A Rebuttal to Anti-Protestant Rhetoric: Evangelicalism, Ecclesiology, and Historical Christianity

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction 

The pinned post on X (formerly Twitter) by Princeton graduate and Peachtree Publishing Services Bible proof-reader, Mitchell Esswein (@Brosephos), presents a sweeping and caustic indictment of Reformed Baptist and evangelical theology, alleging that its essence is merely "I am not Catholic," that it is shaped more by "American individualism" than biblical fidelity, and that it exhibits a gnostic disdain for the sacred. While rhetorically provocative, the post relies on misrepresentations, historical anachronisms, and theological caricature. This response aims to subject its claims to rigorous critique, demonstrating that evangelical and Reformed theology is not only coherent and historically grounded, but deeply faithful to the apostolic witness.

I. Is Evangelicalism Merely Anti-Catholic?

Esswein begins with the assertion that evangelical accounts “spew this anti-Catholic rhetoric because, ultimately, the foundation of their religion is ‘I am not Catholic.’” This is not only a reductionist mischaracterization but a profound failure to understand the theological architecture of the Reformation. Evangelical theology, particularly in its Reformed expressions, is built upon principia—principles of authority and salvation—that are rooted in Scripture and articulated through sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. These principles are positive affirmations, not negations. They stand not in reactionary opposition to Rome but as dogmatic conclusions derived from centuries of exegetical labor, patristic engagement, and ecclesial struggle.

Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession do not define themselves by contrast to Catholicism but by alignment with Scripture and the faith once delivered to the saints. They exhibit internal theological coherence, ethical application, and ecclesial order. To reduce them to reactive polemic is historically careless and intellectually lazy, at best. It is a caricature unworthy of serious engagement.

II. The Charge of Historical Discontinuity

Esswein asserts that evangelicalism is “anything but historical” and “isn’t even remotely grounded in apostolic teachings.” Such a claim betrays a simplistic and tendentious reading of church history. The Reformers—Luther, Calvin, Bucer, and others—never claimed to invent Christianity anew. Their stated aim was to recover the apostolic deposit corrupted by medieval accretions. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is richly replete with citations of the Fathers, particularly Augustine, Chrysostom, and Irenaeus. The magisterial Reformers upheld the regula fidei expressed in the ecumenical creeds and repeatedly appealed to the Fathers to show continuity between biblical faith and Reformed theology.

Moreover, to assert a monolithic ecclesiology in the early church is historically indefensible. Even Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown and Francis Sullivan agree. The Didache presents a semi-charismatic community structure, 1 Clement illustrates a model of fraternal correction and mutual submission, and The Shepherd of Hermas contains no Roman primacy. Even Ignatius’s episcopal emphasis was deeply contextual, polemical, and lacked any notion of universal jurisdiction. The early church was pluriform in polity but united in apostolic doctrine. Evangelical churches that are Word-centered, sacramentally serious, and governed by elders remain well within this heritage.

III. Biblical Interpretation and the Role of the Laity

Esswein claims that “the belief that you as an individual with the ability to read can adequately interpret Scripture is a modern convention,” and further appeals to the historical illiteracy of the laity. But this argument is both historically misleading and theologically precarious. While widespread literacy is indeed modern, the capacity of believers to understand Scripture is a spiritual, not merely intellectual, concern. Scripture testifies that “the unfolding of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130). The Bereans (Acts 17:11) were not bishops but laypeople who examined the Scriptures daily. Jesus rebuked the religious authorities, not the illiterate, for not understanding the Word (Matt 22:29).

The Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not deny that some texts are difficult, nor that teachers are necessary (Eph 4:11–12). Rather, it affirms that the gospel is sufficiently clear that all who read with faith and reverence may apprehend its central message. This is not a modern conceit but the conviction of the early church, as seen in Origen’s catechetical instructions, Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, and the missionary impulse to translate Scripture into the vernacular. The priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:9) is not an affront to order but a biblical restoration of dignity and responsibility to every member of Christ’s body.

IV. Ecclesiology, Hierarchy, and the Nature of the Church

Esswein writes: “To believe the Church is founded on ideals such as freedom, independence, and democracy—implicit in the manner in which they post—is diametrically opposed to what Christianity is.” He adds, “To deny the structure of the Church is, ultimately, a rejection of Scripture.” This false dichotomy presumes that only Roman Catholic hierarchy qualifies as biblical structure, ignoring the entire Protestant tradition of ordered ecclesial life.

Reformed ecclesiology affirms the threefold office of elder, deacon, and member, and the principle of accountability through local governance, presbyteries, and synods. This is no ecclesiastical anarchy. The New Testament itself presents the church as having collegial leadership (Acts 14:23), qualified oversight (1 Tim 3), and communal discernment (Acts 15). The fact that evangelicals reject a monarchical papacy is not a rejection of structure, but is a rejection of unbiblical structure. A properly ordered church is defined not by Rome’s historical self-understanding but by conformity to apostolic patterns.

V. The Accusation of Gnosticism and the Supposed Evacuation of the Sacred

Esswein alleges that evangelicals “eliminate sacred time and space,” exhibit “a gnostic view of the flesh,” and deny “sanctification or theosis.” These claims are both theologically reckless and factually baseless. Evangelicals affirm the goodness of creation, the bodily resurrection, and the Incarnation as central to redemptive history (Rom 8:22–23; John 1:14). The notion that Protestants are gnostic because they do not venerate icons or observe a liturgical calendar is a massive confusion of theological categories.

While evangelicals reject theosis in the Eastern Orthodox sense of ontological participation in the divine nature, they do not deny transformation by the Spirit through union with Christ (2 Cor 3:18; Gal 2:20). The Reformed tradition articulates sanctification as both definitive and progressive, rooted in regeneration and covenantal union. The absence of holy days or objects is not a denial of sacredness but a recognition that holiness is now located in Christ, not in temporal shadows (Col 2:16–17; Heb 9:10). The sacraments (better: ordinances) are sacred, not because of metaphysical change in elements, but because they are ordained means by which the Spirit seals the promises of God to believers.

VI. The Accusation of Functional Atheism

Esswein states, “If anything, they are atheists with an extra component,” claiming that the evangelical God is “a deconstructed deity devoid of all previously understood characteristics.” This is rhetorical slander masquerading as theological analysis. Evangelicals confess the Nicene faith: one God, triune in essence, eternal, holy, just, and good. They affirm that Jesus Christ is “very God of very God,” that He died for sins and was raised for justification, and that He will return in glory.

His mockery—“All for what? So we can have a ‘relationship’ (ch and vs?) with Jesus?”—betrays a cynical reduction of biblical theology. Scripture is deeply covenantal: God walks with Adam, covenants with Abraham, dwells with Israel, and becomes incarnate in Christ to redeem a bride for Himself. Jesus speaks of His followers as friends (John 15:15), and Paul’s entire theology of union with Christ (e.g., Rom 6; Eph 1–2) is relational. To deride the language of relationship is to miss the covenantal heart of Scripture and to sever doctrine from devotion.

VII. Epistemology and the Accusation of Individualism

Esswein concludes, “Epistemology? You are the bishop with your idiosyncratic interpretation of a corpus you stole and dismembered for convenience.” This accusation ignores the communal, confessional, and historically grounded nature of Protestant theology. Evangelicals do not elevate private opinion over Scripture or tradition. Rather, they affirm the supreme authority of Scripture interpreted within the church and under the guidance of the Spirit, through the ordinary means of preaching, creeds, confessions, and councils, these being always reformable, never infallible.

Far from dismembering the Christian tradition, the Reformers recovered and reemphasized its center: Scripture. Their labor produced the most exegetically disciplined, catechetically rich, and confessionally robust theological movements in Christian history. The charge of epistemological anarchy is a tired trope, recycled without nuance or engagement with the actual structures of Reformed theological method.

Conclusion

The post by Esswein is less a theological critique than a bitter screed. Its claims are sweeping, its categories muddled, and its tone contemptuous. What it lacks in substance it attempts to mask with rhetorical flourish. Yet when scrutinized, it collapses under the weight of its own exaggerations. Evangelical theology is not a bricolage of American individualism, postmodern confusion, or anti-sacramental spite. It is a confessionally rooted, biblically saturated, and historically conscious expression of Christian faith. Its fidelity to Scripture, its proclamation of the gospel, and its global witness testify to its enduring legitimacy.

The church must, as ever, contend earnestly for the faith once delivered (Jude 3), and she must do so with clarity, conviction, and charity. Where critiques arise from confusion, we clarify. Where they descend into scorn, we respond with truth. For the gospel is not adorned by liturgical aesthetic or ecclesial pomp, but by the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Rom 1:16).

For Further Study 

Primary Sources

Augustine of Hippo. De Doctrina Christiana. Translated by D. W. Robertson Jr. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T. McNeill. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Clement of Rome. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, 1:1–121. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912.

The Didache. In The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, 1:303–33. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912.

Esswein, Mitchell (@Brosephos). “Pinned Post.” X. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://x.com/Brosephos.

Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas. In The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, 2:1–305. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913.

Ignatius of Antioch. The Epistles of Ignatius. In The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, 1:165–277. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912.

Origen. On First Principles. Translated by G. W. Butterworth. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2013.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). In Baptist Confessions of Faith, edited by William L. Lumpkin, 235–95. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1969.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). In Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, 601–49. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Systematic Theology and Dogmatics

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008.

Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.

Scripture and Biblical Authority

Packer, J. I. Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996.

Sproul, R. C. Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005.

Whitaker, William. A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. Translated and edited by William Fitzgerald. Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000.

Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Church History

Ferguson, Everett. Church History, Volume One: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2005.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. 2nd ed. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An Introduction. 4th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Patristics and Historical Theology

Bray, Gerald. Creeds, Councils, and Christ: A History of the Early Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. London: Continuum, 2000.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Evangelicalism

Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Bebbington, David W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

Stott, John. Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity and Faithfulness. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005.

Marsden, George M. Understanding Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Reformed Baptist Theology

Renihan, Samuel Waldron. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. 5th ed. Birmingham, UK: Evangelical Press, 2016.

Barcellos, Richard C. Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ. Palmdale, CA: RBAP, 2017.

James, Tom Nettles. By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006.

Renihan, James M. Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675–1705. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009.