom. This obviously poses a problem for the Reformed doctrine of predestination, which insists that God has sovreignly willed whatever comes to pass. Election is not based on God foreseeing which human beings would freely choose to be saved. Rather, God has graciously elected some sinners to life and salvation in Christ in accordance with the good pleasure of his will.

Teachings

Alarm bells soon began to ring when Arminius’ ideas on predestination were made public through his teaching at Leiden. Some insisted that he should be called to justify his views in a specially convened synod. Arminius refused, arguing that his teaching was in accordance with the Reformed Confessions. He may have sincerely believed this to be the case, as have several of his followers, but he was mistaken. The Belgic Confession states,

Article 16: The Doctrine of Election

"We believe that-- all Adam's descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves."

Arminius’ position is quite different.

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preceding grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." (Works Of Jacob Arminius, Volume 1 - here).

Note that Arminius ascribes election to the grace of God. This grace is sufficient to save whoever will believe, but it does not effect salvation in those whom God has chosen. Election is simply a matter of God foreknowing who would avail themselves of the offer of redemption. This teaching subtly undermines the Reformation insistence that salvation is by grace alone. If by virtue of universal grace all sinners theoretically have the ability to choose to be saved, then why do not all sinners in fact choose to be saved? In the end it must come down to an element of human choice. Some choose to avail themselves of salvation in Christ, but others do not. For all that is said about this choice being grace-enabled, this is not an effective grace that actually saves, but merely a grace that facilitates the sinner’s choice to believe. Arminianism is a form of Semi-Pelagianism, which teaches that man must co-operate with God’s grace in order to be saved.

This questions the New Testament’s verdict that the unbeliever is dead in trespasses and sins and is therefore unable to choose to be reconciled to God. According to the Bible grace is both sufficient and effective, 2 Timothy 1:8-10. When Scripture speaks of the foreknowledge of God it does not mean that God simply looked into the future to see who would choose to be saved. Consider what Paul says in Romans 8:29-30. By “foreknew” Paul means something like “fore-loved”. God loved certain sinners and predestined them to be conformed to the image of his Son. He takes the initiative throughout the processes of salvation. God calls, justifies, and glorifies his chosen people. This does not mean that he forces salvation upon unwilling human beings. Rather, the Father sets us free to believe in Christ and be saved by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Influence

After long resisting an open discussion of his views, Arminius finally agreed to a conference at The Hague where his teaching could be properly examined. But he fell ill and died on 19th October 1609. His Arminianism did not die with him. In 1610 a group of Dutch divines sympathetic to Arminius’ theology issued the Remonstrant Articles, which may be summarised,

1. Predestination is conditional on God foreknowing who would believe.
2. Christ died for all, although only believers will be saved.
3. Human beings are sinners and cannot believe apart from the grace of God.
4. Saving grace may be resisted.
5. The doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints needs to be investigated further.

Many have found Arminius’ theology appealing. After all it is flattering to think that we can make at least some small contribution to our salvation. The anti-Puritan Archbishop Laud and his followers held to Arminian doctrine. John Wesley had his Arminian leanings. Huge sectors of evangelicalism are in fact Arminian. That is what lies behind the crusade-type evangelism, where sinners are urged to “decide for Christ". Arminianism is a distortion of the gospel. It has had a baleful effect upon the theology and mission of the church. Jacob Arminius was a learned and able theologian, yet we must reject his teaching because it robs the triune God of his glory in salvation. In a future post I hope to say something about the Synod of Dort, which was called in 1618 to give the definitive Reformed response to the Remonstrants’ Arminian views - see here.

* An edited version of this article was published in October's Evangelical Times.

John Calvin in England

At our Ministers' Fraternal in Bradford on Avon, Robert Oliver spoke on the influence of John Calvin on the Reformation in England. Not that the Reformer ever visited these fair shores. But his ministry and writings had a powerful impact on the course of the English Reformation. After giving us a brief sketch of the Reformer's life, Robert began to show the way in which the Calvin helped to shape the course of the Reformation in England.

In a sense there were two Reformations in England; a political Reformation triggered by Henry VIII's break with Rome over his divorce of Catherine of Aragon, and a grassroots religious Reformation powered by the new Protestant teaching. Although Henry split from the Pope and made himself head of the Church of England, he was no Protestant. He harboured political suspicions against Catholics, regarding them as potential traitors. Yet the king disliked Protestant doctrine. It is said that on one day he had three Roman Catholics beheaded for treason and six Protestants burned for heresy.

Henry VIII was succeeded by Edward VI, who, under the influence of Protestant counsellors sought to advance the cause of the Reformation in England. The Church was made Protestant in doctrine and forms of worship. Protestant preaching was encouraged. But Edward died at the age of 16. He was followed by his Roman Catholic half sister, Mary. Some have suggested that the Reformation under the boy king was rather superficial. But the fact that 300 men and women, including leading churchmen like Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were willing to die for their Protestant faith under Mary's reign of terror suggests that Reformed teaching was beginning to take a hold upon the populace.

But Mary's attempt to re-Catholicise England was a failure. Indeed, by the end of the reign in Elizabeth I in 1603, Protestantism was the dominant form of Christianity in the country. John Calvin had a very important role to play in the advance of the Protestant faith in England. Many leading English Protestants fled from their homeland during the Marian persecution and found refuge in Geneva. A church was founded for the English exiles, complete with its own confession of faith, psalter and a copy of the New Testament all in their own tongue.

Men who would later take Reformed teaching back to England came under the influence of John Calvin. Above all he gave them a model of reverent and accurate biblical exegesis. Calvin exemplified his careful approach to the biblical text in his own preaching ministry. It could also be seen in his many commentaries on books of the Bible. Gone was the fanciful method of exegesis favoured by the medievals. Calvin's aim was to discover the mind and intention of the biblical authors and set forth the plain sense of Scripture. He employed grammatico-historical exegesis, interpreting Scripture by Scripture in the light of the analogy of faith. The Roman Catholic Church claimed that she alone could interpret the Bible and argued that Protestantism would lead to theological anarchy. Calvin countered that through the witness of the Spirit and careful exegesis, it is possible to arrive at an accurate understanding of Scripture. His Institutes of the Christian Religion was written to aid Protestants in their reading of the Bible .

But Calvin provided more than a model of biblical scholarship for the English exiles. He was also an exemplary preacher. The Reformer would preach every day of alternate weeks, and up to three times each Sunday. He preached straight from the original Hebrew or Greek. His sermons were plain and simple as he explained the text of Scripture and showed how God's Word applied to the people of 16th century Geneva. In order to maintain eye contact with his congregation, Calvin preached without notes. This also helped to ensure that his ministry was lively, direct and punchy.

All this did not go unobserved by the English refugees in Geneva. When Mary died, Elizabeth I ascended the throne. She made the Church of England Protestant once more. But when the English Protestants returned home, they found that their queen was in no mood to sanction further reform of the Church. The Protestant leaders turned their all attention to preaching after the model of John Calvin. By this means, the hearts and minds of the English people were won for the Reformed cause. Powerful Puritan preachers like Henry "Silvertongue" Smith proclaimed the message of the Bible to their fellow countrymen. Elizabeth didn't much like preaching and did all she could to discourage "prophesyings". But by the 1570's is was evident that Protestant preaching had won the day. The English had become a "People of the Book."

Another big factor in the advance of English Reformation was the publication in 1560 of the Geneva Bible. This translation of Scripture was started by English Protestants in Geneva during the reign of queen Mary. By 1644, 100 editions had been printed. The Bible had several distinguishing features. It was printed in clear Roman type and verses were added to the biblical text for ease of reference. Although a hefty tome by today's standards at 24.1 x 18.8 x 6.6 cm, the Geneva Bible was much more portable than the old Great Bible, which was described as being "as portable as Stone Henge." The Bible contained a concordance, maps and diagrams of things like the tabernacle and garments worn by the Old Testament priests. But above all, the Geneva Bible was a study Bible with marginal notes that explained and applied the text. The notes were written after the model of John Calvin's lucid, brief and telling comments on Scripture. With the Geneva Bible in hand, any Christian man could now read Scripture with understanding and expound its message to his family with accuracy and conviction. Biblical literacy rates rocketed as this new version of the Scriptures became readily available. Ordinary believers demanded that their parish priest gave them Bible-based preaching. Like the Bereans of Acts 17:11, English Christians were in a position to scrutinise preaching against the standard of Scripture. People would travel many miles to hear God's Word preached by a godly, gifted and Spirit empowered Puritan Minister. It is said that the Puritan pulpit had more influence on the Elizabethan populace than the plays of Shakespeare or Marlowe. If the English had become a "People of the Book", that book was the Geneva Bible. And that Gevena was Calvin's Geneva.

So, John Calvin, though his expository labours and preaching ministry had a profound effect on the progress of the Reformation in England. With the Reformer's life and work receiving renewed attention in this, the 500th anniversary of his birth, let us pray that his vision of Bible-based gospel preaching may once again take hold of the pulpits of this land.

Bibliography: Robert Oliver mentioned several books

The Expository Genius of John Calvin, by Steven J, Lawson
John Calvin, A Pilgrim's Life, by Herman J. Selderhuis
The Reformation by Patrick Collinson
The Geneva Bible 1560 Edition

Christianity's Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath

Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution,
a history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first,by Alister McGrath, Harper Collins (USA) and SPCK (UK), 2007.

In this book Alister McGrath attempts to tell the story of Protestantism from its beginnings in the sixteenth century right up to the present day. The author does this with his customary verve, wit and style. Although readers may disagree with McGrath's analysis at some important points, it is difficult not to admire the sheer scope of this ambitious project. Not content with giving us a gripping narrative of Protestant history, the writer also dons the mantle of prophet to suggest the possible future of Protestantism.

So, what is "Christianity's dangerous idea"? It is the Protestant insistence that each individual believer has the right to interpret the Bible. This enabled early Reformation thinkers to critically examine the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the light of Scripture. Take sacramental theology. For Protestants, it was not enough that the institutional Church held that there are seven sacraments. If the Bible acknowledged only two, namely the Lord's Supper and Baptism, then that was it. The other supposed sacraments such as penance and extreme unction were bogus and had to be abandoned. Who gave the Pope the authority to add to the plain teaching of Scripture anyway?

In many ways "Christianity's dangerous idea" was empowering and liberating. The Bible was wrested from the ecclesiastical authorities and given back to the ordinary Christian. But having rejected the authority of the Pope, Protestants were faced with a new problem. Who would now decide which interpretations of Scripture were right? Protestantism very quickly mutated into several Protestantisms. Many sided with Luther's original vision, others were won over by the more developed theology of John Calvin. Some argued for an even more radical Reformation. They rejected infant baptism as unbiblical and questioned the value of the historic Creeds of the Church. For them Scripture alone, meant the rejection of the past in favour of contemporary readings of the Bible. The situation was complicated by the fact that the Reformation tended to spread territorially. Local princelings expected their subjects to adopt their chosen brand of Protestantism. The Reformation movement was soon fragmented both theologically and territorially. Protestants could be relied upon to unite against their common enemy, Roman Catholicism. But they also eyed one another with suspicion. At Marburg Colloquy Protestants from the Lutheran and Reformed wings met to settle their differences. But any hopes of pan-Reformation unity were dashed by Luther's intransigence. He demanded that all parties accept his doctrine of Christ's bodily presence in the sacraments or consubstantiation.

The Protestant commitment to the right of all Christians to interpret Scripture was both its best asset and potentially its biggest liability. On the plus side, Protestants have been willing to test their own beliefs by the standard of Scripture. The Reformers tended to view the "Great Commission" of Matthew 28 as limited to the ministry of the apostles. Calvin sent many missionaries into his native France. But the Reformers seemed to show of little interest in cross-cultural mission. That view was challenged by William Carey and others in the 18th century. They taught that the "Great Commission" applied for all time. This fresh understanding of Scripture led to a flowering of interest in world wide mission. On the minus side, the Protestant insistence on the right of every believer to interpret the Bible has proved to be highly divisive. Protestantism has often been guilty of needless schism. Believers have separated from each other over matters of biblical interpretation that do not affect the integrity of the gospel.

However, the Protestant insistence on the right of private interpretation, the "dangerous idea" was not, as McGrath seems to suggest, a recipe for anything goes. There were safeguards. The Reformers insisted that the Bible be read responsibly in accordance with its plain and obvious meaning. Calvin was a master of the art of grammatico-historical exegesis. Mainline Protestants accepted the ancient Creeds of the Church as embodiments of accurate interpretation of Scripture. Reformed theologians taught that witness of the Spirit enables believers to rightly understand God's Word. This was not taken to mean that all believers will agree on everything. Bullinger wisely urged Protestants to be modest and cautious when it came to disputed areas of biblical interpretation.

If the formal principle of Reformation theology was "Scripture alone", the material principle was the gospel. There was wide agreement that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. While not all Scripture is equally clear, gospel of saving grace in Christ is perfectly plain. The same basic doctrine of salvation by grace alone is expressed in all the great confessional documents of the Reformation. While the Reformation movement had its lunatic fringe, the "dangerous idea", when rightly understood did not lead to theological entropy. A shared vision of the biblical gospel saw to that.

McGrath offers an instructive and engaging account of the first three centuries of Protestant history. But I found his analysis of Protestantism from 19th century to present less satisfactory. He suggests that Holiness movements, of the 19th century and the revivalism of Charles Finney were legitimate adaptations of the Protestant faith. In reality, they were aberrations. Iain Murray gives a much more cogent analysis in his, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism 1750-1858, Banner of Truth Trust, 1994. Finneyism entailed a rejection of the historic Calvinistic faith of the Reformation in favour of can-do Pelagianism. This may have suited the enterprising spirit of the age, but it left the evangelical movement theologically emaciated. McGrath rightly notes that Willow Creek-style "seeker sensitive" Churches stand in the Finney tradition, but he thinks that their approach is to be welcomed. This is doubtful. As David F. Wells has shown in his Above All Earthy Pow'rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, Eerdmans/IVP, 2005, the "seeker sensitive" movement has allowed the spirit of the age to mold the church to such a degree that the supremacy of Christ is undermined. Protestantism needs Reformed, that is Calvinistic theology to give it backbone and direction.

On another recent development, McGrath writes approvingly of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement and its attempt to bring the old enemies closer together. But this project is misguided. The great issues that divided Protestant from Catholic in the 16th century remain largely unresolved.

The book charts the origins and development of Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism was set alight by the dying embers of the 19th century Holiness and revivalist movements. With its beginnings in the Azusa Street revival, Pentecostalism, insisted that the New Testament gifts such as speaking in tongues were available to contemporary believers. This apparently supernatural mutation of Protestantism laid great stress on the immediate presence of God among his people. The Pentecostal message spread very rapidly and is now a global phenomenon. Statistics show that it is now the largest Protestant group. Such is the growth of Pentecostalism that McGrath speculates that Latin America and the Philippines might soon become predominantly Protestant. For McGrath, Pentecostalism is the bright hope for the future of Protestantism. But he virtually ignores growing, world-wide recovery of Reformed Christianity associated with the influential ministries of men like Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Jim Packer and Don Carson. Some Pentecostals or Charismatics are beginning to draw upon the riches of Reformed theology to give the movement added depth and theological clarity.

One theme that runs through the book is that Protestantism gave impetus to atheism. With its focus on meeting God through the Word and its absence of images in church buildings, the Reformed faith helped to "disenchant the world". Thomas Hobbes suggested that the Protestant God might as well not exist as he made very little difference to the world. That is one reason why McGrath sees such potential in Pentecostalism with its emphasis on the living, supernatural presence of God. This reminds us that Protestantism needs much more than a recovery of Reformed theology. If Reformed theology does not lead to encounter with the God of the Gospel, then is has become deformed. We need to rediscover the deeply experimental Calvinism of the Puritans and Calvinistic Methodists. At its best, Reformed Protestantism was always a movement of the Spirit as well as the Word.

With McGrath's concerns about Protestantism and atheism in mind, it is ironic that in this book he more or less adopts the approach of secular historiography. He makes no pretence of objectivity or neutrality, writing very much as as a Protestant historian. But God is strangely banished from his interpretative framework. The Reformation is analysed in terms of social forces, leading actors and key ideas. But there is no hint that the providence of God might have been at work in all this. Similarly, the 18th century Great Awakening is described in terms that would hardly disturb the most secular historian. The work of the Spirit in revival does not get a mention. In McGrath's account, God as an actor in history has virtually been omitted from "public space" of historical discourse.

Now to the question with which McGrath closes his book. Does Protestantism have a future? The writer thinks so. He points to the movement's potential for endless renewal and adaptation. There is something in that. But more is needed if Protestantism is to have a future as a movement that is faithful to the gospel. Protestantism needs to be rooted in the Calvinistic theology of the Reformation. We must hold that the triune God of the Gospel is still mighty to save sinners by his sovereign grace. In addition, Protestants must to be able to respond meaningfully to the fresh challenges of the 21st century world. Above all else we need the God of the Reformation to visit us and revive us afresh by his Spirit. The future of Protestantism is in God's hands. "Revive your work, O Lord in the midst of the years!"

Why the Reformation Matters (3)

Why the Reformation still matters

John Calvin

1. Evangelical identity crisis

We are living at a time when everything is in the melting pot. Evangelicalism is becoming increasingly fragmented and confused. We need to remember that our movement originated with the clear teaching of the Reformation,

Chris Sinkinson says,

"If we take the Reformation as our starting point then evangelicalism is born out of a theological rediscovery. Of course there is a breadth to the Reformation but the breadth is held together by a shift in the location of authority from church councils and traditions to the Bible. Ultimately, to be evangelical is to be biblical in our approach to the knowledge of God and life.

As a movement stemming from the Reformation, evangelicalism is essentially creedal. Not only that, there are clear doctrinal commitments that make up the creed." (Table Talk Issue 14 Summer 2005, published by Affinity).

The doctrinal foundation of the evangelical movement is found in the great biblical creeds and confessions of the Reformation and Puritan periods: The Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Savoy Declaration and the 1689 Baptist Confession. These confessions may differ on matters such as church government and baptism, but they all give expression to the great Scriptural doctrines that were rediscovered at the Reformation.

Evangelical doctrine, rooted in these Confessions, is not ill-defined and endlessly flexible. Spurgeon said of the 1689 Baptist Confession. “This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us”. May we continue to hold fast our profession.

2. Contemporary challenges

We may think that the issues that divided Protestants and Catholics in the 16th Century are old news. But this is not the case. Francis Beckwith was President of the Evangelical Theological Society until he resigned from his position on 5th May this year (see here). The reason for his resignation is that on April 29th he was received back into the Roman Catholic Church He gave two main reasons for his conversion: First, he became convinced that the Roman view of justification by faith is more faithful to the teaching of Scripture and the early church than the Protestant view. Second, he wished to identify himself with the church's creeds that Protestants and Catholics alike hold in common as expressions of orthodox Christainity.

In America, the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement is endeavouring to find a basis for common mission between Rome and evangelicals (see here). How should we respond to these developments? The Ecumenical Movement aims to reunite Christendom under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church (see here). This is the express purpose of Churches Together in the UK. How should we as evangelicals, or gospel people respond to the ecumenical issue? We need to know where we stand biblically and theologically to appreciate what is at stake in these developments. With roots in the deeply biblical teaching rediscovered at Reformation, evangelicalism will be equipped to face the challenges of our fast-changing, contemporary world.

3. The role of the Protestant Truth Society

The PTS was founded by John Kensit 1889 to counter the Romanising tendencies of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England. In 1898 the first Wickliffe Preachers were sent out to warn of the dangers of Catholicism and preach the simple Gospel of the grace of God.

Our aims today can be summed up in three “E’s”

We wish to:

* Educate the churches by reminding the people of God of their rich history.

* Equip the churches to face the challenge of Roman Catholicism and other teachings that threaten the essentials of the gospel.

* Encourage the churches to hold fast the old paths of Scriptural truth, that we may faithfully bear witness to the everlasting gospel in the contemporary world.

This post is based on a talk given at a men's breakfast. See "The Reformation" label below for the rest of the series.

Why the Reformation Matters (2)

Why the Reformation really matters

Luther at the Diet of Worms, "Here I stand!"

1) The authority of Scripture Matters

In 1521, at the Diet or Worms, Luther faced immense pressure to back down and stop his outspoken criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. He refused saying,

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes or councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is bound by the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right not safe. God help me. Amen. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise!"

This matters. We stand apart from Rome because we believe that the Bible alone is our authority. We cannot go down the road of theological liberalism because be believe that the Bible must stand in judgement over contemporary thinking and not the other way round. The Bible is clear. By the help of the Holy Spirit we can understand its essential message of saving truth. We insist on the right of every believer to read and interpret Scripture. But this must not collapse into postmodern subjectivity where every view is as good as another. The Bible must be handled responsibly and faithfully. We stand by the ancient creeds and confessions as embodiments of the message of the Bible rightly interpreted. In our postmodern world, authority is viewed with suspicion as a manipulative exercise in power and control. But we must place ourselves under the authority of the Word of God. We can do no other. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work”. (2 Tim 3:16.)

2) The Centrality of Christ Matters

The Reformation placed Christ centre-stage, which is where he belongs in the drama of redemption – not waiting in the wings for the church to get out of the way, but at the centre of all we do and say. We must proclaim him, his Person, his atoning death and bodily resurrection, his ascension and reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. It is in him that sinners are justified, sanctified and glorified.

One sure-fire characteristic of evangelicalism was that Christ’s died as our substitute, bearing the penalty of our sin. The Father so loved the world that he sent his Son to save lost human beings. Christ lovingly died in the place of his people as their substitute. By his death, he paid the penalty for sin and turned God’s wrath away from sinners.

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

This was at the heart of the apostles preaching,

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3 & 4)

We preach Christ alone! Not Christ of Rome who needs his mother to help him save, or the emptied out Christ of Liberalism, shorn of his divine glory, or the trendy postmodern Jesus of the Emerging Church, but the gritty, controversial Jesus of the Bible who says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. (John 14:6.)

3) Being Right with God Matters

Our world is very different from the 16th Century. But some issues refuse to go away. One of these is how can a sinner be right with a holy God. What brought the Reformation to birth was Luther’s rediscovery of justification by faith alone.

Martin Luther tried as hard as he could to save himself as a devout monk. But he despaired of finding salvation by works. He came to understand that justification – a right standing before God was obtainable by faith alone.

"Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the righteousness of God and the statement ‘the just shall live by faith’ (Romans 1:17). Then I grasped that the righteousness of God is that righteousness by which though grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on new meaning, and whereas before ‘the righteousness of God’ had filled me with hate, not it became inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven."

We must hold to this against Rome, which brings works into justification. According to Roman Catholic teaching, we are justified by God’s grace at baptism. But we must supplement our justification by works. If we add our works to justification, then we can never be sure that we have done enough to make ourselves acceptable to God. Justification by faith alone has long been one of the defining doctrines of biblical Protestantism. This is the basis of our assurance,

Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. (Romans 8:33 & 34).

We must also aware of the so-called New Perspective on Paul. This view, associated with N.T. Wright among others sees justification not so much as a declaration that we are righteous in Christ, but that faith is a badge that shows that we are members of the church. The NPP is very useful to the ecumenical agenda because it undercuts the old divisions between Rome and Protestantism. All sides confess Jesus as the risen Lord, all therefore have the “badge” of faith and are consequently members of the people of God. But NPP is a distortion of the Scriptural teaching. It leaves unresolved the age old question, “How can I be right with God?” This is Paul’s answer: “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified”. (Galatians 2:16.) Here is the Protestant and I would argue biblical definition of justification, set forth in the Westminster Shorter Catechism,

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. (Q. 97)

4) The Doctrine of the Church Matters

The Reformation was not simply all about lonely individuals “taking their stand”. The Reformers were passionately interested in church life. They reformed structure and worship of the churches in accordance with Biblical teaching. A true church was defined by gospel doctrine, the right administration of the sacraments and loving discipline of the membership. The biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was rediscovered. Church members were to be born again people, visible saints, who exercised their gifts for the good of the body of Christ. The Reformation gave emphasis to the preaching of the Word as the means by which sinners are saved and the people of God built up as a kingdom of priests.

5) The Glory of God Matters

“What is the chief and of man?” asks the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The answer is, of course, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” So speaks the authentic voice of Biblical Protestantism. We are to live with an eye to the glory of God. He has saved us not for our sake, but for his. God has chosen us to be his people, sent his Son to die for us, adopted us unto his family and given us eternal life. Why? “to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:14).

We glorify God when we are God-centred rather than “me and my needs centred”. Calvin’s greatest work is his Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the Institutes, he argues that the first principle of the Christian life is self-denial,

Let this, then, be the first step, to abandon ourselves and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God. (III: VII: 1)

We are no to seek our own, but the Lord’s will, and act with a view to promote his glory. (III: VII: 2)

What could be more healthy for the church than this deeply biblical, God-centred theology? Do you still doubt that the Reformation matters?

This post is based on an address given to a men's breakfast. Click on "The Reformation" label below for the rest of the series.

Why the Reformation Matters (1)

On Saturday morning, I spoke for the Protestant Truth Society on Why the Reformation Matters at a men's breakfast at Whiddon Valley Evangelical Church, Barnstaple, Devon. The meeting was attended by men from the host church and other fellowships in the area. We were served a full English breakfast complete with sausage, fried egg, bacon, fried bread and hash browns washed down by a nice, strong cup of tea. After this excellent breakfast, the time came for me to speak. I had wondered how it might go, as I'd not spoken at such an event before. But the men listened well and my talk was followed by a lively and informed time of discussion. Sarah and the children had travelled down to Devon with me on Friday evening. We spent the night at the Manse, enjoying the hospitality of the Pastor and his wife, David and Ruth Kay. After the meeting, we went into Barnstaple town centre for a bit of shopping and then watched the film Ratatouille, which is about a rat, who became a top chef in a French restaurant. The kids liked it anyway. Here's the first installment of my talk:

Why does the Reformation Matter?

The trouble with history is that it’s all in the past. Who cares about stuff that happened around 500 years ago? What’s it got to do with living the Christian life today? Well for Christians, history does matter because our God is at work in the historical process. The Bible is not a book of wishy-washy spirituality; it is the record of God’s acts in history. Think about it. In history, God called Abraham and made a covenant with him. He delivered his people from Egypt and gave them the Promised Land. In the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son, Jesus. The coming, death and resurrection of Christ are great events in history, as is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at Pentecost. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke gives us the history of the early Christian missionary expansion from Jerusalem to Rome. So, history matters, right?

God did not stop working in history at the end of the apostolic era. In Church history, with its triumphs and failures, we can see the hand of God at work. One of the key events in Church history is the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century. Biblical truths that had long been forgotten or distorted were suddenly rediscovered. Corrupt practices in Church life were challenged and reformed. This was a time of Christian heroism and gospel boldness when men and women lived and died for the truth as it is in Jesus.

But today, the Reformation is often regarded as a shameful tragedy that needlessly rent asunder the Church. Nick Needham comments,

"…although the necessity for the Reformation may have been a tragic necessity, the Reformation itself I don’t see as a tragedy (parting company, here, with the increasing tendency among Evangelicals today), but as a movement that was essentially wholesome and good." (2000 Years of Christ’s Power: Part 3: Renaissance and Reformation, Grace Publications, 2004 ,p. 12).

Do the debates and discussions of 500 years ago really matter to 21st Century Christians? Yes they do. The Reformation was not about secondary issues – it was a fight for the recovery of the biblical gospel. We forget this at our peril. The Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin may not be able to help us send an e-mail or a text message. Do not look to their works for help setting up your DVD player. But if you want to be reminded of truth that matters, go back to the Reformation.

Click on "The Reformation" label below for the rest of the series.