Posts Tagged John Wycliffe

Why we need another ‘Reformation’

“For the time is come that the judgement must begin at the house of God”
1 Peter 4: 17

St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh  © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh
© 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

In the immediate context of the given passage of 1 Peter 4: 17, we can derive from the text that Peter is addressing the now historical Temple in ancient Jerusalem and the destruction which Jesus prophesied would come about upon the temple, as recorded for us in Matthew 24: 2.

This prophecy was fulfilled in AD 66-70 when prince Titus by order of Vespasian destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem with his army and not one stone of the historical Temple complext was left standing upon another. Yet, aside from the historical aspect and literal reading of the text, we can derive from the following text of 1 Peter 4 and verse 17 “and if it first begin with us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” that the Lord’s aim of rebuking and judging His church is that the church might be restored so that judgement might begin upon the world so that they too may come to Him and repent. This initial context of this passage being the Jews who did not obey the gospel, but rejected Jesus as Messiah. But on a broader and wider application of the text, this can also apply to judgement falling upon Christ’s church who so often fall, as did the ancient Jews by either denying Jesus, continuing in sin or denying what is written in favour of their traditions. Jesus is the Word of God, so deny the Word, you deny Christ. Thus, Christ so often calls out for His people to repent that safe territory and good teaching may be offered them who are new to the faith. But how can this come, when the much of the church is fallen and those who stand are not teaching accurate doctrines?

We see that in the days when Jesus walked upon the earth, the established Jewish church was in an ungodly condition, they were very prosperous, critical scholars, arrogant, believing that they were chosen and others not, the pharisees were ruling by their own authority, they were wealthy and they were ‘to speak in modern terms’ the head professors of the scriptures, the literal interpreters of the scriptures, yet as common with powers up at the top, they were the ones who were actually denying the scriptures and leading others away with them in their errors.


Kendal Parish Church © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

Kendal Parish Church
© 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland

Now, today within the body of Christ there is much confusion and division. From a perspective viewed from England, some Protestant congregations within the UK are falling in numbers, and the many evangelical congregations who are holding to Biblical truth are forced to separate themselves and form independent gatherings of their own, these gatherings often happen in houses and other venues such as public halls and rented rooms. The churches which succeed in these areas are often flourishing in numbers.

The more established official state church such as the Church of England are largely divided and many are liberal in thinking and hold to modern ideologies and theologies and I certainly would argue are re-interpreting the Bible in favour of evolutionary science, feminism, varying times, passing winds, popular cultures and so forth.

The Church of England today certainly does not hold to its foundations and the likes of Pilkington and Cranmer would turn in their graves if they could. There can be little doubt that the Church of England is in desperate need of reform, a reform which may be happening from within. However, I fear that unless the Church of England is reformed, then Christianity in Britain will be reduced to a powder within the next 200 years and a less tolerant religion will take its place in an England that will never be the same again.

Yet, unlike the Church of England and its attempts to re-interpret Biblical truth with modern evolutionary science and feminism and so forth, some Baptist churches which are loyal to the Bible and have a good grasp of Biblical Theology are growing in numbers and God is with them. Whereas, independent Congregational and reformed gatherings in England are largely stuck in the puritan past and lack the Biblical movement and the presence of the Holy Spirit and more modern visual presentation. All too many reformed gatherings in England are greatly lacking and will not move from 20th century presentation to 21st century. Many even fail basic evangelism due to some form of hyper Calvinism.

In short and with all these denominations and people in mind, to sum the situation up with a few lines: one congregation follows one doctrine and another follows another doctrine. One Christian believes one doctrine and another believes another doctrine, both being faithful to the Biblical narrative in one way or another.

Yet many evangelical churches within England are influenced by the more leading figures of Christian teaching which is coming out of America. Today however in contrast to England, in America cults are fast growing and many Christian denominations are also popular and spreading. However, research reveals that many of the more faithful larger and modern American churches, from denominations such as Baptist, reformed and even Arminian Churches, many are moving and growing fast, much of them being reformed or Arminian in doctrine and young in their approach are multiplying. Celebrity pastors are on the rise.

Yet much division can still be seen amongst the people, and far too many genuine Christians are all too often at war with each other, un-reasonable, often slanderous and yet both sides are part of the same coin. Many being faithful in some way to what they see in the Biblical narrative.

Yet Modern Reformed Christianity, often linked with so-called ‘Calvinism’ particularly in America claims to hold firm to the ideals of the 16th century Reformation, yet many within that denomination are so systematised by their own interpretation of the scriptures that they make a heretic out of anyone who does not agree with their theology. When all the time, it may be they who need reforming!

It is my opinion that Reformed doctrine in its 16th century form is very Biblical, yet much modern reformed doctrine has moved away from its 16th century stand point, but even still, I think modern reformed doctrine is much more Biblical than the Arminian view, and I hold to much Reformed doctrine as good doctrine and agree a great deal with the principles and Theology of the 16th century reformation. However, I believe with the authority of scripture, that some modern Reformers do greatly err on doctrines such as double predestination and limited atonement. However, modern Reformers believe they are correct and often present themselves as almost exclusive to the truth and often claim that ‘Arminians do not worship the God of the Bible’. Yet at the same time many embrace John Wesley and sing Weslyan hymns. Thus, the claim that Arminians worship another God is pathetic, since some of the greatest revivals in church history came through the likes of John Wesley, so how can anyone claim that God stand not with Arminians? Likewise Arminians also fall into this pathetic argument when they battle against Calvinists and believe they are more Biblically accurate and often refer to Calvinists as worshipping another ‘god’ which is not the God of the Bible. (Note: I use the lower case ‘g’ in referrence to both arguements) However, this arguement of Calvinists and Arminians worshipping two gods, is pathetic and untrue. Differing on interpretation of certain doctrines such as predestination, election, universal offering of salvation, limited or un-limited atonement is one thing, but worshipping another god is another matter.

The question I ask is this: Is not possible that both Calvinists and Arminians could be correct in some way and what the areas which lack in Arminianism can be answered in Calvinism? And the areas which lack in Calvinism can be answered in Arminianism?

Many may laugh or hate my asking that question, yet if we look at the original Reformation teaching of Wycliffe and Tyndale, many modern Calvinistic reformers who limit the Bible to their systems would say that both Wycliffe and Tyndale were Arminians, and although Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther believed in predestination, neither believed that anyone was predestined to hell. So which doctine is truly reformed?

It seems to me that what is said to be reformed doctrine in the 21st century, is not 100% reformed, but 5 point Calvinism, a system of thought which Calvin himself may not have actually taught and dates back to the 17th century and not 100% accurate to the original 16th century Reformation teachings which were held in 16th century England by Tyndale, Cranmer, Pilkington, Hooker and so forth. This can also be said of Luthers reformation which certainly did not agree with 5 point Calvinism.

One problem is, that many today think of the word reformed as implying Calvinism, which is untrue. That is just one branch of reformed thinking, made popular by our American brothers and the revival of Puritan books.


“If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
Mark 3: 24-25

Jesus said a house divided cannot stand, yet Christianity today is massively divided and much of this division comes through a wide number of issues, some are loyal to the Biblical narrative, some are not. Some are honest, some are lying. Who then is correct?
Thus, I must ask: Where is the Bible and the Holy Spirit in all this muddle? Is the Holy Spirit who leads a man into all truth as found in the Biblical text itself not what the heart of the reformation was all about? That the Bible was to be in the hands of everyman, and that the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth would guide a man into the truth of God? Thus, the Spirit and the Word, the Word and the Spirit. If yes, then why is there so much doctrinal and personal division within Christianity today?

Thus, division is nothing new, we can find it throughout church history, and if we look at today’s church, we will see that many of the same errors happening in our time as what we saw during the time of the reformation.


There is little doubt to me that the church has gone around in circles and needs to return back once again to what the Bible actually teaches, and to cease from denying what is actually written in favour of personal bias, traditions, established creeds, confessions and ideas of men both from history and from the moderns.

Thus, if the church is to ever move forwards and be truly united in Christ and in His truth, then the leading sides of Arminians and Calvinists, need to cease from denying texts in re-interpreting them, to fit their doctrines and many of today’s major leaders within Christianity, who’s influence upon Christendom is vast and, must return to the actual Biblical narrative once again.

Thus, this is not a call out to dismiss all that has gone before or what God has done throughout the history of His church, but more a call out for the leaders to move on and return to the future.

In total contrast to the desire many have for revival, it will not come until the house of God is put in order first. It is reformation we need, not revival.
For, I believe the time is now that God by His Spirit is calling out for a fresh reformation of His church and her doctrine and is calling for the leaders in both England and America to whom He has given great authority and power to lead His people, to seek Him more now than ever before, and to awake and prepare for the reality of a coming reformation of Christ’s Holy Church.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Christopher Hitchens errors concerning the deaths of John Wycliffe and Myles Coverdale

Lutterworth © 2021 Simon Peter Sutherland

The late and somewhat outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens in his popular book “God is not great” made many claims from both history and the present and from historical texts, religious texts and books regarded as sacred by many, out of which he attempted to dismatle the walls of religion brick by brick by applying the written content towards his criticism based upon his logic and interpretation of which his claims towards history. It is clear that his understanding of religious narratives have impacted the lives of many modern atheists and religious folk today.

Hitchens certainly wrote a book in which he attempted to grind his axe against all things religious and Christian. Yet the problem is that many folks regard this book as somewhat dynamic and excellent, yet many of them are ignorant of the clear cut errors of Hitchens work.

One such error is in his claim that devout Christian men such as John Wycliffe, Myles Coverdale and Tyndale were all burned alive at the stake.

In his book, “God is not great” Hitchens writes the following, quote; “Devout men like Wycliffe, Coverdale, and Tyndale were burned alive…”

This is simply not accurate at all. Although he was correct that Tyndale was burned, he was not burned alive, on the contrary, Tyndale was strangled first, then his body was burned and the facts remain that early English Bible translator John Wycliffe was not burned alive at all, but suffered a stroke on 28 December 1384 during a service at Lutterworth Church and died the last day of that month. Wycliife was not burned alive at the stake.

Likewise, early Bible translator Myles Coverdale was not burned alive as Hitchens claimed but died on 20th January 1569 at London of natural causes.

What is clear to me is that Hitchens was so intent on lashing out in a war of words against all thing religious, that his own bitterness towards Christianity is demonstrated by his total lack of ability to even present accurate research into the historical facts behind one of the religions which he was so vehemently attacking.

, , , , , , , , ,


The importance of Theology and the problem of religion

The problem of religion © 2018 Simon Peter SutherlandThe importance of Theology is and has always been needed within the walls of the Christian life. If we sit outside the walls or on the walls we do very little but watch the sun go down and the sunrise. In other words it’s like sitting on the fence, or guiding sheep into a field where there is no grass. They don’t eat and the work does not get done. We and they, are wasting time and energy. Now suppose we do not sit on the fence or outside the walls but rather stand within the walls and not only take in the scenic views, but internalise them and embrace them, as one would do when he or she returns or marries the love of his or her life. We kiss, we hold each other, we embrace. We become one.

Now if we do not make the first move we will never know what lay before us or what we could have had or known if only we would make the move and ask the question, just as a nervous teenager asks a girl for a date. If he never asked, he would never know and that plaque would haunt him for the rest of his life. Now suppose he asked the girl, ‘would you like to come out with me for a date sometime?’ and she replied, ‘Sure, I’d love to’. Would he not be the better for it than if he had never taken the step to ask the question? Of course he would and the same can be said of understanding ‘Biblical Theology’. Asking questions is vital, but more than that, we need to listen to the answer or answers and take them on board. Remember the movie, ‘It’s a wonderful life’ where James Stewart and Donna Reed are challenged by an elderly guy sat on his porch, and he says, ‘Why don’t you just kiss her instead of talking her to death’. James Stewart could talk the ears of a wooden Indian and yet despite his true feelings, he hesitated to act upon them. But little did he know that in time he would marry the girl and raise a family. Thus we do not always know where we are going when we follow impulses but destiny and providence is working its hand in all our lives. There was a time when I was compelled to purchase books, yet all the time a war was going on within me to reject the books and buy something else rather than a book that inspires thought towards the truth of God. The human will would have you follow the world and feel the impulse of the human will, ‘go sin some more’, whereas Christ would say, “Go and sin no more”. Thus the war is underway in the search to find a Theology that can find us and place us where God would have us be. This Theology is the means appointed to us for eternal life. We need it, we should love it, and we should always apply it to every moment of life. But there are times when we don’t. We are men and women and we fail. But that does not mean that we cannot and should not continue to try. We should look at our human nature and say, ‘Wait a minute…if I don’t drink coffee for two weeks, I won’t have the desire to drink anywhere near what I did before’. Thus the nature of the will can be lessened by the practice of a Theology that is both vital and important for everyday living. Not a Theology that can often lead nowhere, but a Theology that can hold us, sustain us, keep us, watch over us, comfort us, bind us and keep us so near to Christ that we can hardly stand a brief minute being away from it. Its something that is practised and enjoyed. Like a Theology of the attributes of God. Who is He? What is He like? What does He talk like or what does He like? What offends Him and do I offend Him knowingly or unknowingly? And if so what can I do about it? This is what I would love to hear belted out from the heart and the mouth of every preacher in every nation. Truth, a Theology of Truth. A Theology that sustains and sticks to every word of the Bible like glue and does not ignore a single text that either contradicts or compliments a single Theology or a single creed. I’m talking about holding on to the word of God in every corner and every last syllable and every last text that our eyes and hearts embrace. Not ignoring a text or pulling out the old context or Greek interpretation ploy whenever its convenient. But asking God and ourselves, ‘What does this truly mean? Have I erred?’ If only humans would truly say to themselves, ‘I don’t care if I contradict a creed or a leader by not swaying from a single text of the Bible’. Or as Luther said, ‘My conscience is captive to the Word of God, and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe’. Thus, a Theology that is put into practice before God, ourselves and man, is far greater than a theology put down on paper or belched out from the pulpit but not lived. There’s only one thing to do with such theoretic blasts of wind and that is to strike a match and burn the stench.

God gives warnings to His people, ‘get it right’ and we only have this life to do it in and then comes the judgement. Not judgement for indwelling sin, but being neither cold or hot. God would have us be one or the other. Same to can be said of our Theologies, are they cold or are they hot. I don’t know about you but I prefer the hot days rather than the freezing cold ones. I’d rather be in the blazing heat than in the dusty old cold cellar where there is little light or beauty. The beauty is in the light of the sun and the light magnifies the beauty of all things good. Thus when we open the pages of the Bible, what good would it be to open them in the dark and attempt to read it? Why not call out for a light as the jailer in Acts 16: 25-31 and fall to our knees and believe? That’s what Salvation is all about, believing and asking “What must I do?” (Acts 16: 30) It’s not a salvation that requires a man or women to sit and simply read or do nothing, it’s a salvation that at first requires belief and second beliefs to good works. Just as the Phipippian jailer believed and then washed the stripes of Paul and Silas and after the event of his baptism continued in good works and made Paul and Silas a meal (Acts 16: 33-34). In other words the Theology I am speaking of is a Theology that is put into practice and one that says, ‘Let’s talk about it over dinner’ and more than that, ‘I will cook the food for you’.

In other words Paul never spoke of a faith that is idle or so stable that it can hardly move. No it’s a faith that is so strong and active that there is little room for inactivity. Paul’s Theology was like a lion, it works best when you turn it loose. It’s not something that can be caged or contained within the limitation of words, books and preaching. It’s something that requires a person to get up off their backsides and do something about. It’s not a Theology that once learned stays behind closed doors or stained glass windows. It something life changing, threatening to authorities and governments, leaders and control freaks. It’s something that once turned loose, can cause a whole City to turn into uproar. This is what we have read about in the journals of Wesley, and the Foxes book of Martyrs. It’s a total uproar, a Theology that once learned must be practised and lived to the point of death. It is something so strong, so powerful, so addictive, so un-measurable that once tasted can never be erased from the taste-buds of our hearts and minds. It captivates people, arrests them and throws them into the prison and binds them in the chains and stocks of Christ. We must hear the word of God, believe all that is written and be astonished at the doctrine of The Lord.


Many people dislike “religion” and view “religious people” as often miserable and tense, extreme and strange. Of course this is not always the case for many people admire others who have faith in something because they often fail to have any true faith themselves. Many find in their own characters and conduct a sustaining faith that influences their own selves, many say to me, “I believe in myself” and “I cannot believe in a God that I cannot see”. And although I can understand and identify with such people, it must be pointed out that such is not the case with “true religion”. One common view is that many people blame the many world religions as the one of the many problems that often provokes world wars? And although there is some if not a very lot of truth in that fact, I must state that true religion is not the cause of world wars. It is the power trips of certain evil dictators that cause war, it is not true religion. There would have been no wars in the Bible times if evil did not wage war upon goodness, therefore we cannot be blinded to true religion because of war. True religion is not a mystical faith that is nothing more than a leap in the dark, and a voyage to nowhere. “True religion” is true faith and true faith is an eye opener and a joy to behold. True faith is not a leap in the dark but is a leap from the dark into the light. It opens our eyes to who we are and who God really is. The problem we face with “religion” today is the many self appointed religious leaders who attempt to lead men to themselves or to God as though they are a necessary channel or mediator to the heavens. We see this with men like the Pope who are presented to the public as messianic type figures who claim to have the authority to anathematise people or bless them. False religions promote a threat that unless you join the certain church you are going to end up in hell. But true religion does not attempt to ensnare the individual into becoming a member of “the denomination church” but invites them to be reconciled unto God and to be at peace with Him through Christ. Religions such as Islam and Roman Catholicism all teach that unless you join the certain denominational church you cannot enter heaven. While on the other extreme some Religions claim that everyone will go to heaven with or without Christ or God. Yet Jesus did not teach this. On the contrary He said, “accept a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” John 3: 3. And no where does the Bible state that a man can only be born again when he or she is part of the denominational Christian Church. Christ said, “come to me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” Matthew 11: 28. “The truth shall make you free” John 8: 32. You see that Christ pointed people to Himself and not the denominational Church, and offered peace and rest for the individual in Him and not dismal church sacraments and dull services. While on the other hand Christ stated that without Him, there can be no hope of salvation for anyone. Christ did not say, “Come to the church” or “Come and receive the sacraments at your local church and inherit heaven through the church”. On the contrary, if one is truly saved and born of God, he or she will want to join other people of like mind and be blessed and built up by their company. That is what the Bible says is the true church. Thus, the distracting claims that religion promotes often clouds the eyes of many people and the actions of the church distract people from the personal conduct and salvation freely offered to the individual.

All such religions as Roman Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and many branches of so-called Christianity including the Church of England, Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses all have one thing in common. They all promote the individual religious and sacramental workings of a man as a necessity of inheriting eternal life with God. But the problem is that true religion should promote the fact that God Himself came down to earth in order to reach man and reason with him concerning righteousness and heaven. God Himself came down onto earth and reasoned with Abraham, (Genesis 18: 16-33) God Himself came down onto mount Sinai and gave Moses the tablets containing Ten Commandments (Exodus 19-20: 17). God came down to earth and said “Come now, and let us reason together” Isaiah 1: 18. God Himself came down to earth in the form of Christ and offered mankind the opportunity to reason with Himself and receive the free and unconditional gift of salvation. All man had to do was receive the gift and believe that God has made a way for him to inherit a gift that he was unable to achieve by human efforts. All those who believe in Jesus are saved to good works not by good works. This for me demonstrates that real God given Christianity is the true religion and the most powerful. For all other religions teach a certain way for man to find the truth and not the truth finding him. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life” (John 14: 6). But Mohamed came along over 500 years after Jesus and based all his ideas upon what was already written by Moses centuries earlier. He could not say that he was the truth and neither could Buddha’s The sayings of Buddha for such writings only attempt to point people to human wisdom being nothing more than a form of the truth taught by Solomon in the book of Proverbs and Moses many years previous.

It has to be said that the problem we face today with our current religious and none religious generation is that there is no healthy fear of God and no healthy fear of authority, for religion has blinded many peoples eyes to the truth. In my opinion much responsibility for this is to be blamed upon the theory of evolution as a presentation and enticement that creation account recorded in Genesis is just a myth and evolution is factual religion. But such evolutionists fail to inform their hearers that the scientific world is 50-50 regarding the creation account and the Darwinian theory.

If only man would embrace the God given gift of eternal salvation and eternal freedom and wash away the clouds that religion blows in front of their eyes he would hear and know that what the Bible states is the truth of all hope and pleasure in the glory and beauty of almighty God. Therefore the problem of religion is that it blinds peoples eyes and blocks the ears to the actual text of the Bible beyond disputes concerning, the creation account or the Lords prayer or the virgin birth. Religion never finds the treasure because it never looks up from the map. If only the public of today would know that true religion is a joy to hold, it is an honour and a delight to embrace. It is filled with the spiritual truths, joy, pleasure and insights and unimaginable truths. But religion without joy is like a spare tyre with no jack and a spare tyre without a jack is like a Church without Jesus.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


John Wycliffe – His life and thought

 John Wycliffe © 2018 Simon Peter Sutherland

Blessed is the man that walks not in the council of the ungodly, nor delights in the seat of mockers, nor sits in the seat of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord and in His law he meditates day and night” Psalm 1: 1-2

John Wycliffe or Wycliffe was born in Yorkshire, England possibly in 1324, though some say 1330? It is believed that he was born in the town called, ‘Wycliffe’ as indicated in his name, though others claim he was born in ‘Hipswell’ about ten miles from ‘Wycliffe’ and others a town called ‘Spressell’? Although each propagated town is in the area of Yorkshire, the most consistent and accepted location for Wycliffe’s birth is ‘Hipswell’. The next most likely location is the town of Wycliffe. Today the town of Wycliffe is known as ‘Wycliffe-on-Tees’ in County Durham and in the town there is St Mary’s Church where Wycliffe was said to have been baptised as an infant? Likewise, at ‘Hipswell’ in North riding, Yorkshire, there is the church of St John, the Evangelist where in the original building that once stood, it is presumed that Wycliffe worshipped?

It is believed that John Wycliffe would have originally been named, ‘John de Wycliffe’ or ‘John of Wycliffe’. His early life, of which little is known, was part of an important period of English ecclesiastical history. We know that John was born into a respectable family, who owned considerable amounts of property who were clearly religious people, as most were back in those days. Roman Catholicism was a dominant force in religion and infant baptism its catholic tradition. Some claim that the Wycliffe family manor-house stood not far from the church where the infant John was probably sprinkled?

His childhood home would have been surrounded by the great beauty of the Yorkshire landscape, rugged hills and soft valleys. Such visual beauty offers clearness and peace and often gives rise to great thought and understanding. In such mountainous wilderness a person often has time to sit and to think and a young country boy may even develope a character reflective of the Lords creation or should I say, the Lord puts him there because his character reflects the mountains.

In 14th century England, most people were religious, and Christian church life was a huge part of family tradition. Families would attend Sunday services and very few questioned this practice or any other practice of the Church. But England was changing, voices began to rise. Catholicism was the dominant force of religion and the church ruled, the priests governed by their own authority and Scripture was second place to church tradition and the Bible was written in Latin, the language of ancient Rome, and only those who could read Latin could read the scriptures, if they could afford to own a copy?


It is said that at some period of his early life he left his home town too pursue an academic life at Oxford University, which was then the leading University in Western Europe.

Wycliffe is knowm to have become Master of theology and worked and lectured at Balaiol College, which is now on Broad Street in Oxford. Wycliffe lectured and debated on a number of topics with his students. He was a Philosopher, Theologian and one of the most brilliant minds and men of God England has known, filled with the Holy Spirit and a gentleman, full of charity and dedicated to the needs of the poor. But he was not passive when it came to matters of Biblical truth and he had a sharp tongue. Rightly so, for a theologian will not fight, but he has a pen and his words are his weapon. Such was the case with John Wycliff and although he was a gentle man and a gentleman, he was not without sharpness in his words, maybe that is why I edentify with him? Wycliffe can often be found in sparp contrasting disagreement with the authorities for his use of cutting words, yet I guess it would be hard for any spirit filled man to not display cutting words with men who abuse the scriptures for their own financial and earthly domains. But it was through the Holy Spirit of God and His word which Wycliffe’s brilliance was to be so clearly displayed. No surprise then that he became known as “The Gospel Doctor”.

Wycliffe read the scriptures for the first time in Latin, he was not expert in Hebrew or Greek, nor did he read them but rather he studied the scriptures in the Latin as translated by Jerome, in the 4th century. In Jerome’s Vulgate, Wycliffe saw the clear testimony of divine scripture, and the word of God set him in direct conflict with the established church that then ruled. Wycliffe did not see popery in the scriptures and so denied the authority of the Pope, the literal interpretation of Transubstantiation and he believed in sharp contrast to the church that the common man should be able to read the word of God in their own language. Wycliffe pointed out that the majority of the New Testament was written in Coine Greek, which was the common language of the people and Jerome translated the Coine Greek into Latin, the common language of ancient Rome. Wycliffe then asked, ‘why should the Scriptures then not be in the language of the common man?’ But, the problem was that the Roman church which then ruled the church in England had elevated the Latin Vulgate so much so that they deemed it anathema to even think of having a Bible in the common English tongue. We see this type of translation issue today in the King James only movement, where an Old English Bible is regarded above all over translations, even arguably at times held above the Hebrew and Greek? And those who translated the scriptures from an original source, are regarded as heretical by those who hold exclusively to the King James Bible. Surely this is not what Wycliffe had in mind, since Wycliffe did not embrace the idea of the church and state intermingled as it was with the King James Bible by order of the King. However, William Tyndale who followed on from the work Wycliffe left behind, clearly desired such action to come about and not only does his book, ‘The obedience of the Christian man’ communicate this, but his final prayer as he was about to be strangled and burned at the stake reveals it too, in his own words, “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England”.


John Wycliffe is probably best known for his association with the title ‘the morning star of the Reformation’ and with the first English New Testament so-called named after him. But such is justifiably debatable as to if Wycliffe ever sought reformation? One major problem can be found in the many misunderstandings of Wycliffe’s beliefs by Protestants. Many do not read him, yet they claim to know what Wycliffe taught and believed? But in today’s world, many of his writings are rarely seen and therefore the many things which he believed are not always explored as they should be? The writings of Tyndale are more popular, but even Tyndale’s writings are lesser known than lets say the writings of Luther or Calvin. These days so many new books are written and published, yet all too many old books lay unpublished and such great contents are sadly neglected. But, if one were to read Wycliffe’s actual writings, one could argue whether or not Wycliffe was an actual reformer like the modern reformers today? One could doubt that Wycliffe believed in ‘Justification by Faith’ alone? One could argue that he believed in purgatory? Yet the question is: What did he believe? Well, lets look and let the facts speak for themselves.


Few can doubt that Wycliffe held the Bible in the most highest esteem? His love of the scriptures found him in trouble and direct collision with the authorities through much of his life. He regarded the Word of as the Word of Christ and Christ is above all people, therefore the Bible is above all books. Wycliffe saw much corruption in the church and abuse of the scriptures and his studies of them caused him to depart from the church which had long since departed from the Truth. Tradition had taken over and can when tradition takes over from the scriptures, then the church becomes unBiblical.

After many years of study of the Bible, Wycliffe found that the common people were being spiritually destroyed through lack of knowledge of the scriptures. Few questioned the authority of the church and dared not question it. Wycliffe knew that it was Gods will that everyman and woman and child born of woman should have the word of God and in his/her own tongue and that all people should freely read it, no one excluded. So rather than merely debate this or wait for others to rise up, he sought to translated the scriptures from out the latin which they were then held the most highly and into English, in the common tongue. If the people could have the word of God in their own language, then they would see how far the church’s doctrine had moved away from the Truth.

But did he actually attain this holy desire or see his dream come true? Well, that is a subject of much debate for although the Wycliffe New Testament was long believed to have been translated by Wycliffe himself, more recent modern scholarship argues that the translation itself was not the work of Wycliffe but of his followers, known as ‘the Lollards’. The claim goes that the Lollards translated the text in memory to Wycliffe who inspired the move. But is this scholarly claim absolute truth or is it merely theoretical? Did Wycliff translate some of the New Testament but not all of it? Well, let us look, for there are a few clues which could contrast this claim.

In 2010 I visited ‘Ludgershall’ in Buckinghamshire, the first parish at which Wycliffe was minister for a period of years and during my visit to ‘Ludgershall’ I learned that the ancient church building once held a room above the nave in which it is said that Wycliffe worked on his translation of the scriptures from Latin into English. Many could doubt this claim, but pure reasoning and logic would re-enforce it. For, the claim must have truth, because Wycliffe being a minister of common people who did not speak Latin must have translated the scriptures from the Latin into the common tongue as part of his weekly sermon. He preached week after week for a period of 6 years in that church, it is not likely that he read the scriptures in Latin and explored them in exposition in English? And if he did, which we certainly know he did, then would he not have preached from the whole of the New Testament? Thus, these are two fairly good reasons to believe that Wycliffe did actually translate the Wycliffe New Testament, if not all, then certainly a great amount of it.


Many deny that Wycliffe believed the doctrine of Justification by faith, since he stated much necessity upon good works. But I do not believe that such claims are true. Wycliffe was not a Pelagian or denominational in any way. The problem with works and salvation is that people miss-understand or wrongly and claim that the good works spoken of in the scriptures are the works of the church, not the works of faith. Likewise it is also inaccurate to deny good works and also questionable to regard works as part of an ongoing Justification, for Justification is a once and for all act in the New Testament, but an ongoing perfection is far more accurate. For in actual fact, a good strong and Biblicaly healthy balance between faith and good works can be found throughout the Scriptures. Faith brings good works and are thus the works of faith and therefore come from faith and not merely from ourselves but from obedience and deeds of obedience, they are a product of faith and not the cause of faith. Now I know that many deny works of obedience in today’s church, but such ideas are inconsistent with scripture. The Epistle of James is evidence of that, from which James could be seen so evidently in contrast to the many understandings of Justification by faith, that people re-interpret the text, because they fail to understand it correctly. Such as the case where Luther had no time for the epistle and when he translated it into German in 1520, he altered the text to make it fit with the theology. Wycliffe did not do this, but rather understood the doctrine correctly, that real faith brings forth good works, there is little else a real Christian can do but serve God not only in worship and praise but and in good deeds. As James wrote, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” James 2: 14. (KJV) Likewise in verse 17 of James, the Geneva Bible translation also says, “Faith, if it have no works is dead in itself”. Thus, a good healthy understanding of the sovereignty of God in salvation is not a contradiction to human responsibility and good works. God rewards the obedience of the Christian man in good works and even enables Christians to do them through obedience to the Holy Spirit, and if His people obey, then great will be our rewards in heaven.

An old review of Wycliffe’s understanding of Justification by faith reads like this, Quote: “Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, and that without faith it is impossible to please God; that the merit of Christ is able, by itself, to redeem all mankind from hell, and that this sufficiency is to be understood without any other cause concurring.” (The Writings of the Reverend and learned John Wycliff, D.D. The religious tract society, London. 1847. Page 41.)

Thus, I see no errors in Wycliffe’s understanding that Justification by faith brings for good works and this quote from Wycliffe makes it clear. Quote: “Trust wholly in Christ, rely altogether on His suffering, beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by His righteousness. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation”.


Many believe that Wycliffe believed in purgatory, and we can be fairly certain that he did, at least at one point in his life. We must remember that Purgatory was an established teaching of the church and a belief that many took for granted. However, Wycliffe did not believe in purgatory when he read and studied the New Testament. Yet the belief remained in a sense, but he more understood purgatory as a place where believers go for a time before they enter heaven, where they rest and sleep. I do not believe this doctrine at this time, but for me it is not a fundamental enough doctrine for me to reject Wycliffe. However, I do not deny that there is evidence for this belief in the scriptures, but just because I personally do not believe the doctrine because of my understanding of Luke 23: 43, it does not mean I am correct, I could be wrong?


Not much is known about the private life of John Wycliffe because little of it is recorded. However, we know certain facts about his ministry, for example we know that Wycliffe was minister of Ludgershall from 1368-1374. A quiet little parish in the country where Wycliffe was able to continue his work and since Oxford was not far away, he could continue his accademic work at Oxford also. Of the whereabouts of his home in Ludgershall, I know nothing. He may have lived and worked from a room in the church building, but it is most likely that he had a vicarage somewhere in the parish?

During my time at Ludgershall it became hard to figure out what the parish was like in the time of Wycliffe, but if as it stands today is anything to go on, it is a very quiet town with one pub and a few scattered houses. The church at Ludgershall has much that dates back to the time of Wycliffe and is set in a very peaceful area amongst green trees and beautiful countryside. I was greatly blessed to sit and read the Wycliffe New Testament in this church and area, it was quite something.

In England, a town or city can either change almost beyond recognition due to over development, or it can remain with little unchanged. It is hard for me to imagine Ludgershall today being very different to the Ludgershall of the past? It has a simplicity written over it and when looked upon in the context of John Wycliffe and his time, it has a pureness and honesty. When standing in the church one can imagine Wycliffe in the pulpit preaching from the Bible in the common English tongue and his words can be imagined as echoing throughout the whole building and into the ears and hearts of his listeners. A wonderful gospel of Biblical accuracy and honesty, and passionate discovery which sets the soul free from denominational loyalty through passionate love with the pure milk and meat of scripture. Today however, the parish at Ludgershall has departed from much truth and has embraced feminist theology, but since Wycliffe’s memory is strongly held on display at Ludgershall, one has a hope that Biblical truth can still return. If truth could flower in the hearts of the people while Roman Catholicism was dominant in Wycliffe’s day, then truth can flower once again in our day. That is the hope that Wycliffe’s memory inspires. That God may reform his church once again?

In 1368 Wycliffe applied for an absence of leave for two years from the Parish at Ludgershall and this leave being permitted, he continued his studies at Oxford for a further two years. Wycliffe soon lost favour with men because the scriptures were regarded as a book of secondary importance and not of the most absolute and highest importance for rule of life and for doctrine.


Wycliffe had a strong devoutness to the work of evangelism and the free proclamation of the gospel, with or without the support of officials and the state. I touched on this understanding a little earlier and although many could argue against Wycliffe’s understanding of church and state, the argument works both ways. Christ certainly was rejected by the state as were the apostles and Paul too. The idea of the church and state working together could imply a kingdom upon this earth, but Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight” (John 18: 36). Wycliffe seemed to realise this more than most I think? That in Biblical reality and in contrast to tradition, the whole New Testament concept had radically moved away from the state, in contrast to the Law of Moses, which was the state of its day. This claim differs from the later reformers who regarded and still do regard Wycliffe as the so called ‘Morning Star of the reformation’. One could doubt that he was the morning star of much of the reformation, but not all. Tyndale certainly worked outside the law but desired the law to come to a knowledge of the truth, as did Luther, who worked outside the law and both leading figures became outlaws. This contrasts the later reformers who had an objective to see the state church and the protestant movement work together. Today we see this mix of reformed theology and state in America where many popular ministers may well be more politically Biblical, than they are Biblically, Biblical? Wycliffe relied on bold preaching to conduct the affairs of the gospel. So it is likely that his time at Lutterworth was spent in spreading the gospel amongst the people of Lutterworth, to travellers and passers by and those who attended the services. I doubt very much that a man who had spent so much time in learning at Oxford and a master of theology, would lock himself away in his study and rely upon bringing people into the church to hear the gospel and not taking to church to the people. All too many modern ministers of our day, especially reformers, lock themselves away from the people and step out from their studies and libraries to walk through a glass tunnel which leads them directly to their pulpit. I don’t believe this is right, or Biblical, for although I recognise that a minister should not leave the word of God to serve tables, as Acts 6: 2 appears to claim, we must remember that these twelve apostles who said, “It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables” also went out into the whole world “to preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16: 15) Paul told Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4: 5) And this ministry of evangelism is not pulpit based, but being out there in the community with all people, so a word to all minister, if you don’t evangelise out in the world, then you need to wake up.

So for a minister to ignore evangelism, is not absolutely in line with what the Bible states, or what Wycliffe saw in the text. All too many ministers desperately need to be more amongst the people, sitting with the down and outs, the prostitutes, the robbers, weeping with the victims, grieving with the those who have loved and lost, the sick and the lame, visiting prisons. But of course we all see different things in our experiences of life and church, but any minister who has no regular contact outside of his established building with his so-called flock, is not doing what the Bible says a minister should do, so let me say, it is not Lollard and its certainly not Biblical or Christlike.

What stands out to me about Wycliffe is his absolute passion to see the gospel among the people, without the need of commentaries or interpreters. Both Wycliffe and Tyndale believed the Holy Spirit will guide the believer into all truth and it is our duty to take the gospel to them, that they might receive it freely. It is likely that since Wycliffe desired to see the gospel rightly into the hands of the common people, that he took the gospel to them and did not rely on the people coming to him. All too many churches today think they are doing evangelism when they promote church outreach services, ministers, and their local gathering. Such could not be further from the truth. We are to take the pure milk of the gospel out to the people, that they may embrace Jesus and grow in His truth. Church life comes after conversion, and not before. Lutterworth reflects this aspect of evangelism, not merely in its modern setting, but in its ancient rurality of farmland and peasents, of whom Wycliffe did plead on their behalf that church might look to the needs of poor and not the wealthy needs of the clergy. It is often the case, even more so today, that the cleargy or the big time preachers, are wealthy off the gospel, while the common man struggles to survive his low pay, yet all too often he hears of the importance of tithing and buying books. Books which have high prices on them, and a 10% offering, which many poor families cannot afford. Strange is it not how Wycliffe’s writings and works cost him and not the other way around. The gospel was given to the people for free and at no charge, unlike the many organisations and ministries of todays church.

In 2010 I visited the market town of Lutterworth, which is most ascociated with Wycliffe and in Lutterworth can be found the actual church where Wycliffe was minister for the 2nd time, starting in 1374 or 1375 and ending on 31st December 1384, on the day of Wycliffe’s death.

The Foxe’s Book of Martyrs tells of how Wycliffe suffered a third stroke during a service while ministering the Lords supper to his his flock. He was carried out the side door on a chair and taken to the rectory where he died two days later. His body was buried in Lutterworth beside the church, and there is his remains lay until 30 years later when his decayed bones were exumed and burned by the Roman Catholic church. It is most likely that the authorities were attempting to either put fear into those who may follow his beliefs, like that of Jon Huss, whom they burned at the steal or they were attempting to erase Wycliffe’s memory from future generations. But his memory was never erased. And today, Wycliffe’s ambition is firmly in place and the Bible has been translated into the common tongue, more than I care to imagine. A practice which traces back to the life of John Wycliffe.

The chair which Wycliffe was carried out on can be seen to this day in Lutterworth, as can the pulpit from which Wycliffe preached. Though altered over the years, the pulpit can be found in part within use at the parish church in Lutterworth, of which the original pulpit was combined into another pulpit and is still used to this day. Today it is given the title ‘Wycliffe’s Pulpit’.

In Lutterworth I was shown an 19th century picture of Wycliffe in one of the rooms at Lutterworth church which shows Wycliffe with 11 or so converts being instructed by Wycliffe at the doorway of his vicarage. His motioning hand implying that he was instructing fellow Christians to go out amongst the people and take the Bible to them.


Wycliffe amazed me when I learned that he denied that congregations were bound to give 10% of their earnings to the church. Wycliffe taught that the Old Testament tithing was no longer binding for the Christian and although he supported the free giving of funds for a minister, money was not to be given if the priest failed to fulfil his role. Clearly Wycliffe did not support tea drinking ministers who fail to study the scriptures, deliver fluffy sermons that last 20 minutes and offer no meat but only milk to his congregation. Wycliffe’s boldness in his defence of the scriptures is evidence of what his sermons must have actually been like. Few are like Wycliffe in his plain boldness and clarity of declaration that when the church departs from the scriptures, it is time to depart from the church. In 1377 Wycliffe was called to appear before the courts in St Paul’s, London. At his trial, it was evident that Wycliffe had too many friends and a great crowd gathered and the mob disrupted the trial and an earthquake is said to have taken place also. This was seen as an act of God.


What so passionately inspires me about John Wycliffe is his absolute devotion to seeing the actual word of God in the hands of the people. Not merely seen through denominational theology, commentaries or sermons, or well crafted creeds and authorities, but through the pure word of The Word. Wycliffe never pointed people to his sermons, or to himself and said ‘if you want to know the truth of scripture, then read my book or hear my sermons, no, he pointed them directly to the pure Word of God and the accounts it contains. Wycliffe knew the reality and power of the scriptures that once they were given into the hands of the people, their truth will be known amongst those who are of the Spirit. But likewise, Wycliffe knew of the dangers that would come with men’s abuse of the scriptures.

Wycliffe knew that translating the scriptures into English would not deminish the abuse of them, but it may even further their abuse, but still, we must see the Scriptures in the hands of everyman, for him to freely examine for himself without measuring them by creeds or with the aid or need of priests or popes, denominal authorities. So in answer to my own question “Why I am so inspired by Wycliffe?” The answer is that this is is my mission also. Not to promote my sermons or writings, although they are available, but to promote a return to the purity of the word of God and the words and truth it contains. Not measured by councils or creeds, commentaries or arguements, but by the pure rendering of the text of scripture and the Holy Spirit.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit and the pure power of the word of God alongside the obedience and passion of Wycliffe through which we have an English Bible today. All other English translations are mere shadows in comparison to the absolute, unselfish, non-political, non-financially driven motives of men such as Wycliffe and Tyndale, who’s absolute desire was to see the word of God given without corruption, directly into the hands of the common people, to read, to study and to freely interpret. Modern translations do not come anywhere near the absolute dignity and honour of early English translations such as these. The Wycliffe translation may be justifiably critiqued for its translation, but it can never be rightly critiqued for its pure heart and perfect desire.

I praise God for Wycliffe who through obedience to God, gave us the Bible in English.

Today, the writings of Wycliffe are not so easy to come by, but the Wycliffe New Testament is still published in modern spelling, and I would propose that all Christians and none-Christians everywhere, do what you can to get a copy of this wonderful translation and read it, study it and enjoy it. It was written for all of us.

, , , , , , ,