Morimoto seeks to recast Edwards theology of conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification in a more ecumenical context than what he calls "textbook protestantism". In a way, this makes sense, in that Edwards is without a doubt the foremost American theologian yet to emerge. On the other hand, it's a little weird, in that Edwards himself did not interact much with Roman Catholicism. In fact, most of Edwards works are very much defined by the intellectual climate of 18th century New England, and the theological confrontation with New England "Arminianism".

Morimoto compares Edwards primarily to Roman orthodoxy as defined by Aquinas and the Council of Trent. In doing so, he shows that many of the differences stem from an inability or unwillingness of both protestants and the defenders of Roman orthodoxy to understand the terminology being used by the other side.

Morimoto also offers frequent comparisons between Edwards and the first generation of reformers (Luther, Calvin, Bucer, etc.). The examples he chooses suggests that Edwards formulations are more in line with historical protestantism than much of modern protestantism, and that the very things (such as his definition of faith) that have embarrassed some Edwards scholars like Perry Miller because they seemed to lean toward Roman doctrinal formulations are in fact the points at which Edwards most strongly echoes the early reformers.

Morimoto observes that recent Edwards scholarship has been more cognizant of this fact. From this, he suggests that the current Protestant and Roman understandings of salvation are closer than they have been at any time in the last three centuries.

Morimoto's thesis is an interesting one, and he supports it well from primary sources. If nothing else, this book should stimulate the thought of its readers and perhaps some interesting debate.

Morimoto analyses Edwards "catholic" soteriology and shows it to be consistent with the thinking of the great Reformers. The study highlights the compatibility between at least some reformation traditions and the doctrines of Trent on justification. He is successful in showing that much of the disagreement between Reformation teaching and Tridentine Catholicism are differences in the way words are used to describe a shared understanding. These differences became hardened into theological systems that until recently have seemed to both sides to be incompatible.

Anyone interested in ecumenism grounded in the common search for the truth will find this book very useful and enlightening.