What do you think?
Rate this book
Long Before Luther: Tracing the Heart of the Gospel From Christ to the Reformation
Where was the gospel before the Reformation? Contemporary evangelicals often struggle to answer that question. As a result, many Roman Catholics are quick to allege that the Reformation understanding of the gospel simply did not exist before the 1500s. They assert that key Reformation doctrines, like sola fide , were nonexistent in the first fifteen centuries of church history. Rather, they were invented by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others. That is a serious charge, and one that evangelicals must be ready to answer. If an evangelical understanding of the gospel is only 500 years old, we are in major trouble. However, if it can be demonstrated that Reformers were not inventing something new, but instead were recovering something old, then key tenets of the Protestant faith are greatly affirmed. Hence, the need for this book. After reading Long Before Luther , readers
256 pages, Paperback
Published October 3, 2017
74 people are currently reading
606 people want to read
About the author
Nathan Busenitz
27 books34 followersNATHAN BUSENITZ, (M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D., The Master's Seminary) is the Dean of Faculty and Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master's Seminary. He holds a doctorate in church history, with a specific focus on patristic theology. He has served as a full-time member of the pastoral staff at Grace Community Church, director of the Shepherd's Fellowship, managing editor of Pulpit magazine, and as the personal assistant to John MacArthur.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
October 28, 2017
Long Before Luther: Tracing the Heart of the Gospel From Christ to the Reformation by Nathan Busenitz recently hit the shelves. Busentiz sets out to discover whether or not the doctrine of justification by faith alone was taught and stressed prior to the days of the Protestant Reformation. Anyone familiar with the Reformers understands the motto, post tenabras lux (after darkness light). This little Latin phrase suggests that there was a darkness in the land in the days preceding the Reformation. Such an assertion is true. However, Busentiz asks whether or not any light existed at all. The answer is a resounding “yes!” Indeed, the author discovers that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not an invention of the Reformers. Rather, they unearthed and recovered this doctrine which can be traced back to the apostles.
Dr. Busentiz utilizes Alistair McGrath’s book, Iustitia Dei, which he admits is “widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject.” But comprehensive does not necessarily mean accurate as we shall see. For McGrath essentially argues that Luther and his Reformation buddies concocted what we understand now as justification by faith alone. Busentiz adds, “Because the doctrine of justification lies at the heart of the gospel, the implications of this charge are serious.”
McGrath delineates the three pillars of the Reformers’ view of justification which include 1) Forensic Justification, 2) Justification Distinguished from Regeneration, and 3) The Imputed Righteousness of Jesus Christ. McGrath argues that these distinct doctrines are missing in the first fifteen hundred years of church history. Thus, as Busentiz notes, the doctrine of justification by faith alone was “a theological innovation introduced in the sixteenth century,” at least according to McGrath.
With this vexing concern before his readers, Dr. Busentiz carefully guides them on a journey where they discover that sola fide was taught by Augustine and the church fathers. The three pillars the McGrath identifies are used as a sort of litmus test which Busentiz uses to his advantage and I might add, with great skill.
In the final analysis, Busentiz argues that justification by faith alone is not an invention of the Reformers, nor is it a theological novelty. Indeed, this doctrine was taught by the apostles and the church fathers. While it was largely neglected for the first fifteen hundred years of church history, it was, nonetheless a part of the warp and woof of Christian orthodoxy.
While McGrath’s assertions concerning justification are troubling, the three pillars he identifies in Iustitia Dei actually serve Busentiz quite well as he looks backward and ultimately makes a compelling case for the historic doctrine of justification. Busenitz should be commended for his work as he settles the score on this crucial matter that concerns the gospel.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review.
Dr. Busentiz utilizes Alistair McGrath’s book, Iustitia Dei, which he admits is “widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject.” But comprehensive does not necessarily mean accurate as we shall see. For McGrath essentially argues that Luther and his Reformation buddies concocted what we understand now as justification by faith alone. Busentiz adds, “Because the doctrine of justification lies at the heart of the gospel, the implications of this charge are serious.”
McGrath delineates the three pillars of the Reformers’ view of justification which include 1) Forensic Justification, 2) Justification Distinguished from Regeneration, and 3) The Imputed Righteousness of Jesus Christ. McGrath argues that these distinct doctrines are missing in the first fifteen hundred years of church history. Thus, as Busentiz notes, the doctrine of justification by faith alone was “a theological innovation introduced in the sixteenth century,” at least according to McGrath.
With this vexing concern before his readers, Dr. Busentiz carefully guides them on a journey where they discover that sola fide was taught by Augustine and the church fathers. The three pillars the McGrath identifies are used as a sort of litmus test which Busentiz uses to his advantage and I might add, with great skill.
In the final analysis, Busentiz argues that justification by faith alone is not an invention of the Reformers, nor is it a theological novelty. Indeed, this doctrine was taught by the apostles and the church fathers. While it was largely neglected for the first fifteen hundred years of church history, it was, nonetheless a part of the warp and woof of Christian orthodoxy.
While McGrath’s assertions concerning justification are troubling, the three pillars he identifies in Iustitia Dei actually serve Busentiz quite well as he looks backward and ultimately makes a compelling case for the historic doctrine of justification. Busenitz should be commended for his work as he settles the score on this crucial matter that concerns the gospel.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review.
September 9, 2018
When writing such a short book that proposes to cover both a vast historical period and also the thoughts of so many different people, there are likely to be some places where the result is shallow and based on weak arguments. That certainly seems to apply to Busenitz’s book.
Some of the quotes feel like prooftexts that have been taken out of context to prove the author’s point. For example, when speaking about Origen, Busenitz quotes from Thomas P. Scheck that “Origen recognizes that sometimes Scripture says that human beings are justified by faith alone.” (pg. 69) He does not give examples of other times when Origen believes that Scripture supports justification by means other than faith, and nor does he give a theory why Origen only sometimes believed that Scripture said that justification was by faith alone. When talking about Augustine, he says, “These examples suggest that, at least in places, Augustine understood justification to be transformative.” (pg. 107) Again, he does not show us quotes from Augustine showing the other times when Augustine showed a different conclusion. For quotes like these, instead of saying that they show that the writers supported the view of the Reformers, it should be said that they _could_ be used to support the ideas of the Reformers.
Busenitz’s conclusion that “A primary reason” that Augustine defined the word _justification_ as “to make righteous” was because of Augustine’s access to the Latin Bible instead of Greek seems shaky, at best. (pg. 106) Would he not have been able to consult some of the same earlier examples of the church fathers that Busenitz gave to see how justification was used in a forensic way? I ask this question without deeply probing myself into what access Augustine had to earlier church fathers, but it is something that the author should have given better attention to show why and how he came to this conclusion.
Overall, the book does prove the thesis that there are some places where writers before the Reformation used some wording that is similar to the wording used by the Reformers, and that parts of the Reformer’s doctrine had been active throughout church history. That being said, it is certainly not a definitive work on the idea. This book could be a good starting place for people curious about the subject, but since it does not go into details about the specific beliefs of any of the writers that are quoted, I would recommend searching through the bibliography to find works that deal with parts of the subject in greater depth.
Some of the quotes feel like prooftexts that have been taken out of context to prove the author’s point. For example, when speaking about Origen, Busenitz quotes from Thomas P. Scheck that “Origen recognizes that sometimes Scripture says that human beings are justified by faith alone.” (pg. 69) He does not give examples of other times when Origen believes that Scripture supports justification by means other than faith, and nor does he give a theory why Origen only sometimes believed that Scripture said that justification was by faith alone. When talking about Augustine, he says, “These examples suggest that, at least in places, Augustine understood justification to be transformative.” (pg. 107) Again, he does not show us quotes from Augustine showing the other times when Augustine showed a different conclusion. For quotes like these, instead of saying that they show that the writers supported the view of the Reformers, it should be said that they _could_ be used to support the ideas of the Reformers.
Busenitz’s conclusion that “A primary reason” that Augustine defined the word _justification_ as “to make righteous” was because of Augustine’s access to the Latin Bible instead of Greek seems shaky, at best. (pg. 106) Would he not have been able to consult some of the same earlier examples of the church fathers that Busenitz gave to see how justification was used in a forensic way? I ask this question without deeply probing myself into what access Augustine had to earlier church fathers, but it is something that the author should have given better attention to show why and how he came to this conclusion.
Overall, the book does prove the thesis that there are some places where writers before the Reformation used some wording that is similar to the wording used by the Reformers, and that parts of the Reformer’s doctrine had been active throughout church history. That being said, it is certainly not a definitive work on the idea. This book could be a good starting place for people curious about the subject, but since it does not go into details about the specific beliefs of any of the writers that are quoted, I would recommend searching through the bibliography to find works that deal with parts of the subject in greater depth.
September 16, 2019
A way, way, way better source than either Lawson's "Pillars of Grace" or Oden's "A Reformation Reader" (or even Faber's treatment). Has some very helpful correctives to McGrath's "Iustitia Dei" –especially on how Alister concedes Augustine completely to the Roman Catholics on the issue of Justification as well as how he labels Luther's forensic view as a "novum".
January 21, 2023
Good dissertation that clearly reveals that the Reformation’s understanding of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was not a 16th century invention. Busenitz shows that based on the “totality of historical survey, it simply cannot be maintained that the Reformation understanding of justification was a theological innovation never before anticipated in church history.”
While justification by faith alone is “anchored in the teaching of God’s word … it is also appropriate for evangelicals to appeal to church history for the sake of secondary affirmation.”
Probably the best part of this book, which reads more like a doctoral dissertation, is the appendix which quotes all of the significant figures in church history from Christ, through the middle ages and all the way to the pre-reformers in the 15th century.
While justification by faith alone is “anchored in the teaching of God’s word … it is also appropriate for evangelicals to appeal to church history for the sake of secondary affirmation.”
Probably the best part of this book, which reads more like a doctoral dissertation, is the appendix which quotes all of the significant figures in church history from Christ, through the middle ages and all the way to the pre-reformers in the 15th century.
February 26, 2024
Excellent book and shows that the call of the reformation of sola fide was not merely an invention in the 16th century, but a recovery of the true God glorifying gospel.
This is a book I would recommend for all Christians to read, as Roman Catholics are raising their heads on media platforms and using the ignorance of patristic writings against the average Christian. They do this by quoting selective church father writing which agree with their theology— yet there are patristic writings that agree either implicitly or explicitly of the reformation call of sola fide— and not only this, but the clear teaching of scripture also gives the same call of grace alone and faith alone.
Praise God.
This is a book I would recommend for all Christians to read, as Roman Catholics are raising their heads on media platforms and using the ignorance of patristic writings against the average Christian. They do this by quoting selective church father writing which agree with their theology— yet there are patristic writings that agree either implicitly or explicitly of the reformation call of sola fide— and not only this, but the clear teaching of scripture also gives the same call of grace alone and faith alone.
Praise God.
August 14, 2024
The book: 4.5/5
The appendix: 10/5!
This book is a much needed antidote and response to the belief that the early church (and even the medieval church!) never knew of sola fide. Busenitz proves conclusively that that is a fallacious claim.
The appendix at the end of the book is worth the price of the book itself. In that appendix, Busenitz aggregates dozens of quotations from the church fathers and medieval theologians (like Anselm and Bernard) that definitively prove that, while they were neither univocal nor perfectly consistent, these theologians knew and taught that we are justified by faith alone.
The appendix: 10/5!
This book is a much needed antidote and response to the belief that the early church (and even the medieval church!) never knew of sola fide. Busenitz proves conclusively that that is a fallacious claim.
The appendix at the end of the book is worth the price of the book itself. In that appendix, Busenitz aggregates dozens of quotations from the church fathers and medieval theologians (like Anselm and Bernard) that definitively prove that, while they were neither univocal nor perfectly consistent, these theologians knew and taught that we are justified by faith alone.
May 19, 2023
I have since finished the book, but this is what I wrote after reading just the first chapter:
Busenitz's first chapter casts doubt on the scholarship of Tony Lane and Alister McGrath. This is a bold move, but it is *the* necessary starting point for a book titled "Long Before Luther." For context, Lane and McGrath are Oxford-educated Protestant theologians/historians that both insist that the Protestant conception of Justification was unequivocally unknown in the Christian church prior to the Reformation. Busenitz disagrees wholeheartedly, and he says that he will cause Lane and McGrath's claims to "quickly evaporate" by showing that the Protestant conception of justification "was in fact articulated by the biblical authors and subsequently anticipated by pre-Reformation church leaders." Thus, the first chapter sets the book up as a dismantling of the scholarship of Lane and McGrath. Exciting!
However, my prediction is that Busenitz won't actually engage with McGrath. Rather, Busenitz will spend the book proof-texting a curation of church father quotes that, on a surface-level reading, will appear to promote sola fide. This is a fine starting point, but surely McGrath is aware of these same "proof texts." After all, McGrath is a renowned church historian. When McGrath says that the Protestant view of justification is a Reformation innovation, he does so in light of the patristics, not due to ignorance of the patristics. Therefore, the necessary next steps for Busenitz will be to 1. engage with McGrath's interpretation of the early church quotes that might appear to teach sola fide, and 2. argue why McGrath is interpreting those texts incorrectly. That said, I doubt Busenitz is up to this task, much less interested in this task. Instead, I predict that Busenitz will be satisfied to stick to his curated proof texts and will never bother to mention what McGrath might have to say about those same texts. The hilarious implication of this book will be: "McGrath only claims that sola fide was a Reformation innovation because ... McGrath has never read Augustine!" I doubt that Busenitz will say this explicitly, but if the mere citation of a quote from Augustine will be be purported to make McGrath's claims "quickly evaporate," then the implication is that said Oxford-educated church historian is ignorant of the existence of said quote.
Further, I predict that when Busenitz analyzes scripture and the church fathers he will repeatedly conflate the modern Evangelical notion of the word "faith" (which consists of affirmations of propositions about God and the gospel) with the early church understanding of the word faith (which encompassed mind, body, and soul). That is, Busenitz will draw faulty conclusions by assuming that when early church fathers said "faith" they meant what Evangelicals mean when they say "faith." Further, I predict that in his scriptural proof texts, Busenitz will conflate "works of the law" with "literally any works." That is, Busenitz will cite quotes from Paul that are about the Mosaic Law, and Busenitz will act as though those quotes are about works in general, not merely works of the Mosaic Law. Additionally, I predict that Busenitz will fail to demonstrate an understanding that the Catholic (read "historical Christian") teaching on Justification does affirm that initial Justification (what Protestants typically mean when they say "Justification") is indeed by God's grace alone through faith, not human works. That is, Busenitz will fail to distinguish between when church fathers are talking about initial justification and when they are talking about ongoing justification. Lastly, I predict that Busenitz will fail to acknowledge that the Catholic church does not teach, and has never taught, that people can "earn" their salvation. This teaching is known to Catholics as the Pelagian (and semi-Pelagian) heresy, and this heresy has been decried by the Catholic Church since it first appeared in the fourth-century. Why am I so sure that Busenitz will commit all these errors? Because Protestants that don't commit these errors, like Tony Lane and Alister McGrath, have a consensus view that the Protestant conception of Justification was a Reformation innovation.
If my predictions are wrong, I'll feel like a jerk and I'll thoroughly enjoy reading this book. If my predictions are right, I'm going to take a long break from reading books from Nathan Busenitz, William Webster, and their ilk ... e.g., "Evangelical Man Discovers Reformation Doctrines in Early Church Writings! Catholics HATE Him! Renowned Protestant Scholars Left Speechless! Papacy BTFO!"
...
Now that I've finished the book, I have nothing to add. After the first chapter, McGrath is only mentioned twice. Both times when Busenitz is discussing things that he and McGrath and agree upon. This book contains literally zero engagement with McGrath's interpretation of Augustine or any other patristics. Also, by the end of the second chapter, Busenitz had committed just about every error of conflation that I predicted above.
The purpose of this book is to satiate the minds of Protestants that are uncomfortable with the fact that their core doctrines were invented 500 years ago. Some Protestants, like McGrath, have come to terms with this fact. However, Protestants that are made uneasy by this will read "Long Before Luther" and will be careful not to read it with a critical eye.
Busenitz's first chapter casts doubt on the scholarship of Tony Lane and Alister McGrath. This is a bold move, but it is *the* necessary starting point for a book titled "Long Before Luther." For context, Lane and McGrath are Oxford-educated Protestant theologians/historians that both insist that the Protestant conception of Justification was unequivocally unknown in the Christian church prior to the Reformation. Busenitz disagrees wholeheartedly, and he says that he will cause Lane and McGrath's claims to "quickly evaporate" by showing that the Protestant conception of justification "was in fact articulated by the biblical authors and subsequently anticipated by pre-Reformation church leaders." Thus, the first chapter sets the book up as a dismantling of the scholarship of Lane and McGrath. Exciting!
However, my prediction is that Busenitz won't actually engage with McGrath. Rather, Busenitz will spend the book proof-texting a curation of church father quotes that, on a surface-level reading, will appear to promote sola fide. This is a fine starting point, but surely McGrath is aware of these same "proof texts." After all, McGrath is a renowned church historian. When McGrath says that the Protestant view of justification is a Reformation innovation, he does so in light of the patristics, not due to ignorance of the patristics. Therefore, the necessary next steps for Busenitz will be to 1. engage with McGrath's interpretation of the early church quotes that might appear to teach sola fide, and 2. argue why McGrath is interpreting those texts incorrectly. That said, I doubt Busenitz is up to this task, much less interested in this task. Instead, I predict that Busenitz will be satisfied to stick to his curated proof texts and will never bother to mention what McGrath might have to say about those same texts. The hilarious implication of this book will be: "McGrath only claims that sola fide was a Reformation innovation because ... McGrath has never read Augustine!" I doubt that Busenitz will say this explicitly, but if the mere citation of a quote from Augustine will be be purported to make McGrath's claims "quickly evaporate," then the implication is that said Oxford-educated church historian is ignorant of the existence of said quote.
Further, I predict that when Busenitz analyzes scripture and the church fathers he will repeatedly conflate the modern Evangelical notion of the word "faith" (which consists of affirmations of propositions about God and the gospel) with the early church understanding of the word faith (which encompassed mind, body, and soul). That is, Busenitz will draw faulty conclusions by assuming that when early church fathers said "faith" they meant what Evangelicals mean when they say "faith." Further, I predict that in his scriptural proof texts, Busenitz will conflate "works of the law" with "literally any works." That is, Busenitz will cite quotes from Paul that are about the Mosaic Law, and Busenitz will act as though those quotes are about works in general, not merely works of the Mosaic Law. Additionally, I predict that Busenitz will fail to demonstrate an understanding that the Catholic (read "historical Christian") teaching on Justification does affirm that initial Justification (what Protestants typically mean when they say "Justification") is indeed by God's grace alone through faith, not human works. That is, Busenitz will fail to distinguish between when church fathers are talking about initial justification and when they are talking about ongoing justification. Lastly, I predict that Busenitz will fail to acknowledge that the Catholic church does not teach, and has never taught, that people can "earn" their salvation. This teaching is known to Catholics as the Pelagian (and semi-Pelagian) heresy, and this heresy has been decried by the Catholic Church since it first appeared in the fourth-century. Why am I so sure that Busenitz will commit all these errors? Because Protestants that don't commit these errors, like Tony Lane and Alister McGrath, have a consensus view that the Protestant conception of Justification was a Reformation innovation.
If my predictions are wrong, I'll feel like a jerk and I'll thoroughly enjoy reading this book. If my predictions are right, I'm going to take a long break from reading books from Nathan Busenitz, William Webster, and their ilk ... e.g., "Evangelical Man Discovers Reformation Doctrines in Early Church Writings! Catholics HATE Him! Renowned Protestant Scholars Left Speechless! Papacy BTFO!"
...
Now that I've finished the book, I have nothing to add. After the first chapter, McGrath is only mentioned twice. Both times when Busenitz is discussing things that he and McGrath and agree upon. This book contains literally zero engagement with McGrath's interpretation of Augustine or any other patristics. Also, by the end of the second chapter, Busenitz had committed just about every error of conflation that I predicted above.
The purpose of this book is to satiate the minds of Protestants that are uncomfortable with the fact that their core doctrines were invented 500 years ago. Some Protestants, like McGrath, have come to terms with this fact. However, Protestants that are made uneasy by this will read "Long Before Luther" and will be careful not to read it with a critical eye.
December 28, 2018
A short book, in which Nathan Busenitz reviews the writings of various Christians before the Reformation, to show that the "Reformation understanding" of justification may also be found before the Reformation, particularly looking for forensic justification, justification distinguished from regeneration, and the imputed righteousness of Christ. He especially relies on Augustine, Anselm, and Bernard of Clairvaux, but quotes from quite a medley of people, actually. Quick thoughts:
1. As someone who does his best thinking when contending with ideas he disagrees with, it amuses me that the book started as a drawn-out comments section on a blog post.
2. Busenitz does prove his rather weak claim, which is just that the ideas of the Reformers can be found in the Church before the Reformation - Luther did not come out of nowhere. He doesn't really prove that this was the dominant understanding of justification (or that it wasn't) - he makes a good case for his weak claim.
3. Ideally, this is not how you want to do Church history - "let's see if we can find these ideas in the Church fathers". That always gives you an incomplete picture, and can be used to deceive people (although I don't think he is up to that here). Ideally, you want to go in the opposite direction and just read the Church fathers in tot and see from that direction how they thought. But that is, of course, a completely different book than this rather small one.
4. Almost any book that gets Protestants to pay more attention to Church history is a good thing. (I said ALMOST mind you.)
5. A lengthy appendix that is just a collection of quotations is especially helpful. Of course any Protestant will be happy to read Church father after father and find they sound a lot like the Reformers. We can at least say the "sound-bite history" groups like Catholic Answers seem to specialize in to defend Roman Catholicism works just as well to defend Protestantism.
1. As someone who does his best thinking when contending with ideas he disagrees with, it amuses me that the book started as a drawn-out comments section on a blog post.
2. Busenitz does prove his rather weak claim, which is just that the ideas of the Reformers can be found in the Church before the Reformation - Luther did not come out of nowhere. He doesn't really prove that this was the dominant understanding of justification (or that it wasn't) - he makes a good case for his weak claim.
3. Ideally, this is not how you want to do Church history - "let's see if we can find these ideas in the Church fathers". That always gives you an incomplete picture, and can be used to deceive people (although I don't think he is up to that here). Ideally, you want to go in the opposite direction and just read the Church fathers in tot and see from that direction how they thought. But that is, of course, a completely different book than this rather small one.
4. Almost any book that gets Protestants to pay more attention to Church history is a good thing. (I said ALMOST mind you.)
5. A lengthy appendix that is just a collection of quotations is especially helpful. Of course any Protestant will be happy to read Church father after father and find they sound a lot like the Reformers. We can at least say the "sound-bite history" groups like Catholic Answers seem to specialize in to defend Roman Catholicism works just as well to defend Protestantism.
July 6, 2018
I received a free book from Moody Publishers in exchange for an honest review (Thank you!). All thoughts are 100% my own.
Justification, by grace, through faith alone (latin: sola fide) is one of the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. This doctrine is essential for a right understanding of the Gospel, and it sets Christianity apart from every single world religion.
Nathan Busenitz refutes those who say the doctrine of justification by faith alone (apart from works) never existed before Martin Luther's 1517 Reformation. In less than 200 pages, Busenitz goes over 1,500 years of church history— from Jesus all the way to Luther— and quotes the works of the patristics, Augustine, and post-Augustine theologians. Busenitz shows how church history confirms a forensic, imputed justification by faith alone can be found long before the Reformation. Some early theologians also wrote on the distinction between justification and sanctification. The Reformers weren't inventing new doctrine, they were going back to Biblical teachings that were corrupted by man-made traditions.
This book is straight-forward, organized, and easy to read. This is a great place to start if you're wanting to research church history and the Reformation. Each chapter has a multitude of quotes. The book itself is around 165 pages followed by 25 pages of quotes, and 40 pages of references.
I will be getting a lot of use out of this book.
Justification, by grace, through faith alone (latin: sola fide) is one of the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. This doctrine is essential for a right understanding of the Gospel, and it sets Christianity apart from every single world religion.
Nathan Busenitz refutes those who say the doctrine of justification by faith alone (apart from works) never existed before Martin Luther's 1517 Reformation. In less than 200 pages, Busenitz goes over 1,500 years of church history— from Jesus all the way to Luther— and quotes the works of the patristics, Augustine, and post-Augustine theologians. Busenitz shows how church history confirms a forensic, imputed justification by faith alone can be found long before the Reformation. Some early theologians also wrote on the distinction between justification and sanctification. The Reformers weren't inventing new doctrine, they were going back to Biblical teachings that were corrupted by man-made traditions.
This book is straight-forward, organized, and easy to read. This is a great place to start if you're wanting to research church history and the Reformation. Each chapter has a multitude of quotes. The book itself is around 165 pages followed by 25 pages of quotes, and 40 pages of references.
I will be getting a lot of use out of this book.
March 1, 2021
Busenitz does a good job pulling together a lot of material from the church fathers on the topics of grace, faith, and justification. However, because this book is a cursory treatment of this topic, and in light of statements like Jerome "did not always articulate the doctrine [justification by grace through faith] consistently," I had to wonder whether the church fathers he was citing actually held to a proto Protestant view of justification or whether the church fathers merely said some things that sounded like the reformers, but in actuality held a more nuanced view of justification (70). Also with reference to quotes like these about Jerome in the book, I also found it strange that the author seemingly easily attributes inconsistency to some of the church fathers without much investigation.
I think this book does a pretty poor job representing the Roman Catholic position on these topics. There are very few, if any, quotes from Catholic sources that help define their position in these areas so his critiques of the Catholic position fall flat. Also, because of his seemingly poor understanding of the Catholic position, I don't think he does a very good job showing why the church fathers he sites show greater similarity to the Protestant position rather than the Catholic position.
I think this book does a pretty poor job representing the Roman Catholic position on these topics. There are very few, if any, quotes from Catholic sources that help define their position in these areas so his critiques of the Catholic position fall flat. Also, because of his seemingly poor understanding of the Catholic position, I don't think he does a very good job showing why the church fathers he sites show greater similarity to the Protestant position rather than the Catholic position.
November 14, 2017
Was the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone an invention or a recovery? This is the big question the author Nathan Busenitz asks and writes a book about titled, Long Before Luther~Tracing the Heart of the Gospel From Christ to the Reformation. So if that question and the title of this book peak an interest then get this book. The author definitely did his research and provides an answer that will leave you not doubting that "the truth of sola fide is authoritatively established in the Word of God and it is also affirmed throughout church history". The reformers knew this and it shows through the writings from vital theologians throughout history. They defended their position, first and foremost, by appealing to Scripture...and secondary they looked to church history. Without giving too much away, you will see the proof and how Luther and the other Reformers took a stand against the corruption of the gospel and started a great recovery of the gospel. Martin Luther said "If this article of justification stands, the church stands; if this article collapses, the church collapses." The author will show you through Scripture, various writings from Augustine, Ambrose, Origen, and many others from 100-1100 AD time frame, proof that faith alone stands not works based.
October 7, 2017
I could see that there was a clear effort to make this book readable and understandable despite the theological subject matter, from the language and tone it was written in to the author's defining of uncommon terms. It accomplished quite simply and succinctly (I was honestly shocked at how short it was—a good percentage of it is quotes and a long list of citations) the goal of showing that various doctrines held by Reformers weren't new, but drawn from and supported by not only their interpretation of Scripture but also in alignment with beliefs held by some pre-Reformation church leaders. "Long Before Luther" does not exist to be a case for Reformed theology as much as it is an examination of writings in church history. The book was repetitive in ways I didn't see as necessary, but I would still recommend it for anyone interested in reading about doctrinal positions held by Augustine and other pre-Reformation leaders, ones held by the Reformers, and the parallels between them that some argue do not exist.
*This review is based on a free digital copy provided by the publisher for the purpose of creating this review. The opinions expressed are my own.
*This review is based on a free digital copy provided by the publisher for the purpose of creating this review. The opinions expressed are my own.
January 28, 2018
This book was remarkable, well writing and easy to read with that also giving us feel more confidence and clearly understand in this well researched of this book it will helping to find the answers from all the question about biblical and historical defense of the Reformation doctrine of solo fide. With meticulous documentation from primary patristic and medieval sources, the Reformation teaching of justification by faith was a sixteenth century novelty unknown to the prior 1500 years of church history. This is a best book for all time study to the deeper of the gospel. I highly recommend to everyone must to read this book. “ I received complimentary a copy of this book from Moody Publishers for this review “.
Nathan Busenitz ( MDiv, ThM, The Master’s Seminary) is the Dean of Faculty and Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master’s Seminary. He holds a doctorate in church history, with a specific focus on patristic theology. He has served as a full-time member of the pastoral staff at Grace Community Church, director of the Shepherd’s Fellowship, managing editor of Pulpit Magazine, and personal assistant to John MacArthur.
Nathan Busenitz ( MDiv, ThM, The Master’s Seminary) is the Dean of Faculty and Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master’s Seminary. He holds a doctorate in church history, with a specific focus on patristic theology. He has served as a full-time member of the pastoral staff at Grace Community Church, director of the Shepherd’s Fellowship, managing editor of Pulpit Magazine, and personal assistant to John MacArthur.
October 30, 2018
Years ago, I had a friend leave his church and go to the Roman Catholic church. It was not an insignificant move on his part. We had long, long discussions about various doctrines and about why he felt a pull to leave his Protestant upbringing and go to the RC church. One of his frequent comments was, "Blake, the reformers were the ones who came up with justification by faith alone. No where in church history before the Reformation, do you find any of the church fathers or scholars or pastors ever writing about the doctrine of justification by faith alone." I disagreed of course. I had only an inkling of evidence to show that what he was saying was not true. But, with Long Before Luther, Busenitz provides an interesting and much more indepth answer to my friend's claim and shows that what my friend said is actually far from true. Long Before Luther is an excellent read and was well worth the time to peddle my way through it (though not a real long book). I highly recommend it to one who wants to understand more fully the 2000 years of teaching on the truth of Justification by Faith Alone.
May 3, 2023
I enjoyed this read as the writer kept my Interest and I also love this topic. However, I find that this survey (specifically when it comes to the patristic age) is relatively short. There are quotes taken from what some of the church fathers said. However, there were many that were not quoted. Also, If there was ample evidence for the reformers views I would expect a much longer book with more evidence and sources. The fact that the survey for each period (again specifically when it comes to the patristic age) is relatively short demonstrates that the reformers view on justification, sanctification, etc was at least not the dominant view amongst the early Christian’s who were taught by Jesus and the apostles. For example the concept of imputation is the minority view even amongst Protestants today and is really only held by Lutherans, some baptists, and the reformed traditions. This begs the question, have most Christian’s been wrong throughout the ages? Isn’t the holy spirit supposed to guide the church into all truth? Why would he keep let’s say 75% of Christian’s in error? This leads me to be suspect of what Luther and the other reformers taught as “being biblical.”
March 10, 2019
Very good book. Helpful study seeing how the doctrine of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, through God's grace alone was not only realized and taught by the Reformers, but also by Christians who lived during and shortly after the Apostles Paul and John. From Clement of Rome (100 A.D.) to Polycarp (69-160 A.D) to John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D), the message of the Gospel, Salvation by faith alone in Christ alone has not changed! And, contrary to groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, the purity of the Gospel and the Bible was not somehow corrupted for a few hundred years after Christ; God's Word has remained unchanged. I highly recommend this to all Christians AND non-Christian skeptics who ignorantly believe that the Bible has somehow been corrupted through the years of Church History.
January 3, 2020
Solid read. This book began as an answer to a blogger who declared justification by faith alone was a novel idea thought up by the Reformers. Busenitz goes to great lengths to show that such a view is entirely incorrect. From the days of the early church to the church fathers through Augustine and throughout the dark ages, quote after quote after quote is supplied showing that men denied the Catholic teaching of justification by works and believed God, by His grace, justified us apart from the works of the Law through faith alone.
Having just read a church history book which showed that men immersed and rejected infant baptism since the days of the New Testament, this was a good addition to my library which proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Gospel was never lost, as some have suggested.
Having just read a church history book which showed that men immersed and rejected infant baptism since the days of the New Testament, this was a good addition to my library which proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Gospel was never lost, as some have suggested.
August 14, 2021
A great book that forcefully demonstrates that Protestant theology of the 16th Century was not new or novel teaching, but that strong threads were pre-existent, particularly in the Patristic period and that giants such as Augustine, Jerome and Origen all espoused the doctrine of 'sola fide' (Faith alone) and imputed righteousness.
Although the author also covered the medieval period, the evidence was not as vast. I wish the book had extended all the way to the pre-Reformers such as John Huss and John Wycliffe and provided the continuous thread to Luther. But it stops short of this.
Nevertheless, the author covers a lot of ground and very helpfully sets out a comprehensive chronological list of quotes in the appendix for ready reference. A very convincing read in a very accessible book for the layperson.
Although the author also covered the medieval period, the evidence was not as vast. I wish the book had extended all the way to the pre-Reformers such as John Huss and John Wycliffe and provided the continuous thread to Luther. But it stops short of this.
Nevertheless, the author covers a lot of ground and very helpfully sets out a comprehensive chronological list of quotes in the appendix for ready reference. A very convincing read in a very accessible book for the layperson.
December 8, 2017
Got a copy for free from the publishers. The book's intent was straightforward and simple, and the well-organized chapters accomplish the main thesis: the 16th century Protestant doctrines were not inventions but articulations. The Catholic Church was rotting away so fast that the threshold for reform was reached when Luther appeared in the scene. So while, it is still appropriate to credit the Reformation to Luther, I think, but the root runs way more deeply. Anyhow, the book was concise enough to get the points. I appreciated the Appendix, too. It is a collection of quotes from various pre-Reformation theologians including Christ Himself, the apostles, and pre-/post-Augustine figures. A quick read; a good book!
January 12, 2018
This is a much needed book covering the important question of whether the Reformers position of sola fide was an innovation or consistent with both biblical and historic Christianity. It covers this ground with a depth appropriate for the non-expert. As such, it is a worthy read and a valuable contribution to the literature. The book would have been improved with a stronger editorial hand. There is too much repetition within and between chapters. The structure of closing each chapter with a summary of what was covered in the chapter, a statement of what was to be covered in the next chapter - then opening the next chapter with a statement of what was covered in the previous chapter and what will be covered next is tedious and should have been subject to an editor’s knife.
February 26, 2018
This book provides a useful catalog of quotes from pre-Reformation church leaders, and in that way, it does show that there were at least traces of the sola fide view of justification in the church prior to Luther.
On the other hand, the author never made a cohesive argument, positively or negatively, other than restating the fact that many in the pre-Reformation Church said things that would resonate with the writings of Luther, the other Reformers, and many in the Protestant church today. Readers looking for professor's eye view of Church history brought to bear of the difficult question of the continuity of the Gospel of grace that we, as Protestants, understand to be the inheritance of the true Church will be disappointed.
Ultimately, whether or not the Church, broadly speaking or in specific sectors, would have recognized the Reformer's Sola Fide as an invention, a distortion, or a continuation of orthodoxy is left unanswered.
On the other hand, the author never made a cohesive argument, positively or negatively, other than restating the fact that many in the pre-Reformation Church said things that would resonate with the writings of Luther, the other Reformers, and many in the Protestant church today. Readers looking for professor's eye view of Church history brought to bear of the difficult question of the continuity of the Gospel of grace that we, as Protestants, understand to be the inheritance of the true Church will be disappointed.
Ultimately, whether or not the Church, broadly speaking or in specific sectors, would have recognized the Reformer's Sola Fide as an invention, a distortion, or a continuation of orthodoxy is left unanswered.
June 22, 2018
Excellent rebuttal of theologian Alistair McGrath's assertion that the doctrine of justification by faith alone never existed before the 1500s and the Reformers. Busenitz traces it all the way back to Christ Himself and gives a detailed examination of the Middle Ages understanding of the doctrine; what the Reformers did was finally formalize it and give it a name. The doctrine was always there and will always be.
Also includes an excellent index of quotes from church history from Christ to the early church fathers to the Reformers, showing an unbroken, undeviating (and therefore undeniable) understanding of justification by faith.
Also includes an excellent index of quotes from church history from Christ to the early church fathers to the Reformers, showing an unbroken, undeviating (and therefore undeniable) understanding of justification by faith.
June 11, 2022
The purpose of this book is polemical in showing that there are theologians and patristic fathers believed in the true Gospel of being saved by grace, through faith alone before the time of the Reformation. This book makes a great case, but it was hard for me to read because there are so many similar quotes that reiterated the same thing. This is not a fault with the book, because these quotes were from various people of various times, but I found it hard for me to read from cover to cover. I think this book would be most helpful as a reference when in discussion with someone who believes in a works based salvation and is quoting the early church fathers.
January 5, 2025
A fun historical survey of the doctrine of justification. I love his emphasis on scripture being the primary source for how both pre-Reformation and Reformation voices articulated their view of justification by faith alone. Luther and Calvin undoubtedly leaned on Augustine and others from church history for affirmation of their views but first and foremost appealed to scripture. I felt like the book started getting VERY redundant around the first chapter on Augustine, but I did appreciate the author’s carefulness in his defense of Augustine’s forensic view of justification/commitment to the Bible. Also loved the appendix of voices from history at the end.
October 27, 2017
Nathan refutes the preposterous claims that faith alone was an invention of the Reformers. Time after time he meticulously shows us what church fathers taught, justification is by faith alone apart from
human merit. He closes the book with a nice appendix of these quotes that leave no doubt the Roman Catholics are making things up to support their traditions, similar to the Pharisees who killed Jesus in order to retain their position. Faith alone has always been the biblical teaching and Dr Busenitz shows us in this book.
human merit. He closes the book with a nice appendix of these quotes that leave no doubt the Roman Catholics are making things up to support their traditions, similar to the Pharisees who killed Jesus in order to retain their position. Faith alone has always been the biblical teaching and Dr Busenitz shows us in this book.
January 8, 2023
Very solid, but not a very dynamic book. It is filled with quotes from church fathers and medieval church figures all embracing Reformed soteriology, so the thesis is well taken. However, I was hoping the book might grapple at least a bit with medieval Catholicism and maybe even current expressions of the Catholic faith. Alas, my hopes were dashed about halfway through the book as it continued to double down on the same doctrines of grace. Also, not very pastoral and it was fairly dry... though I guess it was published in conjunction with Masters Seminary!
February 17, 2018
A thoroughly well-researched book that traces Reformed theology from the New Testament all the way to Luther and Calvin. It’s a good apologetics book to refute the accusations made by some (mainly Roman Catholics) that the 5 Solas were invented by the Reformers. It became somewhat repetitive in some parts, but that is mainly the point of the book, that Reformed theology had always been believed by saints before Luther even came along.
May 10, 2018
Does an excellent job refuting the Roman Catholic charge that the Reformers' teaching of justification by faith alone was a 16th Century invention. Using extensive quotes from Christian writers from the New Testament through the Middle Ages, the author demonstrates "that the Reformers were refining sound doctrine not inventing new theology." A helpful appendix gives a collection of these quotes by author in chronological order.
January 18, 2025
Der Autor geht der Frage nach, ob die Theologie der Reformatoren deckungsgleich mit den Kirchenväter war. Sehr spannend zu lesen, dass die Reformatoren nicht neue Lehren brachten, sondern vielmehr das bekräftigten, was bereits die Kirchenväter gelehrt haben. Rechtfertigung durch Christus und Rettung allein durch Glaube wurde ist nicht auf die Reformation zurückzuführen, sondern auf die Kirchenväter. Die Reformatoren bekräftigten diese Lehren.
September 7, 2019
The author gives a well detailed examination of how the early Church Fathers understood the difference between justification and sanctification. He shows with many example that faith alone was a pillar of the Church not just from Paul, but understood by others such as Polycarp, Augustine and Anselm
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews