500 years ago the Reformation was transforming Europe. Politics and nation-states would be affected, but the relationship of the average Christian to the Church was forever altered. Protestant Evangelical Christians look back on the Reformation with gratitude. The Reformation recovered the Christian Gospel of grace after all. But the contemporary Church has wandered far from the faith of its fathers, and more than ever before calls for denominational unity and even ecumenical togetherness with Rome are hitting home. Secularism is a threat to Catholic and confessing Protestant alike, so why not band together? How big, after all, are the points that separate us? Didn’t the Roman Catholic Church reform in the wake of the Reformation too?
It is these questions and this concern that D. G. Hart addresses head on in his recent book Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters (Reformation Heritage, 2018). Hart expertly unfolds the history of the Reformation and evaluates key evangelical truths (including the important “5 Solas”) as compared to the historical Roman Catholicism of that day. He goes on to examine whether the Roman Catholic Church has truly changed in its stance on these points over time. In his case against Rome, Hart also finds liberal Protestantism and lackadaisical evangelicalism at fault as well. He argues that the Reformation is still needed and a return to the faith of our fathers may well help American Christianity as it faces its own cross-roads.
An intriguing feature of the book is his examination of conservative political theory in America in relation to “anti-Catholic” sentiment. Historically, Protestants looked at the “golden age” of America as an advance in the history of the West (almost a postmillennial viewpoint) and lauded the rise of democracy and liberty. However “Roman Catholics saw those same developments negatively, as declension from an ideal time when church, government, society, and culture coexisted harmoniously under the sacred canopy of Christian influence” (p. 152). As progressive politics moved on to promote social change and “progress” in general – Catholicism’s opposition to unfettered equality and freedom became more in-step with conservatism’s resistance to progressive politics. For those who have wanted to “dissent from the logic and momentum of progressive politics” more help is found “for political conservatism in Roman Catholic sources” (p. 159). This leads to the pain-point that Hart is addressing: many political conservatives today claim that to be a true conservative, you must become a Roman Catholic. In response, Hart points to Abraham Kuyper (an evangelical leader and Prime Minister of The Netherlands) and J. Gresham Machen (founder of Westminster Theological Seminary) as examples of Protestant contributions to conservatism.
What sparked my interest in that section of the book was his point that American Protestantism had developed a “form of patriotism that unhealthily equated the faith with democracy and liberty” (p. 159). Protestantism’s fight against Catholicism mirrored democracy’s fight against the Monarchy. The founders of our country very much fit in with this patriotic version of faith. Indeed, this patriotism must have enabled the onset of the “social gospel.” Today’s patriotic, “God and Country” version of evangelical “faith,” which is “unhealthy” and unbiblical, has a long history indeed.
Those well-versed in the Reformation are sure to find new insights and connections in the pages of this book. Readers less familiar with the Reformation will also be helped. Anyone interested in what really separates Protestants from Catholics will find this book useful. I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
“In the Box” posts highlight new books I’ve received in the mail.
I periodically showcase new titles that arrive at my doorstep in posts like this. Today’s post highlights two books that will be of special interest to those interested in Reformed theology. The other book will be appreciated by those who know Koine Greek and Hebrew. So this is a post for armchair theology geeks like me!
The Sacrifice of Praise by Herman Bavinck, translated and edited by Cameron Clausing & Gregory Parker Jr. (Hendrickson)
Bavinck is a Dutch Reformed theologian who died about one hundred years ago. This book is an updated English translation of the Dutch original. I believe it is taken from exhortations given at communion and stresses the importance of a public confession of faith. It comes with recommendations from Kevin DeYoung, Carl Trueman, David F. Wells and others. I’m looking forward to interacting with Bavinck directly thanks to this handy little volume.
I love the idea of the Greek and Hebrew together in one volume and this volume provides this handy feature. The text is somewhat dated however. The Greek text is Brooke Foss Westcott’s and Fenton John Anthony Hort’s ground-breaking work from 1881. The critical study of the Greek text has progressed since their day however. This is reflected in a helpful apparatus that compares Robinson Pierpont and Nestle Aland’s texts with Westcott and Hort’s. The Hebrew text is Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (BHL) and not the current standard BHS text. But there are helpful appendices that discuss the Hebrew text (the work of professor Aron Dotan). I am eager to dive in and see how helpful the tools are that accompany this text as I plan on reviewing this work in the near future.
The Reformation and the Irrepressible Word of God: Interpretation, Theology, and Practice edited by Scott M. Manetsch (IVP Academic)
This book is a collection of essays offered in celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Contributions come from such authors as Michael Haykin, Kevin DeYoung, Michael Horton, and Timothy George. The focus is on the Word of God and the essays “consider historical, hermeneutical, theological, and practical issues regarding the Bible” (quote from the publisher’s description). The title of Haykin’s chapter has me especially intrigued: “‘Meat, Not Strawberries’: Hugh Latimer and Biblical Preaching in the English Reformation.” I look forward to delving into this title sometime this summer.
Tomorrow is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, as Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the church door of All Saints Church in Wittenburg on October 31, 1517. For the occasion, I have been reading through Diarmaid MacCulloch’s masterful work The Reformation: A History (Penguin, 2005), which comes recommended by Carl Trueman. I stumbled up on a passage which highlights one of the basic reasons why the Reformation was required. Some Roman Catholics like to insist that the Reformation pushed the Catholic church to reform, with its own “Counter Reformation.” So they thank Luther but insist that the Council of Trent is what was needed, not a reactionary movement to leave the Catholic church.
Yet this quote from a post-Trent Counter-Reformation pope proves why Reformers (and their Protestant descendants) found the Catholic church still so lacking. Here is Pope Paul V confronting the Venetian ambassador with the following rhetorical question in 1606:
“Do you not know that so much reading of Scripture ruins the Catholic religion?” ~ Pope Paul V, 1606
MacCulloch goes on to explain.
“One of the tasks of the 1564 Tridentine Index [of prohibited books] had been to keep vernacular Bibles away from the faithful; anyone wanting to read the Bible in a modern language required permission from the local bishop, and in the 1596 Roman Index the ban became complete and without exception. In Italy, the Index’s ban was enforced. Bibles were publicly and ceremonially burned, like heretics; even literary versions of scriptural stories in drama or poetry were frowned on.”
Before the Reformation, it is true that vernacular Bible translations had been somewhat in vogue, but they were based on the Latin Vulgate. The Reformation saw the introduction of vernacular translations based directly on the Greek and/or Hebrew. In areas where the Catholics had to coexist with Protestant neighbors, knowledge of the Bible was important — at least for priests who were trying to convince the Protestants of their errors. But even priestly study of the Bible was frowned upon by the Counter-Reformation pope and his heirs.
There are many other reasons for the Reformation, which we cannot detail here. But one of the lasting fruits of this movement was the liberation of the Bible for the average Christian. If the Catholic church was correct on its doctrine, why was it seemingly so afraid to let the lay people have access to the Bible? Good question indeed. Be thankful today that you live on this side of the Reformation, and you have the privilege and liberty to read God’s Word for yourself.
Tuesday will mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. One way of focusing on the key truths recovered by the Reformers is looking at what has come to be known as the “Five Solas.” These truths are pictured below and represented by the following Latin phrases: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria.
The following points are adapted from part 5 of my teaching series: “A Survey of the Reformation: Its History and Doctrine” which is available for free download here.
The Scripture was liberated for the common people.
Reformers insisted on Scripture’s supreme authority. [Scripture has final say over church tradition, but the Reformers still appreciated much that the Church Fathers and the ecumenical Church councils had agreed on (e.g., the orthodox statements on the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, for instance).]
Scripture was held as infallible and inerrant.
Scripture was preached — preaching and Scripture reading took pride of place in the “order of worship.”
Faith Alone
Faith, not works, is the condition for justification.
Faith provides an “alien righteousness” –the works of Christ on our behalf (active and passive).
Justification by faith is a gift of God — and was absolutely essential to the Reformation.
Justification declares us righteous, it doesn’t start the process of making us righteous (sanctification).
However, we are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone. (No place for “easy-believism”).
Helpful quote: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.” (Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli)
Grace Alone
Grace didn’t just enable man to “pull himself up by his bootstraps.”
Grace for the Reformers, was Sovereign
Helpful definition: “the free favour of God… conferred… upon the unworthy.” (19th Century Calvinistic Baptist, William Newman)
Grace = “unmerited favor”
God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense
Grace calls us (Gal. 1:15), regenerates us (Titus 3:5), justifies us (Rom. 3:24), sanctifies us (Heb. 13:20-21), and preserves us (1 Pet. 1:3-5).
Christ Alone
The Church does not dispense salvation, Jesus does –Acts 4:12.
Mary & the Saints are not the mediator, Jesus is the only mediator –1 Tim. 2:5.
The Cross-work of Christ is sufficient for all the merit needed for salvation –Christ is “our righteousness.”
The Cross-work of Christ is not repeated, but a finished work (no “re-run” of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass).
Christ’s righteousness was both passive (submitting to death for us) and active (life that pleased God).
Today, we need to remember that Christ alone is where salvation is to be found –not in other religions or philosophies (contra postmodernism and pluralism).
God’s Glory Alone
Hebrew word for glory is: kabod = “weight”
Greek word for glory is: δοξα = “opinion”.
Definition: “value or worth, intrinsic to something and the value we externally place on it (in worship).”
God’s goal is to manifest His glory.
Helpful summary: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1)
God is the one who gets glory in the work of salvation – not man, Mary, the saints, or the Church.
From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.
God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)
Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.
The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.
The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.
The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.
That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.
In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).
I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now some would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.
With regard to assumption 3, some might counter that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.
Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?
The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!
In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.
I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this, but most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.
500 years ago the Reformation was transforming Europe. Politics and nation-states would be affected, but the relationship of the average Christian to the Church was forever altered. Protestant Evangelical Christians look back on the Reformation with gratitude. The Reformation recovered the Christian Gospel of grace after all. But the contemporary Church has wandered far from the faith of its fathers, and more than ever before calls for denominational unity and even ecumenical togetherness with Rome are hitting home. Secularism is a threat to Catholic and confessing Protestant alike, so why not band together? How big, after all, are the points that separate us? Didn’t the Roman Catholic Church reform in the wake of the Reformation too?
Tomorrow is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, as Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the church door of All Saints Church in Wittenburg on October 31, 1517. For the occasion, I have been reading through Diarmaid MacCulloch’s masterful work 
The main point of the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism —