Protestantism is Not Progressivism

The Protestant Reformation was not an invitation to progressivism into God’s church. I do not mean progressivism in the Western political sense (though I suppose it applies), but rather the idea that the focus of the church should always be forward progress. This point is relevant to many different topics, but especially that of Scripture. If you have been in Reformed circles long enough, you will have heard “Semper Reformanda“. The banner of Semper Reformanda is often used as a reason to abandon the core doctrinal distinctives of the Reformation in the name of the Reformation. This in itself is a hilarious concept. “We must abandon the doctrines that defined the Reformation for the sake of being Reformed!”

What many do not understand is that the term “Reformed” has always been defined as an identification with the Christians who protested the Catholic church for specific doctrinal reasons. At the time, they claimed that the church had strayed from truth, and the Reformation was a return to doctrinal and ecclesiastical purity in accordance with the Scriptures. These great men of God codified the discussions, debates, and synods in writing, producing artifacts such as the Belgic Confession (1561), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571), Canons of Dort (1619), and later the Westminster Confession (1646) and London Baptist Confession (1689).

What is important to note, is that the phrase itself did not originate with Calvin, Luther, or Zwingli. This was a post reformation idea found in the Dutch Reformed. In it’s original context as found in the 17th century Dutch Reformed tradition, it is meant to convey, “The church must always be reformed to Scripture” or that the Christian himself must always be reforming in piety and practice. If you have ever engaged with the Dutch Reformed, you know that one of the major themes of the Nadere Reformatie was personal reform and piety. That is to say, that Semper Reformanda was not actually a Principle of the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly enough, the popularization of the phrase is most often attributed to Swiss theologian Karl Barth. For those that are not familiar, Barth is one of the most influential and controversial Reformed thinkers of the 20th century. He is often labeled a heretic, and is exceedingly popular among liberal theologians today. If you have ever read Barth, you know that he discussed this phrase in the context of the church, “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda”. This is a development from the Dutch Reformed, whose reform was typically aimed at personal and family piety. Barth would say that the Church must be willing to submit herself to the living word, or something along those lines. Note here that when Barth says “The living Word,” he does not mean it in the way that a Protestant would typically mean it. Barth taught that the Bible becomes the Word of God when God chooses to speak through it, and in that sense, it is the living Word. Scripture is a witness to God’s Word, Jesus Christ. The Reformed of the Protestant Reformation would most certainly take issue with Barth’s understanding of Scripture.

Many people often attribute the phrase to Augustine, but this is found nowhere in his writings, though he did write about the church’s need for moral and spiritual renewal. The phrase is not found during the Reformation, and first appears in the context of Dutch Reformed Theology, and then later in Barth’s writings. The point is this, Semper Reformanda is not actually a Reformation principle. If we are going to apply it in the context of the post-Reformation Dutch, it is typically in the context of personal and family reformation to the static standard of Scripture. Even Karl Barth, who many conservatives would avoid associating with, applied this concept to mean that the church should Reform to the living word. The point is that this phrase has never been used to mean, “We should always Reform forward unto progress” until recently. Semper Reformanda, in its most liberal context, has been used as a way to say “reform thyself by the standard of Scripture.”

What is strange, is that whenever I hear this phrase today, it is always used as a justification to move away from historical protestant doctrine. In the context of Scripture, it is used to justify new translations and Greek and Hebrew texts. In the context of the church, it is used to justify female clergy and modern liturgical productions. In the context of personal piety, it is used to justify private revelation through prophecy and tongues. In today’s context, when somebody says Semper Reformanda, it is almost always used to justify a move away from the historical Protestant tradition. Which is to say, that people who use this use the banner of the Reformation as a way to deny the principles of the Reformation. As we’ve already discussed, Semper Reformanda wasn’t even a principle of the Reformation, it came later. The way it is used today is somehow more liberal than the way Karl Barth used it.

So how do we respond to the Semper Reformanda Reformed Christians? Well, we say, “That’s not even a principle of the Reformation.” I would argue that Protestantism is mostly dead in 2025. Most “Protestants” have very little in common with the Reformed. The evangelicals, or Judeo-Christians, are modern Christians that are far removed from the Protestant confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries. Now, you may not be all that concerned with what such confessions and creeds state, but those documents have been used to define the lines of what is considered “Reformed.” Most likely, those that use the banner of Semper Reformanda are those that know very little of the Reformation, and are not overly concerned with whether or not they identify with such doctrines. In short, this phrase is actually a progressive statement, not a traditional statement. It is a forward looking idea that says, “We must move on from such ancient doctrines and traditions.”