I grew up in Protestant churches but never gave much thought to why. I knew enough about other traditions like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, to know I didn’t align. Yet, outside of knowing I wasn’t Roman Catholic, I didn’t know why I was Protestant.

Many Christians sitting in Protestant churches are like my younger self. They know they aren’t Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but they struggle to say why they are Protestant. It’s also the case that many find traditions like Catholicism, with its tradition, liturgy, social teaching and spiritual practices, compelling enough to convert from Protestantism.

With this background, I am grateful for Gavin Orland’s new book, What it Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church.

Ortlund gives three pillars of Protestantism: Catholicity, Authority and History. Through these pillars he explains Protestantism and how it differs from other Christian traditions, making a case for Protestantism as the best representation of Apostolic Christianity. We will take each of these in turn.

To Be Protestant Is to Be Catholic

The Apostles Creed says, “I believe in … the holy catholic church.” But most people in my Baptist church, when they hear “catholic,” think of the Roman Catholic church down the road. We need to explain the term because Protestants believe in catholicity. 

So, what does it mean to be a small “c” catholic? Ortlund explains: “In short, Protestantism has a superior orientation toward catholicity than its rivals because it lacks their institutional exclusivism. Protestantism acknowledges true churches within multiple institutions… they do not restrict the ‘one true church’ to a single, visible hierarchy” (32). It makes a world of difference when catholic starts with a small c. In the sense of the Apostles Creed, catholic refers to the universal church, inclusive of believers from every time and place.

One critique of the Roman Catholic church is that it isn’t truly catholic. Locking unity into an institution and making Rome the center restricts it from being universal. Institutional, hierarchical unity isn’t catholic.

Ortlund interacts with a dialogue between a group of Lutheran theologians and Jeremiah II, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Lutherans sent him a copy of the Augsburg Confession. The interaction began with warmth and revealed many points of unity, eventually Jeremiah II’s tone changed. Though they had much agreement, Jeremiah II would not budge on the necessity for them to join the “true church” which meant the Eastern Orthodox Church. Once he realized they wouldn’t be persuaded his tone turned cold and put an end to their dialogue (18-19). Ortlund explains, “For Jeremiah, unity with the Lutherans necessarily involved institutional incorporation within the Eastern Orthodox Church. For the Lutherans, by contrast, the criterion for unity was adherence to the gospel of Christ, as held forth in the scriptures” (20).

This reveals a key distinction that makes Protestantism genuinely catholic. The Reformers sought to recover true catholicity. It might come as a surprise to some Protestants, but according to Ortlund, Calvin and Luther both regarded Rome and Eastern Orthodox as genuine churches, despite gross theological differences (15). Protestants tether unity to a shared gospel that renews and reforms the church according to Scripture. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox unity is bound to one institution and to be outside of that institution is to be outside of Christ (22-30).

True catholicity acknowledges and celebrates Christ building his church wherever we find it. I’m reminded of the example of Barnabas in Acts 11:23-24: “When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged all of them to remain true to the Lord with devoted hearts, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.” Antioch wasn’t like Jerusalem. The church looked different, sounded different, and wasn’t fully established yet. Still, Barnabas was glad and rejoiced. Christ was building his church.

To Be Protestant Is to Be Biblical 

Every true Christian tradition acknowledges the inspiration and authority of scripture. Ortlund helpfully clarifies that scripture alone is “the speech of God” in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant theology (78-79). Although there is agreement on what scripture is, there is a significant difference in how scripture relates to other authorities. For Protestants, only the inspired Scripture is infallible. Church councils and doctrinal standards are valuable and can be authoritative boundary markers, but they are capable of error and must be tested, corrected and reformed by Scripture.

This is the claim of Sola Scriptura. “Stated responsibly,” Ortlund writes, “sola scriptura is a modest doctrine. The core idea is that Scripture is the church’s only infallible rule.” This doesn’t mean church councils and pastors have no authority. It means “that Scripture is the only authority standing over the church that is incapable of error” (72). The norming norm, the sole infallible rule, binding all Christians from all places and times, is the Word of God. For example, the authority of elders is legitimate, but that does not mean they are incapable of error. Paul provides a pathway for Timothy to correct an elder in error (1 Tim 5:19-21).

The conviction of Sola Scriptura stands behind the Protestant critique of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The Reformer’s arguments were against what they saw as accretions and additions to the Biblical gospel. This is evidenced in the Protestant position on justification by faith: a legal declaration reckoning us as righteous on the ground of Jesus’s substitutionary death and imputed righteousness. The arguments about the nature of justification were not simply about going against Roman Catholic councils, but about recovering the biblical gospel.

Ortlund summarizes the Protestant position, “The church can err and therefore must continually measure her doctrine and practice by the infallible words of Holy Scripture” (85). Sola Scriptura allows the church to learn from and respect church councils while reforming according to God’s word alone. It’s a built in and necessary corrective for when we are out of step with the gospel.

To Be Protestant Is to Be Deep in History

Part 3 of the book has three chapters devoted to showing the historical roots of Protestantism. First, Ortlund surveys the evidence that Protestantism must be understood as a renewal movement within the church, not the resurrection of a dead church. 

The Protestant outlook was that alongside all the good God was doing in the history of the church, various aberrations, declensions, innovations, accretions, and errors crept in along the way. The point of Protestantism was to remove the errors. Their goal was to return to ancient Christianity, to a version prior to the intrusion of various accretions (138). 

Even before the sections on history, Ortlund does the work to show that Protestantism has its roots long before 1517 and Luther’s 95 Theses. In his chapter on Apostolic succession, for example, he notes that “all the major churches outside of Protestantism (118)” affirm a version of this doctrine yet it finds no basis in NT texts on church leadership, or Patristic writings. He works through key texts from Clement (AD 35-99), Irenaeus (AD 130-202), Tertullian (AD 160-230) and Jerome (AD 347-420) showing that none of these men taught Apostolic succession as it is now understood. This is one example of a later accretion critiqued and rejected by the Reformers.

By interacting with the Apostolic and Church Fathers instead of the Puritans or Magisterial Reformers on this point Ortlund helps readers see Protestantism not as a shiny new toy, but a restoration project.  

The Protestant Reformation did not try creating a new church. The aim was much more modest. In the opening chapter, drawing from historian Philip Schaff, Ortlund says, “Protestantism takes its particular shape and character in order to serve the renewal and betterment of the entire church” (7).

The two other chapters in the final section are case studies on Mary’s Assumption and Icon Veneration. Critiquing these doctrines, which are infallible according to other traditions, Ortlund makes a persuasive case that they are later accretions brought in long after the Apostles and church fathers. These two chapters are not the easiest to read as they get into the weeds of historical data, but they are well worth the effort even if you’re a blue-collar church member. These chapters provide clarity on what these doctrines are, how they came to have such importance, and will help you appreciate the way theologians from the church fathers through the Reformation handled such complicated issues. 

History is one of the most common critiques I’ve heard against Protestantism and one I was not equipped to answer for a long time. This book will help ordinary Christians have more robust conversations about church history and not simply cede the point of history to Rome or Greece. Protestantism is deep in history.

What the Book Is Not 

This book is not about a specific branch of Protestantism. Ortlund’s argument is for Protestantism as such, or “mere Protestantism.” If you are looking to understand the differences between Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, or other Protestant traditions, you won’t find it here.

This book critiques non-Protestant traditions but is not triumphalist. Ortlund is charitable and irenic in his argument. His case for Protestantism is strong, but he doesn’t throw away other traditions wholesale. He listens well and learns from them acknowledging every place he finds common ground. At the end of the book, he commends readers wrestling through issues between different Christian traditions to take it slow and listen to the best arguments from all sides. “Thankfully, each tradition also has thoughtful advocates who will help you perceive where the differences lie and the best arguments for each side” (224). This book is a good example of the gentleness and patience Paul commends Timothy to have in debates (2 Tim 2:24). 

A Word to My Younger Self

What would I say to my younger self or members of my church when they ask what it means to be Protestant? I’d say something like: Being a thoughtful Protestant means joyfully praying for churches outside my denomination because our unity is grounded in our union with Christ not an institutional hierarchy. It means teaching my kids the Apostles Creed because we share in the Great Tradition. It means learning from many but being mastered only by Holy Scripture.

Protestant theology and ecclesiology, as Ortlund shows, helps reform and renew the church in every generation to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6).