Justification by Faith according to John Calvin

By W. Stanford Reid

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

The doctrine of justification by faith, particularly if it has the word “alone” attached to it, causes problems in many minds, as it has since the day of Martin Luther. For man always feels that he should be doing something about his own salvation, and that perhaps he might be able through his activity to help with his justification in the sight of God. The result usually is a growth of legalism, with stress being laid upon the necessity of conforming to certain patterns of life which Christians at the moment feel are appropriate to those who profess faith in Christ. One sees this in the history of evangelicalism down to the present day.

Even in some Reformed circles is this type of thinking apparent. As one studies the thinking of many of the seventeenth century Puritans, one finds that it reached such a position of theological importance that the Gospel became a new law to many. Richard Baxter and others even came to be known as “neo-nomians” because of their stress upon good works, as though they were an aid in obtaining justification. And this attitude has continued in some circles even to our own day, when some Reformed theologians could term the doctrine of justification by faith alone as “easy believism” and insist that such a doctrine is Lutheran rather than Reformed.

For these reasons it would seem to be a good thing to look back to one who is recognized as the theologian who largely formulated the basic Reformed doctrines in the sixteenth century. Moreover, that he was a contemporary of Martin Luther and knew exactly what Luther was teaching helps us to understand whether or not he was in favor of Luther’s formulation of the doctrine of justification by faith. If he disagreed, he would certainly have said so, while on the other hand, if he agreed there would also be a clear indication of this fact. For this reason it would seem to be wise to take a very close look at what John Calvin had to say about this crucial doctrine.

To call the doctrine of justification by faith a “crucial” doctrine is to echo Calvin’s own feelings. Most people when asked what they know about Calvin begin by speaking of his doctrine of election and predestination, but as one works through his commentaries or surveys the Institutes of the Christian Religion, one finds that that is not his most stressed doctrine. Indeed, it is not even mentioned in his catechism. To him election and predestination are basically mysteries into which one cannot pry beyond what God has vouchsafed to reveal. On the other hand, he insists that the doctrine of justification is “the main hinge on which religion turns.” Unless we see our relationship to God and his judgment on us, there is no foundation, for salvation or piety.[1] In the Institutes he devotes more space to justification by faith than to practically any other doctrine, stressing it over and over again as he attacks those who reject it. This doctrine, therefore, is absolutely central to Calvin’s whole theological system.

The heart of Calvin’s thinking on the subject of justification is that God is its efficient cause. One basic theme as in a great symphony, which Calvin is never tired of reiterating, however much he may be developing variations on it, is that it is God who justifies the sinner. And he does so, not because he has to, nor because man is in some way worthy of God’s justification, but out of sheer divine mercy and love does the sinner receive justification from his sins. It is to divine goodness and to no other cause that the justified sinner can credit his acceptance in God’s sight.

Calvin is not one who is usually thought to place much emphasis upon the love of God. The grace of God is in some way thought of in rather legal terms, but not as pure love or mercy. Yet as one studies both the Institutes and his commentaries, one finds that the love of God is a major theme which he continually elaborates. He always comes back to it as the fons et origo of man’s salvation. He does not profess to understand or comprehend God’s love for his people. Nevertheless, he constantly seeks to emphasize it as the source and beginning of God’s goodness and bounty bestowed upon man, even though man is far from deserving such gracious treatment.[2]

When God created man upon this earth, he created him in his own image with true knowledge, righteousness and holiness, in perfection. And God rejoiced in his handiwork. Yet man, despite his true knowledge and holiness chose to turn away from him who was his model and his originator, to worship that which he could concoct in his own mind, with the result that he was soon worshipping not only the forces of nature, but human beings and finally the lowest of the animal kingdom. In this way man put out the light of God’s image with which he had been endowed, and has remained in this condition down to the present time.[3] Man has consciously rejected and disobeyed the divine law which is love of the Creator.

Sin, however, is not merely a matter of acts, nor even of outward disregard of God’s righteous requirement of obedience. It also involves a disposition, for man in turning his back on God, continues in this state of revolt which permeates all his thinking and all his emotions. Basically man is anti-God. True, as James points out he may believe, as do the demons, that there is a god, but that means nothing for he does not even tremble as do the fallen angels. There is, therefore, no redeeming characteristic in man which could incite God to regard him with favor. God may restrain his sin and even in his general grace, bestow upon him many gifts and benefits, but those are divine gifts, which in no sense makes man acceptable in God’s sight.[4]

For this reason it is not surprising that God in absolute justice could not but judge man worthy of his wrath and so of eternal punishment. As Calvin puts it, God does not by so doing hate his own workmanship, but the uncleanness which has befouled and besmirched it. All, therefore, that God owes man is eternal destruction and death. Yet at the same time God has loved his creature and has wished to show mercy to him. But in strict justice he could not accept man as though he were without spot or blemish, when he was in fact soiled and corrupted by his sinfulness.[5] It is this condition of affairs: the sinfulness of man and the love of God, which form the basis for God’s action freely to justify the sinner.

It was the divine love which made the first move in reconciling man, the sinner, to God, the righteous judge. God freely provided the way of man’s return through the atonement which met all the demands of God righteousness and justice. Thus, love was the basic motive for the atonement and not the other way around. The atonement was the result of divine love and mercy, but did not cause them. Rather, it satisfied the demands of God’s sovereign justice, that he might be just and the justifier of sinners. Repeatedly Calvin stresses the point that the atonement was not the cause of God’s love and grace, but that they originated with him, and were expressed in his redeeming action.[6] This is an aspect of Calvin’s thinking which is often lost to sight, even by his professed followers.

Because of his love for his creatures God sent forth his only begotten Son, to become man, born of a virgin, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried, descended into hell, rose the third day and ascended into heaven where he sits on the right hand of the Father. In book 2, chapters 12–16 of the Institutes Calvin discusses both the incarnation and Christ’s atoning work, for the latter following the order of the Apostles’ Creed. Then in chapter 17 he takes up the question of the relation of God’s love to Christ’s atoning work in which he points out that Christ made satisfaction for men’s sins in order that God might justly receive them, thereby displaying his love which was covered over until atonement had been made. Christ’s life, death, resurrection and ascension were all on behalf of sinners, and were effective for he “left unfinished nothing of the sum total of our salvation.”[7] By his death he effectively destroyed the depravity of our flesh and by his resurrection brings about the regeneration of a better nature. Thus while the Father is the efficient cause of salvation, Christ is the material cause, his act of propitiation being a perpetual benefit to his people.[8]

But who are these people? Did Calvin accept the doctrine of the limited or definite atonement? Some say he did not, but while he died for all, he intercedes only for the elect. One must, however, stress that he was no universalist. In both the Institutes and his commentaries he constantly speaks of Christ dying for “us.” Perhaps he comes out most clearly in his comment upon 1 John 2:2 in which he states that Christ’s atonement “extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.”[9] In the same place he also expresses his approval of the idea set forth by some others that while Christ’s atonement was “sufficient” for all, it was and is “efficient” only for the elect. And his exegesis of Romans 6 would seem to make this clear also. Christ’s atonement was total!

Up to this point we have not dealt with Calvin’s understanding of the doctrine of justification, but what has been said has been necessary, if we are to understand the position which he takes on this doctrine. His stress upon the absoluteness of God’s mercy and love, and his emphasis upon the totality of Christ’s atoning work, form the basis or foundation of his doctrine of justification by faith. This provides for his forensic view of justification. Like a number of other reformers Calvin was a lawyer who thought very much in forensic terms. God as the absolutely righteous judge cannot in any way accept man or his works in themselves, for he requires perfection of his creatures to which no one can possibly attain, because of everyone’s alienation from God. Therefore, since Christ alone possesses complete righteousness, his perfection must be attributed to the creature in order that the creature might be made acceptable in God’s sight.[10] Justification, therefore, takes place when God declares the sinner righteous; he is accepted and forgiven for Christ’s sake alone.[11]

The question then arises as to how this can be done, a question which was raised not only by Roman Catholics, but also by some Protestants such as Osiander in Calvin’s own day. It is at this point that Calvin lays great stress upon Christ’s substitutionary work. From the last chapter of book two in the Institutes throughout the third this thought holds a dominant position which he repeats over and over again. Christ by his death has paid the penalty for the sin of his people which frees them from the consequences of their own transgression, and as he is infinitely righteous, his merits are imputed to them also. Therefore, God justifies the sinner, not because of any works or merits on his part, but solely because of what Christ has done on his behalf.[12] As Calvin puts it:

This is a marvellous plan of justification that, covered by the righteousness of Christ, they should not fear because of the judgment they deserve, and that although they rightly condemn themselves, they should be accounted righteous by one outside themselves.[13]

Those who are through the merits of Christ justified by God have all their sins forgiven and are reconciled to him. Since sin has separated man from God and brought him under the divine wrath, because God in his mercy and love has sent his only begotten son as the redeemer, those who are cleansed by the blood of the lamb and have imputed to them Christ’s righteousness are fully reconciled to God and are accepted by him. Justification in this way is equated with forgiveness, for those who are justified are accepted not by works, but purely by free grace.[14]

The next question which might then be asked is: how does one receive this justification through the work of Christ? Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to all sinners. How then does one obtain forgiveness for one’s sins? To this Calvin answered that when by the grace of God one believes in Christ as his substitute, as his righteousness, because of his union with Christ, he is justified immediately. God freely and gratuitously adopts the sinner, who then obtains justification by placing his faith in Christ. To Calvin this doctrine of justification by faith is absolutely fundamental, if one is to understand the Gospel.[15]

This, however, raises the question of the nature of faith, justifying faith. Faith to Calvin is simply the instrument, if we can call it that, by which the sinner lays hold upon Christ’s righteousness freely offered to him in the Gospel. Or, as a modern theologian has put it: it is the empty outstretched hand which receives by imputation the righteousness of Christ. He who has received this righteousness then places his faith in the promises of God that Christ is his substitute, and stands before God clothed in a righteousness which is not his own, but is the imputed righteousness of his substitute.[16] By faith and through faith, the believer thus finds forgiveness and pardon for all his sins, since his righteousness is the righteousness of God himself, received from Christ, the Mediator.

For this reason, Calvin was not hesitant to lay great stress upon the doctrine of “justification by faith alone.” While he admits that the qualifying term is never employed specifically in the Bible, he insists that the concept or idea is implicit in such passages as Romans 4:2ff; 1:17; 3:21; Galatians 3:10ff. The editor of the most recent English edition of the Institutes points out in a footnote how often in 3:17:7, 8, 10 the term “faith alone” is repeated.[17] God is propitious to us as soon as we by faith rest “on the blood of Christ,” a phrase which he explains to mean the “whole work of expiation.” Thus since faith alone is the means by which one receives justification and reconciliation to God, the merit of every work “falls to the ground.” Therefore, if justification by faith alone is a specifically Lutheran doctrine, we must put Calvin in the Lutheran rather than in the Reformed camp.

In the light of this emphasis upon faith, it is necessary that we should look again at the matter of the source of faith. Calvin’s stress upon “faith alone” had its roots in the fact that the believer’s faith is not something which he has concocted or manufactured himself. It is the gift of God to his elect. Man does not move first to God, but God moves first towards man, to unite him with Christ, the Redeemer, and it is as a result of this union that man receives the gift of faith, for man would never of his own will or desire turn to Christ in faith. Therefore, true faith originates with God who bestows it on his people.

This gift, however, is not something which is injected into the individual as a sort of serum containing faith. It is the result of the individual’s regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which comes with union with Christ. Christ’s life-giving Spirit renews the individual who is then enabled to have a true knowledge of God, in both his wrath and his mercy, with the result that he places his faith in Christ as his Saviour. As Calvin constantly reiterates, “the grace of regeneration is never disjoined from the imputation of righteousness.” But at the same time, he likewise insists that regeneration and justification are not the same, for justification is by faith alone.[18] In this way regeneration always means justification, for the one who is regenerated will believe on Christ as the sole source of his righteousness before God.

Calvin’s views on justification by faith alone were quite clear by the time he wrote his commentary on Romans while in Strasburg in exile from Geneva (1538–9), and he did not change them for the rest of his life as can be seen by his later commentaries and by his exposition of the doctrine in the succeeding editions of the Institutes. Such views, however, did not make him popular or acceptable in certain quarters whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. The humanists also would find his doctrine of justification somewhat hard to accept. The result was conflict with a number of theologians and disagreement with such writers as Erasmus, whose works Calvin seems to have known in detail. But the conflicts while undoubtedly frustrating for him, forced him to state his position even more clearly than he might have, and for this we may be very thankful.

Naturally, the first opponent with whom Calvin had a dispute over the doctrine of justification was the Roman Catholic Church, and he never misses an opportunity to dispute the validity of the “scholastics” doctrine of justification by faith and works. He insists that works have no part in justification. He also rejects the view set forth that when Paul denied the efficacy of works in justification, he is referring to works prior to regeneration or on the other hand to spiritual works which are the “gifts of Christ,” for not even spiritual works may be taken into account when justification is ascribed to faith. He admits that according to Paul doers of the law are justified, but since none obey the law completely they are of no avail for righteousness. At this point he makes a violent attack on Peter Lombard for twisting Augustine’s view of grace, by holding that the grace of justification was not imputation but as a result of the Spirit’s enabling one in the pursuit of holiness. Nor is he prepared to accept the view that “without the works of the law” refers only to ceremonies, for “when the ability to justify is denied to the law, reference is made to the whole law.” For this reason he insists that justification is by faith alone, for no works of the law before or after regeneration are adequate to win God’s grace, but only faith in the finished work of Christ as Mediator.[19]

While dealing with his Roman Catholic opponents, however, Calvin was not unmindful of those in the Protestant camp who opposed his doctrine of justification. Of these, one of the most important and most vocal was the Lutheran, Osiander, whom Calvin obviously regarded as being rather stupid. Some of his harshest criticisms were reserved for this theologian’s doctrine of “essential righteousness” which allied with his Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation in the Lord’s Supper, sought to set forth a conception of justification which depended upon a mixture of the divine and human essences. Calvin maintained that he confused regeneration and justification, since he held that justification was not only reconciliation with God through free pardon, but also meant to be made righteous.[20] The Genevan reformer’s criticism of this position was threefold.

To whomsoever God receives into grace, he also gives the spirit of adoption to sanctify, but this does not mean that sanctification and justification are the same, for there is no place for works in justification, since faith is the sole means of receiving Christ’s righteousness. Furthermore, Osiander’s view that Christ is our righteousness only according to his divine nature is wrong, for Christ fulfilled the law and died as man. His divinity cannot be separated from his humanity, or else he is no true mediator. It is true that by the mystical union of Christ and the believer, he dwells in the Christian’s heart sharing with him his gifts, including faith. But faith is not the ground of justification, but simply the means by which one makes room for Christ. He then goes on to point out that Osiander’s doctrine of justification by “essential righteousness” nullifies the certainty of salvation, for the German theologian rejects “justification” as a legal term for forgiveness, in contradiction to the teaching of Psalm 32:1; 31:1 and Romans 4:7. He follows this argument by attacking Osiander’s claim that it is contrary to God’s nature to declare the unjust to be just. He points out that while Osiander at least admits that one to be accepted by God must be forgiven, the difficulty is, however, that according to Osiander’s view one is obliged to prorate the imputation of righteousness: by pound or by ounce. He then comes back to his fundamental point: justification is by faith alone.[21]

At this point, Calvin was naturally faced with the question of the relationship between the Old Testament Law and the New Testament Gospel. Since many claimed, as do some today, that in the Old Testament dispensation men were justified by works, why is justification by the works of the law no longer possible? To this Calvin replied that the Gospel was not hidden before Christ, but was set forth in the Old Testament by word and sacraments which in the New Testament are brought to completion in Christ himself. The condemnation of the law, and the ceremonies of cleansing all pointed to Christ’s redeeming work, because God thus reconciles his sinful creatures to himself by faith alone without works.[22]

In all of his argumentation on behalf of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, Calvin’s ultimate source of authority was the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Consequently it is of importance to see his exegesis of some of the crucial passages relating to this locus of theology. As early as 1539 he had set forth his basic position in his commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In “The Argument” of the letter concerning chapters one to five, he has the following to say: “The subject then of these chapters may be stated thus—that man’s only righteousness is through the mercy of God in Christ, which being offered by the Gospel is apprehended by faith.” In the commentary itself he points out (2:13) that no one does obey the law perfectly, therefore no one is justified by works. In commenting on 3:20 he explains that although some of the ancients thought that “works of the law” referred only to ceremonies, in fact Paul was speaking of all laws which might have been thought to bring justification, to show that even they could not offer righteousness. Even baptism is effective as a guarantee only when one is justified by faith alone. (4:11ff) No way of justification is possible except through the mercy of God by faith which he himself gives to those who are united with Christ. Justification, therefore is by faith alone, for Christ transfers to the sinner his righteousness who receives it by faith. (3:21–25) Not even man’s love has any efficacy in achieving his justification. In chapters six to eight he deals with sanctification, pointing out that justification is basic to sanctification “for by an adverb denoting a future time, he shows what kind of change ought to follow righteousness.” (6:2) By the sinner’s union with Christ he is justified, but simultaneously also the separation from sin takes place, “for the grace of regeneration is never disjointed from the imputation of righteousness.” (6:3; 8:2) For this reason the Christian is called to righteousness of life which is obedience under the cross. (8:30) But this righteousness is never perfect and so can never have any part in justification. Thus from his early work as an exegete one is able to see how firmly Calvin clung to belief in the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The Letter to the Romans, however, was not the only piece of exegesis in which Calvin set forth his views. In comments on Ephesians 2 he has a number of suggestions concerning faith as the gift of God. In his own day and ever since, those opposed to his doctrine have cited the terms of Galatians 5:6 “faith working by love” as showing that love plays a part in justification. While Calvin is prepared to recognize that faith does work by love, he also insists that “it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies by no other means than by leading us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ…. And then that faith is reckoned as righteousness solely where righteousness is given through a grace not owed.” In his comentary on Galatians, he ends his exposition of this verse by pointing out that when he is speaking of justification, he sets aside all works and this theme characterizes his exegesis of the whole epistle. The same theme runs through his interpretation of other New Testament epistles such as 1 John 1 and 2 Peter.[23]

But what of the Epistle of James? To this question Calvin replies that Paul and James were talking about two different things. He holds that while Paul was discussing the origin of justification which is faith alone, James was dealing with hypocrites who professed to believe in God, but did not show any real conviction in their lives. He insists that faith, which is true faith, will produce good works, since a good root must bear good fruit. James is offering no argument that one is justified before God by works, but was speaking of “the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men…. In this sense a man is justified—as one is enriched by buying a valuable property because his riches hitherto hidden in a chest, are now made known.” Thus faith is made perfect by works which always accompany faith, as in the case of Abraham who was declared justified by faith many years before he was called upon to offer up Isaac. Abraham’s faith made him obedient to God.[24] Calvin, therefore, did not see James in any conflict with the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone.

There was, however, always the problem of the relation of faith to works. As in the case of Luther, Calvin faced the charge that by his doctrine he gave license to the justified person to sin as he wished.

Because we teach that salvation is obtained through God’s mercy alone, the Papists accuse us of this crime. But why should we use words to refute their effrontery, since everywhere we urge repentance, the fear of God and newness of life….[25]

He never tired of pointing out that faith and works could not be separated any more than heat could be separated from the light of sun. Thus faith and works always go together, for where there is true faith there will always be good works. In understanding his doctrine of justification this close relationship must constantly be kept in mind, but also with certain limitations.[26]

The basic limitation is that works of themselves have no merit and so have no part in the justification of the sinner. He is justified solely by faith because he rests entirely on the mercy of God, coming empty to receive it. Works of the law, whether ceremonial or moral, play no part in this, because they have no righteousness since all are corrupted by sin, and depending on our works only precludes us from receiving righteousness from God.[27] This is a theme which Calvin plays repeatedly, at times with certain variations, but it is always basically the same, for he takes the doctrine of total depravity seriously. In commenting on Romans 2:8 and 13, 3:20, 25 and 27, 4:10ff, he stresses this point insisting that man is “assisted by no works in obtaining righteousness” and that faith “brings nothing except an humble confession of want.” In his commentary on James 2:25 he also avers: “We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God.”

The question then arises as to how Calvin regarded the relation of justification to good works. As mentioned earlier, while speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification, he does not ignore regeneration, but because sin always remains in the Christian, justification is very different from the gift of newness of life. Within the believer, God works by his Spirit and progresses in the renewal of life gradually and sometimes slowly throughout life, so that if the elect depended on their works of righteousness for justification they would always be in danger of God’s tribunal, for their “regeneration is never perfect.” But they have no such fear as they are sure of the imputation of Christ’s merits.[28]

For this reason Calvin never tires of warning the Christian against looking to his works of righteousness as a ground for God’s acceptance of him. As he puts it:

Therefore, those who boast that we are justified by faith because, being regenerated, we are righteous by living spiritually, have never tasted the sweetness of grace, so as to believe that God will be favorable to them.

Thus man is not accepted by God either because of any infused righteousness, nor because of baptism, but because he is engrafted into Christ by faith which is entirely passive, bringing nothing to merit God’s favor, but only receiving from Christ that which he does not have.[29] When one receives the grace of Christ, immediately the efficacy of his death becomes apparent, and results in his being urged to repentance and to holiness, but at the same time the doctrine of justification by faith should never be smothered by such exhortations to godliness.”[30]

This in turn raises the question of the justified and regenerated individual’s good works. According to Calvin’s exegesis of Romans 6:2 Paul is not stating what we are in God’s sight when he brings us to union with Christ, but what we should be after he has had mercy on us. The beginning of salvation is like a resurrection from the dead which enables the Christian to pass from death unto life. Thus, the foundation of the Christian’s new life is a “true and living faith” which is nourished and strengthened day by day through the working of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies the Christian by enabling him to perform good works to the glory of God, subduing the lusts of the flesh, obeying the law and showing love to the brethren. In this way the Spirit, “who is not obtained by our righteousness, but is freely given to us,” “necessarily retains us in continual obedience to righteousness.”[31]

Yet even these works, resulting from the work of the Spirit are never meritorious. Calvin disputed the Roman Catholic doctrine that, although initial forgiveness gives righteousness, that once forgiven the Christian may then merit acceptance by good works. While he insisted that faith and good works always go together, since justification and sanctification are inseparable, he reiterated again and again that justification is by faith alone. Justification is a stimulus to good works, but they never provide merit for forgiveness, which comes from God’s mercy only.[32]

The reason for works’ inability to merit God’s forgiveness is that they are still corrupted by sin, for no matter how good they may appear, they are still flawed. For this reason, the Christian recognizes that his good works constantly need the justifying grace of God in Christ Jesus, so that not only he but also his works must be justified by faith throughout his life. Those who recognize this “are justly said [by the Apostle John] to have a calm or a peaceful heart, because there is no inward compunction to disturb their calm cheerfulness.” They do not depend upon their imperfect works, even prayer, but solely upon the merits of Jesus Christ.[33]

Despite the imperfection of the Christian’s works, however, God still rewards the Christian for them, but not with justification. He rewards the Christian for good works because of the obedience which the latter has shown by them, and out of his fatherly love, despite their flaws or actual worth, he attributes value to them. In this way he receives the works with pardon not imputing their imperfections to them. Moreover, he is pleased with the good works of the justified, because they are the result of the work of the Spirit who is restoring the image of God in the Christian through faith in Christ. Thus good works begin with justification, but the reward which accrues to them is the inheritance of a son who has been adopted and blessed by God, not because they are of value in themselves. For since they are all afflicted with impurity, they are cleansed by Christ’s righteousness, and so receive God’s approbation.[34]

Would Calvin then accept the idea of faith being “a good work?” To this question he replies with a definite and clear cut negative. He refers to such an idea as a “foolery” and flatly rejects the idea that faith itself possesses any merit, for it obtains righteousness simply by receiving God’s mercy. In John 6:29 Christ is reported as saying that the work of God is that one should believe on him whom he has sent, but it is not a good work. Nor is the “obedience of faith” expressed in Romans 1:6 a work, for the work of God and an obedient faith both mean simply that the individual sinner lays hold upon God’s offer of pardon presented in the Gospel. As Calvin explains “obedience of faith” in dealing with Romans 1:6,

the name of faith is given to it, and for this reason—because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief.

He also rejects any idea as pointed out earlier in this article of “faith working by love” (Gal 5:6) possessing any merit through works. And when he expounds Romans 2:13 contrasting the hearers and the doers of the law he adds this comment:

They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children.

Nor can God’s promise of reward for works be used to maintain a doctrine which involves works in justification, for works have no merit, but God of his own pure grace rewards them according to his sovereign purpose.[35]

What then is the importance of works? Why, it was asked in Calvin’s day, do works seem so important in the New Testament writings? To this Calvin replied that as far as the Christian is concerned, his good works demonstrate to himself that he has been adopted by God through Jesus Christ, that he has, to use the currently popular phrase, been “born again.” As he puts it: “A likeness in life and deeds…will prove that we abide in Christ.” Thus the image of God appears in us, not as though it is a ground of justification, “but what is added to it.” It is, however, “a prop of the second order,” for we know that our justification and ultimate salvation are by grace alone.[36]

Yet in Calvin’s thought, our good works remain only as a secondary “prop,” for in this life because regeneration is never complete, we do not have the fullness of salvation, which means that our works are always imperfect and corrupted by sin. At the same time, we live in hope because our adoption and justification are sealed to us by the Holy Spirit. While our love for our neighbor may furnish evidence that we are regenerate, that is not the ultimate basis of our assurance of justification. Such confidence comes only through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. It is the Spirit alone who gives the necessary confidence that the Christian can in truth cry: “Abba Father.”[37]

The testimony of the Spirit, seconded by the Christian’s good works, however, are not just for the benefit of the Christian. They are to manifest the grace of God to all men, that he who is Lord, may have the glory which is his due. And it may well be that through the Christian’s life and testimony others may be brought to a knowledge of the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Some have insisted that Calvin and the other Protestant reformers were not interested in missions because they did not immediately send missionaries to India, China and Japan. One must keep in mind, however, their situation in a hostile and also unevangelized Europe, which was their immediate environment. It was to this immediate environment which they had of necessity to speak, and they did so. One only has to go through the Registers of the Company of Pastors of Geneva, to realize the missionary activity which was being carried on throughout Europe and even to places like Brazil.[38] The Christian’s life was to be one of constant witness, whether one was ordained to preach the Gospel or to be a soldier, a merchant or a farmer, and the Calvinists carried out this responsibility effectively.

To sum up Calvin’s doctrine of justification we find that he presents us with a satisfactory summation himself in the Institutes (3:11:16). God deigns to receive the sinner with his free goodness, but finds nothing worthy in the sinner. He, therefore, must find the reason for his move towards the sinner within himself, and so of his own goodness touches the sinner who responds by despairing of his own righteousness, and placing his dependence on the mercy of God alone. Such dependence is the experience of faith through which the sinner comes to salvation, when from the teaching of the Gospel, he casts himself entirely upon Christ for righteousness and the forgiveness of his sins. Regenerated by the Spirit he sees everlasting righteousness for himself, not in his works but “in the sole righteousness of Christ.”

In this teaching Calvin saw eye to eye with Martin Luther, and those who would make a distinction between them, would seem to be misrepresenting one or both of the reformers. Moreover, Calvin more than once testified to the fact of his agreement with Luther on this point. Since Calvin’s day there have been various attempts even by those who have claimed to be Calvin’s followers and spiritual heirs, to change this doctrine with an introduction of a legalism, and a claim that works must go along with faith as an instrument or basis of justification. Calvin’s position, however, is only too clear, as the author hopes has been shown, in this article.

Notes

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, J.T. McNeill, ed., F.L. Battles, tr., (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3:11:1.
2. Cf. ibid., 3:11:16; 16:1; 17:2, 4, 6; 22; 1 John 4:10. (Where Scripture references are given, the reference is to Calvin’s commentaries.)
3. Insts.1:15; 2:1; Rom 1:19ff; 3:25.
4. Ibid.
5. Rom 3:25; Insts.2:3, 4.
6. Ibid., 2:16; Rom. 6:4.
7. Insts.,2:9:3.
8. Rom 3:22; 6:3 ;1 John 4:10.
9. But cf. Rom 5:18 where Calvin seems to speak of a “general atonement.”
10. Rom 3:22; Insts. 2:17:3ff.
11. Ibid.,3:11:2, 3.
12. Ibid. Rom 8:30.
13. Insts.,3:11:11.
14. Ibid., 2:9:4; 3:11:2, 21–23; Rom 4:6–8; Acts 13:38f.
15. Insts., 3:11:2; 1 John 3:1.
16. Insts., 3:11:2, 21, 22; Rom 4:10ff.
17. Insts., 3:21; Rom 1:8; 3:21, 28; Jas 2:21; Eph 2:8.
18. Insts., 3:11:11; 21; 1 John 4:8; Rom 8:2.
19. Insts., 3:11:13, 15, 19; 17:1, 2; 1 John 4:8. Cf. his long comment on this on Genesis 15:6; and his “Argument” to the Commentary on Galatians.
20. Insts.,3:11:5, 6, 10.
21. Ibid., 3:11:8–11.
22. Ibid., 3:17:3; Rom 3:21. Cf. his comment on the justification of Abraham in Rom 4 and Gal 3.
23. Insts., 3:11:20.
24. Jas 2:14ff; Insts. 3:17:10.
25. Jude 4.
26. 1 John 4:8.
27. Insts. 3:11:17, 19; 3:12.
28. lbid., 3:11:11; Rom 4:16f.
29. Insts., 3:13:4, 5.
30. Rom 6:23; 1 John 2:12. His comment on the need of holiness to see God (Heb 12:14) is that this related to keeping the peace with all men, but also maintaining our holiness which we have received through santification.
31. Insts., 3:1; 14:1–8; 23; 24; Rom 3:21; 6:2; Jas 2:14.
32. Ibid., 3:14:11; 16:1.
33. Ibid., 3:17:6, 9, 10; 1 John 1:7; 3:21 .
34. Insts., 3:11:20; 3:17:1, 2, 4, 8; 3:18; Rom 3:22.
35. Insts., 3:18; Matt 20:1ff.
36. Insts., 3:14:16; 3:18; 1 John 2:5, 6; 3:21; 4:17 .
37. Insts. 3:14:9; 1 John 2:3; 3:19; Rom 8:15.
38. Insts., 3:6; 7:16:3; Matt 5:16; F. Monter, Calvin’s Geneva (N.Y.: Wiley, 1967), pp. 114-115, 134–135, 194–195, 233.