Girolamo Zanchi’s De religione christiana fides offers an insight into his mature theology and reflects the development of Reformed dogmatics and polemic more generally in the late 16th century. It therefore provides an interesting picture of the theology of a whole era.

Forced to leave Italy because of his Protestant views, Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590) became a respected Reformed theologian abroad and helped to shape the emerging ‘Reformed Orthodoxy’. Zanchi’s work on a common confession of faith for the Reformed churches placed him at the heart of the international Reformed community. Although that project was never brought to fruition, the result of Zanchi’s efforts was De religione christiana fides, a critical edition of which is published here, alongside a 16th-century English translation of the work. De religione christiana fides serves as a compendium of Zanchi’s mature theology and reflects the development of Reformed dogmatics and polemic more generally in the late 16th century. It therefore provides an interesting picture of the theology of a whole era.

Girolamo Zanchi’s De religione christiana fides offers an insight into his mature theology and reflects the development of Reformed dogmatics and polemic more generally in the late 16th century. It therefore provides an interesting picture of the theology of a whole era.

The investigation of union with Christ and justification has been dominated by the figure of John Calvin. Calvin's influence, however, has been exaggerated in our own day. Theologians within the Early Modern Reformed tradition contributed to the development of these doctrines and did not view Calvin as the normative theologian of the tradition. John V. Fesko, therefore, goes beyond Calvin and explores union with Christ and justification in the Reformation, Early Orthodox, and High Orthodox periods of the Reformed tradition and covers lesser known but equally important figures such as Juan de Valdes, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Girolamo Zanchi, William Perkins, John Owen, Francis Turretin, and Herman Witsius. The study also covers theologians that either lie outside or transgress the Reformed tradition, such as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Faustus Socinus, Jacob Arminius, and Richard Baxter. By treating this diverse body of figures the study reveals areas of agreement and diversity on these two doctrines. The author demonstrates that among the diverse formulations, all surveyed Reformed theologians accord justification priority over sanctification within the broader rubric of union with Christ. Fesko shows that Reformed theologians affirm both union with Christ and the golden chain of salvation, ideas that moderns find incompatible. In sum, rather than reading an individual theologian isolated from his context, this study provides a contextual reading of union with Christ and justification in the Early Modern Reformed context.

Amandus Polanus (1561–1610) has often been described as a highly significant theologian, but also a neglected one. Part of Polanus' significance comes from his inclusion of ethics and practical application in his discussion of theology and the way in which his theology mixes Ramist dichotomies and the scholastic distinctions common in Christian Aristotelianism. Stephen B. Tipton shows how Polanus' understanding of God's essence and attributes is built upon the ground of scripture, arranged with the aid of logical arguments and reasoning, and aimed at the worship and glory of the Triune God. Tipton defends this conclusion against previous research which suggests that Polanus' theology is grounded in rationalism and subordinates the Trinity beneath an Aristotelian notion of God's perfect unity. This research not only corrects these previous notions about Polanus, but it also provides greater insight into the early Reformed Orthodox period and the theology that arose from that time.

This book investigates the relationship between justification by faith and final judgment according to works as found in Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians within a Protestant theological framework. Benjamin M. Dally first demonstrates the diversity and breadth of mainstream Protestant soteriology and eschatology beginning at the time of the Reformation by examining the confessional standards of its four primary ecclesial/theological streams: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. The soteriological structure of each is assessed (i.e., how each construes the relationship between justification and final judgment), with particular attention given to how each speaks of the place of good works at the final judgment. This initial examination outlines the theological boundaries within which the exegesis of Second Corinthians can legitimately proceed, and illuminates language and conceptual matrices that will be drawn upon throughout the remainder of thebook. Then, drawing upon the narrative logic of Paul’s Early Jewish thought-world, Dally examines the text of Second Corinthians to discern its own soteriological framework, paying particular attention to both the meaning and rhetorical function of the “judgment according to works” motif as it is utilized throughout the letter. The book concludes by offering a Protestant synthesis of the relationship between justification and final judgment according to works in Second Corinthians, giving an explanation of the role of works at the final judgment that arguably alleviates a number of tensions often perceived in other readings devoted to this key aspect of Pauline exegesis and theology. Dally ultimately argues a three-fold thesis: (1) For the believer one’s earthly conduct, taken as a whole, is best spoken of in the language of inferior/secondary “cause” and/or “basis” as far as its import at the last judgment. (2) One’s earthly conduct, again taken as a whole, is soteriologically necessary (not solely, but secondarily nonetheless) and not simply of importance for the bestowal of non-soteriological, eschatological rewards. (3) There are crucial resources from within mainstream Protestantism to authorize such ways of speaking and to simultaneously affirm these contentions in conjunction with a robust, strictly forensic/imputational, “traditional” Protestant understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

This volume is the second of a two-part work that evaluates the teaching of justification by faith from the early church to modern times in light of the Scriptures and the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Part 2 continues the evaluation begun in part 1 by examining the teaching of justification by faith from the mid-sixteenth century to the twenty-first century. Throughout these centuries numerous accounts of this foundational Christian truth have been offered, and many controversies have been and continue to be fought. Beginning with the Lutheran tradition in the opening chapter, the authors identify the contributions and shortcomings of each of the major Christian traditions. While many of the Christian traditions have contributed some light to the church's understanding of justification by faith, the authors contend that most of them have fallen short of the truth that in justification God approves the believers solely on account of their union with Christ as righteousness through faith.