Is Protestantism truly the most “catholic” form of Christianity? This question is a central theme of Gavin Ortlund’s recent book What it Means to be Protestant. Ortlund has, in the last few years, become one of the leading Protestant apologists in the English speaking world. His ministry Truth Unites seeks to “Promote Gospel assurance through theological depth” and his writings and videos cover a wide range of topics ranging from church history to apologetics, and more. While Ortlund does not exclusively or even primarily seek to defend Protestantism in his ministry, he admits in the introduction to his recent book that he has increasingly become involved in such work in the last few years. This is true so much so that hardly any English speaking Catholic engaged in apologetics can ignore Ortlund and his work. It is then important to engage with Ortlund’s arguments, both to appreciate the clarity he brings to some of the disagreements still existing between Protestants and Catholics but also to respond to some of his claims in hopes of pushing the conversation forward. In this article, I will look briefly at a couple of the major issues raised by Ortlund and offer praise and critique.

Some Points of Clarity

Before getting to critique I would like to point out some areas where Ortlund presents issues with refreshing clarity. Two in particular stand out. First, Ortlund defines Sola Scriptura and refutes common misconceptions such as the Bible is the only authority whatsoever in Christian life or that all doctrine must be explicitly taught in the Bible. Ortlund’s brief but clear presentation of what Sola Scriptura actually is is helpful to anyone wanting to engage Protestantism.

Secondly, Ortlund’s presentation of the debate between Catholics and Protestants around Sola Fide is refreshing. Ortlund rightly notes that while there is substantial disagreement on justification today between Protestants and Catholics, that the formal cause of justification is the main locus of disagreement between both sides¹. It is frustrating when even some prominent Catholic apologists are unable to grasp this point even when it is pointed out by well informed Protestants.

In general, the work as a whole is clear and easy to follow and Ortlund does a good job arguing his case. In what follows below, I will take aim at what I think are his weaker points and errors but what follows shouldn’t detract from what I regard generally as a good book.

Being truly “catholic”

One of Ortlund’s recurring themes in the book is that Protestantism, because of its unique adherence to Sola Scriptura is in a better position than Catholicism or Orthodoxy as being a truly “catholic” i.e. universal faith. According to Ortlund, both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are weighed down by various accretions which, given the authority structures in these churches, have become definitive teaching. Practices such as icon veneration or teachings such as Mary’s bodily assumption are, according to Ortlund, clearly post apostolic accretions that have no place in Christian life. Yet, because these were definitively affirmed at an ecumenical council and by papal pronouncement respectively, Catholics and Orthodox have no means to reform themselves of these erroneous accretions. By contrast, Protestantism, through the principal of Sola Scriptura, holds even the teachings of councils and popes to the bar of Scripture and thus has the ability to return to authentic apostolic teaching and overturn even the most cemented errors of history². In fact, the subtitle to Ortlund’s book is “The Case for an Always-Reforming Church” showing how central this theme is.

The force of such an argument will of course depend upon how one views the nature of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church. If one is liable to think the Holy Spirit could allow virtually all of the Church to fall into major errors for centuries and course correct later, then Ortlund’s view might seem enticing. If however, the Church has a real ability to definitively, i.e. once and for all, settle doctrinal disputes, then there must be some Church decisions which are irreformable. Perhaps being able to reject Nicaea II’s teachings on Icon veneration might bring relief to the anxious believer who has questions about the historical practice of icon veneration. On the other hand, such a believer loses the ability to then appeal to the authority of Nicaea I to a Unitarian and must instead reajudicate all of the Christological debates in church history. Not only that, regardless of what conclusion this Protestant comes to about the trinity, Christ’s natures etc. He then has to determine which of those conclusions is essential to the faith and which not. Is Nicaea I essential? How about Constantinople III?

Trent Horn pressed this very objection against Ortlund in a debate last year when he asked Ortlund if he considered monothelitism, the heresy that Christ has only one will, to be an essential issue to the faith or not. Ortlund denied that it was essential though he himself affirms that teaching from the 6th ecumenical council. Ortlund’s denial of the dogmatic status of diothelitism is then a denial of the teachings of the sixth council for it held not only that Christ has two wills, but also laid an anathema on anyone who denied that. On what basis does Ortlund affirm part and deny part of Constantinople III’s teachings and on what basis is another believer supposed to be able to confidently come to the same conclusions once one has abandoned a Catholic view of Church authority? These are difficult questions which Ortlund to his credit has taken up elsewhere. Nevertheless, I think the point is clear: whatever appeal Sola Scriptura has for being able to ditch troublesome doctrines, it also faces the peril of leaving the believer to decide not only what the truth is, but how to taxonimize truths into their relative importance with no clear guide from history or present Church authority to help.

Exclusivism

One of the sub themes Ortlund addresses in regards to catholicity is the exclusive claims of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Catholics and various eastern Orthodox sects all claim to be the “one true Church”. Such an exclusivist claim, Ortlund argues divides the kingdom of Christ and is a rejection of Christ’s teachings in the Gospels regarding those who are not with the disciples but do works in his name (e.g. Mark 9:38-40)³. Protestantism, because it does not confine the Church to any one institution, is more universal and can embrace Christians everywhere even if they are well outside of any standard ecclesial communion if they are seen to be bearing good fruit. In other words, ecclesial particularism is wrong and must be rejected.

Catholic Teaching

It is important to begin by noting that the Catholic Church does not teach that all non Catholics are damned. Ortlund acknowledges this, but claims that such a teaching is in conflict with medieval teaching thus undermining the claim to ecclesial infallibility or at the very least its usefulness. As evidence, Ortlund cites Cantate Domino from the council of Florence which states

[The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock

What it Means to be Protestant pg. 29

Ortlund says the Church could not have been clearer on this statement that all non Catholics are damned. He claims that modern appeals to interpret these texts in a less restrictive way is anachronistic. For example, it is common for contemporary Catholics to distinguish between formal “heretics and schismatics” and material ones and note that Florence is condemning the former and not the latter. The concept of implicit rather than explicit faith also comes up when discussing passages like this. Such categories between e.g. formal and material heresy are not new nor is the notion of implicit faith as opposed to explicit faith as we will see in a moment.

It must first be noted however that Ortlund’s claims here are directly contradictory to his earlier claims about the supposed “catholicity” Sola Scriptura allows. Ortlund claimed that non Protestant traditions were chained down with prior dogmatic commitments such that they couldn’t abandon them and reform their views. And yet here, Ortlund claims precisely that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have abandoned previous dogmatic claims. This is a straightforward contradiction. Ortlund cannot have it both ways. Either the Catholic Church has and thus can abandon prior dogmatic commitments and be “catholic” in the sense Ortlund wants or they haven’t in fact abandoned prior dogma. The truth of the matter is that the Church has not denied this dogma and that is clear by examining the middle ages more carefully.

For instance, Thomas Aquinas, while favoring the view that explicit belief in Christ was necessary for salvation is open to believers who never heard of Christ being saved through an implicit faith⁴ . Aquinas also explicitly affirms baptism of desire ⁵. By the time of Florence, baptism of desire was a standard view and it is taught dogmatically only 100 years later at the council of Trent⁶. Thus, it is not anachronistic whatsoever to understand Florence by appealing to ideas that were commonly held in the Church at the time. In fact it would be wrong to interpret Florence to teach that literally every non Catholic is damned.

Monotheist Particularist Parody

It is hard to see how such an argument against exclusivism doesn’t fall prey to a similar objections against a broader but still exclusivist Christian particularism. Ortlund forsees this objection and claims he is “not advocating religious pluralism or playing on our sentimentality”. He thinks Christ is necessary for salvation and so his openness to other religious communities would not extend to Mormons or Buddists.⁷ Thus Ortlund seems to affirm Christian particularism while denying ecclesial particularism. However, consider the following parallel claim.

Instead of being Christian particularists, one could argue that only monotheism is required for salvation. Such a view has some apparent Scriptural support. Hebrews 11:6 says “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him”. William Lane Craig for instance seems to take Hebrews 11:6 to teach that such a belief in God may well be what one is required to do to respond properly to general revelation and thus be saved if one has not heard the Gospel⁸.

Other biblical examples could be given e.g. Job, a non Israelite, was righteous in God’s eyes. Paul says that eventually “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). Following some of Ortlund’s questions, the object could ask if Gavin Ortlund really wants to condemn the billions of Muslims in the world simply for not knowing Christ? Don’t they follow Hebrews 11:6? Are Jews not God’s chosen people? etc. etc. Such a view would not need to be universalist for it could still condemn non theists and polytheists from Hebrews 11:6.

Ortlund would no doubt object that such a view is not really Biblical and that Christian particularism is the correct stopping point. After all Christ is the way to salvation. And yet, Christ said that we must be born of water and Spirit to be saved (John 3:5). He also said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life (John 6:51). Are Baptism and the Eucharist then both necessary for salvation? What would this imply about the baptist church down the street that doesn’t baptize young children and celebrates the Lord’s supper with grape juice? Ortlund has no obvious way to navigate such questions. On the one hand he can rail against ecclesial particularism in favor of a less rigid more inclusive Christianity or he can argue for his particularism and have to water down plain teachings of our Lord about the sacraments which seem to narrow down Christianity’s legitimate forms. His specific position then is one which seems at face value to be rather ad hoc.

Authority

Related closely to the issue of Apostolic succession is the issue of Church authority. During this discussion Ortlund loses his typically cool and restrained view and makes the utterly outlandish claim that if the Catholic Church’s view on the papacy and the magisterium were true, then “There could be nothing more important for us to figure out”⁹. Really? Does Ortlund actually believe that given Catholicism, the most important thing Scripture would teach would be about the magisterium? Not about who God is, who Christ is, how we can be saved etc.? Such a claim is gross hyperbole.

Moreover, such a claim is totally inconsistent with Ortlund’s claims about Sola Scriptura. Ortlund himself admits that Sola Scriptura does not need to be explicitly taught in Scripture at all but is a “cumulative entailment” of other Scriptural teachings¹⁰. Is there any reason a Catholic could not ask Ortlund in light of his above question why, if Sola Scriptura is true, wouldn’t it be more discussed in the NT since it would be the “most important” thing the NT has to teach us? If SS doesn’t need to be taught anywhere explicitly in Scripture, then surely Ortlund cannot consistently claim that Catholics should think that the most important thing the NT can teach us is about the magisterium.

Mary and Icons

Ortlund closes the book with two chapters arguing against what he takes to be the clearest examples of post apostolic accretion in non Protestant traditions, namely the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary and in the veneration of icons. His chapters closely align with videos(icons, assumption) he had previously done on both issues. I do not have time to go into each of these issues here but some general remarks are in order.

The Assumption

First, with regard to the assumption, Ortlund does interact with contemporary Catholic scholarship on the issue which is praiseworthy. The disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is not, as Ortlund makes it seem by focusing almost exclusively on the historical data, a disagreement about the historical bona-fides of assumption narratives. Rather, as Matthew Levering–whom Ortlund cites–points out, it is disagreement on the interpretation of Scripture.¹¹ More specifically, it is a disagreement about the role of typology in biblical interpretation. Ortlund’s unwillingness to take allow doctrine to depend heavily upon typology was shown clearly in his previous debate with Suan Sonna on the papacy.

Ortlund spends little time on Scriptural argumentation for the assumption touching only on Revelation 12.¹² Ortlund thus misses the point which is that the disagreement on the assumption then is one fundamentally about how to do Scriptural interpretation and not one about historical facts. Thus, the issue will not be decided on the basis of the kind of presentation Ortlund provides in his book, one mainly focused on the historical facts or lack thereof surrounding Mary’s assumption but rather on how Scriptural typology is to be understood.

Icon Veneration

Ortlund presents a very reasonable case for the claim that icon veneration is clearly a post apostolic accretion at odds with early Church practice. Ortlund is wrong however in claiming that Nicaea II taught that the apostles or the early church engaged in such a practice and is misreading the council.

Moreover, Ortlund fails to accurately frame the issue. As the Catholic Brothers pointed out in their review of Ortlund’s case, the issue in the 8th century at Nicaea II was not, “Did the early Church venerate images like we do?” but rather “Given that we already venerate books, and relics, is it legitimate to also venerate images?”. As the second question makes clear, veneration was very much a part of Church life in the 8th century on the part of both iconoclasts and iconodules. The only question was to what extent such veneration could extend to images if at all. Ortlund’s position, that images are legitimate for didactic purposes, was not held by anyone at Nicaea II.

This more proper framing of the issue exposes a deeper problem with Ortlund’s Protestantism which tries to tie itself to the early Church as best as it can. Ortlund claims that icon veneration is a late development that was controversial in the West even after the council and thus the Protestant rejection of it is nothing more than a reaffirmation of one side of a recently debated church issue. What is true however, is that his view on veneration as a whole contradicts something that was universal much earlier. He is not merely siding with one medieval stream of thought on icons over another one that won out at a council. He is rejecting the universal position of the Church regarding veneration in the mid to late patristic era. So much for “catholicity”.

Conclusion

Ortlund’s book is worth reading for anyone involved in Catholic/Protestant apologetics. As a Catholic, I of course have major disagreements with Ortlund on these issues but think his book was helpful in laying them out in a clear manner. Ortlund can be specifically praised for his clarity on the issue of justification which causes even some Catholic apologists to be confused. Though his book is at times inconsistent and hyperbolic, Ortlund has clearly upped the game so to speak in Protestant apologetics from other apologists like James White. Hopefully, more substantive exchange on issues with Ortlund can continue into the future.

1. Gavin Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2024) 62 ↩︎
2. Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant 11 ↩︎
3. Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant 35 ↩︎
4. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II Q2a7 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7 ↩︎
5. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III Q68a2 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2 ↩︎
6. Council of Trent Session VII Canon 4. ↩︎
7. Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant 33 ↩︎
8. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-revelation/doctrine-of-revelation-part-2#_ftnref8 ↩︎
9. Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant 106 ↩︎
10. Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant 75 ↩︎
11. Matthew Levering, Mary’s Bodily Assumption (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2015) 7. ↩︎
12. Ortlund, What it Means to Be Protestant 183-184 ↩︎