Gavin Ortlund in his outstanding new book What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church points to three aspects of renewal. These three aspects comprise what he calls “mere Protestantism”:
- A renewal of the gospel,
- A renewal of Scripture as our final authority, and
- A renewal of the teachings of Scripture against the accumulated harmful baggage (“accretions”) adopted in the process of church history.
These are three aspects of renewals that we too hold dear at RENEW.org Network!
The “mere Protestantism” that Ortlund champions is not focused on a particular Protestant tradition (like Presbyterian or Baptist), but it is like C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which advocates for basic, core, or foundational Christianity. Mere Protestantism describes the heart or essence of what it means to believe in and advocate for the Protestant way, as opposed to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox way. In RENEW.org Network, we typically do not emphasize our identity as Protestants. Instead, we prefer to identify ourselves as a “renewal movement” or as part of the Restoration Movement. But as Ortlund defines it, we also happily embrace the concept of “mere Protestantism.”
I find it hard to overstate the importance of this book for every pastor/minister, elder, and serious Bible student that I know. I am purchasing a copy for each elder and ministerial staff at my home church. This book automatically becomes my new go-to resource explaining Protestantism. It is fantastic, and I thank God for it.
1. Why is there such an increased interest in liturgy and in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions by some Evangelical intellectuals?
In recent years, several high-profile Evangelical leaders have converted to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. For example, Francis Beckwith was a respected Evangelical scholar and the president of the prestigious Evangelical Theological Society when in 2007 he converted back to the Roman Catholic Church of his youth.[1] And Hendrik “Hank” Hanegraaff was known for decades as the “Bible Answer Man.” He became very popular as a radio talk-show host and author with the Christian Research Institute. Many were shocked when he joined the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017. Another example is J.D. Vance, the 2024 Vice-Presidential running mate of Donald Trump. He left the Evangelical church of his youth, illustrated in the book and movie about him called Hillbilly Elegy, to convert to Catholicism in 2019.
Let’s start by noting some of the top reasons that are often reported when people describe their attraction to Roman Catholicism and/or the Orthodox Church. Here are five reasons they often articulate:
- Desire for Historical Rootedness – Many want a sense of stability and historical rootedness in their Christian faith and practice. They are drawn to older songs (rooted in history), creeds (re-iterating doctrines established in history), and aesthetics (e.g., older, stable, majestic buildings).
- Desire for Liturgical Worship – Liturgies are old, tried-and-true practices and traditions that have been repeated throughout history. Many people find liturgical church services deeply spiritual and meaningful, with their use of ancient chants, rituals, and symbolism.
- Desire for Reverence and Mystery – Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and their buildings emphasize a profound and mystical approach to theology, which can appeal to those seeking a deeper experiential connection to their faith.
- Desire for Community Grounded in Ancient Tradition – The sense of community and emphasis on church family life that is more than a thousand years old (or older) within the ancient churches can be very appealing to those looking for a strong communal and cultural identity.
- Desire for Spiritual Disciplines – These ancient churches offer various spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, prayer, and participation in the sacraments, which many find enriching for their personal spiritual growth.
“In recent years, several high-profile Evangelical leaders have converted to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.”
2. How should we think about the complex, confusing developments in the 2,000-year history of the Church?
History, especially Christian history, is an in-depth, complex, and challenging topic. But it is important for us to study, because to understand where we are in the present, we must understand the past. Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all have history. We all have experienced conflicts, we all have taken stands, and we all have much to look back upon. All three traditions care about what is true, but when it comes to many vital doctrines and practices, there is serious disagreement. How should we think about these disagreements? With passivity? With hostility?
Is it true that Protestant traditions and beliefs are relatively new? Actually, digging into church history reveals core Protestant beliefs that are well represented in the earliest church, described by the church fathers, and common in the ancient church.
For many people today, tone is everything. I personally think it is vital to have healthy conversations. So, I am grateful to say Ortlund does a great job in this area.
3. How can we be fair, reasonable, and conciliatory, while pointing out the major errors that developed in non-Protestant traditions?
In his own words, Ortlund describes it this way:
“The approach I seek in this book and in my YouTube ministry is to encourage candid and robust argumentation about our differences, downplaying or minimizing nothing, while at the same time seeking to maintain a conciliatory relationship.”[2]
Part of Ortlund’s ability to be kind and gracious as he interacts on YouTube and elsewhere with the leaders of these traditions is his belief that many of them are Christians but that they have adopted beliefs and practices that hinder the gospel (see more below). He kindly seeks to help them to turn to the teachings of Scripture against the accumulated harmful baggage (what Ortlund calls “accretions”) adopted in the process of church history. It is hard for anyone to do this, but it is especially hard for those who are part of a church that has turned these accretions into official doctrine and therefore made them irreformable (see question #6 below).
4. How did we get the New Testament—did the Roman Catholic Church give it to us?
So, how did we get the New Testament? The Gospels and early church history records describe how Jesus entrusted his teachings to his apostles.[3] The writings of the apostles (and those closely associated with them) were combined with the writings of the Old Testament to form the biblical canon.[4] The canon is a technical term that means “the list of books contained in Scripture, the list of books recognized as worthy to be included in the sacred writings of a worshipping community.”[5] Or “the list of the writings acknowledged by the Church as documents of the divine revelation.”[6]
The books in the New Testament were all written before the end of the first century (i.e., before A.D. 100).[7] Soon, however, these writings were not the only ones being circulated in the churches. Controversies arose in the mid-150s with a heretic name Marcion. In addition, other false teachers, like the Gnostics, arose. After the deaths of all the apostles, to protect the earliest Christians and churches from false teaching, the early leaders had to delineate those writings that were authoritative from those that were not. It was the apostles and the Scripture they wrote that the church looked to as authoritative (see below).
By A.D. 170 (at the latest), the concept of the New Testament canon was firmly established, and the main contents were set in place.[8] The early Christians recognized as authoritative those books that met three key criteria:
- The book had to be written by apostolic authors (or by those closely associated with apostles).
- It taught the orthodox faith of the apostles.
- It had been widely accepted in the earliest churches from the beginning.[9]
“By A.D. 170 (at the latest), the concept of the New Testament canon was firmly established.”
As the early church clarified the final list of authoritative books, they affirmed that the church itself had been established by the words and works of Jesus as communicated by the apostles (see Ephesians 2:20).
The writings of the apostles were key. Works associated with the apostles were the objective norm by which the church was to measure and evaluate herself.[10] Between A.D. 250 and 367, church leaders and councils worked through a process and defined 27 books of the New Testament as authoritative.[11] These councils did not impose something new upon Christian communities; rather, they codified the documents which contained the historical beliefs and practices of those communities—and how those communities were all dependent on the teachings of the apostles, from the beginning.[12]
Ortlund sums it up nicely:
“The process of canonization leading to that point was bottom up, not top down. It was a gradual, cumulative, widespread, and organic 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.”[13]
5. Are the scriptures our final authority, or are both Scripture and sacred tradition our final authority?
In RENEW.org Network and among Protestants, we take the position that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority. Protestants often describe this position as sola Scriptura. Ortlund defines it this way:
“Sola Scriptura is essentially the claim that scripture is the only authority standing over the church that is incapable of error. In this sense, scripture, unlike tradition or human authority is infallible—is the final authority for Christians and the church.”[14]
Popes, councils, preachers, and all other post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible and must be evaluated by the infallible words of Scripture.
So, what about the role of sacred tradition? Does church tradition provide authority for the church as well? Let’s consider the perspective presented by both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Both churches teach that both Scripture and sacred tradition are their final authority. In addition, their commitment to their sacred traditions means that their traditions exercise authority over Scripture when there are points of conflict.
“Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach that both Scripture and sacred tradition are their final authority.”
A popular book by Eve Tibbs which promotes Eastern Orthodoxy is called A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology. It puts the priority of tradition over Scripture front and center:
“Scripture exists within Tradition. To separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike. Holy Tradition might be thought of as the ‘umbrella’ context under which all aspects of faith and life in the Orthodox Church are properly understood. Holy Scripture exists within Holy Tradition, as does a whole panoply of expressions of the Apostolic Christian Faith: The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the dogmatic decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, the threefold pattern of ministry.”[15]
The Protestant view—and the view of the church in the 100s to 300s—is that the apostles’ teaching in Scripture was our ultimate authority. But does that mean it is our only authority? Anthony Lane states it well when he says, “We are careful to say that scripture is our final authority, but it is not our only authority.”[16] We do not want the people in our churches to be adrift, on their own, without historical guidance. We do not want them to feel that as individuals we have to go back two thousand years and figure it all out for ourselves. Such an approach would be naïve and foolish.[17] We want to be wise and help the people in our churches learn from and see the value in the best, established Christian traditions in history.
“We want to be wise and help the people in our churches learn from and see the value in the best, established Christian traditions in history.”
For example,
- Creeds (statements of faith that give guidance to many churches and people)
- Catechisms (summaries of biblical beliefs for newcomers, including key questions and answers)
- Councils (gatherings of church leaders that have met to address tricky issues)
- Confessions (longer statements of faith that help explain doctrines)
At the same time, each of these traditions (and people) are fallible. That is, they are subject to error and must be evaluated in the light of Scripture.
6. Do the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both really think they are the one true Church?
Yes. There is nuance between how Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians take this posture, but the bottom line is that it is the official posture of both traditions. A difficulty for Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches is that they made these claims as official statements in history, and thus they are irreformable.
The Roman Catholic position on this point is a little tricky (especially since the Vatican II council in the 1960s, which softened its exclusivistic posture). In keeping with its centuries-long conviction, the Catechism of the Church reaffirms that “outside the church there is no salvation.” Yet the Church also teaches that “those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church” can be saved through the church. So, “Most Catholics today claim that although the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, there can be true Christians outside of her.”[18]
So here is the conflict. The fourteenth century Unam Sanctam Bull established the official Roman Catholic position on papal supremacy, that only those who are in submission to the Pope can be saved, when it was issued by Boniface VIII. This is regarded as an irreformable, official position. In other words, they are part of authoritative Catholic teaching known as the Magisterium. But to get around the doctrine’s harshness, ever since the modifying tone of Vatican II, some Roman Catholics, including the current Pope, will claim that those in other religious traditions have an implicit subjection to the Pope. According to this view, the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, but those who are in implicit subjection to her will be considered part of the one true church. This can include Jews and Muslims too.
“Some Roman Catholics, including the current Pope, will claim that those in other religious traditions have an implicit subjection to the Pope.”
Eastern Orthodox have a firmer official stance. Their official stand on veneration of icons (see more below) makes it hard for them to accept as Christians those who do not venerate icons. Indeed, Ortlund could find no affirmations from Eastern Orthodoxy before the twentieth century that Roman Catholics or Protestants could be saved. Timothy Ware is one of their highly respected authorities, and he expresses a moderated view now in the twenty-first century. Although the Eastern Orthodox Church is the visible, true church, he says, “There is no division between a ‘visible and an ‘invisible church,’ yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone.”[19] With this description, he upholds their tradition that they alone contain the saved, but he leaves open the possibility that God sees it differently.
7. Is Jesus’ salvation given to those with faith, or is it given to those with faith plus works?
This question can be a tricky one. Let’s start with the word “justification,” which is a matter of God declaring us righteous. Mere Protestantism holds that justification is solely based upon the gospel of Jesus and describes how God “declares us righteous” by our faith in the gospel of Jesus. Ortlund points out that in Roman Catholicism, justification often has the broader meaning of “being made righteous,” so that it also includes what Protestants mean by “sanctification” (the process by which we become more and more like Christ).[20] Thus, justification, as a more general concept, requires further works for Catholics, while for Protestants justification is something God gives to us the moment we place our faith in Christ. Protestants believe that we continue to grow, but our efforts at faithfulness and growth are expressions of faith, not a requirement of works.
Again, Protestants and Catholics use the word “justification” in two different ways, and Eastern Orthodox churches tend to treat the concept more like Roman Catholics do. In their understanding, salvation is understood as a process of theosis, or deification (becoming more and more like God), which is becoming united with God and participating in His divine nature. So, the focus is how the Holy Spirit works through human efforts, the sacraments, and their divine Liturgy (Sunday worship). Again, the goal is deification which requires work to get there in the next life.
“Protestants and Catholics use the word ‘justification’ in two different ways, and Eastern Orthodox churches tend to treat the concept more like Roman Catholics do.”
The crux of the issue in Scripture, Ortlund emphasizes, is described in Romans 4:5 (NIV), which states, “To the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness” (repeated in Romans 4:23-24). Thus, Ortlund points out,
“Protestants have insisted that the formal cause of justification—that is, the intrinsic component of our justification that it essentially consists of—must be identified as the imputed righteousness of Christ, as opposed to infused or inherent righteousness wrought within us. Simply put, our legal standing before God is not ultimately based on anything within us, but on the external, alien, perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.”[21]
This prompts us to ask how we should understand faith. Roman Catholicism teaches that faith plus certain required works are necessary for final salvation. Yes, they are clear that their works are empowered by God’s grace for the glory of God, as God works within a person, but they are required all the same. Included in those required works are such things as confession to a priest, which is required for the forgiveness of mortal sins.[22] So Roman Catholicism officially teaches that, if a person deliberately commits a mortal sin—which includes things like deliberately forsaking mass or deliberately engaging in masturbation, fornication, or use of pornography—and that person does not go to a priest for confession before they die, that person will go to hell.[23] This is why attending Mass at least once a year is required. The focus on the necessity of institutional human works like this comes across to Protestants as salvation by faith plus works, which is not the teaching of Scripture (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:15-16).
8. What are some fundamental errors in Roman Catholicism?
Although Ortlund models a graciousness toward other faith traditions, he doesn’t shy away from showing how Roman Catholicism adds traditions and teaching that are contrary to and harmful to that which Scripture teaches. For the purposes of this review, we will just summarize what he teaches about the Pope.
When it comes to the Roman Catholic belief in the authority of the Pope and in apostolic succession (which makes papal authority possible), both doctrines face the insurmountable problem that there is no evidence for these practices in either Scripture or in the earliest church history. Ortlund does a good job in showing that the leadership structure of the early church was built upon the roles of elder/overseer and deacon. The elder/bishop (overseer) role is the spiritual leadership role, and the deacon role is more of the administrative and practical service role.
Once the New Testament teaching on the leadership of a group of elders/overseers is laid out, it becomes apparent that there is no scriptural basis for the leadership structure that is upheld in the Roman Catholic church, nor their concept of succession from one bishop to another through the centuries. As Ortlund points out, “We never see a single bishop presiding over any church in the New Testament.[24]
“Once the New Testament teaching on the leadership of a group of elders/overseers is laid out, it becomes apparent that there is no scriptural basis for the leadership structure that is upheld in the Roman Catholic church.”
Nor do we see bishops exercising regional authority in an overarching hierarchical system in the New Testament. So, the whole idea that there is an unbroken chain of single bishops ruling over a church or churches in a system that were appointed by the apostles that can be traced back from one to another throughout history, is without the earliest evidence. The foundation laid in the New Testament, in the beginning, is contrary to Roman Catholic leadership practices.
9. What are fundamental errors in Eastern Orthodoxy?
Starting in the late 200s and especially in the 300s and 400s, there is a departure from New Testament worship concepts and an increasing use of Old Testament worship concepts in the development of a formal liturgy. This is especially noticeable after Nicaea in A.D. 325 when Christianity increasingly became the imperial religion. There is a shift in focus from living a day-to-day life of worship (see Romans 12:1-2) to a focus on physical worship in a temple, with priests and an altar.
Ortlund focuses much of his critique of Eastern Orthodoxy on the veneration of icons, so I want us to look at what he says below.
The seventh ecumenical council was a meeting of all the key leaders in the churches in A.D. 787. It is called Nicaea II. This council required the veneration of icons for one to be a faithful Christian. As Ortlund points out, at the end of the council, they announced their “official anathemas against those who opposed their verdict”:[25]
- To those who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine scripture against idols, anathema!
- To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!
- To those who call the sacred images idols, anathema!
- To those who say that Christians had recourse to the images as gods, anathema!
- To those who knowingly communicate with those who insult and dishonor the sacred images, anathema!
“Starting in the late 200s and especially in the 300s and 400s, there is a departure from New Testament worship concepts and an increasing use of Old Testament worship concepts in the development of a formal liturgy.”
Ortlund explains what exactly is meant by these anathemas:
“Some try to downplay the significance of an anathema, as though it were a mere warning, or an excommunication from the church (but not from heaven). But historically, an anathema was generally understood as entailing damnation to hell, drawing from Paul’s use of the term to reference someone being ‘accursed’ (Romans 9:3, Galatians 1:8-9, 1 Corinthians 16:22).”[26]
The difficulty for modern devotees to the Eastern Orthodox church (and Roman Catholics, too) is that it is official doctrine that they believe that Nicaea II, in what it affirms, is essential theology. So, as the Orthodox Priest Father Zechariah Lynch wrote about the seventh ecumenical council, “I found no exclusions given by the Council as to if and when icons should not be venerated (with bows and a kiss); rather it seems very certain the Council instructs and mandates all Christians to always equally uphold the theology of icons and the very specifically outlined mode of their veneration.”[27]
10. How is mere Protestantism a renewal of biblical Christianity?
Wow, we have covered a lot of history, theology, and practices in answering the first nine questions. I want to end by making the positive case for mere Protestantism and end by pointing out how RENEW.org and the Restoration Movement share the mere Protestantism vision that Ortlund describes.
First, we go back to the pure source. Well-known Restoration Movement preacher Bob Russell often uses an analogy that Ortlund also uses: a stream of water is always purist at its source. For us, the source is the teaching of Scripture. Ortlund puts it this way: “When you have muddy water in a stream, you have to go back to see where it came in.”[28]
Second, we focus on Christ and the gospel. Every church tradition must narrow the focus because they can only emphasize a limited number of things. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, by the way they are structured, end up focusing on sacraments, the church, and priests.
Third, we have renewing/reforming at the heart of our identity. Each generation faces new challenges as how to best “be the church of Christ” in their time and place in history. There is a difference between a Christian movement based upon renewing according to Scripture and those that cannot reform because they have elevated church tradition to have infallible authority over scriptural interpretation.
“Mere Protestantism can recognize and affirm the good in all churches—including the ancient church, the pre-Reformation church, and non-Protestant traditions.”
In short, mere Protestantism can recognize and affirm the good in all churches—including the ancient church, the pre-Reformation church, and non-Protestant traditions. Protestants can also acknowledge and commit to reform our own eccentricities, errors, and sins.
RENEW.org Network (and the Restoration Movement)
Building on the concepts described in the book, we can point to three key resources that help clarify the place of RENEW.org in the stream of mere Protestantism.
RENEW.org’s Systematic Theology – Real Life Theology: Fuel for Effective and Faithful Disciple Making (RENEW.org 2021) is a contemporary statement of RENEW.org theology, based upon our understanding of Scripture.
Restoration Movement/RENEW.org Ideals – The Fool of God: The Story of Alexander Campbell, Who Made Scripture His Final Authority and Catalyzed a Movement is an accessible, historical picture of how the Restoration Movement started two hundred years ago.
Ancient Church Beliefs and Practices – Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries is a book by early church expert Everett Ferguson describing a cluster of beliefs held by the early church. (The book is now a free download; click here to access it.) We champion them because we see them taught in Scripture:
- Believer’s Baptism by immersion – Scripture teaches that this is an expression of faith for the forgiveness of sins (and not for infants).
- Counter-cultural lifestyles – We emphasize faithful living, repentance, and true discipleship in Jesus after baptism (church members are to be accountable to each other).
- Weekly communion – This is shared by believers for believers (not distributed by special priests).
- Elders/Overseers – The final oversight of the local church is to be by a group of appointed elders/overseers (not a sole pastor or sole priest).
“We emphasize faithful living, repentance, and true discipleship in Jesus after baptism.”
Mere Protestantism
I want to conclude these questions, answers, and reflections on What It Means to Be Protestant by restating and summarizing the core of everything the book teaches. These are principles we gladly champion through the RENEW.org Network.
- We focus on a renewal of the gospel.
- We focus on a renewal of Scripture as our final authority.
- We focus on a renewal of the teachings of Scripture against the accumulated harmful baggage (accretions) adopted in the process of church history.
Wherever you are in your quest for truth and whichever church you might call home, I encourage you to return again and again to the gospel of King Jesus as the source of your security and the horizon of your hope.
[1] Francis Beckwith tells his story in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2008).
[2] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. xxii.
[3] For those who desire more information on the practical application of these points, see the chapter on Scripture in my book, Trust and Follow Jesus: The Leadership Guide (RENEW.org, 2020).
[4] For more detailed information about what follows, consult the seminal works of F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), and Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
[5] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p. 17.
[6] Ibid., quoting R.P.C. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition (London: S.P.C.K., 1954).
[7] See Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) and Donald Guthrie, Introduction to the New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1979).
[8] Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1984), p. 52.
[9] See Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
[10] This is a distinctive and important fact that is in contradistinction to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. This point was definitively stated by Oscar Cullmann in the advanced debates leading up to Vatican II; see, “The Tradition,” in The Early Church (London: SCM Press, 1956).
[11] Michael J. Kruger, “10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #10: ‘Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 A.D.) is the First Complete List of New Testament Books,” Canon Fodder, December 11, 2012, https://www.michaeljkruger.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-10-athanasius-festal-letter-367-a-d-is-the-first-complete-list-of-new-testament-books/. Accessed September 9, 2018.
[12] Michael J. Kruger, “10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #10: ‘Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 A.D.) is the First Complete List of New Testament Books.”
[13] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 90.
[14] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 72
[15] Eve Tibbs, A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology (Baker Publishing Group, 2021) Kindle Edition, p. 49.
[16] Tony Lane, ‘Sola scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan’ in P. E. Satterthwaite & D. F. Wright (eds.), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 297-327.
[17] Richard Hughes and Leonard Allen, Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875 (University of Chicago Press, 1988).
[18] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 28.
[19] “Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow,” in The Holy Standards, 191, quoted in Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 27.
[20] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 61.
[21] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 62.
[22] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, https://usccb.cld.bz/Catechism-of-the-Catholic-Church/596/, accessed September 12, 2024. For an everyday-person-type discussion, see Karl Keating, What Catholics Really Believe – Setting the Record Straight: 52 Answers to Common Misconceptions About the Catholic Faith (Ignatius Press, 1995)
[23] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, https://usccb.cld.bz/Catechism-of-the-Catholic-Church/596/, accessed September 12, 2024.
[24] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 123.
[25] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 187.
[26] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p. 188.
[27] Zechariah Lynch, “You May Not, Not Kiss the Icon,” Patristic Faith, March 4, 2023, https://www.patristicfaith.com/orthodox-christianity/you-may-not-not-kiss-the-icon/, accessed June 15, 2024.
[28] Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Zondervan, 2024), p.151.
