The latest issue of The Australian Church Record, number 1916, June 2016, has been released.June2016_Img

From ‘Making Sense of Gender Confusion’

“So how should Christians respond? This is neither a time for silence nor for inaction – not if we truly love our neighbours! We must pray fervently and, where possible, agitate publicly and lobby politically for a more responsible and coherent therapeutic approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria.”

From ‘It’s Unanimous: ARV and Anglicare to Merge’ –

“The decision to merge is only the beginning. It will be important for Synod to receive the promised reports and keep the merged organisation accountable. The legal make up of the organisation will only go part of the way to ensuring the conditions of Synod are met. The board must be committed to these conditions and work in partnership with other parts of the diocese. This will take careful attention during elections. Synod’s motion will be fulfilled legally, politically and prayerfully.”

Download the entire issue here as a 1.10MB PDF file.

Note: ACR issue 1916 updated to fix a minor typo on p. 10 (8/6/2016).

ACR October 2015The latest issue of The Australian Church Record, number 1915, October 2015, has been released.

From ‘Mere Protestant Christianity’

“to retrieve the gospel we have to retrieve the church because it is not only an implication of the gospel, but it is also the God-given place where the gospel is grasped, celebrated, understood and enacted … of vital importance for Vanhoozer is the need to retrieve and cherish the Protestant notion of the priesthood of all believers.”

From ‘Responding to the Refugee Crisis’

“…the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of God’s grace and mercy, the gospel of rest for the weary and burdened, the gospel of compassion and love for the lost, the gospel for the lowly and the despised things of this world. That’s why those who have been saved by this gospel cannot help, in their dealings with others, but be shaped by the same mercy and grace that God has shown to us.”

Download the entire issue here as a 2.2MB PDF file.

Let the Word do the WorkNewly published by the Australian Church Record is “Let the Word do the Work, Essays in honour of Phillip D. Jensen.”

The Book was presented to Phillip Jensen at the launch at Moore College of Two Ways Ministries on May 30 2015.

Here’s the Preface, by ACR Editor Peter Bolt:

“When Phillip Jensen announced his resignation from St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, the Directors of the Australian Church Record immediately requested me to commission a volume of essays in his honour.

It is no exaggeration to say that Phillip, with his focus on clear Bible teaching and gospel proclamation, has been an enormous influence in maintaining and shaping Sydney’s evangelicalism. It is equally clear that his ministry has influenced good, evangelical change throughout Australia and in significant places across the globe.

Of course, the thanks and praise must go to the Lord Jesus Christ, who called Phillip to himself in order to thrust him out as yet another labourer into his harvest field. But because his ministry has brought so many benefits to so many people and also to the evangelical cause, it would be an act of ingratitude to Christ if we did not also thank Phillip himself for his faithfulness to the Saviour. Rejoicing in the Lord’s work, and in the work of his servants ought to go hand in hand.

These essays are offered in this double thankfulness, and with the hope of more good things to come as Phillip enters the next phase of his service of the Lord Jesus.”

Contributors to the volume:

Peter Blowes, Peter Bolt, D.A. Carson, Chris and Mona Chia, Richard Chin, Paul House, R. Kent Hughes, Matthew D. Jensen, Peter Jensen, Paul and Sandra King, Simon Manchester, Colin Marshall, Joshua Ng, Tony Payne, Carmelina Read, Rob Smith, William Taylor, Mark Thompson, Tim Thorburn, and Jane Tooher.

Let the Word do the Work is distributed by Matthias Media.

Luther1The Australian Church Record has published the latest essay by Rev. Matt Olliffe concerning the nature of justification by faith alone.

From the essay:

‘It is difficult to determine what Dr Bird thinks justifying faith –  meaning the aspect of faith that justifies, rather than what justifying faith also entails – actually is, given that he does not spell out a careful definition in his blogpiece. As stated above, in addition to the possibility that Dr Bird does not understand the difference between ‘passive assent’ and ‘fiduciary faith’, it may be that Dr Bird believes that I should include in the aspect of faith that justifies, obedience, faithfulness and love. It is difficult to understand what Dr Bird means by speaking of ‘the organic unity of faith-faithfulness-obedience’. Does that mean that ‘faithfulness’ and ‘obedience’ justify, because faith includes within it faithfulness and obedience? Or is it still only fiduciary faith that justifies, but that such faith always produces faithfulness, obedience and love?’

Also from the essay:

‘… fiduciary faith produces and results in repentance, dread, love, faithfulness and good works. But these fruits of faith must not be included in the justifying aspect of faith. In this way, faith remains the sole instrumentality for justification, in the way the hymn describes, ‘Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’.

Download the entire essay here as a 0.28 MB file.


In the most recent ACR Matt Olliffe wrote an article consisting of 285 words in three paragraphs. It was accompanied by a table of direct quotations from authors, some historical, some contemporary.

After this brief article attracted some attention in the realm of Facebook, Michael Bird posted against it in a blogpiece that sadly played the man, rather than the ball. Although Matt Olliffe is of age and will no doubt speak for himself, Bird’s response has prompted me to step into the breach for one of my contributors and suggest that a much more appropriate response lies readily at hand.


The title of Olliffe’s piece has one question mark and the first paragraph consists of nothing but questions and there are five of them. Clearly, and on any plain reading of the punctuation (let alone the content), this brief piece is out to ask a question. The questions of the first paragraph outline the topic of inquiry from several different angles: the place of a believer’s works in justification. By asking ‘what has happened to the Protestant doctrine of justification etc’, the opening question suggests there is change afoot in Protestant circles about this very significant doctrine. The second and third paragraphs document the change.

In the second paragraph, Matt uses 103 of his 285 words to briefly (!) articulate the key features of the Traditional Protestant view of the place of works in justification. He explains this simply and clearly:

‘All works, whether ceremonial or moral, including the acts and attitude of Christian love, which are the fruit of faith, were excluded from the believer’s initial, ongoing, and final justification’.

Here there is no dispute at all that there ought to be works that are the ‘fruit of faith’, but the issue is their place in justification. Justification was by faith alone, from first to last. And despite Bird misrepresenting ACR as saying that ‘faith is nothing more than passive assent’, Matt simply and clearly declares exactly the opposite, namely, that in the Traditional Protestant view (and we can add: explicitly against the Catholic view of ‘belief as assent’, fides):

‘the sole instrumental cause of justification is fiduciary faith, being trust in God and his promises and goodness alone’ (italics original).

The third paragraph uses 99 words to update readers to two things actually being said amongst Protestant biblical scholarship today, namely,

  1. Final justification for Paul is based at least in part on a person’s Spirit-enabled works of love,
  2. That when Paul refers to ‘free’ justification he only refers to the initial declaration of righteousness at the beginning of the Christian life.

The paragraph closes with the descriptive observation that ‘this view bears some remarkable similarities with the traditional Roman Catholic view of justification espoused at the Council of Trent’, noting for those who are not up on their history, that this council was ‘a specific rejection of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone’.

Given this very brief ‘before and after’ look, with a view to this particular issue in focus (works in final justification), a major question naturally arises to become the title of the article: ‘Has Protestantism gone Catholic’?


Bird’s blog adopts a mocking tone, which I read charitably as a sadly failed attempt at humour. Unfortunately, however, by adopting this tone Bird appears to trivialize some very serious issues of great significance to Protestant history and identity. Rather strangely, Michael Bird recognizes that Olliffe’s piece does not mount an argument, while at the same time claiming that it does, and then critiquing it as if it does not!

The table accompanying Olliffe’s article provides five quotations from John Calvin, the most articulate exponent of the more settled Protestantism of the 16th Century; the quotation of the particular item from the council of Trent addressing the issue in focus in this article; then a smattering of quotations of the actual words of eleven recent scholars on the same issue.

As Bird so easily recognises, this table is ‘a compilation of raw data’, and — continuing his mocking tone by adopting a poetic posture— ‘a list of quotations does not an argument make’.

Well, exactly. By simply providing actual quotations ‘from the horse’s mouth’, the table is a fair way to allow authors, both historical and contemporary, to speak for themselves. The ‘raw data’ shows to anyone who simply listens to it that the quotations from recent scholarship sound more ‘remarkably similar’ to Trent, than they do to Calvin. Surely, then, given this ‘raw data’, the evident difference between the 16th and 21st centuries quite rightly generates the question in the title of the article: ‘Has Protestantism gone Catholic?’.

As Bird would know, any research project 1. begins with raw data; that 2. generates a research question. Further investigation then 3. mounts an argument on the basis of that raw data and other relevant evidence; in order to 4. draw a cogent conclusion. When mapped against this process, we can say that Olliffe’s article has presented some raw data (in the table) and generated a ‘research question’ that naturally arises from it. If there is to be an argument mounted, then this article doesn’t even purport to do this work.

In fact, the argument should come from elsewhere.

logical argument

Michael Bird is one of the scholars quoted on the table, that is, his actual words form part of the ‘raw data’ that generate Olliffe’s ‘research question’. Rather than ‘playing the man’ by casting mud on Matt from all kinds of dirty puddles, it would have served the wider community better if Bird used his blog piece to himself mount an argument in order to give insight into this important question from at least one representative of the NT scholarly world under Olliffe’s spotlight.

We can imagine the kind of argument that could have been mounted:

  1. Explanation of the raw data: Since Reformation days, scholars have spent a lot of time working on the NT teaching on justification and, on this issue of the place of works in final justification, we can now say that Calvin was wrong. His teaching as represented by the quotations in the table should be rejected, because it is sub-biblical or even unbiblical.

At this point two possible answers to Olliffe’s research question could be given.


  1. Acceptance of the implications. On this issue of the place of works in final justification, Catholicism (as represented by Trent) was entirely right to reject the Reformation formulation. On this issue, contemporary NT scholarship affirms the Roman Catholic teaching on this issue. Yes, to this extent, Protestantism has become Catholic.


  1. Rejection of the implications. On this issue of the place of works in final justification, Catholicism (as represented by Trent) was entirely right to reject the Reformation formulation. But, despite the ‘remarkable similarity’ between the statements from recent scholars listed in the ‘raw data’, Protestantism has not become Catholic. In fact, it has moved to a third view which is … X, Y, Z; and this third view differs from Catholic teaching on this issue by … A, B, C.

Surely if we are all in the quest for a proper and appropriate expression of biblical truth in our doctrinal formulations, then Olliffe’s ‘research question’ raised by his ‘raw data’ could have at least been answered by Bird’s argument, rather than simply being inappropriately dismissed as ridiculous.

The ACR looks forward to healthier theological discussions in future.

Peter Bolt
Executive Editor, Australian Church Record

October 2014

The Australian Church Record —  October 13, 2014

The Australian Church Record, number 1914, October 2014, has been released.

From ‘Faith Under Attack

“So Protestants should be alarmed at recent trends in scholarship presenting fine-sounding arguments for faith + something else.  And Anglicans need to be alarmed at even small additions to their liturgy that confuse those praying it in this same direction.”

From ‘Faith Alone v. Faith at work

“The tendency of the human heart to want to boast in its own achievements is all too prevalent.  But there is nothing that we do to merit our justification before God.  Like our forebears, contemporary Protestantism must continue to work carefully and clearly in defining the place of faith.”

Download the entire issue here as a 0.98 MB File.