Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism. Baker Academic, 2005

This is the second of a two part-review of the book written by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom and published by Baker Academic. Although the book was published nearly six years ago, the issues involved are extremely pertinent to today.

In this second article, we will seek to point out what are believed to be the two main weaknesses of the book. As stated before, it is a well-written and extremely informative review of the relationship between Catholic and Protestants.

Our two main contentions or criticisms of the book deal with the subjects of history and theology.

In the area of history, the writers fail to state clearly two important and pertinent facts. The first omission deals with the development of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution while the second omission is the failure to answer the question as to why there was a reformation in the first place.

Throughout the book the writers encourage the reader who desires more information regarding the Roman Catholic Church and where it stands on doctrinal issues to purchase a copy of the Catholic Catechism and read it carefully. Frequently the authors state that an Evangelical will find much in the Catechism with which he can agree. In one paragraph, Mark Noll stated that while reading the Catechism, he was led to put it down and worship in prayer and thanksgiving because there was so much with which he agreed. Note page 116 where Mr. Noll states this. No one who has an understanding of Church History would necessarily dispute that statement.

However, a study of Church History reveals a pattern of the Roman Church in deviating from the faith over a period of time. Much of what the Church Fathers wrote would be accepted as orthodox today. For example, one would be in agreement with the Nicene Creed and its statements about the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Many Protestants Churches recite the Nicene Creed as part of their liturgy. One also would agree with Augustine in his controversy with Pelagius regarding the sinful nature of man.

However, the further one proceeds on the path of Church history the more he encounters certain doctrines that transformed the Roman Church into a sacramental church. For example, following nearly two hundred years of controversy regarding the nature of the Eucharist, the IV Lateran Council of 1215, under the direction of Pope Innocent III, formally adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation. In the reviewer’s opinion, this was the time when the Roman Church officially became the Roman Catholic Church. No Biblical evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation was produced by the Council. However, transubstantiation was now an official doctrine of the Church and one was required to believe it or be condemned as a heretic.

The authors of the book are silent when it comes to this divergence of the Roman Catholic Church from the Biblical norm. They appear to be of the opinion that if we can agree with some of the doctrines of the church we should be able to agree with all of its teachings.

A second major historical flaw is the failure to address the question as to why there was a Reformation in the first place. Before one asks the question is the Reformation over, they should query why there was a Reformation in the first place. Throughout the course of the Medieval Period, there were repeated calls for a reform of the church. There were differences of opinion as to who was to undertake the work of reformation and whether it was to be a reform of morals or a reform of both doctrine and morals, but a broad consensus existed on the necessity of reform. Even before Martin Luther there were those who called for a thorough doctrinal reform of the church.

No one truly believes that Martin Luther deliberately set out to reform the Church. However, he was convinced by personal experience that the Church was not teaching the Biblical doctrine of salvation. Martin Luther was not interested as much in the reformation of the Church as he was in the salvation of his own soul. He did everything that the church commanded him to do and yet he never experienced the true forgiveness of sins. He is reportedly to have said if ever there were a monk who through his own efforts could merit heaven, he was that monk. But all of his efforts to gain salvation through what the Church taught did not bring him a clear conscience before God.

However, Luther came to understand that salvation is by faith alone and not by the partaking of the sacraments as the church taught. When reading his life one concludes that he was borne along more by events than a concerted plan of reform.

We have now come to a time when many are asking whether the Reformation was a “tragic mistake.” No one would agree that everything that was said or done in the name of reform was perfect. There were tragic mistakes and blunders. However, such an attitude fails to answer the question as to why so many persons were willing to risk their lives and fortunes to accomplish something that was not needed. Why were people willing to go the stake and suffer so greatly? It certainly must have been for strong convictions. Although there have been and always will be those who have a martyr/s complex, it beggars the imagination to think that all those who suffered did so for so slight a motive. These are the types of questions or reflections that seem to be strangely lacking in a book that purports to provide an answer to a question of such magnitude.

However, there is another failure of the book and that is to deal with the theological issues involved. The Reformation was the time of recovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a doctrine of justification, there are two crucial areas in which it differs from the Protestant. The places of disagreement are in what are called the formal and instrumental causes of justification. The formal cause is that which gives to something its quality while the instrumental cause is the means whereby the result is accomplished. The instrumental means of justification according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is baptism and the formal cause is the infusion of God’s righteousness. The result of baptism is that the person is forgiven of original sin and is regenerated or born again. Then he is required to cooperate with this infused righteousness to live a godly life. When he reaches a certain level of sanctity, he is then accepted by God as righteous because he is indeed righteous.

In contrast, the Protestant position regarding justification is that the instrumental cause is faith alone and the formal cause is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the person. God then pronounces the person to be justified solely on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed.

It is for the above reason that many believe the Roman Catholic Church confuses the doctrine of justification with the doctrine of sanctification. Protestants believe in an infused righteousness for sanctification or growth in holiness but hold exclusively to an imputed righteousness for justification.

It is the repeated failure of the book to deal with these issues that vitiate its effectiveness. While it is true there is much that a Protestant could agree with Catholics about, there can be no agreement regarding the crucial issue of justification. It is simply impossible to reconcile an imputed righteousness with an infused righteousness for justification. Despite the claim of the ECT statement The Gift of Salvation that agreement has been reached regarding the doctrine of justification, this reviewer must register his dissent.

What can be done to resolve this impasse? The critical question is not so much as to whether the Reformation is over but have the doctrinal truths especially regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone entered my heart and soul? Am I truly a Christian according to the teaching of God’s Word? At the end of the day it matters little whether I agree or disagree with the authors of the book on their question but it does matter for eternity whether or not my sins are forgiven and I have experienced Biblical salvation.

Thus the conclusion of this review is not to express an opinion but to encourage people to search the Word of God to be absolutely certain that they are truly saved. The five solas of Christ alone, grace alone, Scripture alone, faith alone, and God’s glory alone are not merely a party slogan but the express teachings of the Word of God on the subject of salvation.

Read Is the Reformation Over? – Part 1

Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism. Baker Academic, 2005

Why take the time and effort to review a book that was published nearly six years ago? Events have moved on and there are certainly more current issues that demand our attention. The reason for the review is that Is the Reformation Over? is an extremely important book and the questions that it raises are pertinent today.

The title of the book is worthy of our attention. What do the authors mean when they ask the question concerning the Reformation? Do they mean that the Reformation is over because it has accomplished its objective? Could they possibly mean that the Reformation is over because it has failed? The tone of the book remains rather coy regarding the answer to the question. Perhaps the sub-title of the book can aid us in formulating an answer to the authors’ question. The book is an evaluation of the contemporary Roman Catholicism by two pronounced Evangelicals. We can note that even the subtitle carries an implied question. It has been the glory of Roman Catholicism that the Church is always the same: semper idem. If the Roman Catholic Church is, and always has been, the same, there would be little reason for the qualifying adjective. Although one does not wish to give a final judgment, it appears that the authors believe that both the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelicals have changed. We will give reasons for this opinion later in the review.

The authors have written the book to chronicle some of the changes that have occurred in Catholic/ Protestant relations over the past years. According to their analysis, the differences in the current situation have been the result of three significant events.

The first is Vatican II that was convened in 1960 by Pope John XXIII. This was the first general council since Vatican I that took place in 1870. There was a new openness about the church and things were questioned that would have seemed improbable just a few years before. This new attitude of openness caught the attention of Protestant observers who attended the sessions. Perhaps the most intriguing thing was that no longer were Protestants considered to be non-Christians. Indeed, they were called “separated brethren.” To be sure, Roman Catholics are of the conviction that Protestant Churches lack the Petrine office that the Lord had instituted while on earth and considered necessary by Roman Catholics to constitute the true Church. To be considered true brethren they would have to be churches united under the Papal office. However, the admission they could be brethren was revolutionary, especially in light of the decree of Unam Sanctum promulgated by Boniface VIII in which he declared that there was no salvation outside of the Roman Church.

Another reason for the difference in the relationship between the churches was the Pontificate of John Paul II. He assumed office in 1985 and proved to be one of the most charismatic individuals who occupied the seat of Saint Peter. Many Evangelicals were captivated by his openness and friendliness toward them.

The third reason for the difference in the climate between Catholics and Protestants was the disintegration of Western Culture. Concerning the disintegration of Western Culture, there was little doubt, especially in Europe. It is not necessary to chronicle all the changes that had occurred but there were signs that Western Civilization was on the verge of collapse. In light of this dire situation, it made no sense for those who held shared values concerning morality and the sacredness of life to fight with one another. The danger was so great that ecclesiastical differences need to be put to one side in order to deal with the more pressing problems.

It is one of the strengths of the book that these changes in attitude are well documented and very few persons would disagree with the authors’ assessment there has been a sea change in how Protestants and Catholics view one another.

The authors then go on to document the changes between Evangelicals and Catholics that have taken place over the nearly fifty years since the convening of Vatican II.

One of the real changes noted by the authors has been a calming of the rhetoric between the two sides. Rather than shrill accusations that speak past one another, there has been open dialogue between the parties to note the differences that still remain. Noll and Nystrom provide as evidence of this new spirit of dialogue the various discussions that have been held between the Catholics and the Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Charismatics. Although it appears that only one definitive document between the groups has been reached, that between the Catholics and the Lutherans on the doctrine of justification by faith, the very fact that such discussions were even conducted is a very positive sign.

There has also been a new spirit of co-operation between the parties. The authors tell of groups, including Campus Crusade for Christ and Inter-Varsity, working side by side with Catholic organizations to reach students with the message of the Gospel. They relate the experience of a missionary who went to France to establish an Evangelical Church who, after analyzing the situation, came to the realization that an Evangelical Church was not the pressing need of the people. He concluded that it was better to work with Catholics to strengthen the established Catholic Church than to begin a new church. While much of this evidence of co-operation is given in anecdotal stories of individuals who acted on their own initiative rather than on a formal alliance of Evangelicals and Catholics, such evidence does exist and bolsters the claim of the authors that a new climate of co-operation rather than competition is factual.

The third proof of a change in Protestant /Catholic relations was the establishment of the group known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). This initiative has been the work of Charles Colsen and Richard John Neuhaus. As of the writing of this review, this initiative is still in force and some seven joint statements on issues including justification by faith, the Word of God, the need for holiness, the sanctity of human life and others have been issued.

The Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative has garnered both praise and criticism. Much has been written on this attempt to resolve the differences between the groups and it is impossible to reproduce all the various views. However, it appears that two main criticisms have been leveled against this attempt by critics. The first is, despite the claim to the contrary, doctrinal issues have been blurred in order to reach agreement where none truly exists. The second criticism deals with Ecclesiology or the doctrine of the Church. The discussions have revealed that Evangelicals are very weak when dealing with the doctrine of Ecclesiology. Evangelicalism is, by default and its very nature, reduced to what has been called “mere Christianity” and cannot speak to the germane issues of the doctrine of the Church. This is because Evangelicalism is not a formal association of churches with agreed confessional statements but individuals who are united on the basic issues of how one becomes a Christian. For further elucidation on this point, see the critique by Professor Carl Truman of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, who has written a trenchant review of the book and elucidated the point made above in more detail.

The final evidence put forth by the authors for the changed conditions between Protestants and Catholics emphasizes the number of Evangelicals who have converted to Rome. As a side note, it is interesting that the authors highlight the pilgrimage of Evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church while they say very little about individuals who come the other way.

There have been a number of prominent Evangelicals who have “crossed the Tiber” to Rome. They include Thomas Howard, former teacher at Gordon College and a member of a prominent Evangelical family, Peter Kreeft, and Scott and Kimberly Hawn. The book was published before Francis Beckwith, past President of the Evangelical Theological Society, announced his return to the church of his fathers.

Although the outward circumstances were different for each individual, there are some common factors that drew the person toward the Roman Catholic Church. These factors include the impression that Rome offers more security than Protestantism, the worship and tradition of the Roman Church are more meaningful, and the individuals experience a sense of fulfillment they found sadly lacking in the Evangelical churches. To the reviewer’s knowledge, he has not read of anyone who converted to Rome solely on doctrinal grounds. It seems that those who have returned to Rome are convinced that whatever doctrinal differences may exist between the two communions, they do not present an insuperable obstacle to conversion.

We will continue our analysis of this book in a further article. The reviewer believes that this is a very important book and suggests that it be purchased and read carefully. He would welcome any criticism or correction of errors in the above article. As a disclaimer, he has no interest in “proving” a case or triumphing over any person. However, he remains convinced that the issues between the Churches ultimately deal with one’s relationship with God and can only be settled by appeal to the Word of God and its testimony.

Read Is the Reformation Over? – Part 2

During the time Tyndale was held in the Vilvorde Prison, his friend and co-laborer, Miles Cloverdale, superintended the printing of the first complete English Bible in 1535. Coverdale used Tyndale’s translations of the Pentateuch and the New Testament while he himself translated the remaining portions of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha using Latin and German Bibles.

A year after Tyndale’s death, John Rogers, using the pseudonym of Thomas Matthew, published what is believed to be the first licensed English Bible. The Matthew’s Bible incorporated Tyndale’s translation of the books from Joshua to II Chronicles for the first time. The Matthew’s Bible was published in 1537 and Miles Coverdale printed a second edition of his Bible in the same year. Thus by 1537 the English people had two complete English Bibles.

Meanwhile, King Henry VIII changed his mind regarding the distribution of the Bible in English. Not only did he permit the licensing of both the Matthew’s and the Coverdale Bible, he ordered that every church in England have a copy of the English Bible for use in the worship services.

Thus in November 1538 he issued a decree through Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, that every church in England should have a copy of the English Bible in the largest size. Miles Coverdale was chosen to supervise the editing and printing of this edition. Coverdale chose the Matthew’s Bible of 1537 as the basis of the revision rather than his own edition of the same year. This gives us insight to the motives of the early English translators. They had little interest in putting forward their own work. They had a greater interest in providing the most accurate translation. This is also an indirect proof that John Rogers, the editor of the Matthew’s Bible, limited his involvement in Bible translation to the production of the Matthew’s Bible. There is no record that he had any further involvement in the work of Bible translation.

For reasons that are not totally clear, Coverdale decided to have this edition of the Bible printed in France although there were English printers capable of producing it. Some have speculated that the French printer, Francis Regnault, was more capable, had better presses and workmen, etc. than the English. While we cannot be certain of this, there may be a clue that determined his choice. Coverdale had prepared a diglot New Testament in English and Latin that he gave to James Nicholson to print. The work was so badly done that Coverdale refused to recognize it as his work and ordered that it be withdrawn and all copies destroyed. However, Nicholson had it “corrected” and reprinted it! He went so far as to attribute the work to another editor, John Hollybush! However, even this “corrected” edition was replete with errors. Finally, Coverdale had Regnault print the diglot in 1538. A quick comparison of the three editions of the same work will readily establish the superiority of the French printer.

Meanwhile, work began on the Great Bible in Paris. As stated above, the basis of the revision was the Matthew’s Bible of 1537. However, it was soon rumored that an English Bible was being printed in Paris. This aroused the opposition of the Sorbonne, the theological faculty of the University of Paris. Complaints were made to the head of the French inquisition and King Francis I. Orders were issued that the work was to cease immediately, what had been printed was to destroyed, and the printers and Coverdale were to be arrested and turned over to the Inquisition.

Fortunately, Coverdale was able to escape the clutches of the Inquisition and return to England. However, he did not escape alone. He managed to bring the presses, the printers, and a large supply of what had already been printed back to England. How he was able to manage this is simply amazing. It is one of those instances when the providence of God opens ways that are beyond human understanding.

Once back in England the work at the press of Edward Whitchurch and Richard Grafton went forward. The printing was finally completed in March of 1539. It was called the Great Bible because of its size and was authorized as the official Bible of the church for ecclesiastical use.

The subsequent history of the Great Bible is a story in itself. It quickly went through seven editions by 1541. The second through the seventh editions are called Cranmer’s Bible because they contain a preface written by Thomas Cranmer. It has also been known as the “Chained Bible” because it was chained to a lectern in a church and readers appointed so that people who were illiterate could come and hear the Bible being read. It became so popular to listen to the reading of God’s Word that people would come during the times of services at the churches to hear the words of Scripture and would not attend the services! Finally, Cranmer had to issue an order that forbade the reading of the Bible during the times of stated services. That illustrates the depth of hunger that people had to hear the Word of God.

The printing of the Great Bible marked the close of the first phase in the translation of the Scriptures into the English language. The Great Bible would be printed continuously until Queen Mary’s ascension in 1553. Mary herself made a contribution to the Great Bible by translating a paraphrase of John’s Gospel originally written by Erasmus. Although she had an edition of the Great Bible destroyed early in her reign, she did not forbid the possession of the Bible and declare it illegal as had the Constitutions of Oxford in 1408.

When Elizabeth became Queen, the printing of the Great Bible resumed. It was printed at intervals until 1568 and remained the standard ecclesiastical text of the English Church until it was replaced by the Bishops’ Bible in the same year. The Puritans had hoped that the Geneva Version would become of official ecclesiastical Bible but Elizabeth refused to authorize it.

In addition to the intrinsic value of the Scriptures, one can also learn of the political and ecclesiastical conditions of the times by studying carefully the title pages of Bibles. In the first edition of the Great Bible, the title page shows King Henry VIII giving the Bible to Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor. In turn they are pictured as giving the Bible to the people. The three individuals are identified by their coats of arms that appear below their images. In the fourth edition, however, the title page is distinguished by the absence of Cromwell’s coat of arms. He had fallen out of favor with the King when he advised Henry to marry Anne of Cleves. Cromwell was later accused of treason and executed. However, although the title page still contained his figure, a blank space appeared where his coat of arms should have been!

There is yet another irony found on the title page of the Great Bible. In later editions, words appear that affirm the Bible had been overseen and read by two officials of the English Church. Those officials were two bishops: the first was Nicholas Heath who was the Bishop of Rochester and the second was Cuthbert Tunstall, now the Bishop of Durham. This was the same Cuthbert Tunstall, who, when Bishop of London, refused to permit Tyndale to translate the Scriptures. Now he gave his authorization to the Great Bible as being an accurate translation of the Word of God. In the Great Bible, the books from Genesis to II Chronicles and the entire New Testament were the work of William Tyndale. Although Tunstall had initially refused Tyndale’s request to translate the Bible, he now gave his sanction to his translation. It would be interesting to know if Tunstall ever regretted his decision to refuse Tyndale the opportunity to translate the Scriptures. Whether or not he ever did, it is certain that he authorized Tyndale’s translation as the Word of God!

The providential care of God over His Word was aptly demonstrated by a discovery at the Wurttembergishe Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, Germany in 1996.

The directors of the Library were reclassifying their holdings of English books when they came across a book that they were unable to identify. Figure one shows the outside cover of the book with the engraving of a person with the date of 1550 clearly discernable. It was an English New Testament but there was no clear evidence of the date of publication. A careful check of reference books listing the publication dates of English Bibles failed to provide positive identification.

After consulting the staff at the British Library it was conclusively proven that it was a 1526 Worms New Testament, the first complete printing of the New Testament in the English language.

What made the discovery of an English New Testament printed in 1526 such an important event? To answer this question, we must put this New Testament in its historical context. William Tyndale left England in late 1524 or early 1525 and settled in Cologne, Germany with the intention of translating and printing the English Bible. At the time vernacular copies of the Scriptures were forbidden in England. His efforts to have the printing done in Cologne were interrupted and Tyndale fled to the city of Worms.

There in 1526 the first New Testament, printed in English and translated from the original Greek, was completed in the print shop of Peter Schoeffer. Estimates of the print run vary from three thousand to six thousand. Of the initial printing, in 1996 only two copies were know to have survived. One copy, located at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London lacks nearly one hundred and forty pages. The second copy, purchased by the British Library in 1994 from Bristol Baptist College, lacked the title page.

The Stuttgart copy was complete, including the title page. This was the only copy of the Worms New Testament that had survived intact. For that reason alone, its discovery was a newsworthy event.

However, the record of its history provides a fascinating account of how God providentially preserves His Word. There are some gaps in the record but the main outline of the story appears to be as follows.

In 1550 the New Testament came into the possession of Ottheinrich, a territorial prince of the Palatinate. From other books in his library, it appears that Ottheinrich had the custom of having the accessions to his library rebound with an engraving of his likeness and the date. Thus we are led to believe that in 1550 the book was purchased and placed in Ottheinrich’s personal library.

What happened next cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but evidence indicates that the New Testament was taken during the Thirty Years’ War that raged in Germany from 1618 to 1648. It appears that the New Testament was actually taken to Rome and placed in the Vatican Library. Following the peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War in 1648, it was brought back to Germany and placed in a monastery in Schontal. The words Monastery B.M.V. in Schontal are clearly written below the title of the book.

From there it was transferred to the Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart early in the 20th Century. It remained there until the Second World War. Because the city of Stuttgart was a prime manufacturing center for the German war machine, Stuttgart was placed high on the list of Allied bombing targets.

The Landesbibliothek officials, fearful of a bombing raid, decided to move the books to a safer location outside the city. Although the exact details of what happened cannot be stated with absolute certainty, it does appear a number of books were transferred before the German military forced them to stop because of the impact upon the city’s morale. If the citizens of Stuttgart saw the books being removed due to the apprehension of an attack on the city, their morale would plummet.

In the event, Stuttgart was bombed and the Landesbibliothek was destroyed with the remaining books and records. However, a number of books had already been removed to a safer location including the Worms New Testament.

The Landesbibliothek was reconstructed following the end of the war and the books that had been hidden in the forest were retrieved. However, the library’s records had been destroyed and no one knew exactly the contents of what had been spared.

The Worms New Testament apparently remained unnoticed and unclassified on the shelves for a number of years until the reclassification took place. What an amazing story of God’s providence is illustrated by the preservation of that book!

Can we not learn some practical lessons from this incident?

1. God’s Word can be bound in the most costly bindings with an engraved plate on the front and be placed in some wealthy individual’s library, but God will not permit it to remain there.
2. It can even be taken as a “prisoner of war” and placed in a church’s treasures of books and manuscripts, but God will bring it out.
3. It can be placed in a location dedicated to the purpose of studying God’s Word, but still God will not let it remain there.
4. He can protect it from the ravages of war and preserve it.

The great lesson we can learn from this sole complete copy of the first New Testament in the English language is that God does watch over His Word to both preserve and fulfill it. Should this not be an encouragement to us to study that Word? Perhaps we will never know who read that New Testament. We can only hope that all who possessed it beginning with Prince Ottheinrich, those who were in charge of the Vatican Library, the monks who lived in the monastery, and even the personnel of the Landesbibliothek itself not only classified the book but read and understood the words of eternal life that it contains.

The months after the death of Frith were difficult for Tyndale. Not only did he lose the help of a trusted companion, what did his death communicate about the continued opposition to the Word of God by the English rulers? Although he had been tricked into putting his thoughts on the Eucharist into writing, Frith had stated that the doctrine of the Eucharist was not as important as the doctrine of Christ. In his opinion, freedom was permitted concerning those doctrines about which the Word of God did not speak with absolute clarity. However, for English churchmen what was important was what the Church taught. From that teaching there was to be no deviation. Moreover, how could people be sure that the opinions of the church officials were correct when they were denied access to the Word of God?

Thus, Tyndale redoubled his efforts to give the ploughboy the Word of God in a language he could read and understand. There is evidence to indicate that Tyndale continued to translate the Old Testament books. However, the main focus of his work was a thorough revision of the Worms New Testament that had been published eight years before.

During those years, Erasmus had published a fourth edition of his Greek New Testament containing readings from the Complutensian Polyglot that was finally published in 1522. In addition, the Worms New Testament had been produced under the most difficult of circumstances after Tyndale and Roye were forced to flee from Cologne. With the relative safety of Antwerp and living in the Merchant Adventurers’ house, Tyndale believed that he had the time to do a thorough revision of the New Testament. In addition a number of the Worms New Testaments had been confiscated and the demand for them remained high.

Making the situation even more urgent was that pirated editions of the New Testament began to appear in England. They were printed by Dutch printers who were willing to risk producing New Testaments and smuggling them into England because of the lucrative market. This continued even after one of the Dutch printers was arrested in London, imprisoned and later died.

However, what appears to be the main reason for the revision of the Worms New Testament was the printing of the New Testament as it had been “corrected” by George Joye. This revision had been undertaken by Joye even though he was aware that Tyndale was preparing a new edition. The crowning insult of this revision was that it contained changes in the translation that Tyndale did not agree with. Joye changed Tyndale’s translation of “resurrection” to “life after death.” Although there remains some dispute as to whether or not Tyndale believed in “soul-sleep” this did not give another person the liberty change Tyndale’s translation without permission. In light of what Tyndale believed to be the correct translation of the word, this was totally inexcusable.

In the introduction to the revised New Testament, Tyndale took Joye to task for his unauthorized changes. He conceded the liberty for persons to translate the Scriptures according to their ability, but common honesty required them to append their names to the translation and not to pass it off as the work of another. Tyndale complained that Joye had acted the part of “Bo-peep” in what he had done. Joye sought to defend what he had done but Tyndale brushed aside his explanations as insufficient.

It is impossible for us to know the amount of time that Tyndale spent in the revision of the New Testament but there were more than three thousand changes. In addition he wrote introductions to each book to provide a key for the ploughboy to understand the Scriptures better than the priests.

There is a fascinating story involved with the publication of this book. Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London, went to Antwerp to conduct a mission on the behalf of King Henry VIII. During his journey, Tunstall devised a plan to purchase English New Testaments and send them to England to be burned. English officials were aware that Tyndale made Antwerp his headquarters although they were unable to apprehend him. However, they knew because he was there so would be copies of the Scriptures. In the event, when Tunstall arrived in Antwerp, he began to inquire regarding the purchase of copies of the New Testament. Word of what the Bishop was seeking reached the ears of Augustine Packington, an Englishman and member of the Merchant Adventurers. He went to the Bishop and asked how many copies of the Scriptures he would be interested in purchasing. Tunstall replied that he was interested in purchasing as many as Packington could obtain. Packington, who was a friend of Tyndale, reported the Bishop’s request to him. To Packington’s surprise, Tyndale was willing to give him as many copies as he wanted. Tyndale believed that the burning of God’s Word would be distasteful to the English people and the Bishop’s money would finance the printing of the second edition of the New Testament.

According to the popular explanation, this is exactly what took place. The account states that the Bishop got the books, Packington got the thanks, and Tyndale got the money! With the Bishop’s money he had the New Testament printed by Martin de Keyser.

While the above account may seem too neat to be totally true, Sir Thomas More attested for its accuracy. He reportedly said to George Constantine, an Englishman charged with heresy, that he would free him if he would be tell who financed Tyndale’s printing of the New Testament. When Constantine replied that it was the Bishop of London, More replied that he knew as much because he had told Tunstall exactly what would happen if he pursued his plan of buying New Testaments in Antwerp for the purpose of shipping them back to England to be burned.

The great lesson that can be learned from this incident is that when God wants His Word given to His people, He will arrange events so that His enemies will pay the expenses!

The second edition New Testament published in 1534 was a great improvement over the Worms New Testament and found a ready market in England. Tragically, the Bible in English continued to be a forbidden book. The ecclesiastical and political authorities sought to have it confiscated and burned. As a result there are only six or eight copies of the Tyndale New Testament of 1534 that remain today. One of the extant copies of the second edition Tyndale New Testament is on display at the Scriptorium in Orlando, Florida. As far as can be determined, it is the only copy of this important work that is privately held.

Tyndale would once again revise the New Testament before his arrest, imprisonment, and death. But the second edition Tyndale New Testament remains as a monument to his desire to give the Bible to the English ploughboy.

Following the printing of the Pentateuch in 1530 we do not know much about Tyndale’s activities for a period of time. There was no doubt that he continued his work of translation. Perhaps this was when he began his translation on the following books of the Old Testament that John Rogers would incorporate in the Matthew’s Bible of 1537.

However, there was one book that Tyndale wrote during this time. It was entitled The Practice of Prelates. There are many who are of the opinion that it the one book of Tyndale that we could safely do without because of its subject matter and how it alienated King Henry VIII. Perhaps we can better understand it when we seek to put the larger context before the reader.

While the exact location of Tyndale could not be established by the authorities in London, they were well aware of his basic activities. He was also the subject of much discussion and even of disagreement. There were some who were totally convinced that he was a heretic and should be captured and brought back to England to face charges of heresy. Little doubt existed that such a course of action would result in his conviction and death at the stake.

However there were others, who while they thought that Tyndale should be brought back to England, had a totally different view of the man. These were the Evangelicals and were convinced that the time was right for an English translation of the Bible. Thus Tyndale, rather than be burned at the stake for heresy, would be employed in the work of Bible translation. At this time it may appear that they were unrealistic in their hopes, but they were able to persuade the King for permission to attempt his recall.

They employed a man by the name of Stephan Vaughn to search and make contact with Tyndale. Several letters of Vaughn are extant today that tell of his efforts. In the event, Vaughn was able to make contact and speak with Tyndale about a possible return. Vaughn reported that Tyndale on one occasion said that if King Henry would permit the free circulation of the Scriptures, he promised to return to England, place himself at the King’s mercy, and not do any more translation.

However, it was during this time of discussion that Tyndale published his book entitled The Practice of Prelates. From our point of time in history, we may wonder what Tyndale attempted to accomplish through the writing and publication of this book. Its stated purpose was an attempt to warn King Henry VIII against the clerical branch of the church. He signaled out for special emphasis the Lord Chancellor and Papal Legate Thomas Wolsey. He called him Wolfsee, certainly no term of honor. He described Wolsey’s actions that Tyndale believed could prove injurious to the King.

However, what Tyndale did not know was that Wolsey had already been disgraced and it was just a matter of time before he would be punished by the King. In the event, Wolsey died before this sentence was executed. Thus all the warnings that Tyndale placed in his book were out of date because Wolsey’s fall had already occurred.

However, there was another subject that Tyndale wrote in the book that absolutely did not win him favor with the King. Tyndale was convinced that Henry should not divorce Catherine of Aragon. You might well imagine the wrath of King Henry when he learned of this because he was in the middle of seeking that divorce. What right had any subject of the King to lecture him on how he should behave? There appears to be evidence that King Henry was so enraged that he ripped in half a report that Edward Vaughn had written back to England about his contact with Tyndale in which Vaughn spoke highly about him. Many scholars of the English Reformation are convinced that this sealed Tyndale’s fate with the King Henry.

However, there remains something to be said in favor about what Tyndale wrote. Although events proved that he was ignorant of what had taken place with Wolsey, this did not mean that Tyndale should not have written the book. If there was a characteristic of Tyndale that remained constant throughout his life, it was his integrity. Political reality said one thing and the Word of God said another. It was not a matter of political intrigue or to court the favor of the King that Tyndale wrote. This applied to his decision to write about the impending divorce. The question is not what does current opinion has to say, but what did the Word of God say about the matter. The best friend that King Henry had was William Tyndale. While others were seeking to aid him in the divorce and fawning to retain his favor, Tyndale wrote from the perspective of the Word of God. There is also good reason to believe that Tyndale would have said the same thing to the King’s face that he wrote in his book. The best friends are those who speak the truth according to the Word of God. Tragically, Henry was not interested in what the Word of God had to say about the situation but how he could obtain the divorce and marry Anne Bolyn.

There was another matter that was much on Tyndale’s heart at the time. It was in reference to John Frith. John Frith is a person that should be better known than he is. He was a student first at Cambridge and then at Oxford. In fact he was one of the Cambridge students selected by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey to be part of the new college that he had established at Oxford called Cardinal College. That same college is known as Christ Church today.

Wolsey got more than he anticipated from the scholars that he selected to be part of his new foundation. They proved to be true Evangelicals and as a result several were arrested and imprisoned in a salt cellar under one of the university buildings. Several of these young men died from the exposure and lack of a proper diet. Frith survived the ordeal and lost no time in leaving England to join Tyndale.

Exactly when did Tyndale and Frith first meet? There are some who say that it was during the time that Tyndale studied at Cambridge while others believe it was during the year that Tyndale spent in London after the refusal of Cuthbert Tunstall to permit him to translate the Bible. There are still others who believe they had never met in England but Frith was acquainted only with Tyndale’s work of translation and decided to go to Antwerp in order to help him. Perhaps we will never be able to know for certain the true facts.

However, after a period of helping Tyndale, Frith decided to make a visit to England. It was a very dangerous time to make such a trip but Frith decided to go regardless. It appears that his purpose in going to England was to escort the Prior of the Reading Monastery out of England into Europe. However, he was arrested as a vagabond. Later, he was released but word quickly spread that he was in the country and the ports were watched. He was rearrested and placed in the Tower of London.

For a period of time, Frith came under the jurisdiction of Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury who did everything that he could to save his life. Frith was a noted scholar who won people by his demeanor. Even arch conservatives such as Edmund Bonner, Stephen Gardiner, and John Stokesley were won over by the force of his personality. It is said that the warden of the Tower of London was so impressed with Frith that he would permit him to leave the Tower solely on Frith’s promise to return.

While Frith was in the Tower of London, he was requested to put in writing his thoughts on the Eucharist. This was the crucial doctrine for determining whether the person was orthodox or a heretic. If a person denied the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the doctrine of transubstantiation, he was considered heretical and would be burned at the stake. The person who asked Frith to write out his thoughts, William Holt, proved to be a traitor and carried his exposition to Sir Thomas More. From that moment, Frith’s fate was sealed although he was still under the direct supervision of Thomas Cranmer.

However, Stokesley was able to have Frith assigned to his jurisdiction because he was now the Bishop of London. Although Stokesley was impressed by Frith, Stokesley considered him to be a heretic. In the trial for heresy before Stokesley, Longland, and Gardiner, Frith was convicted of heresy and was sentenced to be burned at the stake.

News that Frith had been arrested and imprisoned reached Tyndale in Antwerp. He wrote two letters to Frith while he was in the Tower. In the first, Tyndale warned Frith not to meddle with the doctrine of the Eucharist because it would seal his fate. But as we have seen Frith had already put his thoughts into writing although he stated clearly that he was indifferent as to whether it was a physical or spiritual presence. The fact that he considered the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be a matter of indifference was what sealed his doom. The doctrine of transubstantiation required the physical presence of Christ because it was His body and His blood that were transubstantiated from the bread and wine.

In the second letter Tyndale was aware that Frith had been sentenced to death and that it was but a matter of time before the execution would occur. He encouraged Frith to remain faithful unto the end. In this latter Tyndale wrote about himself in a remark that captured the purpose for his life. We read Tyndale’s words concerning himself:

I call God to record against that day when we shall all give in an account of our doings to the Lord Jesus Christ that I did not alter one syllable of His word against my conscience. Nor would I do so this day whether all that be in the world, be it riches, honor or pleasure be given me.

John Frith

For William Tyndale, it was the Word of God above all. It was not fame, honor or riches that he sought. His desire was to give the ploughboy the Word of God in his own language so that he might read and understand it. For that he was willing to give his life.

Of the same spirit was John Frith. He did not recant but remained faithful to the end. He was burned at the stake on July 4, 1533. John Frith was in his 30th year at his death.

Next: The Life of William Tyndale – Part 10: The Second Edition New Testament

Finding that the situation had calmed down in Antwerp, Tyndale returned to the city sometime in 1529. Antwerp provided a number of advantages for Tyndale. First, it would be safer because the city did not have a cathedral with no resident Bishop who would be on the lookout for heretics and no university with a theological faculty. Antwerp was closer to England so the task of transporting Bibles and Testaments would be easier. In addition, Antwerp boasted of nearly sixty printing establishments. Although it was illegal to print heretical books, many of the printers were willing to turn a blind eye if a profit could be gained. Finally, the Merchant Adventurers’ house was located in the city. Not only was this the headquarters of those who would aid him smuggle the Bibles into England; the house itself provided immunity from search and seizure although we will note that these freedoms were violated in the case of Tyndale.

Having finished the translation and printing of the New Testament, it was only natural that Tyndale would turn to the books of the Old Testament. As we noted previously, there is uncertainty where Tyndale learned the Hebrew language because most students of his life are convinced that he did not know the language when he departed from England. In reality, it would be some years before the teaching Hebrew became a standard practice in British universities. Regardless where Tyndale learned Hebrew, there is no doubt that he mastered the language.

There is good reason to believe that Tyndale perfected his translation of the first five books of the Old Testament during his stay in Hamburg. Thus with a prepared manuscript, it was a matter of finding a printer who would be willing to undertake the work.

Although the book purportedly was printed by Hans Luft in Malborow, it was to hide its real origin. It is true that Luft was the printer of Luther’s works and he indeed had presses in both Wittenberg and Malborow. However, the true printer was Johannes Hoochstraten of Antwerp. The book itself contained the books of Moses but there was something distinctive about it. The books of Genesis and numbers were printed in the Gothic or black letter type while the remaining three books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were printed in Roman type.

Scholars have debated the reasons for the differences in the types for a number of years. Although it appears that the entire five books were printed by Hoochstraten, it has been surmised that there was insufficient type to use just the black letter. Because the work was done secretly and was hurried through the press, it was necessary to use different type faces. Some have conjectured by the different type faces that the individual books were originally printed so that they could circulate separately. However, this does not appear to be the case because when Tyndale issued a second edition of the Pentateuch in 1534 only the book of Genesis had been revised. However, in the second edition this revision of Genesis was printed in Roman type. Perhaps Tyndale had planned to revise all five books but was prevent by circumstances.

In this edition Tyndale wrote prologues to each of the books giving a short summary of its teaching. However, in the book of Exodus he included eleven woodcuts. One of the woodcuts was a picture of Aaron dressed in his High Priestly robes. Another was a depiction of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies.

Pentateuch

Like the New Testament, the Pentateuch had to be smuggled into England because English translations were still proscribed. There is no definite authority that states how many of these were printed but it probably would have been in the same number as the New Testament, about three thousand copies. At the present time estimates say that between six and eight of these Pentateuchs survive, some in mutilated form.

The Pentateuch was reissued in 1534 with the only differences appearing in the book of Genesis. The title page of Genesis reads as follows: The firste Boke of Moses called Genesis. Newly correctyd and amendyd by w.T. M.D. XXXIIII. The book of Genesis was printed in Roman type, whereas in the first edition it had been printed in Black Letter or Gothic type as we noted above.

Apparently in the same year or perhaps the following, Tyndale translated and printed the book of Jonah. For a period of time there was no extant copy of the work and some scholars believed that it did not exist. However, it was discovered in 1861 by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. It was printed in Black Letter by Martin de Keyser of Antwerp. It is only twenty four pages in length as Jonah is one of the shorter books of the Bible.

The question would naturally arise as to why Tyndale translated this book, especially as later events questioned whether or not it was even printed. Perhaps the answer can be found in the title. It is long and we produce it as it was printed:

The prophete Jonas with an introduccio before teachinge to understode him and the right use also of all the scripture and why it was written and what is therin to be sought and shewenge wherewith the scripture is locked upp that he which readeth it cannot understode it though he studie therin neuer so moch: and agayne with what keyes it is so opened that the reader can be stopped out with no sotilte or false doctrine of man from the true sense and understondynge thereof.

It is well worth the time and effort to understand exactly what was contained in this introduction. To do so, it is necessary to reflect on what Tyndale had spoken to his friend while at Little Sodbury Manor. He said that if God would spare his life, he would make the ploughboy know more of the Scripture than the clergy of the Church of England.

We must understand that Tyndale was convinced that Scripture was the means to confirm people in the faith and without the Scripture in the vernacular language it was impossible to do so. However, the bare text or translation of the Scripture into the English language was the first step. It was also necessary to give the ploughboy the “key” to understand and interpret the Word of God. With this in mind, let us return to the title page again because there are several things of importance that Tyndale states. We will note what he says in the order that he mentions them because Tyndale reveals his hermeneutical method of understanding and applying the Word of God.

The first thing of importance in regard to Jonah is to understand what he has written. Jonah had written an experience of his own life but that experience must be understood in the context of God’s commission to Jonah to preach His message to the people of Nineveh. We know that Jonah disobeyed God and sought to flee from His presence.

The message of Jonah must also be understood in the context of all the Word of God. The Word of God reveals God to be a God of compassion and mercy even to those who have revolted against Him. To those who do not deserve mercy, God sends His messengers to announce His message of grace and mercy.

However one encounters a difficulty because the Scripture is locked up and the person (ploughboy) cannot understand it. Even though he applies himself assiduously to the task, the true meaning and application evades him. However, Tyndale provides a key so that the teaching of Jonah can be understood or opened to the mind of the ploughboy.

Why is this necessary? In the last part of the title Tyndale gives us the reason. It is so that the reader can be delivered from the subtlety and false doctrine of man. The church not only had failed to give the ploughboy the Scriptures, what they had taught him was not the true meaning of God’s message but the subtle and false teachings of man. What is to be the result? The person reading the book would come to the true sense and understanding of what Jonah had written.

It appears that Tyndale translated Jonah into English so that he could use the book to give the ploughboy the key to understanding all the Scriptures. But why did he translate Jonah and not one of the other books of the Old Testament? While there may be differences of opinion, it is the writer’s opinion that this little book served admirably to accomplish Tyndale’s objective. It was a small book; it described graphically the experience of the Prophet in his disobedience and chastisement. However, most of all it demonstrated and portrayed the gracious character and mercy of God Who showed grace even to those who were the enemies of His people.

From the response to the book, we can see the division that existed in the church. The Bishop of London, John Stokesley, denounced it out of hand. This should not surprise us as Stokesley rapidly gained a reputation for cruelty against heresy. However, Tyndale’s friend John Rogers printed Tyndale’s Prologue to the book in his edition of Matthew’s Bible in 1537. Thus Jonah served as a fulfillment of Tyndale’s desire to have the ploughboy know the Word of God.

Next: The Life of William Tyndale – Part 9: Events after 1530

However, few persons are aware of a New Testament printed in 1557 that preceded the printing of the Geneva Version by three years. It is popularly known as the Geneva New Testament although it is important to state that it was not carried over to be the New Testament of the Geneva Bible although it was used for comparison. The history of this Geneva New Testament is fascinating because it brings together several strands of the English Reformation and the Geneva New Testament itself broke new ground in several areas.

It is necessary to begin with the historical context of the period between 1550 and 1560. King Edward VI, who never enjoyed good health, died in 1553. After an abortive attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, Mary Tudor became Queen of England. Fanatically attached to the old religion, Mary sought to rescind the Reformation begun by her father and to return the Church of England to the Roman obedience.

Far sighted individuals who saw what was about to take place decided to flee the country. Although it was said that these departures were for the purpose of maintaining commercial contacts with the mainland of Europe, the majority of the exiles left because of religious reasons.

One of these exiles was a man by the name of William Whittingham. In the absence of a definitive biography, he has attained almost legendary status. Some accounts state that he was fluent in seven languages and one could not discern which of the seven his native tongue was because his fluency in them was equal. Another account reported that he married the sister of Calvin’s wife and thus became his brother-in-law. How then can fact be separated from fiction in his life?

We know that he studied at Brazenose College, Oxford University although other accounts stated that he was a graduate of Christ College of the same university. Apparently he had received permission to go abroad to prosecute further studies. In one of the first recorded accounts, we find him at Frankfurt as part of a group of English exiles. The church started by the exiles was the scene of contention as one group demanded that the English Prayer Book be followed while another group, including Whittingham, preferred a more Reformed order of worship. The conservative group, under Richard Coxe, managed to win control of the church and the group favoring Reformed Worship went to Geneva. Included in this group was John Knox, the Pastor of the Church, who later would be the reformer of Scotland. Whittingham wrote an account of the controversy entitled A Relation of the Troubles at Frankfurt although his authorship has been questioned.

What is not at issue, however, is the fact of the Geneva New Testament of 1557 printed by Conrad Badius. There are a number of things that make this New Testament a ground breaker in the printing of the English Bible. We will list some of these features.

There were a number of English exiles in Geneva who established an English church in the city. Discussions were held relative to a revision of the Tyndale New Testament. This was the first organized committee dealing with the translation and printing of the English Bible. Tyndale had stated that he had no one to help him (counterfeit was his word) when he first started his work of translation. As matters stand, however, it appeared that the Geneva New Testament was the work of a single person, William Whittingham, although there were many other competent scholars in Geneva.

As far as the printing is concerned, the Geneva New Testament was printed entirely in Roman type which was a first although some books of the Tyndale Pentateuch of 1530 had appeared in a similar type. Also words not found in the Greek text were printed in italics to make the reading smoother.

Another feature of the Geneva New Testament was the numbering of the verses. Robert Stephanus had published a Greek New Testament in 1551 with verse divisions. That was the first time versification had been used for the New Testament books. His system was carried over to the Geneva New Testament. In addition, the New Testament contained a preface written by John Calvin although it was a translation of his introduction to the French Bible of 1535.

Perhaps the most important feature was the inclusion of explanatory notes that aided the reader to understand more accurately the text itself. As a result, we can state that the Geneva New Testament can be considered the first English study New Testament. It was a revision of the New Testament originally translated by William Tyndale. Thus the Geneva New Testament continued the noble legacy of William Tyndale who desired that the ploughboy would know more of the Word of God than those who were trained for the priesthood.

The question has been asked as to why this New Testament was printed, especially in light of the fact that just three years later the complete Geneva Bible was printed. This is especially pertinent in that the Geneva New Testament was not carried over directly into the Geneva Bible but was extensively revised.

It is impossible to answer this question with certainty. However, there are several things that might enable us to gain some understanding. First, this was the only edition of the Bible printed during the reign of Queen Mary. While it was printed in Geneva, its printing demonstrated to people in England that there were those who were convinced that the English people needed to have the Word of God in English and were continuing the work of William Tyndale. The Geneva New Testament was a pledge toward that goal.

We must also remember what was taking placing in Geneva at this time. There is reason to believe that the center of the English Reformation had been relocated to Geneva. Although not all the English exiles were in Geneva, there were many in other cities who were interested in what was taking place in England. That interest was not confined exclusively to the exiles in Geneva.

But why is the statement made that the center had been relocated to Geneva? It is because of many other things that were taking place there. Calvin and Beza had started the Geneva Academy where many would be trained to take the Gospel into France. Robert Stephanus, the Royal Printer to the King of France, who had been forced to flee to escape the clutches of the Inquisition, had taken up residence in Geneva. Stephanus was also an acute textual critic in addition to his work as printer. He would be a magnificent resource for questions dealing with the Greek text. But he was not the only notable printer who worked in Geneva. Conrad Badius and Rouland Hall were also there. Badius was the printer of the Geneva New Testament and Hall, an Englishman and member of the Royal Stationers of London, would print the first edition of the Geneva Bible.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the exiles, including William Whittingham, who worked on the English Bible in Geneva were men of faith. Although they were exiled from their country, they lived and worked for the day when the Word of God would have free course in their own country. The Geneva New Testament stands as a testimony to their faith and hope for better days.

We are going to take a break from reviews of books that deal with the history of the Reformation and the Bible. Rather we will review a book edited by Timothy George entitled J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: the Impact of His Life and Thought and published by Baker Academic in 2009.

The book consists of a series of essays analyzing the life and impact of J. I. Packer on the Evangelical resurgence of the last sixty years. The occasion was the celebration of his eightieth birthday in 2006. In some ways it must be considered a different, if not a strange, book because books of this type are usually not written during the individual’s lifetime in order that a more balanced perspective of the person and his work can be given.

The book itself is a series of essays by contributors who have been associated closely with Dr. Packer and his career. They include Charles Colson, Richard Neuhaus, Alister McGrath, Mark Dever, and others.

When the name of J. I. Packer is mentioned, most people would recognize him as the author of one of the best selling book in recent years. That book is Knowing God and it is nearly impossible to gauge fully its impact since it was published in 1973. It has been used to introduce many to a rare combination of theology and practical application to their understanding. Packer has always striven in his books to write theology for lay people. Although he is certainly capable of writing academic theology, he has been led to write primarily for the non-specialist.

However, to understand the purpose of the book, it is necessary to know somewhat of the life of J. I. Packer. Born in 1926 and educated at Oxford University (DPhil for his work on Richard Baxter) Packer has taught at a number of schools and universities both in England and Canada.

There were three formative influences on his life. The first was his education at Oxford where he studied the classical curriculum majoring in Latin and Greek studies. During that time, although nominally a member of the Anglican Church, Packer came to faith in Christ. In addition, it was at Oxford that Packer came to discover the Puritans through the writings of John Owen, the second major influence on his life. A third influence was the Anglican Church in which Packer sought and obtained ordination.

These influences resulted in two major contributions that Packer has made to the Evangelical cause. The first dealt with the doctrine of Scripture. Packer made his debut as a major author in 1958 with Fundamentalism and the Word of God. This was a robust defense of the doctrine of Scripture and its inerrancy. Over the next decade Packer lent his considerable intellect to the cause of defending Scripture. It has been said that there were four books that were required reading by undergraduate students in British universities during that time. They included Dr. Packer’s books on Scripture and the sovereignty of God and two others by John W. Stott and T. C. Hammond.

Packer also contributed greatly to the revival of Puritan studies during the same period. He was a major impetus behind the Puritan Conference that began at Westminster Chapel in the early 1950’s during the pastorate of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. This revival continues today with the reprinting of many Puritan works and numerous conferences dedicated to their study.

However, despite his contributions to Evangelicalism, Dr. Packer has been involved in controversy. The first occasion came in 1955 when he published a critical article on the Keswick Convention and the Higher Christian life in the Evangelical Quarterly. This produced a minor crisis and nearly sank the periodical because the Keswick Convention included a number of prominent Christian leaders some of whom were Anglicans. The second, which continues to broil, resulted from his split with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones over the question of whether Anglican evangelicals should leave the Anglican Church and unite with Independents to form a new church organization. The third controversy arose over Dr. Packer’s involvement with what came to be known as ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). This controversy continues to the present because the work of Evangelicals and Catholics Together is ongoing. Many are convinced that Dr. Packer has betrayed the Evangelical cause by his participation.

This is not the place to discuss the merits of these controversies as they are still ongoing. Only as one looks back on them will any kind of objective analysis be possible. As a result, it leads back to an observation made previously, why was this particular tribute planned and carried out? Here again, we are on somewhat uncertain ground because only the organizers are capable of answering that question. It is significant that while they mention they wish to honor Dr. Packer for his part in the Evangelical resurgence, they remain silent on the exact reason for the time and occasion.

Some have suggested that the reason for the book was to show support for Packer’s involvement in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement. According to these individuals, this involvement is the result of Packer’s interest in what is called the Great Tradition of Christianity. The Church of Jesus Christ as it exists today is divided into three communions: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant. However, this division is not the will of the Lord Who prayed in His Great High Priestly prayer, recorded in John 17, that they all might be one. The Great Tradition seeks to find common ground among the communions and to work toward an agreed outlook if not for organic reunion.

Whatever may have been the reason for the conference, we are faced with the reality that we have the book before us. What are we to make of it? As stated above, it consists of twelve essays on Packer and his work from various viewpoints, followed by a response from Packer himself.

As one may well imagine, it certainly must have been difficult to deliver a critical paper on the work of J. I. Packer with him seated in the audience! So we are not surprised to find that a number of them, e. g. the contributions by Edith Humphrey, Charles Colson, David Neff, and others are quite laudatory. Whether this is because they have truly analyzed his work or because of their friendship with Packer is a question that remains unanswered. The essays by Donald Payne and Paul House go into some depth on Packer’s view of Scripture and his method of theology. In these articles, there is some muted criticism of his method for the proper interpretation of Scripture especially where his method almost assumes the capability of the rational mind to understand Scripture apart from the enlightening ministry of the Holy Spirit.

There are two essays that deal with theological subjects. Mark Dever explores Dr. Packer’s view of the atonement. A number of years ago Packer wrote an article that appeared in the Tyndale Journal on the penal aspect of the atonement that is now considered a minor classic. However, even more known is the essay that he wrote on John Owen’s The Death of Death in Christ. Many people are convinced that this is one of the best defenses of limited or effacacious atonement ever written. There are some who prefer it to Owen’s work itself!

However that may be, the most provocative essay in the book comes from the pen of Dr. Carl Trueman, Academic Dean and Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. His basic thesis is that Dr. Packer should have left the Anglican Church at the call of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in October 1966. He states this, not only for the sake of Dr. Packer personally, but for the well-being of the Evangelical movement itself. If Dr. Packer had done this, in the view of Dr. Trueman, he would have provided a balanced perspective on ecclesiology to counteract the imbalance or indifference of Dr. Lloyd-Jones on the same subject. Also he could have provided more effective theological leadership to the Evangelical movement than it received. Finally, it would have permitted Dr. Packer the opportunity to write an updated comprehensive Systematic Theology textbook that Evangelicalism both lacked and needed. In addition to Dr. Trueman, there are many who believe that Dr. Packer’s failure to write such a book has contributed to the doctrinal weaknesses of Evangelicalism.

The reader must be aware that what is written above is a condensed version of a very complicated situation that needs to be studied with a great amount of discernment. But to summarize the view, and I trust fairly, of Dr. Trueman is that he is convinced that Dr. Packer could, and perhaps should, have provided the Evangelical cause with the leadership that it so desperately needed and failed to receive from Dr. Lloyd-Jones. While Dr. Trueman has great respect for Dr. Lloyd-Jones, he has found him the weakest where Dr. Packer is the strongest: in a comprehensive view of theology including the doctrine of the Church and in a first rate theological mind to counteract the revivalist tendencies of Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

But there is yet more to the story. Dr. Trueman’s essay, while ignored totally in the response given by Dr. Packer to the various essays, has sparked a controversy in itself. Taking issue with Dr. Trueman’s view have been Paul Helm and Iain Murray. Helm’s strictures were written in an irenic manner while he sought to expose what he considered to be the weakness of what Dr. Trueman wrote. However, the response of Iain Murray in the March 2010 issue of the Banner of Truth Magazine has been to accuse Trueman of not having his facts correct, slander, and just being wrong in his interpretation of the situation.

Trueman has answered Murray on the pages of Reformation 21, the ezine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE). So as of this date, this is where the situation remains. It is not often that the responses to essays have provoked more interest than the essays themselves!

What is the value of all this? Hopefully it is more than just one person (Iain Murray) seeking to defend his mentor and hero (Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones) from what he thinks is misguided criticism. There are far deeper issues and those issues deal with the Evangelical cause itself.

Dr. Packer has done wonderful service to the Evangelicalism by his writings on Scripture and the popularization of Puritan doctrine and practice. However, he has caused great puzzlement to many by his involvement in the ECT. It is difficult to reconcile how a theologian of Dr. Packer’s stature can write so cogently on the doctrine of justification by faith by stressing that the formal cause of justification is the imputation of both the active and passive obedience of Christ and yet make common cause with individuals from a church that denies that doctrine by teaching that the formal cause of justification is the infusion of Christ’s righteousness. It is also difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the Evangelical movement when its leaders have not taught a clear doctrine of the church by their failure to maintain consistently that one of the marks of the true Church of Christ is correct doctrine.

It must be remembered that for all the benefits brought by the Reformation, one of its weaknesses was a failure to deal with the doctrine of the church in a definitive manner. Perhaps we would not be facing some of the issues today such as the Seeker-friendly church, the Emergent church, the Federal vision and other problems associated with the doctrine of the church if leaders of the stature of Dr. Packer and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had joined forces to provide adequate teaching and leadership to resolve these issues rather than separating.

J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future does not address these issues directly but they are there beneath the surface. Perhaps the greatest benefit of the book will be to encourage Evangelical leadership to face these issues squarely because they are not going to go away in the near future.

“The finest Greek text ever printed” is indeed high praise for any book. It is a book contained in the Van Kampen Collection and behind it is a fascinating story that merits telling. The book, also called the Editio Regia, was printed by Robert Stephanus in 1550 in Paris. However, some historical background is necessary to realize the importance of this book.

The Stephanus family (Stephanus is the Latinized version of the French name Estienne) was famous for its printing. The patriarch, Henri, was the royal printer to the King of France. In 1509 he printed a five fold version of the Psalms called the Quincuplex Psalter. It contained five versions of the Psalms in Latin including the Vulgate, the Gallic version, Old Latin and two others. The significance of this book was that it was edited by Faber Stapulensus or LeFevre and is considered by some to be the first book printed in support of the Reformation in France. At that time the movement for reform in France was called Evangelicalism. This movement received support from no less a person than Margaret of Navarre, the sister of King Frances I. So from the very beginning of this movement, the Stephanus family was involved.

Over the course of years, Robert succeeded his father as Royal Printer. In 1528 he printed his first version of the Vulgate that was considered to be the most accurate ever published. He soon acquired a reputation not only for the quality of printing but for the accuracy of the text itself. It appears that he expertly combined the roles of both printer and textual critic.

Prior to this time the Greek New Testament had been printed primarily by Johannes Froben of Basle. A total of five editions had been printed, all edited by Erasmus, the final edition appearing in 1535. Erasmus died the following year and his work was carried on by others. The person who primarily assumed his role was Robert Stephanus.

1546 saw the printing of Stephanus’ first Greek New Testament. It was a small duodecimal edition that became known as the O Mirificam edition from the preface to the work. A second edition, nearly the same as the first, came out in 1549. At this time the textual study of the Greek New Testament was still in its infancy. The first edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament had been printed just thirty years previously in 1516. In the subsequent editions, Erasmus made use of the Greek text of the Complutensian New Testament for better readings. Also during that time, additional Greek manuscripts were recovered and their readings were incorporated into the two editions printed by Stephanus.

In 1550 Stephanus printed his third edition of the Greek New Testament. He changed the size of the book to a folio and used a type face that was cut by Claude Garamond, a punch-cutter and type founder in his own right. However, the distinguishing feature of this third New Testament was the alternate readings to the text that Stephanus put in the inner margins of the pages. In reality this was the first printing of a critical Greek New Testament. Thus the reader had access to the other readings or variants for the text itself.

As we noted above, this edition was known as the Editio Regia and has been considered by many to be the most beautiful Greek text ever printed. However, the true value was not in its beauty but in the variant readings included in the margins.

However, what was considered it greatest value was also the cause of great consequences. When the Sorbonne, the theology faculty of the University of Paris, examined the book and noted the textual variants, they immediately charged Stephanus with heresy and sought to arraign him before the Inquisition.

Perhaps you may wonder why a series of textual variants could cause such a reaction from those whose task it was to study the Sacred Scriptures. All of this must be put into the context of what was taking place in France at that time. Evangelicalism as a movement has pretty well spent its force. It was the attempt to reconcile the teachings of the church with a reformation of moral conduct. The more far sighted persons had seen that this would prove to be impossible. Some like William Farel and John Calvin had left the country and the Inquisition claimed the lives of others.

The Sorbonne was conservative in its character and portrayed any change or innovation as an attempt to put the church in danger. Thus what was intended to give a more accurate text of the Scripture was considered as an attempt to undercut the authority of the Church. The Scripture of the Church was the Latin Vulgate, and even though the Editio Regia was a Greek New Testament, the doctors of the Sorbonne were fearful if any change would be permitted, it might undercut the authority of the Vulgate.

Stephanus made the decision to leave France and join the French exiles in Geneva. This was the home of John Calvin and later Theodore Beza who would continue Stephanus’ work on the Greek text. Indeed, Stephanus would print one more edition of the Greek New Testament. It would be printed in 1551 at Geneva and would be the first printed edition of the New Testament Scriptures that would contain verse divisions.

But what about the Editio Regia itself? We have mentioned that it was the first printed Greek text that contained textual variants but there is more. Several of the variant readings contain the letter B . For a number of years scholars were mystified by this reference. However, a manuscript of the New Testament that has come to be known as the Codex Bezae was later located. It is named in honor of Theodore Beza who later would assist John Calvin in the Geneva Academy and continue the work of Stephanus. Eventually Beza would donate the manuscript to Cambridge University. These textual variants come from that manuscript and are the first references to it. How Stephanus in Paris knew of the manuscript as early as 1550 and how those textual variants were communicated to him and from whom, are questions that are still being debated nearly four hundred and fifty years later.

There is another significant fact about the Editio Regia. It basically established the text type for the printed Greek New Testament for more than three hundred years. Thus many people are convinced that the Editio Regia is really what came to be known as the Textus Receptus (Received Text) although that term would not be used in print until 1633 with the second edition of the Greek New Testament by the Elzevirs in Leiden. All of the major Bibles printed until the King James Version in 1611 were translated from this text type which is also known as the Byzantine.

The Textus Receptus would continue to be the dominant Greek text until 1881 with the printing of the critical Greek Testament edited by B. F. Wescott and F. A. J. Hort. The Critical Greek text would eventually replace the Textus Receptus as the Greek text favored for scholarly research.