A Book Review from Books At a Glance
by Matthew B. Tabke
There’s a book on one of my shelves somewhere titled Why I’m Catholic (and You Should be Too) by Brandon Vogt. While I have not read that book thus far, a few years ago I did read Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. Hahn presents a compelling case for the Catholic church through both Scriptural argumentation and personal testimony. I remember reading this work and finding much of it very convincing and even desirable since becoming Catholic means being accepted by a community that appears globally unified on the surface. Ultimately, I still found the Catholic church to have too many doctrines that seemed unjustifiable Scripturally. Important though, through my reading of Hahn’s work was the question that every committed Protestant Christian ought to reckon with at some point: why aren’t I Catholic?
Unquestionably, the doctrine of justification by faith alone played perhaps the most significant role in the Protestant Reformation. If Catholicism can be accused of exalting tradition so heavily that it carries the same authority as Scripture, Protestants can be accused of dismissing tradition outright because it carries no authority. Perhaps this has created in the average Christian, a tendency not to read old books. As a Ph.D. student, I want to read old books, but I recognize that for many people, they are nigh inaccessible until someone updates the language, or explains them with a modern work. That is not what is happening in Justification by Faith Alone. This book is the first English translation of the original Latin texts, the authors meaning it has not been translated into Elizabethan English as many old works have been, but rather our modern vernacular. Nor is this book an explanation of the theology or commentary on the text of these authors, meaning the reader is left alone to think about what is being said and understand as best they can. As such, I issue fair warning. While this book is helpful for Christians who are wondering why they are not Catholic, the work is also meticulous, complex, and academic, displaying in full, the height of Reformed Scholasticism. Even in modern English, it is not an easy book to read.
This makes the introductory material important for identifying the type of work this book is, to better prepare for its consumption. These three writings contained therein were translated for a series called “Classic Reformed Theology.” Reformed theology has become classical because it “defines an approach to a discipline” (vii). The series seeks to provide in English some of the most important texts that come from the zenith of Reformed Scholasticism which appeared alongside many of the confessions still in use by Reformed churches today. The preface to the volume informs us that the texts in this collection are critical editions which have been translated from Latin into English for the first time. Those three texts are A Defense of Justification through the Righteousness of Christ Alone Freely imputed, Obtained by Living Faith by Theodore Beza (1592), The Free Justification of Man the Sinner before God by Amandus Polanus (1615), and A Textual Theological Exercise concerning the Harmony of Paul and James on the Article of Justification by Francis Turretin (1687).
The fresh presentation of these texts is helped greatly by Zachary Purvis’ introduction to the context and authors. Purvis explains early that justification by faith alone was the unifying doctrine of early Protestantism, especially in their confessions (xi). The texts from Beza, Polanus, and Turretin explore the doctrine of focus in different ways – Beza from a polemical perspective, Polanus in a systematic and logical way, and Turretin from an exegetical standpoint. These in turn “illustrate the degree to which the Reformed tradition sought to maintain clarity concerning the language and concepts used to express the doctrine of justification” (xii). In other words, those who followed Reformation theologians like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli wanted to be extremely precise in how they talked about justification because it was a central issue on which the Gospel hung. From here, the introduction offers three biographical overviews of each successive author. These overviews further aid in establishing the context and preparing the reader for the works themselves.
First is A Defense of Justification by Theodore Beza. Beza begins his polemic with a consideration of the testimony concerning justification by faith from nine confessions: Augsburg, Saxon, Wurttemberg, the first confession of Basel, the Second Helvitic, Bohemian, French, Belgic, and the English. These testimonies demonstrate the scholarly theological consensus of Protestantism; these conclusions were reached by Scripture authority alone across the Western world of the day. Beza pens his work against Antoine Lescaille, even though Lescaille’s name is omitted from the document Beza is responding to. Lescaille (often called the Anonymous Man) is accused of conflating sanctification with justification, and especially with the suggestion that man is justified before God not on the basis of faith alone, but of faith which produces good works that then have a role in justifying the believer. The justification through works is possible (so Lescaille says) because Christ’s imputed righteousness purifies the works of the saints and therefore allows Christians to do works that are entirely pure, unmixed with error, and without sin. These perfect works then justify the believer before God. Beza finds this to be an atrocity. He fully affirms certain connections between justification and sanctification and between faith and good works, but to suggest that a believer’s works are without sin is a grievous error that threatens the Gospel. Through heavy use of Scripture, syllogism, and logic, Beza lays out his case against the Anonymous Man with pinpoint precision. Beza is sometimes considered the founder of Protestant scholasticism, and one can see why in this work. He answers Lescaille’s argument nearly word for word with extreme acuity. These features are difficult to sift through, but showcase the impressive argumentation present in the period of classical Reformed theology.
The second text is Polanus’ The Free Justification of Man the Sinner before God, which was initially written within a larger work called Syntagma Theologiae Christianae. Polanus begins by carefully defining his terms to set the parameters for his following arguments. Unlike Beza, Polanus is not arguing against a single person, but an entire system of thought, and therefore can be more generalized in his approach. He carefully outlines Papist arguments, drawing forth their absurdities and explaining clearly where they are inconsistent with Scripture. There are times when Polanus appears to be a bit more logical than theological, yet his arguments are built from individual texts on the basis of exegetical clarity and the inevitable conclusions that follow. There is a good deal of technical grammatical terms, such as “homonym” and “enthymeme,” which are likely a bit more elusive to the average modern English reader (169). The church fathers are employed frequently, which helps strengthen Polanus’ argument given the high status Catholics often assign them. With the same caliber of precision seen in Beza, Polanus carefully explains his terms and reasoning in order to defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Finally, we come to Turretin’s A Textual Theological Exercise. This work is the shortest of the three and explores justification by faith through deep exegesis of texts from James and Paul. The author explains how the Papists have confounded justification and sanctification, and how they distinguish between a first and second justification to arrive at a theological foundation for works righteousness. Turretin makes heavy use of Augustine, presumably because Catholics have high regard for him. The author explains however, that Augustine agrees with the Protestant perspective given the correction to early Christian thinking James is trying to issue (194). As Polanus, Turretin is also comfortable with technical grammatical terms such as “tmesis” along with frequent Greek and Hebrew terms, which the reader should encounter throughout all three works. Together, these features make Turretin’s defense of justification by faith from the exegetical data very convincing.
Regarding the intensity with which these men are arguing their cases, readers will notice that these men are bringing forth charges of sinfulness on account of doctrinal deviation (143, 192). Serious Protestant Christians likely take justification by faith alone as a theological given, so deeply rooted in their doctrinal systems that they rarely think about it unless prompted. As such, perhaps one of the greatest takeaways from this book is not the interesting and intense argumentation, but that deviation from an Orthodox Scriptural understanding of a doctrine was grounds for accusation. I think here is where we should learn something. Do Protestants in today’s world still have the confidence in their theological system to accuse deviations as sins against the holy God? Would we still today point towards a Catholic understanding of justification and call it with confidence, sinful? Do we recognize undercurrents of Critical Race Theory or Diversity Equity and Inclusion in our modern Evangelicalism and call them false religious assertions that will eventually corrupt organizations so horribly that they lead to the damnation of souls? Are we confident to point at Egalitarianism and call it a crime against the Almighty? I think we can learn much from Beza, Polanus, and Turretin concerning our theological foundations as Protestant Christians. I think we may be able to learn more from the Reformers about how to engage with our opponents, for we moderns often have a fealty to kindness which sometimes subverts our commitment to the Truth. People in theological conversation with each other, particularly Evangelical scholars, should perhaps sometimes be a bit more fiery in their writing, given that some theological deviations will actually lead people to an eternity apart from Christ. The passion of the Reformers in this regard ought to inform our present day zeal.
I close this review by drawing a few conclusions. First, it is good that this book exists, for it is important for defending Protestant Orthodoxy and the authority of Scripture over and against a Catholic understanding of justification. Second, this book is difficult to digest, and readers should know that going in. There are concepts, language, and paths of argumentation that have been lost to time, and they can be difficult to follow. I would suggest this as a slow read for an academically minded pastor teaching on these doctrines, or for students in advanced degree programs who are interested in studying Reformation theology. Third, the book is valuable for informing us of practices in the past that perhaps ought to be in use today and generating a posture of humility. We underestimate the caliber of learning many of Reformation giants had and sometimes assume intellectual superiority because information is so much more readily available. The authors in this volume had skills of thought ingrained in them from childhood, which very few, if any, adults have nowadays, and which cannot be learned unless integrated back into our educational curriculum in the successive generations. I personally have been guilty of thinking it possible to learn anything I need to in order to understand what someone is saying, but the truth is, there are patterns of thought and logic which moderns cannot tread easily and will not be able to unless they are ingrained in our educational structures over more than one generation. Therefore, I urge some audiences to engage with Justification by Faith Alone, but I suggest reading slowly and carefully.
Matthew B. Tabke