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. 

Biblical Authority After Babel by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (review part 2)

Brazos Press, 2016, 269pp 

As promised, we continue with this review series by considering what Vanhoozer has to say on the relationship between sola fide and biblical authority. At the Diet of Worms Martin Luther is famously reputed to have said, 

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen

One man with his 'conscience captive to the Word of God' in defiance of the authority of the pope and centuries of Roman Catholic tradition. Who on earth did Luther think he was? His monumental arrogance spawned a terrible horde of lonely individuals who insisted that their conscientious reading of the Bible was the only authority that mattered. A recipe for theological confusion and ecclesiastical division.  As Vanhoozer puts it, "Wittenberg, we have a problem." 

But it was never the intention of Luther to assert the authority of the individual believer over and against the church. Rather, he wished to place the church back under the critical authority of Holy Scripture. Vanhoozer's purpose in this work is to bring out the correlation of the Reformation battle cry, 'Scripture alone', and the other 'alones'; 'grace alone', 'faith alone' and so on. 

Flowing from his 'mere Protestant' account of solo gratia, Vanhoozer locates the principle of authority over the church not in the believer with Bible in hand, but in the Triune Lord of the gospel. God alone has rightful power over his people. And it is only in subjection to his authority that true freedom and human flourishing are found. 

Adam sought to usurp divine authority, thinking that it was only by defying God that he could be like God. How wrong he was, Genesis 3:7. Divine authority is restored by Jesus Christ who functions as prophet, priest and king in relation to God's people. The Father has bestowed all authority upon the risen and exalted Jesus that he might act as "head over all things for the church" (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-21). The Lord Jesus granted the apostles delegated authority over the church. They were to teach whatever he had commanded them, Matthew 28:18-20, John 16:13. As Vanhoozer summarises,

The apostles are authorized interpreters of Jesus' person and work, inscribers of the meaning of the Christ event whose written discourse is part and parcel of the triune economy of communicative action. (p. 91) 

Protestantism is not the reassertion of Adamic epistemic autonomy, "I will decide for myself what to believe". Authentic Protestantism is the product of trust in the self-authenticating witness of Scripture as it discloses what Jonathan Edwards called "the great things of the gospel". This saving trust is the result of the internal testimony of the Spirit who works by and with the Word to give the gospel its faith-compelling power. As Luther put it, the church is a "creature of the Word" because by the Spirit "the Holy Scriptures..are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15). 

Faith alone in Christ alone according to the witness of Scripture alone draws a person into the church over which Jesus rules by his Word. The church is an interpretive community that exists not to make of Scripture what it will, but to be shaped by the Bible according to God's will. Her calling is to attend to what the Holy Spirit is saying in the Scriptures concerning what is in Christ for his people. If God is our Father, the church is our mother whose role is to nurture the faithful to maturity in Christ. 

The Bible alone as God-breathed Scripture commands magisterial authority over the church, but the church as a holy nation and royal priesthood has ministerial authority to teach the Word. This involves thinking God's thoughts after him and talking God's talk after him. 'Faith alone' is not 'me and my Bible alone'. Rather it involves the community of those who have been justified by faith alone being summoned by the Spirit to "respond to the voice of the Triune God speaking in the Scriptures to present Christ." (p. 104). 

It takes the whole of the people of God even to begin to grasp the meaning of the whole Word of God as it speaks to us of what is in Christ, Ephesians 3:18-19. The church as an interpretive community does well to read Holy Scripture in the context of the catholic church, with an awareness of the way in which the Spirit has led the people of God in their journey of faith seeking understanding over the centuries.

The problem the Reformers had with the Roman Catholic Church was that she made herself the 'norming norm', usurping the authority of Jesus, and fatally compromising her place in the catholic church. Adding to what is in Christ as he comes to us clothed in Scripture leaves us with a Saviour who is less than a sufficient prophet, priest and king to his redeemed people. 

Placing biblical interpretation in the context of sola fide orientates the church towards the gospel promised by the prophets and announced by the apostles. It helps preserve the church from slavery to 'the assured results of modern scholarship', where human intellectual ability is asserted over and above the Word. It also acts as a safeguard against postmodern skepticism that despairs of finding any true meaning in the Bible. Rather than falling prey to these twin  idols, 'the tower' and 'the maze', the church is summoned to trust in the God who is there and is not silent. We recall the words of Paul, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17). As a royal priesthood and holy nation the people of God are called to attend to the Word with the expectant prayer, "Speak Lord, for your servants hear". To which our God responds, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear him!" 

Biblical Authority After Babel by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (review part 1)

Brazos Press, 2016, 269pp 

With 2017 marking the 500th anniversary of beginning the Protestant Reformation now is a good time to reflect on that disruptive event in church history. Many view the Reformation as nothing less than a tragedy that rent Christendom asunder, leading to the fragmentation of the church into thousand denominational pieces. That is certainly the view of Rome-friendly commentators. Even among Protestants, the Reformation is often viewed as a decidedly mixed blessing. Alister McGrath charged the Reformation with unleashing Christianity's Dangerous Idea; the right of all believers to read the Bible for themselves and decide on its meaning. Gone was the magisterial authority of the Pope of Rome to declare what Scripture teaches. Now any believer's reading was as good as another's. Cue interpretive anarchy, doctrinal confusion and ecclesiastical division. That's the 'Babel', bit in Vanhoozer's title.

The Reformation's insistence on sola Scriptura meant that all controls on how the Bible was to be read had been thrown to the wind. From those days there was no kingly magisterium in Israel; everyone saw in Scripture what was right in his own eyes. What Vanhoozer attempts to do in this work is to show that sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone was never meant to be taken alone, but understood in the light of its companion Reformation solas. Namely, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus and soli Deo gloria. When taken together the solas place the Bible and the individual believer in the context of God's gracious action in Christ by which he draws his people into the church through faith the the gospel message revealed in Holy Scripture. 

As the subtitle suggests the author is intent on Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity.  He points out that "retrieval is not replication but a creative looking back for the sake of a faithful moving forward." (p. 37). Exploring what the Reformers meant by the solas in the context of their controversy with Rome provides the contemporary evangelical world with a valuable resource 'that encourages the church to hold fast to the gospel and to one another.' (p. 33)  By 'mere Protestant Christianity' Vanhoozer is not positing a lowest common denominator approach to evangelical belief and churchmanship. Rather, mere Protestant Christianity retrieves the solas as guidelines for faithful biblical interpretation. It also seeks to recover the royal priesthood of all believers, recognising the church as the community that is being led by the Spirit to understand and embody what is in Christ as disclosed in Holy Scripture. 

In giving careful attention to the solas, Vanhoozer is able to address some of the charges that are regularly leveled against Protestant Christianity besides interpretive individualism and ecclesiological fragmentation, were they not heinous enough theological crimes. One is that Protestantism begat secularism. Roman Catholic writer Charles Taylor alleges as much in his A Secular Age. Protest scholar Alister McGrath more or less says, 'It's a fair cop, gov' in Christianity's Dangerous Idea. Vanhoozer contests the charge that in ridding nature of its sacramental quality Protestantism was responsible for disenchanting the world, paving the way for a secular outlook. The writer responds that an important strand of Roman Catholic teaching postulated a realm of 'pure nature' that could exist autonomously and apart from the grace of God. How disenchanting is that? Another suggested that nature participates in grace and mediates grace, most especially through the sacraments. Yet if grace is pretty much intrinsic to nature, then grace has been disenchanted, the Creator/creature distinction is fatally compromised and the singularity of Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh is undermined. Once more, the secularising trajectories are obvious. 

In retrieving sola gratia, Vanhoozer develops an ontology of Triune grace that avoids fusing grace and nature. God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit was fully actualised in the free and loving communion of his own three-personed being. He had no need to create the universe in order to complete himself in any way. Creation was an act of free communication on the part of the Triune God. He did not owe the world its existence. Bringing the universe into being was an act of sheer grace on God's part, defined as, "the gift of God's beneficent presence and activity - that is, the communication of God's own light, life and love to those who have no right to them nor a claim on God...Put simply, grace is the Triune God - God sharing his Fatherly love for creation in the Son and through the Spirit". (p. 53). Nature has no autonomous existence apart from grace. Grace cannot be collapsed into nature. It is not a 'thing', but God's free and loving attitude towards that which is not God. 

Just how amazing is the grace of God is brought into sharper relief when we reflect on his grace towards fallen humanity. What sinners deserve from God is his wrath and judgement. Grace as the word is most often used in the New Testament is God's undeserved giving of himself to rebel sinners. "It is indeed wonderful to participate in being (creative grace), but it is something even more marvelous when fallen creatures participate in Christ (redemptive grace)." (p. 54). The goal of God's gracious purpose is to "unite all things in Christ" (Ephesians 1:10). To that end the Trinity acted to redeem lost human beings and restore them to communion with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Scripture reveals the economy of God's saving work in the unfolding covenant of grace. While the external actions of the Trinity are undivided, each person of the Trinity had a special role to play in the great drama of redemption. The Father sent the Son, the Son is sent into the world as man to redeem us by his blood, the Holy Spirit is given to communicate the salvation accomplished by the Son to God's new humanity. 

Sola Scriptura must be seen in the context of the drama of redemption. It is not to be understood as the right of every Christian to say what they like about the Bible. Rather, it is that God uses his written Word to communicate salvation to his people, enlightening their minds by his Spirit so that they are made wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Grace does not simply perfect the believer's natural ability to read and understand the message of the Bible. It restores the sin-darkened mind by giving light and reorients the sin-twisted heart towards Christ. This is not so much the 'right of private interpretation', as the grace of right interpretation that enables the believing reader to perceive the light of the Living Word shining through the written Word. 

This light that proceeds from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit enables the believer to read God's 'Two Books' of Nature and Scripture with delight and relish. 'Mere Protestantism' offers no 'disenchanted' nature, devoid of the divine presence, but a God-entranced vision of all things. The Christian sees the universe as the gracious work of God, in which the heavens declare his glory and the earth is filled with his goodness. As the hymn writer put it, "Something lives in every hue/Christless eyes have never seen". Moreover, bringing sola gratia to bear upon sola Scriptura, Vanhoozer is able to say,

The Spirit illumines the faithful, opening eyes and ears to see and hear the light of the world, the Word of God dazzling in the canonical fabric of the text: God's unmerited favor towards us shining in the face of the biblical Jesus. (p. 69). 

If the formal principle of Reformation theology was sola Scriptura, the material principle was the gospel of salvation through faith alone. And it is to sola fide that Vanhoozer next turns his attention. But you'll have to wait until part 2 of this review series for that, and maybe a bit more besides. 

Some thoughts on the right of private interpretation of Scripture

The right of every Christian believer to read and interpret the Bible is one of the distinguishing features of Reformed Protestantism. Famously, when Martin Luther was charged with heresy at the Diet of Worms this was his defence,

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.

This attitude gave birth to what Alister McGrath calls "Christianity's dangerous idea"  - the right of private interpretation of Scripture (see here). Armed with this "right" Protestants subjected Roman Catholic traditions to the scrutiny of Scripture and attempted to reform the Church in line with the teaching of the Bible. The right of private interpretation is closely allied with two other defining characteristics of Protestantism; the priesthood of all believers and the clarity of Scripture. All true Christians may read and understand Holy Scripture because each believer has a personal knowledge of God, Jeremiah 31:34, John 6:45, 1 John 2:20. This saving knowledge of God in Christ is disclosed in the Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15. The basic message of the Bible clear so that every believer may read God's written Word with understanding. These principles gave impetus to the Protestant drive to give the Bible back to the people of God by translating Holy Scripture into the vernacular.

However, the Protestant "right of private interpretation" was never meant to be taken as mandating what is today called a "reader response" approach to Bible reading, where what matters most is not so much the contextual meaning of the biblical text as what the reader makes of the text for himself. Protestants were not proto-postmodernists. Standing above the right of private interpretation is the church's responsibility to listen attentively to what the Holy Spirit is saying in the Scriptures. That is why the Reformers, most notably John Calvin went to such lengths to help Protestants to read their Bibles with accuracy and care. Hence Calvin's devotion to expository preaching, his publication of voluminous Bible commentaries and his writing of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Note what he says in the preface to the Institutes,

For if I mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts, and have digested it into such an order as may make it not difficult for any one, who is rightly acquainted with it, to ascertain both what he ought principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way, I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite.

Calvin's approach to biblical interpretation also inspired the Geneva Bible, where marginal notes helped the reader to understand the plain meaning of the text of Scripture. The ESV Study Bible attempts to do the same for contemporary believers.

The right of every Christian to read and interpret the Bible is not to be exercised in isolation from the church. The priesthood of all believers and the clarity of Scripture must not be taken to mean that the believer has no need of teaching on the meaning of the Bible and how its teaching applies. That is why the Lord calls some men to the pastoral-preaching ministry, Ephesians 4:11-12. The "right of private interpretation" does not amount to the attitude of some in the Plymouth Brethren, summed up in the (hopefully) apocryphal saying, "We all knows nothing and we all teaches each other." Well instructed Christians will be able to read their Bibles with greater understanding. Part of the purpose of preaching is to give the people of God "canon sense", that is a grasp of the Bible's redemptive-historical plot line and a good grounding in biblical doctrine.

Now, for all their emphasis on the clarity of Scripture, the Reformers and their successors did not mean to say that the whole of Scripture is equally clear and plain. Take this representative statement,

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession of Faith I:VII).

Note that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" are so clearly revealed that the learned and unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding of them. Those words distinguish Protestantism from the Roman Catholic Church, where it is held that the faithful can only understand the Bible's essential message with the help of the Magisterium, Rome's officially sanctioned interpretation of Scripture.  However, the Westminster divines were not trying to suggest that the church has no need of biblical scholarship that endeavours to interpret those parts of Scripture where the meaning is less plain and clear. For example, a new Christian reading Daniel 11 for the first time may not be able to make head nor tale of the details of the passage, but with the aid of a good commentary (e.g. E. J. Young - Banner of Truth, or Stuart Olyott - Evangelical Press), he will hopefully have some idea as to who the kings of the north and south were and that the nasty Antiochus Epiphanes is being described in Daniel 11:21-35.

As if anticipating postmodern hermeneutics, the WCF stated that by the use of ordinary means the the unlearned as well as the learned may attain a sufficient understanding of Scripture. We cannot rid ourselves of our situatedness when we read the Bible. We all bring a certain amount of baggage to the text. But that does not mean that biblical interpretation is doomed to reader response subjectivity.  No interpretation of Scripture will ever exhaust the meaning of the text. But it is possible for the believer to achieve a grasp of the Bible's teaching that is sufficient to equip him to live the Christian life for the glory of God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Like the Bereans commended by Luke in Acts 17:10-11, each believer has the right to scrutinise the teaching of the church in the light of Scripture. But this is not a licence for theological anarchy, where anything goes. If the authority of Scripture was the formal principle of the Reformation, then the gospel of grace was the material principle. Readings of Scripture that compromise the gospel are to be rejected. This involves false notions concerning God as Trinity and the Person of Christ and also erroneous views that distort or deny the biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone.  The Reformers drew up confessions of faith in part to exclude wrong-headed interpretations of the Bible. Also, when it came confessions of faith, the early Protestants had no desire to ignore the creeds of the early church, which they accepted as accurate expressions of biblical teaching. The Reformers were Reformed Catholics, holding to the historic faith of the Church that had been corrupted by the Romanism of their day. In other words, a robust commitment to sola Scriptura, which the "right of private interpretation" entails does not amount to a solo Scriptura approach that neglects the theological heritage of the Church.

The right of every believer to read and interpret the Bible brings with it the demand that Protestants be a "people of the Book". The "right" is to be exercised  by believers reading their Bibles thoughtfully and prayerfully with the help of the Holy Spirit in order to put its teaching into practice. Holy Scripture was given to enable the people of God to faithfully perform their roles in the drama of redemption in accordance with the biblical script.  According to John Webster, "Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, Cambridge University Press, p. 87). Or if you prefer the words of the psalmist, "Your word have I hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against you." (Psalm 119:11 cf. Joshua 1:8-9). If we loudly protest the "right of private interpretation" and yet fail to order our lives by Holy Scripture, then we protest in vain.

The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it must Continue! by Robert L. Reymond

The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it Must Continue!,

by Robert L. Reymond, Mentor, 2001, 155pp.

As the old saying goes, ‘You shouldn't judge a book by its cover'. And as far as this volume is concerned, the hoary cliche holds good. I mean, take a good look at the cover, ignoring the words for a moment. For starters it's purple, which alternates with pink as my teenage daughter's favourite colour. Then did you notice the little diamond motif? Everyone knows that diamonds are a girl's best friend. Taken together these two features might suggest that what we have here is a fine specimen of chick lit. But that ain't the case. Reymond is a bloke and his offering isn't about knitting, ponies or romance. So, you can't judge this book by its purple, diamondy cover. But you can judge it by it's subtitle, The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it must Continue! Did you get that? It's not The Reformation's Conflict... What was all that About? or Why it was a bad thing and should Stop! Oh no, unlike some Evengelicals,  Robert Reymond wants the conflict to continue. 'Why on earth is that?' You might ask. I'm not telling you.

Seeing as this is ostensibly a book review, you might expect me to attempt to summarise Reymond's monograph and offer an appraisal of his efforts. But, no. I'm not even going to use the review as an excuse to dilate on the subject in hand with some thoughts of my own. Not this time. What I'm going to do is list the kind of people who should give serious attention to this book. So, here goes:

If you think that the Reformation's conflict with Rome is is about as relevant today as a mobile phone that doesn't take photos, then you should read this book.

If you think that the difference between the Reformers and Rome on justification by faith alone or justification by faith plus works is of little consequence to sinners in the light of the day of judgement, then you should read this book.

If you think that it doesn't matter that Rome elevates its traditions and the 'infallible' declarations of the pope to the same level as Scripture, then you should read this book.

If you think that recent Protestant attempts at rapprochement with Rome like Evangelicals and Catholics Together are a jolly good idea, then you should read this book.

If you think that the Reformation's alone's are not needed to preserve the integrity of the gospel against Rome's and's then toll lege, take and read.

Even if you are none of the above, this monograph will help you to see with fresh eyes the momentous difference between Rome and authentic biblical Christianity. Your vision of the gospel of free grace will be clarified and enhanced. You too should read this book.

The trouble is, having said all that, the book is sadly out of print. You won't get a copy from the publisher, but Amazon.co.uk has one left in stock and some new copies are available from the Amazon Marketplace. Failing that, you'll have to make do with a diseased secondhand copy. I mean, have you never sneezed while reading? Be brave. Even if you can only get a scabby used copy, take the risk and read this refreshingly honest account of the Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it must Continue!

Catholic and Reformed by Anthony Milton

Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches
in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640,
by Anthony Milton, Cambridge University Press, 1995, 599pp

I came across this book in a footnote in John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl Trueman (p. 18 n. 44 - reviewed here). Trueman commended Milton's detailed study of Protestant attitudes towards Roman Catholicism in the period before Owen's public ministry. When invited to give a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome at this year's Westminster Conference I thought I had better get hold of Catholic and Reformed for some background reading. Some background reading! Milton has carefully researched the voluminous anti-Roman writings published in England during 1600-1640. Part I of the book is devoted to the controversy with Rome.

Anti-Catholicism was not the preserve of hot headed Puritan radicals. There was a broad consensus amongst English Protestant divines that the Roman Catholic Church was a corrupt church and that the Pope was the Antichrist. Establishment figures such as Archbishop Abbot were as virulently anti-Catholic as Puritans like William Perkins. However there were differences of nuance amongst Protestant polemicists and some issues required careful handling. Was the Roman Catholic Church in any sense a true Church? What was the status of the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation? Was there enough residual truth in Roman Catholicism for at least some Catholics to be saved? Milton gives attention to all these matters and more.

The basic anti-Catholic consensus was shattered by Archbishop William Laud and those who agreed with his views. For Laud the main enemy was not so much Rome, as the 'enemy within' in the shape of the Puritans. Laudians acknowledged that there were serious errors in the Roman Catholic system, but they regarded Rome as a member of the true Catholic Church. Under Laud's tenure identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was discouraged and robust anti-Catholic polemics were suppressed in favour of a more irenic approach. Some Laudians such as Richard Montagu even hoped for reunion with Rome and worked towards that end.

In Part II Milton gives attention to the Reformed Churches, discussing the relationship between English and Continental Protestantism. While there was a good deal of confessional harmony between English Protestants and their European cousins, there were also tensions and difficulties. For a start Protestantism was divided between Lutherans and the Reformed, the two parties eyeing one another suspiciously. To make matters worse, Lutheran dislike of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination seemed suspiciously similar to the Arminianism that was vexing the Reformed Churches in the early 1600's. The Church of England was moderately Calvinistic rather than Lutheran in its confession, but it differed from the European Reformed Churches on the issue of Presbyterianism. An earlier generation of Anglican leaders regarded episcopalian church government as a 'thing indifferent' that should not be allowed to disrupt harmonious relations between English and European Calvinists. But when Laud and his followers began to assert the 'divine right' of episcopacy, casting doubt on the validity of Presbyterian orders, the fragile united front began to break down. The Laudian doctrine of "No bishop, no church!" was hardly calculated to further the cause of Protestant unity. Indeed, with his rigid episcopalianism and dislike of Calvinistic theology, Laud actively distanced the Church of England from the European Reformed Churches. European Presbyterians seemed too much like those pesky homegrown Puritans for his liking.

What might be the relevance of all this for Evangelicals today? For one thing, Milton's work helps to provide a welcome historical perspective on current Evangelical engagement with Roman Catholicism under the auspices of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Were our Protestant forefathers right to be so hostile to Roman Catholic teaching? Have the issues that divided Protestants and Roman Catholics in the sixteenth century such as papal authority, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, and purgatory really been resolved? I think not. But that is not the only thing that strikes me. Another is the bitter divisions within Protestantism which left the movement badly fragmented and therefore weakened. Serious and irreconcilable differences emerged between Lutherans and the Reformed. The rise of Arminianism shattered the unity of the Reformed Churches. The divisive Laudian assertion of the 'divine right' of episcopacy is another case in point. Regrettably, even Protestants who were in basic agreement on theological issues managed to fall out over finer points of doctrine and church polity.

Now, I'm not trying to argue for the maintenance of pan-Evangelical Protestant unity at any price. The 'lowest common denominator' approach of modern day ecumenism is not one we should adopt at the expense of our Reformed confessional integrity. But still the challenge remains; how can we hold to our cherished distinctives as Reformed Baptists, Westminster Standard Presbyterians, Savoy Declaration Independents, or Calvinistic Episcopalians and yet give expression to our essential unity in the gospel? What more can be done to encourage confessionally Reformed Churches and Church groupings to affiliate and work together for the sake of the Kingdom? Yes, we still need to face up to enemies without such as Rome and theological liberalism. We also have to combat numerous enemies within what passes for Evangelicalism today. Take open theists and those who deny penal substitutionary atonement as a couple of examples. But in our tendency to fragment over secondary issues we don't exactly do ourselves any favours. We cantankerous Calvinists don't always have to be our own worst enemies, now do we?

John Owen's anti-Roman writings

John Owen’s anti-Roman writings may be found in Volume 14 of his Works. The majority of that volume is taken up with Admanidversions on Fiat Lux and its sequel, Vindication of the Admanidversions on Fiat Lux. Also there is a shorter piece, The Church of Rome no Safe Guide. In the Admanidversions Owen engages in controversy with John Vincent Cane, a Franciscan Friar. In 1661 Cane published his Fiat Lux. It was an attempt to take advantage of the recent upheavals in Protestant Britain in order to try and win the country back to Rome. His argument ran something like this: “Just look at what has happened to your once peaceful land since leaving the Roman Catholic fold. Protestant Christians have divided into mutually hostile camps. The nation has been torn apart by religious unrest, civil war, revolution and regicide. Come back to Rome and all will be well. You know it makes sense.”

The restoration of the monarchy, with Charles II returning to England in 1660 did not succeed in healing old wounds. In the aftermath of the Civil War there were bitter recriminations for the Puritans whose political ambitions died with Oliver Cromwell. The newly installed pro-king, pro-Church of England authorities set about mercilessly persecuting their Puritan fellow Protestants. Cane chose his time well. The opportunity seemed right for his Roman propaganda.

In a sense, Cane’s Fiat Lux was the British equivalent to Cardinal Sadoleto’s Letter to Geneva. Sadoleto sought to exploit the troubles and tensions in Geneva that led to banishment of Calvin to woo the city back to Rome. Famously the exiled Calvin answered the Cardinal on behalf of Protestant Geneva (see here). But who was to answer John Vincent Cane? That is where John Owen comes in. Somewhat ironically the Restoration authorities appealed to a man from the vanquished Puritan Party to help combat the Franciscan Friar’s propaganda. Owen was leader of the Independents, chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and former Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University during the Commonwealth period. The virulently anti-Puritan Lord Chancellor Lord Clarendon sent Owen a copy of Cane’s Fiat Lux, requesting that he answer it on behalf of Protestant Britain.

Owen manfully rose to the challenge. Having said that, the veteran Puritan minister was no unthinking anti-Roman bigot. In his interaction with Cane, Owen does not adopt the stance of an angry "hot Prot" polemicist, gleefully exposing Romish errors almost for the fun of it. His tone is calm and reasoned as he scrutinises Roman doctrine in the light of Scripture. On occasion the great divine even permits himself a little ironic humour. Remarking on this William Goold, editor of Owen’s Works writes in a Prefatory Note to the Vindication, “he reminds us in his humour of the cumbrous gambols of the whale.” (p. 175).

If you will forgive the mixed metaphors, in his dealings with Cane, Owen resembles an indulgent cat toying with an overconfident mouse. But this “cat” has sharp teeth and pointed claws. When roused the old Puritan could be devastatingly incisive in dealing with his opponent’s weak arguments. For example, he mocks the claim that the Rome has always been doctrinally consistent, never once falling into error, summarising Cane as saying, "The Roman church did never at any time adhere to any opinion, but what the Roman church at the time adhered to". Well that's alright then!

Owen’s Admanidversions and the Vindication do not take the form of an orderly and systematic critique of Roman Catholic teaching. Rather, Owen let his opponent set the agenda and responded to Cane’s points as they occurred in the Fait Lux. But his works are no less valuable for all that. Contemporary Evangelical can sometimes be a little naive when it comes to dialogue with Roman Catholics. Witness the ground conceded in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together joint-declarations, (see here for the latest statement on Mary). We could benefit from Owen's acute theological analysis of the differences between Evangelical Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholicism: East of Eden by Richard Bennett

Catholicism: East of Eden, Insights into Catholicism for the 21st Century,
by Richard Bennett, Berean Beacon Press, 2005, 339pp

I bought the wrong book. With its subtitle, Insights into Catholicism for the 21st Century, I thought that this volume offered a calm and reasoned assessment of post Vatican II Roman Catholicism. That isn't quite it. Catholicism: East of Eden is a passionately written and deeply personal account of the author's disillusionment with the Rome as it dawned on him that the Church he had served as a priest did not stand up to biblical scrutiny. By passionate I don't mean that this is a ranty "hot-Prot" diatribe. As a former insider Bennett gives a fair and accurate account of Roman Catholicism, carefully referencing teachings he criticizes in the light of Scripture. But what we have here is an urgent tract rather than a detached scholarly treatise.

Bennett tells the story of his conversion from Roman Catholicism to salvation in Christ. Along the way he includes some detailed discussion of the distinctive doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Chapters are devoted to the authority of Scripture, the Papacy, Confession, the Mass, Marian teachings and so on. A chapter entirely devoted to justification by faith alone would have been welcome. The author certainly shows that Rome's teaching on this matter is not in accord with the Bible. But it would have been helpful to have had a more in-depth treatment of the differences between Rome and Evangelical Protestantism on great doctrine that lay at the heart of the Protestant Reformation.

Too often it is assumed that the differences between Rome and Evangelical Protestantism are of little magnitude. "Sure we disagree" it is said, "but what's a few differences between Christian friends of equal standing?" From his experiences as a practicing Catholic and armed with the teaching of God's Word, Bennett knows that such a laidback attitude is misplaced. Eternal issues are at stake. The controversy with Rome is nothing less than a battle for the gospel of saving grace. Evangelicals need to wake up to this and realise that Rome only engages in ecumenical discussions such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together with one objective in mind. That is to encourage Evangelicals to renege on the gospel and return to the Roman fold. If that sounds to you like a typical Protestant "Jesuits under the bed" conspiracy theory, then take a look at Chapter 15 of this book where Bennett exposes the Roman Catholic ecumenical agenda.

On the question of ecuminism, the author rightly stresses that a shared commitment the gospel rather than outward institutional uniformity is the basis of Christian unity. True enough. But this gospel unity is to be made manifest in the life of the local church and in the way Bible believing churches relate to each other. It is regrettable that Protestants have tended to divide on issues not essential to the gospel or the well being of the church. We seem to have forgotten that our Lord prayed that the evident unity of his people would bring the world to believe that the Father sent him (John 17:21).

Bennett highlights the way in which Roman Catholicism tends to emphasize the importance of the Church to such an extent that Christ is relegated to the sidelines. That is a fair point. But we also need to bear in mind what the New Testament says concerning the role of the church in bearing witness to the gospel and nurturing believers in the faith. Put in rather simplistic terms, if Rome is all "church" and no gospel, Protestants should not give the impression that for us it is virtually all gospel and no church.

To conclude, Catholicism: East of Eden serves as a reminder that the Reformation is far from over. The big doctrinal issues that separate Evangelical Protestantism from Rome have yet to be resolved. It is a mistake to try and play down the serious theological differences that remain. Such an approach does no service to Romans Catholics who are beginning to realise as did Richard Bennett that their church preaches "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7). We need to be absolutely clear that according to the witness of Scripture alone, salvation is through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

With its autobiographical style the book is a useful counterpart to Francis Beckwith's Return to Rome, where the former President of the Evangelical Theological Society explains why he returned to the Roman Catholic Church (see my review here).

An interview with Jeremy Brooks

Jeremy Brooks is the recently appointed Director of Ministries at the Protestant Truth Society, for whom I work on a part-time basis. We discuss his new role and matters of Protestant interest.

GD: Hello Jeremy Books and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

JB: Hi Guy, and thank you for having me on your blog. I've read so many interviews here over recent years, and never imagined that you'd ever be interviewing me! [GD: Fame at last, Jeremy!]

I was born in 1975, the eldest of four brothers. My father had been ordained into the ministry a couple of years earlier. He spent the first six years of his ministry in two different evangelical Anglican churches, and has spent almost thirty years since in four different independent evangelical churches. When I was seven years old, the family moved to York, where my father was the minister of York Evangelical Church for just short of twenty years. So although I wasn't born in Yorkshire, that was as much home as anywhere.

From as far back as I can remember, I believed the Bible and felt called to the ministry. However, I remember making a childlike profession of faith when eight years old, and then being baptised in my early teens. There were times of doubt, as well as many inconsistencies, but what was known in the head increasingly became known in the heart too, and the sense of call to the ministry grew stronger and stronger.

After school, I studied Economics and Business for a couple of years, and then worked in Sales and Marketing - first in the motor trade and then in Christian publishing. After training for the ministry, I was ordained and inducted to the pastorate of Salem Baptist Church, Ramsey, Cambridgeshire in April 2001. I ministered in Ramsey until this August, and began my new role as Director of Ministry at the Protestant Truth Society on 1st September.

I should also say that I married my wife, Lydia, back in July 2000, and that the Lord has blessed us with four children - Eleni (7), Noah (5), Alice (3) and Ezra (1) - and that our fifth is due quite soon!

GD: What made you leave pastoral ministry to join the PTS as their Director of Ministry?

JB: I have to confess that if one of my friends had done the same thing a year or two ago, then I don't think that I would have thought very highly of them. However, the Lord moves in mysterious ways, and slowly but surely everything seemed to point to the rightness of the move. During Summer 2007, we felt that the Lord might be loosening our hands from the work in Ramsey. Then during Autumn 2007 I was approached by another church which had already approached me twice before, so we thought we knew what the Lord was doing. But we were wrong. As previously, that expression of interest didn't result in a call, so we sought to throw ourselves into the work in Ramsey once again. However, the sense that our time there was coming to an end increased rather than decreased. It was early this year that we began to wonder whether the Lord was moving us to something different, and to cut a long story short, I'm now working with PTS.

I have to say that all I ever wanted to do was to spend my whole ministry pastoring one church, as many of my heroes have done. However, what is the Lord's will for some is not the Lord's will for all, and the important thing for any of us is to be where the Lord wants when the Lord wants, and I have no doubt that the Lord wants me where I am doing what I'm doing. We were sorry to leave Ramsey, and the church there were sorry to see us go, but our work there was done, and a new challenge was calling.

GD: Where did you train for the preaching ministry and what did you find most helpful about your training?

JB: I trained for the ministry at London Reformed Baptist Seminary. It was a part-time course lasting four years. It wasn't as thorough as a full-time course, but it was a very practical preparation for real-life ministry. We had many visiting lecturers, including such men as Joel Beeke, James Grier and Robert Reymond, but it was the lectures of the Principal, Peter Masters, that I found most helpful. I wouldn't dot every "i" and cross every "t" with Dr Masters (in fact, I've yet to meet anyone that does!), but I found him always worth hearing, I benefited from his teaching in so many ways, and readily acknowledge that I owe him an incalculable debt.

GD: Who has had the biggest influence on your theological development?

JB: I owe so much to so many, but not least to my father, Richard Brooks, and my father-in-law, Malcolm Watts. It is not an exaggeration to say that I have learned more from these two men outside seminary than many men ever learn inside one!

GD: Some might see organisations like the PTS as a slightly old fashioned and backward-looking. How do you see as the mission of the Society in relation to the churches and the nation in today's world?

JB: Some undoubtedly do, and sometimes with some justification. The challenge for such organisations is to look both backwards and forwards at the same time! What I mean is that, on the one hand, we shouldn't rubbish our past, as is popular today, but on the other, we shouldn't live in it, but should have a clear, bold, adventurous vision for the future. Regarding the PTS, a lot has changed since 1889, and yet the big picture is just the same. What's true is true, what's false is false, and both church and nation need all the help they can get to know the difference. The mission of the PTS is both to assist the churches in holding onto the true gospel as rediscovered at the Protestant Reformation, and to encourage the nation to treasure rather than despise our great Protestant heritage. I believe that mission is as necessary as ever.

GD: What is your role as Director of Ministry?

JB: The PTS used to have General Secretaries. These were normally ministers, but they were responsible for overseeing both what we might call the ministry and business aspects of the society. What the Council has done recently, is to appoint George Rae (manager of the PTS Bookshop for twenty years) as Company Secretary and myself as Director of Ministry. Therefore, instead of having a minister trying to be a businessman or a businessman trying to be a minster, we have a businessman doing what he's good at and a minister doing what he's called to do. Preaching is central to my role, but I also oversee the team of Wickcliffe Preachers (I like to see that in terms of being first among equals), I'm editing the magazine, Protestant Truth, from the next issue, I speak to the media, and am responsible to the council for the spiritual leadership of the society.

GD: For many people today the very word "Protestant" has almost wholly negative connotations. How would you define what it means to be a Protestant Christian?

JB: You're right that many don't like the word "Protestant", even those who are Protestants without realising it! Nonetheless, I don't think we should give the term up, because it is really a historical term describing anyone who believes the true gospel as rediscovered at the Protestant Reformation. In that sense I see terms like "Christian", "Evangelical", and "Protestant" as really meaning one and the same thing.

GD: Was John Kensit, founder of the PTS a rabble rouser or Protestant Martyr?

JB: Opinion is polarised. Many think he was very much the one, and many think he was very much the other. It is a historical fact that he was killed as a direct result of his stand for the truth, therefore I would assert that he was most definitely a Protestant Martyr. Regarding being a rabble rouser, well I probably wouldn't want to defend everything he ever said or did, but anyone who has ever done anything significant for God has been open to being misunderstood. In a day of largely spineless evangelicalism, a few more Kensits wouldn't go amiss.

GD: Is Roman Catholicism the biggest threat to the gospel in the UK?

JB: All thinking evangelicals would have to agree that Roman Catholicism is a big threat to the gospel in the UK, but whether or not it is the biggest threat probably depends upon your interpretation of Scripture. In many ways it may not appear to be the biggest threat at present, but I believe that Scripture teaches that it is the greatest threat of the New Testament age, and I wonder whether the very fact that it doesn't appear so threatening as sometimes it has doesn't add to rather than subtract from its danger.

GD: How do you view the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Movement?

JB: The short answer would be "A mistake", and the long answer would be "One of the greatest evangelical mistakes of the last century". I have some respect for some of those involved - for example, so many of us owe so much to J. I. Packer - but he and others have been very unwise in seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable in this way. When all's said and done, Evangelicalism and Catholicism or Romanism don't mix. They never have, and never will.

GD: The media (here and here) and blog-land, (here and here) have picked up on your recent criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury's sermon at Lourdes. What was that all about?

JB: The Archbishop visited Lourdes to preach at the 150th anniversary of the shrine there. This was an unprecedented action which appalled all true Protestants. Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation rejected, including apparitions, mariolatry and the veneration of saints. The Archbishop's simple presence there was a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as "The Mother of God" was a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy. At a time when our country is crying out for clear Biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant Archbishop is behaving as little more than a Papal puppet.

GD: I think your concerns are well placed. But doesn't the term "Mother of God" or at least theotokos - "God-bearer" have an honoured place in the Chuch's confession? The term is used in the Definition of Chalcedon (451), which is affirmed by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike.

You're right that the term theotokos is more accurately translated "God-bearer" rather than "Mother of God", and you're right that that term was used in the fifth century and is accepted as a part of Protestant orthodoxy. However, that term was used at that time not to make much of Mary but to make much of Christ, and to assert his divinity at a time when it was popular to question it. The term has since been mistranslated and misused by Roman Catholics to make too much of Mary. When assessing the Archbishop's recent remarks, it's important to remember that he wasn't speaking to a fifth-century audience, but rather to twenty-first century Roman Catholics. Therefore, he can't hide behind what the term really meant, but must accept that his Roman Catholic audience will have understood it in accordance with their theology rather than ours.

GD: Quite. In the light of Roman Catholic misuse of the term, Donald Macleod wisely said, "We certainly cannot feel free to use theotokos without careful elucidations and safeguards." (The Person of Christ, IVP, 1998, p. 188). Rowan Williams signally failed to do that. Now, should para-church organisations like the PTS intervene on controversial, yet secondary issues like Bible versions or hymn books?

JB: Yes and no! It depends which such organisations. Regarding the PTS, our mission is bigger than Bible versions and hymn books. Therefore, within agreed parameters, people of different persuasions can work together, and we respect such differences of opinion. However, some organisations have a more specific mission, and are surely free to do so.

Also, I think the phrase "secondary issue(s)" has become rather over-used. It was Dr Lloyd-Jones who popularised it, and I have great respect for him (I wouldn't dare not to when being interviewed by a Welsh preacher). However, I think Dr Lloyd-Jones understood a secondary issue to be something that wasn't of primary importance, whereas most evangelicals today understand it to be something of no real importance whatsoever. Therefore, although I don't think that Bible versions and hymn books are primary, in the sense that these things are not essential to salvation, I do think that they are far from unimportant. Surely having as accurate a Bible as possible and rendering the most acceptable worship we can should be two of the most important issues to any Christian or church.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure in post-biblical church history would you like to meet and what would you say to him?

JB: There could be so many, and yet there's only one. It would have to be Charles Haddon Spurgeon. No figure of history has had a greater effect upon my life and ministry than the Prince of Preachers. I'd be happy just to listen to him preach, but if he had time to talk, then I'd start by saying "Thank You", and see where the conversation went from there.

GD: Is it possible to be faithful to Scripture and truly contemporary?

JB: I would go so far as to say that it is impossible to be truly contemporary without being faithful to Scripture! Nothing is ever more contemporary than the Bible and the message of salvation in Jesus Christ, so the more faithful we are to Scripture the more relevant we'll be to our generation. We must remember that man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart, and what counts is what lasts. Sadly, I believe that much so-called contemporary evangelicalism won't last very long at all, because it leans harder upon the wisdom of men than it does upon the Word of God.

GD: Care to name your top three songs or pieces of music?

JB: I must confess to being something of a Philistine in this department. I'm not really musical, and although I can appreciate all sorts, I'm really no connoisseur. I suppose the impressive thing to say would be that my tastes are somewhat eclectic, but that would be code for the fact that my appreciation of music is a mile wide but only an inch deep!

GD: What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because?

JB: To be honest, I'm not sure that I've read anything earth-shatteringly brilliant this last year, but I've read a lot that I've appreciated. One such book, would be the rather large and awkwardly shaped volume of The Works of Andrew Fuller republished by The Banner of Truth. I wouldn't say that Fuller's Works are among the first that a young minister should have on his shelves (he's not as high as some, not as deep as others, and not as sweet as many), but as I've dipped into them at various times during recent months I have found them again and again to be helpful, stirring, and enlivening.

GD: Ever thought of starting a blog?

JB: Yes ... many times ... but never for more than a few seconds at a time!

GD: Probably just as well. Thanks for dropping by for this chat. Every blessing for your new ministry.

PTS @ Penknap Lecture: 'Jonathan Edwards & Revival'

Local readers may be interested to know of this forthcoming event, held under the aspices of the Protestant Truth Society:

''

‘Jonathan Edwards & Revival’

...

Monday 27th October 7.30pm
@
Penknap Providence Church,
Tower Hill, Dilton March,
Westbury, Wiltshire, BA13 3SP.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) was mightily used of God in the Great Awakening. With his firsthand experience, sound grasp of biblical teaching and penetrating discernment, he is commonly recognised as the great theologian of revival. His concern for an outpouring of the Spirit of God led to an international “concert of prayer” for revival.

Speaker: Dr. Robert Oliver,
(Bradford on Avon & London Theological Seminary)

l

All welcome!

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.