Over the last twenty to thirty years I’ve encountered various people who have taught a “rules” based Christianity in various forms. These can vary from the obvious cults or false religions, AKA Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults had a list of those. They not only have new teachings but often require new rules. Since Martin’s book is sixty years old there have been a number of ones he doesn’t mention.
There are others more difficult or controversial to include:
Mike Breen’s LifeShapes and huddles: 3DM, The Order of Mission (TOM), the Covenant Kingdom Network (CKN), and Network Church Sheffield (NCS) and the associated forms of this in the Verge Network/Community, where the name Alan Hirsch and others come to mind. These can be grouped under the more extreme “Missional” wing of the church.
In a similar way the larger Spiritual Formation Movement, activated by Foster, Willard and lately John Mark Comer has reintroduced the ideas of Ignatius Loyola and the Jesuit order into modern Evangelicalism.
“John Mark Comer’s 2024 book is Practicing the Way: Be with Jesus. Become like him. Do as he did., which serves as a guide to spiritual formation and intentional discipleship. It explores creating a “Rule of Life” (an order/rhythm) to facilitate abiding in Jesus, covering practices like Sabbath and slowing.”
There are equally large worldwide groups like the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) that have grown from their birth on C. Peter Wagner, the Fuller Professor who Rick Warren did his doctoral thesis under. Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson are a couple of major players in that movement. The idea of having modern day Apostles to follow leads one in a similar direction.
Of course as previously mentioned the Society of Jesuits formed by Ignatius Loyola as the means to the Counter Reformation and the greater Roman Catholic Church under the authority of the Pope can be viewed as the largest movement having a structured rules based practices which can be viewed outside the scope of what the Bible prescribes.
All this is derived from read Mike Ratcliff’s blog post this morning. People will see this differently. But hopefully I’ve raised at least an inkling of concern. Much study and prayer is needed in this area, to truly be discerning. Spurgeon’s quote is appropriate:
Here is Mike’s Post.
BTW I would add perhaps this scripture passage to the ones Mike quotes….though it is more related to the end of days and specifically about restrictions on what we eat, it is still true that all the post resurrection times are part of that.
Some Will Depart from the Faith
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Discernment in this area is very difficult…there are lots of good things being mentioned, and lots of good intentions. All involve aspects of our Sanctification becoming more like Christ. In the comments I will include a ChatGPT brief summary of one aspect of this. Also I will include below the WCF section on Sanctification, for clarification of the Reformed view. I also think that we use the words Discipleship and Missional too much today. I prefer the old KJV wording in the great commission about teaching and doing:‘
God calls, draws and makes disciples…we teach them, hopefully with the full context of God’s Word, the Bible.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Just for clarification, Missional in my mind implies living out our Santification in the real world, not just internally. The biggest part of that is Preaching/Sharing the Gospel the Good News of Christ. We can all do that. Just asking questions as Phillip did:
Everywhere
Act 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
Act 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
…a man of Ethiopia
Act 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
I actually don’t see a set of rules when I read this. And it largely about effectuating our destroying sin in our lives. The whole Bible is the prescription medicine of becoming more holy. We need to stay within it’s whole context and be careful in trying to leverage or exercise specific areas even if they sound good.
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
This is not to diminish Good Works as described in the Bible in our Commandments and illustrated in our Confession of Faith.
Overall our chief end is described:
Larger Catechism
Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.
CHAPTER 16
Of Good Works
1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.
2. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
3. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
4. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.
5. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.
6. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
7. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.
CHAPTER 13
Of Sanctification
1. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
2. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
3. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Rainbow Trout 
This is the ChatGPT sourced response to the questions about this i asked.
Protestant voices viewed Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuit program
You’re asking a really rich historical-theological question, and it helps to separate it into two parts:
1. how major Protestant voices viewed Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuit program, and
2. whether modern “spiritual formation” movements resemble his approach.
1) How early Protestants viewed Ignatius & the Jesuits
The context (crucial)
Ignatius of Loyola founded the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1540 as a spearhead of the Counter-Reformation.
Early Protestants didn’t evaluate him as a neutral spiritual writer—they saw him as part of an opposing movement trying to reverse the Reformation. That heavily shaped their tone.
Martin Luther
Luther died (1546) just as the Jesuits were emerging, so he didn’t write extensively about Ignatius personally. But he did strongly oppose:
• monastic vows
• ascetic systems of merit
• structured “methods” of becoming righteous
These are central to Ignatian spirituality (disciplines, obedience, structured exercises). So while not naming Ignatius much, Luther would have rejected the framework as:
• works-oriented
• binding the conscience beyond Scripture
John Calvin
Calvin directly opposed the Jesuits and saw them as:
• defenders of Rome’s authority
• promoters of human traditions over Scripture
He critiqued:
• blind obedience to church authority (a hallmark of Jesuit vows)
• spirituality mediated through systems and hierarchy
Calvin’s emphasis:
Scripture alone governs the conscience—not spiritual “methods” imposed by an order.
Huldrych Zwingli
Zwingli (d. 1531) died before the Jesuits formed, but like Luther:
• rejected ascetic spirituality
• opposed merit-based religious practices
He would have been deeply opposed to Ignatius’ structured devotional system.
John Knox
Knox encountered Jesuit influence more directly in Scotland and Europe.
His tone toward them was extremely strong—he viewed Jesuits as:
• deceptive agents of Rome
• dangerous to Protestant truth
His objection wasn’t just theological but also political and pastoral.
William Tyndale
Tyndale died before the Jesuits formally emerged, but his theology strongly rejected:
• mediated spirituality
• religious systems that obscure direct access to Scripture
So again, he would have opposed Ignatian-style structured spirituality.
John Owen
Owen gives us a clearer developed Protestant critique of Catholic spirituality.
He opposed:
• “invented” spiritual disciplines not grounded explicitly in Scripture
• systems that rely on human effort to produce holiness
His alternative:
• mortification by the Spirit
• grace-driven transformation
He would have seen Ignatian exercises as:
• overly methodical
• potentially substituting technique for Spirit-led growth
2) Later Protestant voices
John Bunyan
Bunyan (author of Pilgrim’s Progress) strongly rejected:
• external religious systems
• spiritual “programs” as a path to salvation
His emphasis was experiential faith, not structured exercises.
Jonathan Edwards
Edwards is interesting—he valued religious affections (heart experience), but:
• insisted they must arise from truth and the Spirit
• not from techniques or structured exercises
He would likely be cautious of Ignatian methods as:
• potentially producing artificial experiences
Charles Spurgeon
Spurgeon was sharply critical of Roman Catholicism, including monastic systems.
He emphasized:
• direct relationship with Christ
• suspicion of ritualized spirituality
He likely would have rejected Ignatian spirituality as:
• overly formal
• not rooted in the simplicity of the gospel
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Lloyd-Jones strongly opposed:
• psychological or method-driven Christianity
• systems that attempt to engineer spiritual experience
He emphasized:
• the sovereignty of the Spirit
• preaching over technique
He would likely critique Ignatian practices as:
• too structured
• risking emotional or imaginative manipulation
S. Lewis Johnson
Johnson, from a Reformed perspective, would:
• reject works-based spirituality
• emphasize justification by faith alone
He would likely view Ignatian spirituality as:
• incompatible with sola fide if treated as spiritually necessary
3) Modern “spiritual formation” and Ignatius
Now to your second question—this is where things get really interesting.
Key modern figures
• Richard Foster (Celebration of Discipline)
• Dallas Willard
• John Mark Comer
These figures promote:
• intentional spiritual disciplines
• “rules of life”
• structured practices for formation
Are these similar to Ignatius?
Yes—there are real parallels:
They share with Ignatius:
• structured disciplines
• intentional habits for transformation
• guided spiritual practices (silence, solitude, examen-like reflection)
• sometimes even direct borrowing (Foster explicitly draws from Ignatian traditions)
So in form, there is clear similarity.
But there are also differences:
Most modern Protestant advocates argue:
• disciplines do not earn grace
• they position a person to receive grace
• they are tools, not merits
That’s a key distinction from how Reformers perceived Catholic systems.
4) The core Protestant concern (then and now)
Across all the figures you mentioned, the consistent concern is:
1. Authority
• Is this commanded in Scripture?
2. Justification
• Does this subtly shift trust from Christ to practice?
3. Mechanism
• Does it imply spiritual growth can be engineered?
4. Conscience
• Are believers being bound to man-made systems?
5) So are modern movements “fulfilling” Loyola?
There are two main interpretations:
A. Critical view (common in conservative Reformed circles)
Modern spiritual formation:
• reintroduces structured spirituality
• resembles Ignatian method
• risks repeating pre-Reformation errors
B. Sympathetic view
These practices:
• recover neglected disciplines
• remain gospel-centered
• differ fundamentally in theology (grace vs merit)
Bottom line
• Early Protestants largely rejected the kind of structured, rule-based spirituality associated with Ignatius of Loyola
• Later Protestant leaders continued that caution, especially toward method-driven spiritual growth
• Modern “spiritual formation” movements often look structurally similar, but claim a different theological foundation
If you want, I can do a side-by-side comparison of Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises vs. Foster/Willard/Comer practices—line by line. That’s where the similarities (and differences) become very concrete.
That’s a sharp instinct—bringing in J. A. Wylie actually helps bridge the gap between the early Reformers and later Protestant critiques.
How J. A. Wylie would likely assess Ignatius—and modern parallels
J. A. Wylie (author of The History of Protestantism) wrote with a very strong, unapologetically Protestant lens, especially regarding the Society of Jesus.
His view of Ignatius and the Jesuits
Wylie portrayed Ignatius of Loyola as:
• extraordinarily disciplined and strategic
• but fundamentally committed to restoring papal control
He emphasized features like:
• absolute obedience (even against personal judgment)
• structured spiritual training
• formation of the will through method and regimen
Wylie saw the Jesuit system as:
a powerful machinery for shaping minds and consciences
—not merely a devotional aid, but a comprehensive system of formation.
What would Wylie likely say about modern “spiritual formation”?
If Wylie encountered figures like:
• Richard Foster
• Dallas Willard
• John Mark Comer
he would almost certainly notice parallels such as:
• intentional “rules of life”
• structured daily/weekly practices
• emphasis on formation through repeated disciplines
Likely critique (based on his framework)
Wylie would probably argue:
1. Return of systematized spirituality
He would see this as drifting back toward method-driven piety rather than Spirit-driven life.
2. Formation through method vs. Word
He would likely insist that true transformation comes primarily through:
• Scripture
• the Holy Spirit
not through structured routines.
3. Subtle shift of authority
Even if unintended, he might argue these systems:
• begin to function like rules
• shape conscience beyond Scripture
4. Echo of Jesuit strategy (in form, not necessarily intent)
Not that modern teachers are Jesuits—but that:
• the methodology resembles what he saw as Jesuit formation techniques
Important nuance
Wylie would likely not say Foster/Willard/Comer are:
• Roman Catholic in doctrine
• or consciously following Ignatius
But he would likely warn:
that adopting similar structures can lead to similar spiritual dynamics over time.
Now: Side-by-side comparison
Ignatius vs. modern spiritual formation
1. Foundational document
Ignatius
• Spiritual Exercises
• Highly structured, step-by-step program
• Designed for guided retreat (often 30 days)
Modern (Foster / Willard / Comer)
• Celebration of Discipline
• The Spirit of the Disciplines
• “Rule of Life” frameworks (Comer)
• Less rigid, but still structured patterns
2. Structure and method
Ignatius
• Fixed sequence (meditations, prayers, reflections)
• Daily schedule
• Specific mental exercises (imagination, visualization)
Modern
• Suggested rhythms (silence, solitude, fasting, Sabbath)
• Flexible but still programmatic
• Sometimes includes reflective practices similar to Ignatian “examen”
✅ Similarity: Formation through repeated, intentional practices
⚠️ Difference: Modern versions are less formally binding
3. Goal of the practices
Ignatius
• Align the will fully with God
• Cultivate obedience to Christ as mediated through the Church
Modern
• Become more like Christ
• Deepen relationship with God
• Emphasize inner transformation
✅ Shared language: transformation, formation, Christlikeness
⚠️ Key difference: ecclesiastical authority is largely absent in modern forms
4. View of how change happens
Ignatius
• Grace is primary, but practices are structured means
• Strong confidence in the process producing results
Modern
• Practices “position you” to receive grace (Willard language)
• Emphasis: not earning, but cooperating
⚠️ This is where critics (like Wylie would be) raise concern:
• Does “positioning” function practically like a method of producing growth?
5. Role of imagination and inner experience
Ignatius
• Heavy use of imaginative prayer
(e.g., place yourself inside a Gospel scene)
Modern
• Some streams adopt similar approaches
• Others are more restrained
✅ Partial overlap, especially in contemplative circles
6. Authority and obligation
Ignatius
• Practiced under direction
• Within a system of obedience
• Can become binding
Modern
• Usually voluntary
• Framed as helpful, not required
⚠️ But critics argue:
• they can function as expectations within certain communities
Final synthesis
Where they genuinely overlap
• Structured spiritual practices
• Intentional formation of the inner life
• Repetition as a means of transformation
Where they differ
• Authority (church vs. individual guidance)
• Theology of merit vs. grace (at least in stated intent)
• Degree of rigidity
The key question (then and now)
The tension—felt by Reformers, Wylie, and many today—is this:
Do spiritual disciplines support grace…
or do they subtly become a system that shapes and measures spirituality?
That’s the fault line.
If you want, I can go one level deeper and show specific Ignatian exercises (day-by-day) next to modern daily routines (Comer-style rule of life)—that’s where the resemblance becomes either convincing or overstated depending on your perspective.
LikeLike