AP

Title: What It Means To Be Protestant

Author: Gavin Ortlund

Publisher: Crossway

Year: 2024

Reviewed by Mark Powell

Gavin Ortlund, not to be confused with his brother Dane Ortlund who wrote Gentle and Lowly (Crossway, 2020), is one of Protestantism’s foremost ‘accidental’ apologists. This is because as Ortlund himself says in the introduction, he didn’t set out to become this but instead responded to a need he identified on social media.

Ortlund’s YouTube channel Truth Unites has become immensely popular and he is known for discussing various Biblical topics in a clear, historically insightful but most irenic way. This is also the case with What It Means To Be Protestant (Crossway, 2024) which I think is something of a model for how inter-faith dialogue—especially with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox—should be done.

Due to the nature of the topic, this could easily become abrasive or overly hostile. However, Ortlund does a masterful job at maintaining a respectful and engaging tone. As such, it would be a very suitable book to give away to non-Protestant family or friends. As someone who is an ex-Catholic myself, I found it immensely helpful in summarising many of the main issues.

What It Means To Be Protestant is divided into three parts. 1) Protestantism and Catholicity. 2) Protestantism and Authority. 3) Protestantism and History. I found that this was a good way to engage with the subject.

Ortlund’s experience in understanding Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox objections constantly shines through and as such he is able to engage with the central issues. Ortlund is himself well-read in both church history and Scripture.

There is a lot to take away from this book, so let me summarise in this review some of the highlights from each section:

Part 1: Protestantism and Catholicity

Ortlund’s main thesis is that Protestantism is a ‘renewal’ movement within historic Christianity. As such, it is not seeking to create something new but instead, to renew the church as to what it once was. This is because over time a number of ‘accretions’ (to use Ortlund’s term) have crept into the church. These are novel or aberrant beliefs and practices which do not align with either the Bible or the history of the church.

However, this does not mean that the Roman Catholic church for instance, does not contain genuine Christians within it. In the words of John Calvin: “When we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them.”[1] Or, as Ortlund quotes Philip Schaff:

We contemplate the Reformation in its strictly historical conditions, its catholic union with the past. This is a vastly important point, which thousands in our day appear to overlook entirely. They see in the 31^st of October, 1517, it is true, the birthday of the Evangelical Church, and find her certificate of baptism in the ninety-five theses of Luther; but at the same time cast a deep stain upon the legitimacy of this birth itself, by separating it from all right relation to the tie that went before. In this way all interest is renounced in the spiritual wealth of the Middle Ages, which however belongs to us of right, as fully at least as it does to the Church of Rome.[2]

Sadly, as Ortlund notes though, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have not extended the same grace or generosity to Protestants, condemning them as heretics and schismatics. This means, Ortlund argues, that Protestantism has more of a spirit of catholicity, especially when it is always seeking to reform itself to the Word of God rather than assert and defend a certain theological tradition or church dogma.

Ortlund identifies the heart of the Protestant movement as concerning two key principles: faith alone (sola fide) and the Bible alone (sola Scriptura). As Ortlund helpfully explains:

The first of these represents a material component of the apostolic deposit recovered by the Reformation; the second represents a formal principle by which we remain accountable to that apostolic deposit. The way I like to put it is that sola fide is the “what” of the Reformation; sola Scripture, the “how.” The first is an object, the second a method. The first is a precious jewel; the second, the safe that protects it.[3] 

What I particularly appreciated about Ortlund’s approach was how he set the reformation in its broader historical context. For instance, one only fully understands and appreciates the Protestant doctrine of ‘faith alone’ in relation to the sale of indulgences since this robbed the people of God of any sense of personal assurance and stole from the Lord Jesus Christ the glory of His saving work.

Ortlund is obviously well-read in historical theology and there are numerous quotes throughout the book from Luther, Calvin and numerous other Protestant luminaries. However, the ultimate strength to What It Means To Be Protestant is that he always has the goal of edifying the reader. Not only that, but he brings to light neglected sources. For instance, Ortlund quotes Henry VIII’s last wife, Catherine Parr, who became a Protestant and even published a book defending the Bible doctrine of justification by ‘faith alone’:

“Come to me all you that labour and are burdened, and I shall refresh you.” What gentle, merciful, and comfortable words are these to all sinners?…What a most gracious comfortable, and gentle saying was this, with such pleasant and sweet words to allure his enemies to come to him?…When I behold the beneficence, liberality, mercy and goodness of the Lord, I am encouraged, emboldened and stirred to ask for such a gift as living faith…By this faith I am assured: and by this assurance I feel the remission of my sins. This is it that maketh me bold. This is it that comforteth me. This is it that quencheth all despair…Thus, I feel myself to come, as it were, in a new garment before God, and now by his mercy, to be taken as just and righteous.’[4]

Ortlund doesn’t just deal with the past but also explores how discussions surrounding justification between Protestants and Roman Catholics have advanced to the present day. What It Means To be Protestant is especially helpful in breaking down caricatures. For instance, clarifying how Roman Catholics believe in an initial justification which is by faith alone, but then a final justification which is completed by works.

Ortlund also has a helpful section answering common objections to sola fide, such passages like James 2:14-16. Mostly helpfully of all, Ortlund demonstrates that the doctrine of justification by faith alone has “wide attestation prior to the Reformation.” So, “In John Chrysostom’s homilies on the epistles of Paul, for example, one finds a clear articulation of justification by faith alone, apart from works, in ways that don’t seem to cohere with an initial/final justification distinction—they seem to be talking about a status rather than a transformative process.”[5] 

Part 2: Protestantism and Authority

This was another really helpful corrective as to what the defining Protestant principle of sola Scriptura actually means. Contrary to popular belief—even among some Protestants—Scripture alone doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only authority but that it is the only infallible rule. In short, sola Scriptura is not the same thing as nuda Scriptura.[6] As Ortlund states:

…sola Scriptura means Scripture is the only infallible rule, not the only authority in the church, nor the explicit source for all doctrine. Put otherwise: Scripture is the only yardstick that cannot err, not the only norm to which you submit or the location in which you find all truth.[7]

This is a very helpful distinction since while the traditions, councils and various theological confessions of the church inform the faith of Christians, they are not perfect. Ortlund gives the pertinent example of how Roman Catholic thinking regarding the death penalty has changed:

In their 2017 book on the topic, Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette documented the overwhelming support for the legitimacy of the death penalty in principle in Scripture, tradition, and church teaching, showing that this doctrine clearly qualifies as part of the infallible, irreformable teaching of the church. One year later, under Pope Francis’s leadership, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was changed to affirm that “the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.[8]

Clearly, the Pope himself is at odds with not only church tradition, but most of all Scripture (i.e. Gen. 9:5-6; Rom. 13:4). This is why it’s so important to be like the Bereans and to test and discern everything that is preached in the light of God’s Word (Acts 17:11).

Ortlund also responds to the four most common objections to sola Scriptura:

First, that the canon was decided upon by the Church and hence is in authority over the Bible. As Ortlund correctly argues though, “it is not necessary to be infallible to discern that which is infallible.” In words of Anglican theologians William Whitaker: “The goldsmith with his scales and touchstone can distinguish gold from copper and other metals wherein he does not make gold…but only indicates what is gold…In like manner the Church acknowledges the Scriptures and declares them to be divine.”[9]

While still on this point of the Church not needing infallibility, Ortlund makes the following insightful historical observation:

There is one way we can know with certainty that the church does not need infallibility to discern the canon: the facts of history. It just didn’t happen that way. With respect to the New Testament canon, scholars debate the exact date of its finalization, but it is generally seen to have become fully settled in the fourth century. The process of canonization leading to that point was bottom up, not top down. It was a gradual, cumulative, widespread, and organise process by which the church discerned the Word of God through the enabling direction of the Holy Spirit. It was not the result of an infallible statement from the Pope of Rome or an ecumenical council.[10]

This is an excellent point which is routinely overlooked. The Church™ didn’t create the canon so much as recognise it. This not only took time to discern as it sat under the very authority which had created it to begin with (Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25)

Second, the Bible itself teaching believers to hold fast to various ‘traditions’ (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15) doesn’t undermine the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This is because as clarified before, the Bible is not the only authority to be obeyed, but rather, the only infallible one.

What’s more, the Protestant reformers were careful to clarify that the type of ‘tradition’ to which they were most opposed were those beliefs or practices which are not found in Scripture.

Third, the approach of sola Scriptura was practised by others throughout the history of the church, not the least of those being the figure of Augustine. It’s worth quoting Augustine in full to substantiate this point:

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid.[11]

Fourth, Ortlund also responds to the much touted claim that Sola Scriptura leads to anarchy. Once again, this accusation is contingent upon the definition that Sola Scriptura means that it is the only authority rather than the only infallible one. All Christians should be informed by reason, experience and tradition. They are safeguards for elevating one’s private judgment too highly.

Significantly, Sola Scriptura ultimately protects one against the imposition of ecclesiastical tyranny, such as when the institutional church binding the conscience of believers with ‘accretions’ which cannot be found in Scripture. As Ortlund explains:

To state this concern metaphorically: Democracy is clumsy, but it’s better than tyranny. And for Protestants, it is nothing less than tyranny when churches require believe in indulgences, or the assumption of Mary, or the veneration of icons, or many other points of doctrine that we have no reason to believe are apostolic. That is why sola Scriptura is so important: It involves nothing less than setting the boundaries for what Christianity is. What are the necessary doctrines a Christian is required to accept? Without sola Scriptura, the parameters get widened to encircle all kinds of historical accretions.[12]

This is a really important point. Scripture itself testifies to the truth that it has all that we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). Alternatively, there is an ever-present danger that tradition can overturn the authority and teaching of God’s Word. This was an issue with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself addressed repeatedly in His many confrontations with the Pharisees (Mark 7:8-9). Finally, there is a wonderful promise in the Bible that each believer has been anointed with the Holy Spirit and hence, can discern truth from error (John 16:13; 1 John 2:27).

In rounding out the question of ‘authority’, Ortlund also includes two brief chapters on the question of the papacy and the doctrine of apostolic succession. While somewhat concise, both of these are excellent.

In regard to the papacy, Ortlund demonstrates that there is no evidence for the primacy or infallibility of Peter in the New Testament. As Ortlund persuasively argues:

…in the New Testament, the other apostles did not relate to Peter “by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience.” This was widely recognized in the early church, even after the Roman see had come to be associated with Peter’s authority. In the third century, for example, Cyprian of Carthage wrote that “the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power.”[13]All the way in the seventh century, Isidore of Seville similarly claimed, “the other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honour and authority.”[14] This view was not rare: I regard it as close to a consensus among the church fathers that the other apostles did not relate to Peter as one possessing greater authority over them and to whom they were subject.[15]

When it comes to the thorny question of how to interpret Matthew 16:18-19, Ortlund offers a persuasive argument that “The rock is Peter in his confessing Christ”. This means that  the ‘rock’ is a combination of Peter, his confession, and in particular of the cornerstone who is Christ.

Likewise, Ortlund also ably demonstrates that there is no evidence in the Bible or early church history for papal infallibility. As Ortlund quote even the Roman Catholic scholar Brian Tierney as concluding:

There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it.[16]

Finally, Ortlund has a very good chapter on the question of apostolic succession. In short, Ortlund demonstrates from the New Testament that ‘bishop’ and ‘elder’ were used interchangeably and that there was not a separate office of ‘bishop’ overseeing the church. This evidence undercuts the Roman Catholic claim that only the ordinations of those conducted by a singular bishop are valid.

Part 3: Protestantism and History

In many ways I found this final section to be the most helpful. Ortlund responds to the Roman Catholic slogan of John Henry Newman: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”[17] Ortlund shows how this is not the case, and ironically, it is the Roman Catholic church which has moved on from its apostolic roots through its numerous theological and ecclesiastical ‘accretions’.

The core conviction of the Reformers—especially Calvin and Luther—was to take the church back to the historic faith. They were not seeking to invent a new form of Christian but return to the traditional one. A Christianity in which over time brought in extra doctrines and traditions have crept into the church which are not consistent with the word of God.

Ortlund gives two examples, namely Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven and the veneration of icons.

The Assumption of Mary

Many Protestants don’t realise that the assumption of Mary into heaven is an essential doctrine for Roman Catholics, being defined as dogma in 1950. Pope Pius XII subsequently stated in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus the following anathema:

If anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose or counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Ortlund rightly states that this caused significant embarrassment for Roman Catholic theologians since it is completely unsupported in Scripture and the history of the early church. Indeed, when the early church father Epiphanius looked into the issue of what happened to Mary—whether or not she died as well as subsequently went to heaven—he concluded that there was no evidence for either. As Ortlund quotes Epiphanius:

The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honour, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul”—her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honour the saints to excess; we must honour their Master.

Following on from this, luminaries such as Augustine—while affirming that Mary was by divine grace sinless—taught that because she was conceived in original sin she also experienced physical death. This would mean that Augustine himself would come under divine wrath and condemnation of today’s Roman Catholic church.

The Veneration of Icons

Of even more serious concern though, is the issue of icon veneration. Ortlund does a masterful job at tracing the development of the practice. His conclusion is worth quoting in full:

Is to be deep in history to cease to be Protestant? When it comes to the venerating of icons, to be deep in history is, emphatically to the contrary, to cease to be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. For the witness of the early church is unanimously and thunderingly opposed to the practice, in consistency with the witness of Scripture. Yet the seventh ecumenical council, which both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions regard as infallible, casts anathemas widely and liberally at all who abstain from the practice (or “knowingly communicate” with those who do!).

This is not a case of doctrinal development, but doctrinal U-turn: The seventh ecumenical council reversed the view of the early church on the veneration of icons.[18]

This is the fundamental problem with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They ratify into church dogma their doctrinal positions on issues such as icon veneration. This is so serious that any who disagree with them are considered ‘anathema’ – i.e. eternally condemned to hell.

Conclusion: A Must-Have Resource

Ortlund is to be congratulated on producing such a clear and edifying resource for the church. Not only is the content itself excellent and well-researched, but Ortlund consistently models how to respectfully engage with those whom one would deeply disagree. What It Means To Be Protestant is a much-have resource which should be read by every Christian. One cannot but be edified by the experience.

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion 4.2.12, vol.2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 1052, italics in the original. Cited in Ortlund, 15.

[2] Philip Schaff, The Principles of Protestantism, trans, John Nevin, ed. Bard Thompson and George H. Bricker, Lancaster Series on the Mercersburg Theology 1 (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1964), 59.

[3] Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, 11.

[4] Ashley Null, “Sola Gratia,” in Reformation Anglicanism: A Vision for Today’s Global Communion (The Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library, vol. 1; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 106. Cited in Ortlund, 59.

[5] Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, 65.

[6] For an excellent examination of this contrast see http://thebriefing.com.au/1995/04/old-answers-to-new-questions/

[7] Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, 75.

[8] Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant, 84.

[9] Cited in Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965). Quoted in Ortlund, 88-89.

[10] Ortlund, 90.

[11] Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3.4, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 4, 427. Quoted by Ortlund, 96-97

[12] Ortlund, 101.

[13] Cyprian, The Unity of the Church 4, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, 422. Italics added.

[14] As cited in Ed Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 128.

[15] Ortlund, 106.

[16] Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 281. Citied in Ortlund, 112.

[17] John Henry Newman, An essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 7^th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1890), 8.

[18] Ortlund, 217-218. Emphasis his.