Customer Reviews

Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine by Which the Church and the Individual Stands or Falls (Reformation Theology Series)

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

 

 

Soli Deo Gloria publications has put out a very good compilation effort here that strongly affirms a central Protestant doctrine that continues to divide Rome and Protestantism.

Similar to the compilation effort 'Sola Scriptura', this book provides a solid introductory framework upon which beginners can clearly see why the doctrine is important, what Roman Catholicism and Protestantism both say about the issue, and that the difference in viewpoints on this doctrine are immensely important. The Protestant view is that human beings are justified in the sight of God on the basis of faith alone in Jesus Christ. Nothing else can add to this legal status that believers have with God - not good works, not penance, not sacramental exercises, or anything else. Roman Catholicism has anathemized such a view, affirming that while faith is necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient by itself and needs to be augmented by sacramental observances, good works, etc. At issue here is a fundamental disagreement over the nature of salvation. Is salvation a monergistic effort, meaning that God does the work because we are so completely dead in our sins that we are incapable of choosing the spiritual good absent a work of God, or is salvation a synergistic effort where man cooperates with God on an ongoing basis to ensure salvation. The Protestant, or at least the Reformed view, is that the act of justification is totally an act of God by which in His immense grace, He chooses us, bestows efficacious grace on us, and saves us from our sin. The act of ongoing obedience to God and being conformed to the image of Christ is the process of progressive sanctification, which is a separate work and does not have anything to do with one's legal standing before God (justification). Rome's view has long mixed justification and sanctification together so that the work of sanctification becomes part of one's legal standing before God, rather than an independent work of God in the life of a believer who has already been declared legally righteous before God through faith. I thought this book did an outstanding job of sufficiently getting into the nuances of thought here in order to shine a very bright light on exactly what the differences are and why they are important. Clearly, a person's view on this issue makes a very big difference in terms of how they view themselves, God, the Church, the afterlife, and a host of other things.

I felt that Armstrong's chapter on why justification is through faith ALONE was the highlight of the book. The Protestant view is very defendable in light of Scripture, and I would certainly agree with the authors that this view is decidedly more faithful to a good contextual reading of Scripture than Rome's position. I also felt that Rome's misunderstanding of the Protestant doctrine (that this doctrine leads to antinomianism or unholy and inconsequential living) was well refuted here.

In summary, this text is an introductory work, but very valuable as a standard reference on this foundational doctrine. It is well documented and easy to read, which makes it very accessible to the beginner but also intellectually satisfying to the more experienced reader.

Justification by Faith ALONE (JBFA) was recommended to me as a good introduction to the doctrine of Justification by Faith written from a Reformed theological perspective. While I enjoyed reading the book, it was not what I expected it to be. The book does cover this doctrine from the Reformed perspective - it is thorough and informative.

What I did not know is that JBFA, a compilation of essays, was published in 1995 as a response, or reaction, to "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission and the Third Millennium." They are reacting to a document that seeks to bring Evangelicals and Catholics to common ground, but which virtually ignores THE major difference between the two, since the Reformation itself, and that is the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. So, the JBFA is a counter to another work, but a much needed counter. Any attempt to unify Protestants and Catholics must consider this topic.

The essays and authors are as follows:

1. Long Before Luther: Jesus and the Doctrine of Justification - Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr.

2. Justification by Faith Alone: The Forensic Nature of Justification - Dr. R.C. Sproul

3. Justification by Faith Alone: The Relation of Faith to Justification - Dr. Joel R. Beeke

4. Justification by Faith Alone: The Nature of Justifying Faith - Dr. John H. Gerstner

5. Justification by Faith Alone: The Sufficiency of Faith for Justification - Dr. John H. Armstrong

JBFA has an all-star cast of authors. They provided me with information that I did not know. As a student of language, I knew that one of the most difficult aspects of learning a language is gaining a mastery of prepositions. This may sound trivial to non-linguists, but it is true. I now know some of the linguistic reasoning behind the doctrine of justification by faith. The brief section with this information is not overbearing to the reader. I found it very helpful.

Dr. Don Kistler edited this compilation of essays. I wish a little more forethought had gone into how this project would come together. Each author did address specific nuances of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. However, most of the essays covereded very similar ground on the background of the doctrine and the historic theological differences between Protestant and Catholic belief on this issue. The book became very repetitive and laborious in this regard. It probably could have cover this doctrine just as thoroughly in half the space if it had been approached differently.

A second issue I have with the book is that it does not accomplish what it promises. In the Preface Dr. Kistler writes, "Not relying on the works of the Reformers and Puritan divines, whom we largely publish, for final authority, the authors support by sound exegesis of Scripture the Reformational position that a faith which receives forgiveness and justification is the faith that doesn't look to itself but to God (p. x)." While the authors did explain this view of justification very well, they also seemed to rely on the works of the Reformers and Puritans more than on Scripture. I did not keep a tally, but it seemed that far more quotations came from historical figures than from Scripture. Such notable scholars should be able to articulate this doctrine from Scripture alone. I was disappointed in this aspect of the book, because I much prefer to see doctrine from Scripture than history.

A final issue stems from the incoherency of the concept of "faith" in this compilation. If the authors had decided upon a working definition of this one word, it would have gone a long way in making this book pleasant reading. Even if each author had stated a definition of faith for each essay, it would have been helpful. Instead, the reader must wade through murky waters trying to sort out just what the authors were trying to say. In one paragraph, one of the authors personifies faith and faith is suddenly taking action. The Bible personifies wisdom, but never faith. I found myself wondering if these concepts of faith were actually Biblical, or merely theological (and, there is a difference). Hand-in-hand is the overall issue of terminology, or vocabulary. Most of the Latin is explained in English. However, I did not find JBFA to be clear reading since I am not overly familiar with the vocabulary of Reformed Theology (even though I have a Master's in Theology).

Overall, I liked the book. I found it to be very informative on the doctrine of Justification by Faith ALONE. I do believe it could have been done better. I do not believe it is truly an introductory book on this topic. If you are familiar with the language of Reformed Theology and you realize this book is written contra Catholicism you will most likely enjoy this book. If you are Catholic and wonder what is the difference in Protestant belief on justification, this book will be very helpful to you, but you must be aware it is not written to please a Catholic audience.

Soli Deo Gloria's Justification by Faith Alone (1st edition 1995, 2nd edition 2003), edited by Don Kistler, covers its subject matter thoroughly and effectively. Originally written in response to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) document of 1994, Justification by Faith Alone contains five essays designed to defend the Protestant understanding of justification as something that is essential to the Christian faith:

*As an introduction, John MacArthur tackles Jesus' view of justification to provide a fundamental Scriptural basis.

*The next four essays cover the implications of each word in the phrase "justification by faith alone": R.C. Sproul covers "justification"; Joel Beeke tackles "by"; John Gerstner looks at "faith"; and John Armstrong examines "alone."

*An appendix contains John Gerstner's response to the book Rome Sweet Home, an account of the conversion of well-known Roman Catholics Scott and Kimberly Hahn from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism.

While writing an individual essay on each word in "justification by faith alone" might seem to constitute a dauntingly intellectual approach to an already heady subject, most of the authors write quite simply and effectively. (The highly analytical examinations of Greek terms by Armstrong and, particularly, Beeke, make those essays somewhat more difficult to wade through than the ones by MacArthur, Sproul, and Gerstner.)

The two best essays come from Sproul and his mentor Gerstner. "The Forensic Nature of Justification" (Sproul) states the arguments for the Protestant understanding of justification very clearly and is very fair to the Roman Catholic position. (As a side note, it's interesting to find Sproul disagreeing with esteemed Anglican theologian Alister McGrath at one or two points.) "The Nature of Justifying Faith" (Gerstner) focuses on how faith should be defined. More than any other author in this book, he most strongly states his positions.

The other essays are still very good, but less successful. MacArthur's "Jesus and the Doctrine of Justification" only actually gets to the subject matter promised by the title three-quarters of the way into the essay. The preceding material provides strong arguments in favor of the Protestant doctrine; unfortunately, MacArthur is somewhat less convincing in arguing that Luke 18:9-14 presents an imputed righteousness view of justification. Beeke and Armstrong provide the most intellectual essays; some readers may find their discussions of Greek prepositions overly challenging.

Some readers complain that the essays are overly repetitive. That's a fair criticism, but on the other hand, the fact that each writer looks at the topic from a different angle provided enough variety for this reviewer. Also, some readers may benefit from reading the same points made by different authors.

Given these flaws, why give the book five stars? Because, in the end, the book serves as an excellent resource regarding its subject matter. You can disagree with the Protestant view of justification, but its implications are clearly laid out in this book for everyone to examine. And while none of the essays is flawless, there are vastly more positives in each essay than negatives (e.g., if MacArthur's discussion of Jesus' view of justification could be better, nonetheless he clearly lays out the importance of justification by faith alone, both biblically and historically). Also, the fact that most authors provided relatively easy-to-follow arguments makes this book reasonably accessible to the average layperson (even if more discussion of the practical implications of the doctrine would have been welcome). With all of its strengths, it's possible that Justification by Faith Alone is the best recent work on the subject matter.

A powerful, much needed book to help the Whole Church carry the Whole Gospel to the Whole World. We are saved by 100% Grace and also 100% Faith. Unbelieved grace, or believed pseudo-grace are equally deficient, both of which are rampant in the church today. This helpful volume gets to the root of the confusion and marshalls a full battery of Biblical ammo to attack all humanistic competition to the true Gospel of Jesus. The true Gospel must afflict the comfortable before it can comfort the afflicted. Repentance is critical to saving faith, without which no one can inherit the Kingdom. Mathematically, the Biblical formula is NOT: Faith+Works=Salvation; rather it is: Faith=Salvation+Works. The Root of Faith in Christ can't help but produce Fruit of Grace through Christ. No Fruit? No Root. Root? Then Fruit. This book belongs in every thoughtful Christian's library and as a witnessing tool for unsaved loved ones. Buy two books and pass one on to a friend!

Of all the theological books I have read on the topic of justification by faith, this book is an excellent synopsis of them all. The authors are clear and concise in their understanding of the related scriptures. It states clearly we have no part in our salvation, it is all of God or not of God. Their argument based on scripture is that Christ's righteousness is what we need for salvation and eternal life. Christ's righteousness is imputed to those God has chosen. The book clearly goes over the differences between biblical faith and the Catholic faith plus works system. A must read for Catholics whose faith is undermined by the teachings of their church. The book is also a quick journey through church history and the Catholic church history. There is truth and the truth is out there, the truth of the scriptures and that truth is reiterated in this book which looks to Christ and Christ alone for salvation, an excellent book.

I found this work to be a decent, sound introduction to the protestant interpretation of sola fide. I am a protestant and agreed with everything said. However, the book does have its lapses. As the editors mentioned in the preface (and the negative reviewers did not notice), none of the authors corraborated with each other in writing this, thus the repetition. The one fault I do have with the book is the tension of how was Augustine portrayed. Macarthur has him affirming sola fide and Sproul has him denying it. Which one is true? I think that Both, if viewed in context, are accurate. Students of Church History know that Augustine was a theological paradox (and in many instances, such as predestination, he changed views later in life). He is known as the father of the reformation and the father of the modern Roman Church. He had a romish view of the sacraments and a protestant view on sin and predestination. Sproul nor Macarthur should have appealed to him.
The Review:
The authors write passionately, not necessarily neutral or overly objective; they write to win souls.
Macarthur did show that Jesus taught sola fide, although implicittly and not as extensively as Paul.
Sproul did a fine job, especially drawing on McGrath's book, Iustitia Dei
John Gerstener and John Armstrong had long sections with extensive bibliographies.
"Rome not Home" by Gerstener can not be judged to be right or wrong. He is merely retelling a lifelong observation of Catholic scholar, Scott Hahn. And for the information one reviewer, Gerstener does shed light on how Reformers view "apostasy", although that is not his intention.

Final Analysis:
The book was passionate, well-written, and mediocrely edited. Unfortunately, that lowers its value in Catholic's eyes. It is an intro, not an exhaustive text. Read it as a springboard for understanding the 400 year old conflict.
By the way, read pp. 160-164 for our understanding of James 2, Romans 3, Genesis 15 and 22.

J. Vernon McGee once commented that, after a sermon on prophesy, commented to a deacon that a lot of people would have not liked that sermon. The deacon responded that his sermon was nothing -- the subject that would make the audience mad was grace.

This book is great at introducing the subject, and helping a person get a handle on the subject. The authors for the most part succeeded in being able to be understood.

I found the project on Sola Scriptura to be better done than this one. I found the appendix ("Rome NOT Home") to be unnecessary and even more rambling than the other articles. Also, this book promoted Calvinism more so than the "Sola Scriptura" volume, implying that unless you are a 5 point Calvinist you have a wrong understanding of salvation by faith alone. Wrong. I do not consider myself Calvinist (or Arminian for that matter), and I feel I understand the subject properly.

I'm not sure why I bought this book. The more systematic "The God Who Justifies" failed at nearly every turn of the page to refute or even interact with Not By Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis, so how much could I expect from a brief collection of essays that one reveiwer rightfully pointed out leads to overlapping ideas that seem to play like a broken record. In addition to overlapping themes/tangents, the authors also made numerous unproved assertions, gaping holes in their argumentation, contradictions and almost laughable historic gaffes. Here are some examples:

1) Dr. MacArthur asserts at the end of his essay that sola fide was taught by Augustine (which is absolutely hilarious to anyone who has actually READ any of his works). But, the truly hilarious moment comes just a few pages later when R.C. Sproul (quoting Alistair McGrath) says that Augustine had a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of justification (because of the meaning of the Latin word for justificaiton). Wow! Whose the fact checker for this book?!? Moreover, it should be noted that Augustine's sacramental theology was condemned numerous times throughout the book.

2) Dr. Gerstner claims that Aquinas was a Protestant! His reasoning is that since Aquinas teaches justificatio impii (justification of the ungodly) he must've been an evangelical deep down inside. It's amazing that he can claim this given the fact that Aquinas systematized "mertium de condigno" for the church. Moreover, Session 6 Chapter 7 of the Council of Trent said: "For although no one can be just but he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this does take place in this justification of the ungodly..." Was the Council which Gerstner and the other authors who contributed disparraged constantly really a forefather to the Reformed faith? With selective quoting like this, the possibilty might still exist :-) !

3) No one seriously interacts with the fact the only other time "...credited to him as righteousness..." is used in scriptures is to describe Phineas (Psalm 106:30-31), for a righteous quality intrinsic to him. This is obviously a fatal flaw to Protestant theology that forces the Reformed camp to either admit that God actually credits righteousness to people because of a quality in them, just like Abraham (Romans 4:18-21), or it forces them to admit that Paul selectively quotes OT passages and ignores others just to prove a theological point.

4) Dr. Armstrong claims that James is trying to say that Abraham offering up Isaac merely vindicated his actual justification in Genesis 15:6. There are many problems with this, but what I'd like to point out is that if Genesis 15:6 was Abraham's only justification, than he was a lost heathen when he left his homeland BY FAITH (which incidentally is listed by the author of Hebrews in the FAITH hall of fame along with the incidents in Genesis 15 and 22, not bad for one of the lost, eh?).

5) Dr. MacArthur claims to show that Jesus taught Sola Fide, but the majority of the essay is dedicated to the writings of Paul. In addition, passages in which Jesus explicitly says that the final judgement is going to be based on works (Matt 16:27, 25:31-46 etc.) or that salvation is indeed dependent on works (Mark 10:17-31) are not even mentioned!

6) Dr. Gerstner continually maintains that Christians will be rewarded for their works in heaven and that their final justification does not depend on them. He does this by quoting absolutely no biblical passages to prove his point.

7) All of the authors at one point or another say that justification always proceeds sanctification (which therefore protects us from the fatal error of mixing the two). No biblical passages are cited in support of this and the passage that contradicts it (1 Cor. 6:11) is never mentioned.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop the list there. The last chapter is a rebuttal to the book Rome Sweet Home. I haven't read the book, so I can't say how well Gerstner proves his point. But it does serve as interesting insight into how people who belive in Once Saved Always Saved deal with the fact that people abandon the faith.

The book is spoiled because it does not understand the Catholic teaching on justification which it is trying to rebut. Robert Sungenis' work "Not by Faith Alone" should be read alongside for comparison. Then let the reader decide.

The essay structure of the book is never a good idea, as it leads to overlap.

John MacArthur's book "Justification by Faith Alone" tries to support that one is justified by mere faith apart from works which was the teaching of Martin Luther. The problem with Mr. MacArther's book, it deals with the interpretation of the Scriptures through Martin Luther and other Protestants instead of what the Early Christians taught. I won't even consider this book as a good source for justification for one can blow gapping holes throughout Mr. MacArther's book.