Customer Reviews

Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

RC Sproul's effort here is a solid contribution to the ongoing debate over justification. It's not perfect, as I'll discuss below, but the strengths of the book are sufficient enough to warrant serious consideration.

Sproul wrote this book in 1995 in large measure as a response to a specific event that occurred in 1994 - the publicizing of the ECT document. Sproul writes with great concern that this ecumenical document signed by a number of prominent evangelicals and Roman Catholics inappropriately dodges the central point of disagreement between the two camps (justification). I think Sproul is absolutely right in expressing this concern and believing that the document's effort to minimize and even not acknowledge such a fundamental disagreement is deceptive because the document ends up claiming a level of unity that does not exist. While some have criticized the book for dwelling too much on the ECT document, I thought Sproul's treatment was quite appropriate and necessary. It once again moves to central stage the issue of justification by faith, and what evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe about the doctrine and why it's important.

Sproul's brief summary of the history of justification in the church is very educational for the beginner. I also felt that Sproul nuanced the discussion very well by showing how important this issue was to Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers. By doing this, Sproul draws a clear distinction between the weight the original reformers gave to this issue versus the modern day tendency to downplay its importance within evangelicalism (and Roman Catholicism) in order to achieve a superficial unity. It is very insightful to see very clearly that the issue itself hasn't changed, the disagreements which led to the reformation haven't been resolved. All that's changed is the church's unwillingness to thoughtfully engage in the debate because many Christians believe that in the whole scheme of things, the doctrine of justification is no longer an issue worth debating and simply isn't a big priority anymore. I thought Sproul handled this attitudinal change well and effectively demonstrated that the doctrine of justification is not merely a dusty theological issue of no current importance, but remains a central part of the gospel that we dare not water down.

Sproul also does a good job here of contrasting the imputation of righteousness that undergirds the Reformed view, versus the infusion view that undergirds Roman Catholicism. I think a reader who is willing to seriously interact with this issue will get a great deal out of Sproul's discussion here and will see very clearly that Rome's view has been and continues to be antithetical in many ways to the Protestant view of justification.

The biggest negative of this book is the lack of Scriptural exegesis. I found this book to be an examination of justification not from a Biblical perspective, but from a church history and denominational perspective. This book is about what Reformed Protestants and Rome think about justification. It is not really a book that attempts to ground either side's views in the Bible. This is a disappointment. Sproul goes to great lengths in arguing that justification by faith alone is at the heart of the gospel message every bit as much as the deity of Christ is at the heart of the gospel message. Yet it was surprising to me that having argued for the centrality of justification to the gospel, Sproul doesn't spend much time actually interacting with the text of the gospel to solidify his point. Sproul unnecessarily leaves open the possibility that the reader may walk away from his book believing that the importance of justification is a matter of man's opinion rather than Scriptural reality.

So overall, this is a solid book that effectively contrasts the Protestant and Roman Catholic views on justification and why these views are important and should be central in any meaningful dialogue between Protestants and Roman Catholics (which the ECT did not do). But the lack of Scriptural grounding is a weakness that unnecessarily limits the scope of this book to human opinions, creeds, bulls, and councils - none of which are inerrant. The importance of the doctrine of justification should have first been established in the pages of inerrant Scripture, and it is here that Sproul's work comes up short.

Rev. Sproul's work compels the reader to "earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints." He logically, scripturally, and systematically destroys the eccumenical position on salvation as its proponents have arrogated to themselves the responsibility to decide what is "essential" for man to be saved, even though Jesus Himself said that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Papists and their apologists will hate this book, for Rev. Sproul leaves no doubt that there cannot be "two Gospels." He masterfully shows how the signers of the ECT have been duped into thinking they have achieved some great milestone for "unity," when what they really have done is compromised on a key doctrine (justification)the loss of which threw Christendom into 1000 years of the Dark Ages.

A classic work to be read by all Christians in order to gain a foundational understanding of our faith. Far too many who profess Christ no so little about what His Word teaches. This book is an exhortation to all to "endure sound doctrine."

This is a fine book which should help the reader understand the gospel and the true relationship between faith and works. It deals in part with the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" dialogue as well as "Lordship salvation". It's sad how gullible people fall for the inane argument that James taught salvation by faith AND works. If James did, then he absolutely contradicted Paul and the rest of the NT. The "faith alone" that doesn't justify according to James is the (intellectual) faith that demons have who simply believe there is one God. (James 2:19). James speaks of being considered righteous before men (2:18) whereas Paul speaks of how a sinner is acquitted and declared righteous at the judgment seat by God. Paul says unequivocally that Abraham (and Christians) are justifed before God by faith, APART FROM WORKS. (Rom. 4:1-6) which can mean nothing other than by faith alone!

Justification/salvation is FREE and is a GIFT (Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 3:21-24) received through simple faith/trust in Christ. If one is still trying to partially merit it, then he is really not trusting 100% in the sufficiency of Christ and therefore does not possess saving faith at all--there is no middle ground. Christ fully saves those who trust 100% in him--not those who trust 50% in him and 50% in their own righteousness. Christ doesn't give a person an unmerited job and train him to become righteous through sacraments and works so he can save himself. Such a salvation would NOT truly be FREE, nor be GRACE (meaning unmerited favor), nor be the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17). If you are broke and someone gives you $10,000 and it's free that is a gift; if he says, oh by the way you have to paint my house to get the money, then that's not a free gift IT'S A JOB.

When the pope went to Israel recently, Larry King, on his cable show, asked two Catholic priests what the fate of a person would be who had works but NO faith. They replied and said he would be saved. Modern Catholicism also teaches Muslims and Jews will be saved and has wandered so far from the gospel as to make Christian faith unnecessary. Compare this to Acts 4:12: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

When Evangelicals and Catholics talk about justification, they are not really speaking the same language or placing the same meaning on the word. In order to have any meaningful discussion (or debate) on the truth of the matter (and therefore the gospel itself), one at a minimum has to understand what the other side means. This book should help the reader from either side do just that. Hopefully it will also help the reader from falling for strawman type arguments that ignorant or disingenuous people often make. E.g. a common strawman argument Evangelicals sometimes make against Catholics is that they believe in salvation by works--meaning works alone. A common strawman argument Catholics sometimes use against Evangelicals is that forensic justification (faith alone) is a "legal fiction". If you happen to hear or read someone making those type arguments, you can be sure you are dealing with an ignoramus, a liar, or worse! Anyone who misrepresents (intentionally or not) what the other actually believes isn't helping his case or pleasing God. This book does a good job of dealing with the APPARENT contradiction between Paul and James on justification. Since both Catholics and Evangelicals believe in the infallibility of Scripture (as Sproul acknowledges) there cannot be a REAL contradiction between Paul and James. It might surprise some Catholics that Evangelicals believe, like James, that those justified by faith alone will NECESSARILY have good works and be a changed person as a result--the Holy Spirit guarantees as much (cf. 1John 3:6, 3:9). Perhaps Sproul should have also mentioned that it is a settled rule of hermeneutics that unclear and isolated passages (like James 2) must be interpretted by more clear and numerous ones. When Paul writes that a person is justified BY faith and NOT BY works or law (e.g. Rom. 3:28, 4:6; Gal. 2:15-16; 3:11; Eph. 2:8-9) there can be no doubt that he is teaching justification by faith alone. If someone said their lawnmower or car (or any internal combustion engine) ran BY gas and NOT BY water, no one would think they were saying it ran on BOTH gas and water! In fact, if ANY water was put in the gas tank and made it's way to the carburetor, the engine wouldn't run at all! Trying to mix faith and works for justification (just like trying to mix gas and water) is just as bad effectively as having neither. Some may argue "works" is just legal or ceremonial works, but this is a distinction Paul NEVER made about works. Indeed, the example of works he uses that didn't justify Abraham with God, were moral works, since Abraham lived some 400 years before Moses was ever given the Law! Another good book that goes into some detail on key verses on justification and imputation is Charles Hodge's COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Just keep in mind though, that you do not have to believe in a Calvinist (or Thomist) view of election to believe in justification by faith alone.

The main point of the book is that the Catholic and Reformation positions cannot be bridged. And if this doctrine was important enough to merit the council of Trent, that council's anathema must be removed before there can be any unity. Sproul does a wonderful job in documenting the two positions, and he does do a fair job describing the Catholic position. I still don't understand how people can read James and not see that James was railing against easy-believism. "Demons have faith." Obviously, James is not talking about the saving kind of faith. And frankly, I do not understand how you can read John, Ephesians, Romans, and Galatians and come up with the Catholic position. Catholicism has other doctrines that are in error, but this one can keep people under chains. Even if you are Catholic, this will at least explain the Reformed position to you and clear up some easy-believism misunderstandings. I really do not understand why people will give only one star if you disagree with the position. Like there was nothing else in the book that at least raised it to two stars. That's the way people rate things on Amazon. I mention this only to encourage any Catholic to at least see what the other side is saying, unfiltered through other mouths. Sproul is one of the premier theologians of our age, who studied under a premier theologian. He is worth your time.

To one of the reviewers below who accuse Sproul of not being a good scholar for saying that Luther held to calvinst views, or similar to Calvin's, apparently it is you who need to do some good research! Try reading Bondage of the Will, by Luther, for a change. Here is what he wrote on election, freewill,preservation of the saints and human depravity: "He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks freewill flat and utterly shatters it...Hence it follows that freewill without the grace of God is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to evil...So, too, I say that man, before he is renewed into the new creation of the Spirit's kingdom, does and endeavors nothing to prepare himself for that new creation and kingdom, and when he is re-created he does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves; as James says, 'Of His own will begat He us with the word of His power, that we should be the firstfruits of His creation'(Jas. 1.18). So it is certain that Paul's view here accords with Christ's teaching in John 3(v. 6), that everything which is not of the Spirit is flesh...For the Spirit of Christ is needed, and without Him all is nothing but a matter of condemnation..."

I bought this book hoping to gain a better understanding of the historical doctrine of justification by faith alone, and that is exactly what I got. If you are looking for a biblical defense of the doctrine, this book probably won't satisfy you. It does have scriptural references in many places, but it is primarily a clear description of what the Reformers' position was on the matter.

My one complaint about the book was that it spends a bit too much space criticizing the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" statement. Setting aside the question of whether or not the criticism is valid, I would just say that that isn't what I wanted from this book.

My intent was to enter a study on faith, what it is, how it is critical, and how to strengthen it. This book did not deliver. While there are a few nuggets of gold within it, overall Mr. Sproul does not maintain a focused writing style, causing me to find myself as lost as he was on many of his points. He also uses latin phrases numerous times unecessarily - as if only to show he knows the meanings and we don't. While I continue to value many of Mr. Sproul's writings and the work he does, this one is lacking. I would suggest "Justification by Faith Alone" by Jonathan Edwards as an alternative ISBN: 1-57358-107-0.

The author does a good job of contrasting the evangelical and catholic positions on the doctrine of justification. The book is not an in depth study of the scriptural teachings on the subject, but is a well researched treatise on the history of the dispute. Whether or not we agree with Sproul's own conclusions concerning justification by faith alone, we are forced to seriously reconsider the recent push towards catholic and evangelical unity. Are we truly breaking down ungodly divisions, or are we compromising our convictions in order to establish a shallow front? Sproul may not have me completely convinced, but he does have me thinking long and hard rather than jumping to hasty and emotional conclusions.

There has always been diversity within Evangelicalism, but also a bedrock of core beliefs, namely sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (justification by faith alone), that have united us. In recent decades, however, there has been a seismic shift. A recent article in my Reformed denomination's magazine discussed whether the Reformation was even necessary. Nowhere in the lengthy article was sola fide (faith alone) even mentioned, much less discussed. The impression clearly given by this and by other recent publications such as the 1994 Evangelicals and Catholics Together document is that Evangelicals and Catholics do in fact believe the same gospel. The implication is that the split in Christendom caused by the Reformation should never have happened.

R.C. Sproul wrote this book in response to the new ecumenical mood. He explains why the precise language used by the Reformers was not theological hair-splitting, that the stand they took against Rome was not a tragic, unnecessary tempest in a teapot. He shows that current attempts at finding a unity of faith are essentially meaningless because both sides can read diametrically different theologies into the same words.

We learn that the ultimate issue of the Reformation had to do with the grounds of our justification: on what basis will God ever declare a person to be just? The Roman Catholic Church says the only way God will ever declare a person just is on the basis of inherent righteousness. Of course you can't be righteous without the help of Christ and grace, but though these are necessary for justication, they are not sufficient. You must cooperate with infused grace such that righteousness inheres within you; it becomes your own.

The problem, says Sproul, is that "all the benefits of sacramental grace, as powerful and effective as they are claimed to be, do not gain us the holiness required by absolute justice. We need a greater righteousness than whatever righteousness inheres in us, by whatever means of grace it so inheres, in order to stand before God's judgment" (p.107).

The Reformation view, by contrast, was that the only grounds by which God ever declares one just is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. It is the righteousness that properly belongs to Christ alone that merits salvation in front of a just and holy God. So we are justified by faith alone in this sense: faith is the instrument by which we embrace Christ; we put our trust in him, and in him alone as the grounds of our salvation. The moment we put our trust in Christ, God in a legal action transfers, or imputes, the righteousness of Jesus to our account. At the end of my life I stand before the judgement seat of God and I am clothed, not in my own inherent righteousness, but in the righteousness of Christ. God declares me just in Christ. The bottom line in the dispute, then, is this: covered by whose righteousness do I hope to stand at the last judgment: Christ's, or my own?

So the one word over which the whole controversy was fought was the word "imputation." You take away the concept of imputation, as Rome does, you take away sola fide; you take away sola fide, you take away the gospel.

Sproul clarifies the difference between the two positions with his discussion of the Roman Catholic conception of merit. Here he sees an "unresolved paradox," namely the claim that merit is rooted in grace, that it is "gracious merit." The idea is that the ultimate meritorious ground of our justification is found in the merit of Christ, but as the sinner must do necessary works of satisfaction in the sacrament of penance, he essentially must "merit the merit of Christ. Salvation is accomplished through the merit of Christ and on the merit of the believer" (p. 149).

This finds its ultimate expression in the idea of the treasury of merit, which is filled by the merit of Christ and the supererogatory merit of Mary and the saints, who had more merit than they needed to get into heaven. That excess can be transferred to those who are deficient, by the authority of the church, through an indulgence.

Sproul has elsewhere said that "there is no concept within the Roman Catholic Church more basally repugnant to the Reformed faith than the concept of the treasury of merit. A person who believes in justification by faith alone weeps at this notion." Why? Because "we believe in a treasury of merit, too, one that is inexhaustible. But we don't believe that one nickel of that treasury has been contributed by anyone other than the Son of God. That's the issue: the sufficiency of Christ and Christ alone to redeem me."

ECT proclaims a unity of faith between Evangelicals and Catholics. Clearly that cannot be true. For it to be true, either Rome would have had to change from its position articulated at Trent by embracing sola fide (and it has not), or Evangelicals would have to no longer consider faith alone to be essential to the gospel. Standing with the Reformers, Sproul believes that sola fide is the very essence of the gospel, and is alarmed to see his peers on the one hand unhesitatingly affirming sola fide, while on the other hand proclaiming a unity of faith with Rome in a document that utterly ignores this doctrine.

If Luther and the Reformers were right that the doctrine of sola fide is the article upon which the church stands or falls, and if the Reformation, by recovering the good news that this doctrine proclaims, can properly be described by the words "post tenebras lux" - after darkness, light, then we would do well to heed Sproul's words that "the light of the Reformation is waning" (p.48). This book, clear, thorough, and irenic in tone, deserves to be read by all thoughtful Christians who care to learn more about the precious Biblical truths of God's one and only gospel.