What do you think?
Rate this book
New Studies in Dogmatics
Justification, Volume 1
New Studies in Dogmatics seeks to retrieve the riches of Christian doctrine for the sake of contemporary theological renewal. Following in the tradition of G. C. Berkouwer's Studies in Dogmatics, this series will provide thoughtful, concise, and readable treatments of major theological topics, expressing the biblical, creedal and confessional shape of Christian doctrine for a contemporary evangelical audience. The editors and contributors share a common conviction that the way forward in constructive systematic theology lie in building upon the foundations laid in the church's understanding of the Word of God as professed in its creeds, councils, and confessions, and by its most trusted teachers.
390 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 27, 2018
74 people are currently reading
396 people want to read
About the author
Michael Scott Horton
86 books333 followersDr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
February 12, 2019
So very good. Horton covers so much ground in this volume that, while at times somewhat laborious and cumbersome, was at other times illuminating and insightful. I especially appreciated his critique of the Scotus Story and the rise of nominalism, following the excellent work of Heiko Oberman. I was also pleased to see Horton’s positive analysis of Aquinas and the later Protestant orthodox appropriation of him. On to volume 2!
June 23, 2024
An engrossing historical-theological account of the development of the doctrine of justification.
February 18, 2019
Exceptional breadth and depth of coverage of justification from the early church to the Reformers. Horton is more concerned (at least on the surface) with disputing Luther’s relationship with nominalism than he is with rebutting the new perspective on Paul. While surprising it is certainly refreshing.
January 23, 2019
Another excellent addition to an already outstanding series.
Horton clearly and thoroughly discusses the doctrine of justification as it was understood from the church fathers up to the Reformation. He does a good job in many places of concisely comparing the positions of the Reformers and Rome on grace, faith, righteousness, assurance, sanctification, etc.
Even in this scholarly work I found myself at times on the verge of tears as Horton led me to meditate on the gospel again and again, and the righteousness “which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).
This is a great resource for learning what the Reformation was all about and why it most certainly still matters today. For me, the only minor issue is that the discussions of nominalism are difficult to follow for those previously unfamiliar with the concept and its historical development (as I was). Looking forward to reading volume 2!
Horton clearly and thoroughly discusses the doctrine of justification as it was understood from the church fathers up to the Reformation. He does a good job in many places of concisely comparing the positions of the Reformers and Rome on grace, faith, righteousness, assurance, sanctification, etc.
Even in this scholarly work I found myself at times on the verge of tears as Horton led me to meditate on the gospel again and again, and the righteousness “which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).
This is a great resource for learning what the Reformation was all about and why it most certainly still matters today. For me, the only minor issue is that the discussions of nominalism are difficult to follow for those previously unfamiliar with the concept and its historical development (as I was). Looking forward to reading volume 2!
October 10, 2020
A super helpful historical overview of this doctrine and its development. I’m excited to sink my teeth into volume 2.
July 13, 2022
In seminary almost every one of our theological textbooks had a subtitle along the lines of “An Introduction to…” I thought that this was a curious title for a +250-page book on, for example, the person and work of Christ. If these are the intros, then where is the comprehensive work? The series New Studies in Dogmatics realized this gap between the intro and the narrow theological monograph and have done a great service to the church. What is a pastor to read after the seminary textbook? Justification, Volume 1 by Michael Horton is what you read. The approach of this series is that of retrieval by which they mean entering fully into the ongoing Scriptural conversation of the universal church throughout the ages. Instead of being merely an academic fad, this is the way theologizing ought to be done—engaging the Scriptures supremely and the fathers & scholars of the church throughout the ages.
To that end, Horton begins his book with an engagement of patristic sources. Admittedly, in the patristics you will not find the refined formulation of justification that you find in the magisterial Reformers. But by widening the lens to the “great exchange” motif, you find all the elements of the application of redemption—union with Christ being another way of referring to the great exchange. Around the “great exchange” there is remarkable patristic consensus. And when you narrow the lens to justification in the patristics, you find all the essential elements of the Reformed doctrine of justification near at hand. This isn’t to say you won’t find opposing quotations, but this is to say that the Reformers did not see themselves as innovators nor argue that what they were teaching was novel but rather founded upon Scriptural exegesis (in the original languages importantly) and patristic insight. Within the patristics, there are, indeed, two streams that emerge: one flowing from Origen and one flowing from Irenaeus. The Neo-Platonist Origenist stream was a theology of ascent (deification) with union as the goal. The Irenaeus trajectory was a theology of redemption. The streams flowing through the east and west intersect at various points. The Reformers, however, were solidly Irenaeian. And though the Reformers were Augustinian (contra Pelagian), they were even more Pauline since Augustine using the Latin Vulgate conflates justification with sanctification. Justification for Augustine (and thus his successors) becomes a process and basically synonymous with salvation.
Another important contribution of this series is that not only is it focused upon retrieval but also locating doctrines in relation to one another. Thus, Horton touches on a number of doctrines in his discussion of justification. I was not aware of many of these contrasts he mentions. For example, grace for the Reformers is a disposition of God toward his people. Grace is the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of Christ and his benefits. In contrast to this view is grace as “substance,” like medicine. These contrasting views of grace set up the Reformed understanding of justification, being a legal declaration and the Roman view being that of inward renewal by an infusion of grace (leading to forgiveness and union with God in the neo-platonic tradition). Grace as medicine combined with the mistranslation of the Greek word for “repentance” as “do penance” and a view of baptism as covering only “past sins” a complicated merit-based system emerges in the Middle Ages. Merit, however, is understood as gracious in that it is God’s grace enables (with one’s corporation) and receives acts as meritorious (not in the sense that God is in debt to anyone). With the introduction of this merit-based system (by Aquinas and others) along with the mistranslation of the Greek term for justification as “to make just” the Roman view of justification being fundamental inward renewal via an infusion of grace leading to forgiveness of sins is set in stone. Thus, we are forgiven when we have become forgivable. Whereas the Reformed understanding is that justification is a declaration of righteousness and an imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ as our federal head received by faith alone.
The doctrine of penance is the source of the practice of indulgences, which is the initial controversy that leads to the spark of the Reformation movement. Many forget (or misremember) that Luther’s initial protest was not concerning the doctrine of justification but rather the doctrine of repentance. Contra N.T Wright and others, Luther’s protest did not develop out of “tortured subjectivity” but rather out of a return to the sources. The Greek word for repentance is not “do penance” (much less “make indulgences”) but rather to change one’s mind. Luther was not disturbed by a lack of grace but rather a lack of seriousness.
The doctrines most closely related to justification for the Reformers were faith and union with Christ. Faith, though leading to love, is not love—love being the summary of the law. Faith is simply embracing Christ (though faith has virtues alongside it, implying humility, trust, and even love). Faith is not a work to be rewarded, nor is it self-generated but rather the result of the regenerating work of the gift of the Spirit. Faith is the alone instrument of justification. And faith is that which unites us to Christ, in whom we receive all the benefits of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Union with Christ is not judicial only but through the Holy Spirit, it is mystical as well. This is “double grace,” according to Calvin. Justification is not renewal nor is justification the result of renewal, though it is inseparable from it because both come by virtue of union with Christ. Union with Christ, for Calvin, is deification because Christ is the God in whom we participate.
A side note: For the Reformers, the sacraments were not medicine (the substance of grace) but there is a close relationship between external means of grace and the activity of the Spirit. Calvin says, “Christ communicates his riches and blessing to us by his word, so he distributes them to us by his sacraments.” According to the Reformers, Rome’s view binds God to earthly means and the Anabaptist’s forbids God to freely bind himself to them. The sacraments apply salvation, but faith is necessary. Faith, word, and sacrament are interdependent for the Reformed.
When it comes to Trent, Calvin’s best critique is that their case rests upon a false dichotomy: Either justification = forgiveness & inward renewal or you have to reject sanctification and repentance. Of course, the Reformers taught both justification and sanctification. They just didn’t conflate the two.
Perhaps, the most contested section for Reformed folks is Horton’s chapter on law and gospel. He persuasively demonstrated that Calvin made this distinction, not just Luther. For the Westminster Divines the contrast of law and gospel, however, mainly comes into play as it relates to the Covenant of Works (with Adam and his posterity) and the subsequent Covenant of Grace (with the elect with Christ as the mediator). For Horton, I think, the main contrast is between the Abrahamic/New Covenant with that of the Mosaic. Much of what he says I agree with. The Mosaic covenant was temporary. It was conditional. It was typological. I am not as convinced as he is, however, that the contrast that Paul is working with in Galatians is between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic as such but rather the Abrahamic covenant and a misunderstanding of the Mosaic covenant. I do not agree that the “do this and live” principle is at odds entirely with the New when properly located in the Ordo Salutis under sanctification. Hence, the Puritans could say that works are necessary to salvation, though not meritorious nor relating to justification. Redemption by grace in Exodus precedes the aforementioned principle. And the redemption by grace we have in Christ precedes statements like, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13). The newness of the New Covenant is that the type has given way to the superior anti-type and God promises to supply what he requires (namely a new heart, a new Spirit) by an abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. That being said, Horton does make some interesting points (see, for example, the contrast between Jer. 34:18 and Gen. 15; Israel in the promised land as Adam in the garden, and Jesus as the successful Israelite and new Adam). As it relates to justification, however, the most compelling defense comes with the Adam/Christ parallel as Covenant heads. Original sin teaches inherited guilt and inherited corruption. The gospel teaches justification (inherited righteousness) and sanctification (inherited renewal).
Throughout this work, Horton zeroes in on the Neoplatonist/Nominalist controversy. To dismiss the Reformers many level the accusation that they were merely Nominalist. This section is a bit esoteric, but, as far as I can tell, the nominalist argued that God could justify anyone he wants due to his absolute will. Thus, a person does not need merit of any kind, not even believing the gospel. This obviously goes against the Reformed doctrine of justification, since it is strictly tied to merit… the merit of Jesus imputed to the elect by virtue of our union by faith with him. However, this more closely touches upon the later development of the Roman doctrine of “anonymous Christians.”
Why does this even matter? Horton’s final chapter answers the pitiful objection made by Schweitzer that the Reformed doctrine of justification provides no logical basis for ethics but rather a passivity. Horton replies in a few ways. First, no historian in the right mind would postulate the production of passivity by the reformation. The inheritors of the protestant reformation were incredibly active (hence, the Puritans and the “protestant work ethic”). Second, even if the generation of productivity was due to another doctrine (such as vocation) this is still not an objection to justification because we do not judge doctrines on whether they make one productive. No one doctrine is meant to carry everything on it. Third, justification does provide a superior ethical basis because it makes room for genuine other’s centered love and provides the psychological freedom of not obsessing over whether your good works were done with absolute purity. They weren’t. Nevertheless, God receives our works in Christ, even though our best ones are mingled with sin. The Christian life is not lived by looking at our works but by returning to our baptism toward a daily dying and coming to life in Christ. And this dynamic was not only for the individual but was incorporated into the public life of the church as pastors saw their calling as bringing sinners not to penance but to repentance, which unlike to former often leads to reconciliation between persons.
To that end, Horton begins his book with an engagement of patristic sources. Admittedly, in the patristics you will not find the refined formulation of justification that you find in the magisterial Reformers. But by widening the lens to the “great exchange” motif, you find all the elements of the application of redemption—union with Christ being another way of referring to the great exchange. Around the “great exchange” there is remarkable patristic consensus. And when you narrow the lens to justification in the patristics, you find all the essential elements of the Reformed doctrine of justification near at hand. This isn’t to say you won’t find opposing quotations, but this is to say that the Reformers did not see themselves as innovators nor argue that what they were teaching was novel but rather founded upon Scriptural exegesis (in the original languages importantly) and patristic insight. Within the patristics, there are, indeed, two streams that emerge: one flowing from Origen and one flowing from Irenaeus. The Neo-Platonist Origenist stream was a theology of ascent (deification) with union as the goal. The Irenaeus trajectory was a theology of redemption. The streams flowing through the east and west intersect at various points. The Reformers, however, were solidly Irenaeian. And though the Reformers were Augustinian (contra Pelagian), they were even more Pauline since Augustine using the Latin Vulgate conflates justification with sanctification. Justification for Augustine (and thus his successors) becomes a process and basically synonymous with salvation.
Another important contribution of this series is that not only is it focused upon retrieval but also locating doctrines in relation to one another. Thus, Horton touches on a number of doctrines in his discussion of justification. I was not aware of many of these contrasts he mentions. For example, grace for the Reformers is a disposition of God toward his people. Grace is the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of Christ and his benefits. In contrast to this view is grace as “substance,” like medicine. These contrasting views of grace set up the Reformed understanding of justification, being a legal declaration and the Roman view being that of inward renewal by an infusion of grace (leading to forgiveness and union with God in the neo-platonic tradition). Grace as medicine combined with the mistranslation of the Greek word for “repentance” as “do penance” and a view of baptism as covering only “past sins” a complicated merit-based system emerges in the Middle Ages. Merit, however, is understood as gracious in that it is God’s grace enables (with one’s corporation) and receives acts as meritorious (not in the sense that God is in debt to anyone). With the introduction of this merit-based system (by Aquinas and others) along with the mistranslation of the Greek term for justification as “to make just” the Roman view of justification being fundamental inward renewal via an infusion of grace leading to forgiveness of sins is set in stone. Thus, we are forgiven when we have become forgivable. Whereas the Reformed understanding is that justification is a declaration of righteousness and an imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ as our federal head received by faith alone.
The doctrine of penance is the source of the practice of indulgences, which is the initial controversy that leads to the spark of the Reformation movement. Many forget (or misremember) that Luther’s initial protest was not concerning the doctrine of justification but rather the doctrine of repentance. Contra N.T Wright and others, Luther’s protest did not develop out of “tortured subjectivity” but rather out of a return to the sources. The Greek word for repentance is not “do penance” (much less “make indulgences”) but rather to change one’s mind. Luther was not disturbed by a lack of grace but rather a lack of seriousness.
The doctrines most closely related to justification for the Reformers were faith and union with Christ. Faith, though leading to love, is not love—love being the summary of the law. Faith is simply embracing Christ (though faith has virtues alongside it, implying humility, trust, and even love). Faith is not a work to be rewarded, nor is it self-generated but rather the result of the regenerating work of the gift of the Spirit. Faith is the alone instrument of justification. And faith is that which unites us to Christ, in whom we receive all the benefits of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Union with Christ is not judicial only but through the Holy Spirit, it is mystical as well. This is “double grace,” according to Calvin. Justification is not renewal nor is justification the result of renewal, though it is inseparable from it because both come by virtue of union with Christ. Union with Christ, for Calvin, is deification because Christ is the God in whom we participate.
A side note: For the Reformers, the sacraments were not medicine (the substance of grace) but there is a close relationship between external means of grace and the activity of the Spirit. Calvin says, “Christ communicates his riches and blessing to us by his word, so he distributes them to us by his sacraments.” According to the Reformers, Rome’s view binds God to earthly means and the Anabaptist’s forbids God to freely bind himself to them. The sacraments apply salvation, but faith is necessary. Faith, word, and sacrament are interdependent for the Reformed.
When it comes to Trent, Calvin’s best critique is that their case rests upon a false dichotomy: Either justification = forgiveness & inward renewal or you have to reject sanctification and repentance. Of course, the Reformers taught both justification and sanctification. They just didn’t conflate the two.
Perhaps, the most contested section for Reformed folks is Horton’s chapter on law and gospel. He persuasively demonstrated that Calvin made this distinction, not just Luther. For the Westminster Divines the contrast of law and gospel, however, mainly comes into play as it relates to the Covenant of Works (with Adam and his posterity) and the subsequent Covenant of Grace (with the elect with Christ as the mediator). For Horton, I think, the main contrast is between the Abrahamic/New Covenant with that of the Mosaic. Much of what he says I agree with. The Mosaic covenant was temporary. It was conditional. It was typological. I am not as convinced as he is, however, that the contrast that Paul is working with in Galatians is between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic as such but rather the Abrahamic covenant and a misunderstanding of the Mosaic covenant. I do not agree that the “do this and live” principle is at odds entirely with the New when properly located in the Ordo Salutis under sanctification. Hence, the Puritans could say that works are necessary to salvation, though not meritorious nor relating to justification. Redemption by grace in Exodus precedes the aforementioned principle. And the redemption by grace we have in Christ precedes statements like, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13). The newness of the New Covenant is that the type has given way to the superior anti-type and God promises to supply what he requires (namely a new heart, a new Spirit) by an abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. That being said, Horton does make some interesting points (see, for example, the contrast between Jer. 34:18 and Gen. 15; Israel in the promised land as Adam in the garden, and Jesus as the successful Israelite and new Adam). As it relates to justification, however, the most compelling defense comes with the Adam/Christ parallel as Covenant heads. Original sin teaches inherited guilt and inherited corruption. The gospel teaches justification (inherited righteousness) and sanctification (inherited renewal).
Throughout this work, Horton zeroes in on the Neoplatonist/Nominalist controversy. To dismiss the Reformers many level the accusation that they were merely Nominalist. This section is a bit esoteric, but, as far as I can tell, the nominalist argued that God could justify anyone he wants due to his absolute will. Thus, a person does not need merit of any kind, not even believing the gospel. This obviously goes against the Reformed doctrine of justification, since it is strictly tied to merit… the merit of Jesus imputed to the elect by virtue of our union by faith with him. However, this more closely touches upon the later development of the Roman doctrine of “anonymous Christians.”
Why does this even matter? Horton’s final chapter answers the pitiful objection made by Schweitzer that the Reformed doctrine of justification provides no logical basis for ethics but rather a passivity. Horton replies in a few ways. First, no historian in the right mind would postulate the production of passivity by the reformation. The inheritors of the protestant reformation were incredibly active (hence, the Puritans and the “protestant work ethic”). Second, even if the generation of productivity was due to another doctrine (such as vocation) this is still not an objection to justification because we do not judge doctrines on whether they make one productive. No one doctrine is meant to carry everything on it. Third, justification does provide a superior ethical basis because it makes room for genuine other’s centered love and provides the psychological freedom of not obsessing over whether your good works were done with absolute purity. They weren’t. Nevertheless, God receives our works in Christ, even though our best ones are mingled with sin. The Christian life is not lived by looking at our works but by returning to our baptism toward a daily dying and coming to life in Christ. And this dynamic was not only for the individual but was incorporated into the public life of the church as pastors saw their calling as bringing sinners not to penance but to repentance, which unlike to former often leads to reconciliation between persons.
December 30, 2019
Michael Horton clearly and fairly rearticulates the history of the doctrine of justification. He does so under the rubric of "the great exchange." In this way, he shows the continuity of the doctrine across the ages. The Reformed doctrine of Justification is according to Horton the best specification of "the great exchange." The Reformers, specifically Calvin, maintained that Justification bespeaks the reality that in Christ God remits our sins and imputes Christ's righteousness to us. It is this doctrine that Horton situates across history and especially in the medieval context of the Reformation.
Buy it.
Buy it.
May 3, 2022
Weighty, heavy, and not an easy read. But fascinating historical theology on the doctrine of justification. I know he’s building to volume 2 and more contemporary issues, but the last chapter in this book on “Justification and the Christian Life” was worth the work of the first 300 pages.
January 30, 2023
One of the best books that I have ever read.
The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the doctrine upon which the Church rises and falls.
And as always Horton gives exemplary work on the subject.
The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the doctrine upon which the Church rises and falls.
And as always Horton gives exemplary work on the subject.
February 13, 2020
Helpful, but I disagree with a handful of things. Excited to see what he's got in volume 2
May 12, 2020
I cannot understand how one can still be a Roman Catholic and be intellectually honest.
September 8, 2024
This is the first of a two-volume set in the New Studies in Dogmatics series. I originally started this book several year ago but put it down for a while due to moves and other concerns.
I am very glad to have finally finished it and I am starting on vol 2.
This books is THE definitive work on the topic of justification from the Reformation view for our era. Horton does a masterful job in the first volume of discussing the topic starting from the patristics up to the Reformers. His emphasis is on the "great exchange" and examining the Reformers view of law and Gospel.
Chapter 11 on the Triumph of Nominalism is particularly important as he thoroughly refutes the common trope that Luther introduced nominalism and that is what lead to the modern era. He makes a compelling case that it wasn't Luther or the Reformers - but rather the Council of Trent bears the blame. Luther's first opponents such as Johannes Eck, Bartholomaeus von Ursingen, Kaspar Schatzgeyer, and Gabriel Biel were all steeped in nominalist tradition and thought.
This is not a light read and is more for the scholar or serious layman. It is akin to eating a side of beef - but I give it my highest possible recommendation.
I am very glad to have finally finished it and I am starting on vol 2.
This books is THE definitive work on the topic of justification from the Reformation view for our era. Horton does a masterful job in the first volume of discussing the topic starting from the patristics up to the Reformers. His emphasis is on the "great exchange" and examining the Reformers view of law and Gospel.
Chapter 11 on the Triumph of Nominalism is particularly important as he thoroughly refutes the common trope that Luther introduced nominalism and that is what lead to the modern era. He makes a compelling case that it wasn't Luther or the Reformers - but rather the Council of Trent bears the blame. Luther's first opponents such as Johannes Eck, Bartholomaeus von Ursingen, Kaspar Schatzgeyer, and Gabriel Biel were all steeped in nominalist tradition and thought.
This is not a light read and is more for the scholar or serious layman. It is akin to eating a side of beef - but I give it my highest possible recommendation.
January 6, 2019
I am a big fan of Michael Horton (and the White Horse Inn) and I have enjoyed all of his books that I have read. To say I learned a lot from this book is a massive understatement, especially since I have not read much of the church fathers. I really appreciated the way Horton lays out the historical development of the doctrine of justification.
Two points of note:
1) I would not consider this a light read. I spent considerable time looking up both words and ideas (note, I’ve never been to seminary).
2) I would have appreciated more explanation in the book of some of the ideas (nominalism, Neoplatonism, etc.) and a glossary of Latin words.
Two points of note:
1) I would not consider this a light read. I spent considerable time looking up both words and ideas (note, I’ve never been to seminary).
2) I would have appreciated more explanation in the book of some of the ideas (nominalism, Neoplatonism, etc.) and a glossary of Latin words.
October 24, 2021
Outstanding content, slightly hard-going writing style. So much in this that is so helpful, from the way Horton roots his whole discussion in the competing paradigms of Origen and Irenaeus to the treatment of nominalism and Luther. I particularly enjoyed his take down of elements of the so-called Scotus story. I was deeply moved by the chapters on the great exchange and then Luther. And I was delighted by his defence of Luther as a serious exegete (and formidable theologian) rather than primarily a tortured soul in need of easy answers. Most of all, I loved the way that he rooted the whole discussion in the person of Christ. Very grateful for this.
November 27, 2020
Volume 1 is largely a historical theological approach to the doctrine of justification focusing on the influence of Nominalism through the scholastics and seeking to answer whether or not Luther and Calvin’s views reflect the Nominalism of Scotus and Ockham.
Horton argues that while early Luther was influenced by Nominalism, a primary source investigation reveal that Luther’s exegesis of Galatians & Romans and his attack on Semi-Pelagiansim do not allow for a Nominalist interpretation of Luther.
An excellent intro to the study of the Doctrine of Justification.
Horton argues that while early Luther was influenced by Nominalism, a primary source investigation reveal that Luther’s exegesis of Galatians & Romans and his attack on Semi-Pelagiansim do not allow for a Nominalist interpretation of Luther.
An excellent intro to the study of the Doctrine of Justification.
January 25, 2020
A challenging but insightful look at the doctrine of justification from the Patristic era through the Reformation. This is advanced reading. A few chapters were very difficult for me, especially when it came to discussions about medieval philosophy and nominalism. With Wikipedia at my side, I was able to get through it, even if I didn’t fully understand everything I read. Looking forward to volume 2!
September 4, 2019
Overall, clearly written, superb survey of the history of justification and attending issues. Helps correct erroneous historical accounts by looking closing at the sources. 4 star is given because it is often repetitive and could have been made more concise.
April 11, 2020
Excellent book. Horton here traces the development of the doctrine of justification from the first century through the Reformation, emphasizing key turning points as well as significant concepts that shaped the doctrine.
November 9, 2020
This is an excellent volume primarily tracing the historical conversation and theologizing on the doctrine of justification. Horton is fair to the opposition while giving a robust account of its historical development and articulation.
December 1, 2023
Outstanding explanation of justification along with a historical basis of Church views over time. Especially appreciated the chronology of the Church fathers with a fair assessment of what beliefs stood the test of time.
March 14, 2019
Great historical overview. You will learn way more than you ever wanted to regarding nominalism.
August 5, 2019
Excellent
September 19, 2019
Classic Horton. Clear, precise, compelling.
February 1, 2022
This book is really dense. It gets repetitive towards the end, but I have learned so much from it. I recommend the first volume of Justification to any serious theologian or student of the church.
July 8, 2022
This is a difficult read for a layman. The author clearly favors the views held by Luther, Calvin and others.
That said, I think it is excellent and I'll likely read it again.
That said, I think it is excellent and I'll likely read it again.
March 25, 2023
Excellent. Laborious at times, but vast in its grasp of the topic, encouraging in its Christ-centeredness, and theological, historical, and philosophical in its method.
4.25/5
4.25/5
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews