Did the Early Christians Believe in Sola Fide? (Nope!)

Today I read one of the most slanted volumes attempting to defend the impossible--the historicity of the Reformation formulations of Sola Fide and imputed righteousness:

Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther: Tracing the Heart of the Gospel: From Christ to the Reformation (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2017).

Only by ignoring the overall theology of the patristic and Medieval-era authors Busenitz discusses (e.g., their theologies of the Eucharist; nature of the atonement; rejection of eternal security; original language issues; baptismal regeneration, etc) and the implications thereof, can he defend the impossible thesis that the theology of the Reformers was not a theological novelty.

For instance, he appeals to John 3 and the teachings of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles (p. 166), notwithstanding how, when they are read in context, such texts and authors affirmed baptismal regeneration, a doctrine that not simply "man" early Christians held to. As Reformed Baptist, William Webster admitted that "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96, emphasis added).

Furthermore, the example of Abraham in the Old Testament and the understanding of his justification by early Christian authors is cited in favour of Sola Fide, although Abraham's justification refutes, not supports, Sola Fide. See:

Does Genesis 15:6 prove Reformed Soteriology?

Catholic apologist Mario Lopez has two excellent pages that soundly refute the popular proof-texting of Buchanan, Webster, King, and now Busenitz can be added to the list, to support the Protestant formulation of Sola Fide in the patristic literature:

Did Any Church Fathers Teach Sola Fide? Response to a Challenge

Did Any Church Fathers Teach Sola Fide? Response to a Claim (response to David T. King)

David Waltz has a very good article refuting to revisionist attempts by the likes of James White (The God Who Justifies [2001]) who have abused these two early Christian texts to support the heresy of sola fide. In reality, such a theology is alien to the texts. One can read the article at:

Development, Justification/Soteriology and the Early Church Fathers

While it has its flaws, the best Protestant discussion of the history justification remains that of Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification