John Calvin’s Subordinate Doctrine Of Justification By Works

By Steven R. Coxhead

[Steven R. Coxhead is a Part-time Lecturer at the Presbyterian Theological Centre and Visiting Lecturer in Hebrew at the Sydney Missionary and Bible College in New South Wales, Australia.]

I. Introduction

An important aspect that needs clarification in the current debate over justification in Reformed circles is the relationship of justification by works and justification by faith in God’s plan of salvation. In a previous article, I argued that John Calvin’s explanation of the concept of personal righteousness in Ezek 18 clearly shows that Calvin accepted the idea of a legitimate doctrine of justification by works that functioned in parallel with but subordinate to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.[1] My findings in that article supported the observation of Peter Lillback that Calvin’s law/spirit hermeneutic allowed him to identify “a subordinate righteousness . . . that is imputed to the believer’s works,” which operates in tandem with the righteousness of Christ yet “in no way detracts from justification by faith alone.”[2]

Lillback’s assertion of a subordinate doctrine of justification by works in Calvin’s system of theology has been opposed by a certain number of scholars of Reformed persuasion, and has even been labeled by some as heretical. David Engelsma, for example, asserts that Lillback makes Calvin teach “the heresy of justification by faith and works.”[3] Mark Karlberg, in speaking of Lillback’s thesis on Calvin, has also stated that “in the teaching of the new Westminster school, justification is attained by faith and works.”[4]

Where then does the truth lie in this important issue? What did Calvin teach about justification by works? It would seem best to let Calvin speak for himself, which is what I will attempt to do in the discussion below. The conclusion that emerges may be surprising to some but hopefully edifying to all.

II. Personal Righteousness In Calvin’s Institutes And In His Commentaries

Our concern in this section is to examine Calvin’s teaching on human righteousness in the 1559 edition of the Institutes and in his commentaries.[5] It will be seen that Calvin’s teaching on personal righteousness in these texts is consistent with his explanation of the concept of righteousness that has been observed previously in his teaching on Ezek 18. Although it is true that the emphasis in the Institutes is very much upon justification by faith alone, the idea of a subordinate doctrine of justification by works is clearly present in the Institutes and also in Calvin’s commentaries.

1. Calvin’s Concept Of Righteousness

1. The meaning of iustitia. Given that Calvin conducted his most important theological work in Latin, it is necessary to investigate his use of the Latin word iustitia, which was commonly utilized in his teaching on righteousness. Calvin does not often define what he means by the term iustitia but generally assumes that his readers are familiar with its meaning. In terms of its semantic range, the word iustitia can carry the related senses of justice, fairness, and uprightness.[6]

All of these senses of the term iustitia can be found in Calvin’s Institutes and in his commentaries, as the discussion below will illustrate.

There has been a fair amount of discussion on the history of the concept of righteousness and the use of the term iustitia in western theology. Alister McGrath in particular argues that there has frequently been an implicit “equation of Hebraic and western concepts of ‘righteousness’ . . . in [western] theological works,” which has resulted in “western concepts of justice” coming to be “employed in the articulation of the Christian doctrine of justification.”[7] If true, this is obviously problematic to the extent that the semantics of the original OT concepts of righteousness may have been overridden by the semantic information associated with the word iustitia and related terminology from the Latin linguistic context. Indeed, McGrath argues that “by the second century AD, the Latin term iustitia had acquired well-established juristic connotations which were to exert considerable influence over future theological interpretation” of biblical righteousness concepts.[8] He also points out that “the Ciceronian definition of iustitia as reddens unicuique quod suum est . . . had become normative” by this time.[9] McGrath is of the opinion that the Ciceronian definition of iustitia “encapsulates the western concept of iustitia distributiva, the ‘due’ of each person being established through the iuris consensus, and embodied in ius.”[10] McGrath’s observations are relevant to our discussion of Calvin’s use of the term iustitia below.

2. Righteousness as justice and equity. Given that iustitia can convey the idea of righteousness as well as that of justice, it is not surprising to find a number of examples where Calvin interprets OT righteousness concepts in terms of iustitia in the sense of justice. For example, in his explanation in the Institutes of the phrase justice and righteousness (משפט וצדקה) in Jer 22:3, Calvin explains the Hebrew term צדקה in terms of justice, where justice means “to receive into safekeeping, to protect, vindicate, and free the innocent.”[11]

In addition to the idea of justice, Calvin often explains biblical concepts of righteousness in terms of aequitas (i.e., equity). A clear example from the Institutes is found in his discussion on self-denial in Titus 2:12 where he states that “righteousness embraces all the duties of equity in order that to each one be rendered what is his own.”[12] It is to be noted that the wording of this proposition in the Latin is virtually identical to the Ciceronian concept of iustitia as defined by McGrath.

Further evidence for a strong conceptual link between iustitia and aequitas in Calvin’s thinking is found in his expositions of iustitia in his commentaries. For example, commenting on the phrase צדקה ומשפט in Gen 18:19, Calvin says that this phrase properly denotes “the duties of the Second Table . . . of the Law” rather than God’s law as a whole.[13] While he acknowledges that the phrase צדקה ומשפט is used in this particular context in Genesis to denote the whole of God’s law, this only happens by way of synecdoche.[14] Significantly, he explains the meaning of the phrase צדקה ומשפט in terms of “that equity, by which to every one is given what is his own,” from which he derives the meaning of צדקה as denoting “the rectitude and humanity which we cultivate with our brethren, when we endeavour to do good to all, and when we abstain from all wrong, fraud, and violence.”[15] The mention of equity in connection with צדקה at this point is particularly significant in that it strongly suggests that Calvin’s understanding of OT righteousness concepts has been influenced by the western concept of iustitia distributiva.

Other examples where Calvin draws a close link between justice and equity include his comments on Ps 15:2. Here Calvin effectively interprets צדקה in terms of the second table of the Ten Commandments: justice is a matter of doing good to others and abstaining from evil.[16] In Ps 45:6, he speaks of Solomon’s “love of uprightness and equity.”[17] Calvin’s interpretation of the phrase עשות משפט in Mic 6:8 is also relevant at this point. Although he translates משפט here by the Latin word iudicia, iudicia is closely related to iustitia in his thinking, as can be seen from the fact that he also explains iudicia in terms of the second table of the Ten Commandments: “to do justice [is] to observe what is equitable towards men, and also to perform the duties of mercy.”[18]

Evidence from the book of Ezekiel also confirms the close connection between iustitia and aequitas in Calvin’s thinking. For example, iustitia and aequitas are found paralleled in Calvin’s comments on Ezek 7:23 and 14:23.[19] Also relevant here is Calvin’s definition of צדקה in his comments on Ezek 18:5, where he says that “justice is nothing but equity, fidelity, integrity, when we abstain altogether from fraud and violence, and deal with our brethren as we wish them to deal with us.”[20]

Calvin understands that the idea of righteousness as equity is taught in God’s law. This is evident in his comments in the Institutes on the moral law, where he states that “the law . . . enjoins us to observe right and equity toward men.”[21] He also understands the prophetic call to repentance in terms of equity (among other things).[22] The examples mentioned above, where Calvin links righteous behavior to the second table of the Ten Commandments, also shows how Calvin understands the idea of justice as equity as being taught in the law. Commenting on the terms משפט and צדקה in Isa 56:1, Calvin again makes reference to the second table of the Ten Commandments and explains that the sense of the terms משפט and צדקה “includes all the duties which men owe to each other, and which consist not only in abstaining from doing wrong, but also in rendering assistance to our neighbours.”[23] His exegetical comments on Luke 1:75 also link righteousness with equity: “Righteousness covers all the duties of charity, for God asks nothing else of us in the second table of the Law, but to render each man his due.”[24] The language of rendering to each person what he or she is due or owed parallels the Ciceronian concept of justice as equity.

It is also significant in the light of the observations presented above that the idea of righteousness as justice and equity is not merely employed by Calvin for the relationship of human beings to each other but also for the relationship of human beings with God. When it comes to our relationship with God, righteousness is also a matter of giving to God what is his due. For Calvin, “the beginning and foundation of righteousness” is found in the proper “worship of God.”[25] Indeed, “the chief part of righteousness is to render to God his right and honor, of which he is impiously defrauded when we do not intend to subject ourselves to his control.”[26] Once again, the words suum ius . . . reddere that appear in the original Latin of the previous quotation clearly recall the so-called Ciceronian definition of iustitia. Likewise, in his comments on Deut 6:25 Calvin speaks of uprightness in terms of “exercis[ing] equity one towards another” and giving God “His right.”[27] It is apparent, therefore, that Calvin’s understanding of righteousness has been influenced by the sense of iustitia distributiva which was common in western philosophical thought of the time.

From the evidence presented above, we may conclude that righteousness in Calvin’s thinking is closely connected with the idea of equity. Iustitia involves equity in human relationships and equity in the exercise of justice.[28] Furthermore, in the light of the evidence, it is clear that the concept of iustitia distributiva is very strong in Calvin’s conceptual framework and that iustitia in his thinking frequently has the ideas of justice and equity at its core.

3. Righteousness as perfect uprightness. While justice or fairness in the sense of rendering to each person what is his or her right can be considered to be the core semantic component of iustitia in Calvin’s thinking, it is also true that he uses the term iustitia to express the idea of uprightness or right behavior. He acknowledges, for example, the theoretical possibility of acquiring righteousness “by acting properly.”[29] This idea of righteousness as right behavior is typically expressed in terms of obedience to God’s law. For Calvin, the standard for determining proper behavior is God’s will. God’s will “is the most perfect rule of all justice.”[30] Furthermore, “God has revealed his will in the law.”[31] “The law has been divinely handed down to us to teach us perfect righteousness . . . which conforms to the requirements of God’s will.”[32] Thus, “the precepts of the law are called ‘righteousnesses,”‘ and “all its commandments are righteous-nesses.”[33] The law as a whole “in itself contains perfect righteousness” and is “the doctrine of perfect righteousness.”[34] In this way, the law functions as the standard of righteousness. Hence, Calvin states that “everlasting righteousness is not comprehended elsewhere than in God’slaw.”[35]

In addition, Calvin acknowledges that Scripture not only calls the precepts of the law righteousness, “but it also applies this term to the works of the saints.”[36] Because God’s law is the doctrine of perfect righteousness, it follows that human obedience to the law is also righteousness. Calvin notes in particular the teaching of Deut 6:25, where he explains that “the keeping of the Law is in itself righteousness.”[37] He states in regard to Ps 119:144 that, in addition to the righteousness of God’s law, there exists “a clearer definition of righteousness, which is, that righteousness consists in our keeping ourselves within the bounds of the law.”[38] Calvin also acknowledges that there are passages of Scripture that “grace good works with the title of ‘righteousness”‘ and that speak of “observances of commandments” in terms of “‘justifications’ or ‘righteous-nesses.”‘[39] He admits that “the word righteousness often has the same effect in Scripture as observance of the Law.”[40] Adam, for example, was supposed to “practice righteousness by obeying God’s commandments.”[41]

It is clear from the evidence cited above that Calvin acknowledges that righteousness is frequently to be defined in terms of obedience to the law; but it also needs to be noted at this juncture that, as far as Calvin is concerned, only “perfect obedience” to the law counts as true righteousness.[42] The idea of complete or perfect obedience to God’s law can helpfully be designated by the terms absolute righteousness or absolute obedience. The concept of absolute righteousness is very prominent in Calvin’s system of theology, as the following evidence from the Institutes makes clear.

Calvin frequently states that only “the complete observance of the law” counts as righteousness.[43] He observes that “the Lord often testifies that he recognizes no righteousness of works except in the perfect observance of his law.”[44] Calvin argues that “if it is true that in the law we are taught the perfection of righteousness,” then it also follows that “the complete observance of the law is perfect righteousness before God.”[45] “No other righteousness than the complete observance of the law is allowed in heaven.”[46] Calvin’s concept of absolute righteousness is particularly evident when he says that “even if it were possible for us to have some wholly pure and perfect works, yet . . . one sin is enough to wipe out and extinguish every memory of that previous righteousness.”[47] Thus, “the law . . . announces death and judgment to all who do not maintain perfect righteousness in works.”[48]

In Calvin’s thinking, the promises of eternal life that are offered in God’s law are conditional upon absolute obedience to the law. Invoking the teaching of Deut 30:19, Calvin states that it cannot “be denied, that the reward of eternal salvation, as promised by the Lord, awaits the perfect obedience of the Law.”[49] Likewise, he acknowledges that “the promises of the law, in so far as they are conditional, depend upon perfect obedience to the law.”[50] “In the precepts of the law, God is but the rewarder of perfect righteousness.”[51] Other places in the Institutes where Calvin teaches the necessary condition of absolute obedience to the law include 2.7.15; 3.12.1; 3.17.1, 13; and 3.18.10.

The concept of absolute righteousness is also prominent in Calvin’s commentaries. In fact, the term absolute righteousness appears in his comments on Rom 2:13.[52] In his commentaries, Calvin teaches that doing the law “is not to obey in part, but to fulfil everything that belongs to righteousness.”[53] “The righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.”[54] “What is required [for righteousness] is obedience, perfect and complete in all its parts, according to the promise [of Lev 18:5].”[55] Because “the law justifies him who fulfils all its commands,” being “accounted righteous before God” is “only where we render perfect obedience to the law.”[56] “That perfect obedience to the law is righteousness and carries the reward of eternal life derives from God, who declares that they who have fulfilled it shall live.”[57] The law “promises life only on the . . . condition of perfect obedience,” and “salvation is promised only for perfect obedience of the Law.”[58] The law “requires of us perfect righteousness, and pronounces death on all who have transgressed any part of it.”[59]

It is significant at this juncture to note how Calvin understands the condition for Israel’s keeping of the Mosaic covenant as being her absolute obedience to the law of Moses. For example, in the introduction to his discussion of Exod 19:1-8, Calvin divides the revelation delivered via Moses into two parts: on the one hand, there is “the general doctrine” that testifies of “God’s gratuitous adoption” and salvation by mercy; on the other hand, there is “the special command” that gives to the Mosaic covenant the “peculiar property” of its conditionality.[60] Corresponding to these two aspects of Mosaic revelation, Moses has two main functions: “whenever he prescribes expiatory rites,” Moses speaks of God’s mercy; but whenever the commands of the law are in view, we are dealing with the separate “office” that was placed upon Moses, whereby he “demand[ed] perfect righteousness of the people.”[61] It is also relevant at this point to note that Calvin characteristically interprets the Mosaic warnings on the necessity of doing all of the torah in absolute terms. As Calvin puts it in his comments on Deut 28:58: “Perfect obedience is required by the words, ‘to do all the words that are written in the Law.”‘[62]

4. The general impossibility of perfect uprightness. Calvin is open in acknowledging that he “willingly confess[es] that perfect obedience to the law is righteousness”; but obviously, on the level of righteousness defined absolutely, he must and does deny that such righteousness exists in any human being (apart from Christ).[63] He denies, for example, that perfect righteousness “exists anywhere . . . not because [the law] is defective and mutilated of itself, but because, due to the weakness of our flesh, it is nowhere visible.”[64]

Calvin is clearly aware that it is one thing to acknowledge a concept of law righteousness but another thing whether we can live up to such obedience.[65] It is precisely when this question is posed that “the feebleness of the law shows itself,” and therefore “because [such] observance of the law is found in none of us, we are excluded from the promises of life” that are offered in the law.[66] For Calvin, “the teaching of the law is far above human capacity” such that we can only “view from afar the proffered promises” and “derive [no] benefit from them.”[67] The problem is that “there is no one, not only of the common folk, but of the most perfect persons, who can fulfill [the law].”[68] Because perfection is not possible in this life, then the law in and of itself can only accuse and condemn.[69] The following passage captures Calvin’s understanding of the matter.

The observance of the law is impossible. . . . I call “impossible” what has never been, and what God’s ordination and decree prevents from ever being. If we search the remotest past, I say that none of the saints, clad in the body of death . . . has attained to that goal of love so as to love God “with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and all his might.” . . . I further say that there will be no one hereafter who will reach the goal of true perfection without sloughing off the weight of the body.... The law cannot be fulfilled in this life of the flesh.[70]

Other passages from the Institutes that speak of the impossibility of keeping the law include 3.2.1; 3.12.1; 3.15.3; 3.17.1, 3; and 3.18.9.

Similar teaching is found in Calvin’s commentaries. Commenting on Deut 30:11, he states that “the keeping of [the law] is impossible, on account of its extreme rigour.”[71] Discussing Hab 2:4, he says: “If we are not righteous except according to the covenant of the law, then we are not righteous except through a full and perfect observance of the law.”[72] Reflecting on Luke 10:26, he makes the point that “it is impossible for us to fulfil [the law’s] commands.”[73] Speaking about Acts 15:10, he says that “human strength is not able to cope with the keeping of the Law.”[74] In his commentary on Romans, he states: “We do not deny that absolute righteousness is prescribed in the law, but since all men are convicted of offense, we assert the necessity of seeking for another righteousness . . . [for] no one is justified by works.”[75] Likewise, in his commentary on Galatians he writes: “None is righteous by the works of the law, because there is none who does them. We admit that the doers of the law, if there were any, would be righteous. But since that is a conditional agreement, all are excluded from life because none offers the righteousness that he ought.”[76] These quotations from Calvin’s commentaries confirm his teaching in Ezek 18 that no “perfect observer of the law can be found.”[77]

It is obvious, therefore, in the light of the evidence presented above, that righteousness is frequently thought of by Calvin in absolute terms. Calvin’s view on absolute righteousness as it applies to humanity can be summarized in the following words: “The Lord promises [no blessing] except to perfect keepers of his law, and no one of the kind is to be found.”[78] The clarity of Calvin’s teaching on this issue, along with the relative frequency of such teaching in the Institutes and in his commentaries, shows how prominent the concept of absolute righteousness is in Calvin’s system of theology.

5. Righteousness as relative holiness. Even though the concept of absolute righteousness is a key element in Calvin’s system, it would be a mistake to conclude on the basis of this fact that absolute righteousness is all there is to his understanding of righteousness. An investigation of his Institutes and commentaries shows that he also believes in a relative form of righteousness that operates in the context of God’s covenant mercy. This concept will be referred to in this article as covenant righteousness or covenant obedience. Covenant righteousness is the right standing before God that a member of the covenant enjoys on the basis of covenant obedience or loyalty, which consists of a genuine commitment to living one’s life in accordance with God’s word.

Even though Calvin stresses the idea of absolute righteousness in his system of theology, it is nevertheless highly significant that he acknowledges a concept of relative righteousness which is performed by believers in the context of covenant grace. When he says that “it is said with good reason that the lives of believers, framed to holiness and righteousness, are pleasing to [God]” and that “in all covenants of his mercy the Lord requires of his servants in return uprightness and sanctity of life, lest his goodness be mocked,” he effectively gives expression to a concept of covenant righteousness.[79] When he says that it is necessary “ever [to] strive in the direction of our calling” in order “not to renounce our right of adoption,” a similar idea emerges.[80] Calvin acknowledges, therefore, a form of righteousness that consists of holy living and which is necessary for the eschatological salvation of believers in the outworking in history of God’s covenants of grace.

Further evidence of righteousness as relative holiness is found in the Institutes, 3.17.10. In this section Calvin argues that the sense in which “the title ‘righteous,’ which is customarily applied to believers,” ought to be understood is that even though believers are called righteous on the basis of their “holiness of life,” this righteousness is subordinate to the righteousness of faith, because the righteous “rather lean to the pursuit of righteousness than actually fulfill righteousness itself.”[81] It could be argued that Calvin’s language appears to be a touch convoluted at this point, but effectively what he is saying is that believers in and of themselves do not possess absolute righteousness; rather, they possess the absolute righteousness of Christ through faith, but also, as a result of this, a relative form of personal righteousness, which is due to the work of God’s Spirit and which is treated by God in the context of covenant grace as worthy of reward. As Calvin puts it: “For believers uprightness, albeit partial and imperfect, is a step toward immortality.”[82] A concept of covenant righteousness exists, therefore, in Calvin’s thinking; and such righteousness is understood by Calvin as being ordinarily a necessary element in the process of salvation by which God leads the elect into the full possession of eternal life.[83]

Elsewhere Calvin speaks of covenant righteousness in terms of a form of righteousness that God rewards in a manner not strictly related to equity. In his discussion in the Institutes on the significance of Heb 6:10, which is a verse that implies that God rewards the works of believers, Calvin again identifies a relative form of works righteousness that operates in the context of covenant grace. As part of “the free covenant of [God’s] mercy,” God has promised to reward the labor of his servants, so that “however unworthy our services, a reward will not be lacking from God’s generosity.”[84] In this context, God’s justice “refers more to the truth of the divine promise than to the equity of rendering what is due.”[85] In other words, the works of believers are rewarded in the context of the grace of the forgiveness of sins that is offered within the covenant relationship.

Turning now to Calvin’s commentaries, in explaining the sense in which Noah was a righteous man, Calvin acknowledges that “Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God, because, by living uprightly and holily, he kept himself pure from the common pollutions of the world.”[86] Noah is thus an example of the fact that, in the Scriptures, certain people “are called just and upright, not who are in every respect perfect, and in whom there is no defect; but who cultivate righteousness purely, and from their heart.”[87] Calvin goes on to explain that this acknowledgment of righteousness stems from the fact that “God does not act towards his own people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law; for, if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.”[88]

A further example of righteousness as relative holiness is found in Calvin’s discussion of the nature of the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job in Ezek 14:14. How is it that these three men can be described as saving themselves through their own righteousness? Once again Calvin resorts to “God’s gratuitous favour” as the explanation: “Because God pardons his sons . . . hence he accepts their works: so he acknowledges them also as just.”[89] Calvin notes that “the beginning of [this kind of ] righteousness . . . is a gratuitous reconciliation by which all the faults of the faithful are buried: whence it happens also that their integrity, although not perfect, is still pleasing to God.”[90]

Calvin’s explanation of the righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke 1:6 is another case in point. Calvin understands the righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth in terms of “devout and righteous living.”[91] “The righteousness ascribed to them” was “theirs not on account of their merit, but on account of the grace of Christ, but it was because the Lord did not impute their sins to them, that He granted their holy—though imperfect—lives the distinction of righteousness.”[92] The righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth, therefore, involved a genuine though imperfect commitment to doing God’s will in the context of covenant grace. “According to the covenant” that God makes with his people, “whose first article is free reconciliation, and daily forgiveness . . . [m]en are reckoned righteous and blameless, because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness.”[93] Calvin also says that we should not “neglect this definition, that the righteous are those who form their lives according to the precepts of the Law.”[94] This quotation captures Calvin’s definition of covenant righteousness, which involves a person seeking to model the whole of one’s life in accordance with God’s will as revealed in his law and in the context of covenant grace.

Other examples that are worthy of mention at this point include Calvin’s interpretation of Peter’s use of the term δίκαιος in 1 Pet 4:18. Here Calvin makes the point that “the righteous [are] not those who are altogether perfect in righteousness, but who strive to live righteously.”[95] Likewise, in explaining the idea of walking in the light in 1 John 1:7, Calvin says that this idea is not to be understood in terms of total purity; rather, it is an expression that is “accommodated to the grasp of men.”[96] “He is said to be like God who aspires after His likeness, however distant from it he may yet be . . . he who in sincerity of heart spends every part of his life in God’s fear and service and worships Him faithfully, may be regarded as walking in the light, for he keeps to the right way, even though in many things he may err and groan under the burden of the flesh.”[97] Commenting on the idea in 1 John 2:17 that the doers of God’s will abide forever, Calvin says that John “is not dealing here with the perfect keeping of the Law, but with the obedience of faith, which, although imperfect, is nevertheless approved by God.”[98] Finally, in what is a particularly interesting comment, Calvin acknowledges, in the context of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith in Rom 4:6, that in other parts of Scripture “works, and other blessings also, are sometimes stated to be imputed for righteousness.”[99]

2. Calvin’s Concept Of Justification

According to McGrath, “The concept of justification (Latin, iustificatio) is inextricably linked with that of righteousness (Latin, iustitia), both semantically and theologically.”[100] In agreement with this statement, it is necessary to consider briefly Calvin’s understanding of justification. As one would expect, the pattern of justification that emerges in Calvin’s teaching neatly corresponds to the pattern that we have seen above with respect to the concept of righteousness.

1. The general meaning of justification. On the general concept of justification, Calvin understands justification to mean acquittal from sin. Because “iniquity is abominable to God, so no sinner can find favor in [God’s] eyes in so far as he is a sinner and so long as he is reckoned as such.”[101] To justify a person, however, “means nothing else than to acquit of guilt him who was accused, as if his innocence were confirmed.”[102] Applying this to the situation of being justified in the sight of God, a person “is justified who is reckoned in the condition not of a sinner, but of a righteous man.”[103] Calvin also describes justification as “the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men.”[104] Calvin’s mention in this context of coram Dei tribunali and his speaking of God in judicial terms shows that justification is fundamentally forensic in nature in his understanding.[105] Being deemed or reckoned as righteous is the core, therefore, of what it means to be justified. Calvin also notes that Paul speaks of justification in terms of acceptance and the imputation of righteousness.[106] In discussing justification in further detail, he distinguishes between two forms of justification, namely, justification by faith and justification by works.

2. Justification by faith. The importance of justification by faith for Calvin can be seen in the way that he opens his defining chapter on justification in the Institutes, when he says that “man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith.”[107] Justification by faith is necessary precisely because “we cannot be justified by works.”[108] In other words, because no ordinary human being can meet the standard of perfect obedience to God’s law, a solution must be found that does not involve our works before God; hence the necessity of justification by faith. For Calvin, the person who is justified by faith “is he who, excluded from the righteousness of works, grasps the righteousness of Christ through faith, and clothed in it, appears in God’s sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man.”[109] Justification by faith “consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”[110]

On the question as to what constitutes faith, Victor Shepherd’s finding that faith in Calvin’s thinking is primarily a knowledge of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ but which includes the other aspects of God’s word under the divine promise of mercy is corroborated by the evidence in Calvin’s Institutes.[111] Summarizing Calvin’s discussion in the Institutes, 3.2.1-43, faith is defined as “a knowledge of God’s will towards us, perceived from his Word.”[112] But what, strictly speaking, is it that faith knows about God’s will? Calvin identifies God’s “benevolence or . . . mercy” as the core epistemological component of faith.[113] Thus, faith is ultimately “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”[114] Faith is, in effect, “a sure confidence in divine benevolence and salvation.”[115] Even though the knowledge of God’s mercy or “the freely given promise of God” is the core or “the foundation of faith,” Calvin denies that the knowledge of God’s mercy is the only component of faith.[116] “Faith is [also being] certain that God is true in all things whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or threaten; and it also obediently receives his commandments, observes his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it.”[117] Calvin’s reason for emphasizing the promise of mercy is because “life [can] not be found in commandments or declarations of penalties.”[118] “[A] conditional promise that sends us back to our own works” cannot give life.[119] Thus, for Calvin, faith is supremely the knowledge of God’s mercy in Christ as made known through God’s word.

3. Justification by works. Calvin speaks of justification by works on two levels: where righteousness is defined absolutely, there only exists a hypothetical doctrine of justification by works for sinful human beings. But where the righteousness of individuals is viewed in the context of justification by faith already applied, then a legitimate but subordinate doctrine of justification by works emerges.

On the level of absolute righteousness, Calvin teaches that a person is justified by works “if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice.”[120] In other words, absolute righteousness is the necessary condition for a person to be justified by works. Given the fact, however, that all human beings (apart from Christ) commit sin, then it follows that the doctrine of justification by works cannot help the mass of humanity.[121]

It is to be noted, however, that Calvin’s system of theology does not simply contain a hypothetical doctrine of justification by works on condition of absolute righteousness. It is significant that Calvin observes that “it is one thing to discuss what value works have of themselves, another, to weigh in what place they are to be held after faith righteousness has been established.”[122] In Calvin’s thinking, the fact that “we . . . receive a double grace” through union with Christ through faith (i.e., reconciliation and regeneration) means that the good works of believers are also imputed to them as righteousness.[123] Even though the idea of a legitimate doctrine of the imputation of a believer’s good works as righteousness is viewed by some Reformed scholars as heretical, Calvin clearly believed in such a concept:

After forgiveness of sins is set forth, the good works that now follow are appraised otherwise than on their own merit. For everything imperfect in them is covered by Christ’s perfection.... Therefore, after the guilt of all transgressions that hinder man from bringing forth anything pleasing to God has been blotted out, and after the fault of imperfection, which habitually defiles even good works, is buried, the good works done by believers are accounted righteous, or, what is the same thing, are reckoned [i.e., imputed] as righteousness.[124]

In Calvin’s thinking, a person can be accepted by God solely on the basis of the absolute righteousness of Christ; but because faith goes together with spiritual renewal and because the imperfect works of believers are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, then works righteousness also exists for the believer.

That is to say, because justification by faith is true, then a gracious justification by works is also true, or as Calvin puts it: “works righteousness . . . depends upon the justification of faith.”[125] Thus, “it follows from justification of faith that works otherwise impure, unclean, half done, unworthy of God’s sight, not to mention his love, are accounted [i.e., imputed as] righteousness.”[126] At the same time, however, this legitimate doctrine of justification by works is to be subordinated to the logically prior truth of justification by faith. As Calvin states: “Works righteousness . . . depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by this” and “ought to . . . be subordinated to [faith] . . . as effect to cause.”[127]

The picture that emerges from Calvin’s commentaries confirms his teaching in the Institutes. Two examples will suffice at this point. Commenting on Luke 1:6, Calvin says that the righteousness of works “flows from” the righteousness of faith and “should be dependent and secondary to it,” that is, “subordinated . . . so as not to conflict with the [righteousness of faith].”[128] The second example concerns 1 John 2:17, where Calvin says, “The will of God is first shown to us in the Law. But as no one satisfies the Law, no happiness can be hoped for from it. But Christ meets the despairing with a new aid, for He not only regenerates us by His Spirit so that we may obey God, but also brings it to pass that our endeavour, of whatever kind, obtains the praise of perfect righteousness.”[129] There is, therefore, in Calvin a legitimate doctrine of justification by works that is subordinate to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.[130]

The significance of the truth of this subordinate doctrine of justification by works in Calvin’s system is that the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not nullify the promises of the law or render them fruitless.[131] Calvin argues that the promises of the law “are in a sense abolished” when “considered in themselves”; but when they are “substituted” by “the promises of the gospel . . . which proclaim the free forgiveness of sins,” these latter promises “not only make us acceptable to God but also render our works pleasing to him”; and thus the Lord “also extends to [our works] the blessings which under the covenant were owed to the observance of his law.”[132] In this way, “what the Lord has promised in his law to the keepers of righteousness and holiness is paid to the works of believers.”[133] It is also for this reason that Calvin can go so far as to speak of works as “inferior causes” of salvation, in the sense that the Lord ordinarily brings the elect into possession of “the inheritance of eternal life . . . by means of good works.”[134]

In a nutshell, Calvin’s view is that the unattainable absolute righteousness of works forces everyone to flee to the absolute righteousness of Christ through faith, which in turn enables the original doctrine of justification by means of the works of the law to have validity for the believer. Therefore Calvin can say: “Let him . . . who so wishes enlarge upon the recompense said to await the keeper of the law, provided he at the same time ponder that our depravity makes us experience no benefit therefrom until we have obtained another righteousness from faith.”[135] No matter what weaknesses there may be with this theological construction, it should nevertheless be acknowledged that Calvin’s understanding of justification represents a remarkable synthesis of biblical teaching.[136]

III. Conclusion

Calvin’s teaching on the concept of righteousness in the 1559 edition of the Institutes and in his commentaries is rather complex, but a number of conclusions can be made on the basis of the evidence presented above. Reflecting a Ciceronian definition of iustitia, the ideas of justice and equity are frequently in Calvin’s mind when he speaks about righteousness. More importantly, however, Calvin defines righteousness in terms of God’s will as revealed through his law. In this regard, the concepts of righteousness as perfect uprightness and righteousness as a relative holiness co-operate in the experience of the believer, although the latter is clearly subordinate to the former. The teaching on righteousness that appears in Calvin’s Institutes and commentaries is thoroughly consistent, therefore, with Calvin’s explanation of the concept of the righteousness of obedience to the law that appears in Ezek 18. Furthermore, the evidence cited above corroborates Lillback’s opinion that Calvin taught “a subordinate [works] righteousness . . . that is imputed to the believer’s works,” which operates in tandem with justification by faith alone.[137] Those who assert that Lillback makes Calvin teach the heresy of justification by faith and works have missed the point of Lillback’s observation and, more importantly, have failed to understand Calvin’s teaching on this matter. It is true that Calvin strongly rejects a doctrine of justification involving an admixture of faith and works, but the evidence cited above proves that Calvin did teach a doctrine of justification that operates on two levels. In Calvin’s thinking, justification by faith alone operates on the level of absolute righteousness, and justification by works on the level of God’s gracious covenant. Those who deny that Calvin taught a subordinate and legitimate doctrine of justification by works have arguably not understood the genius of Calvin’s teaching on this issue.

Notes

1. See Steven R. Coxhead, “John Calvin’s Interpretation of Works Righteousness in Ezekiel 18,” WTJ 70 (2008): 303-16.
2. Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 188-89; see also p. 205.
3. David J. Engelsma, “The Recent Bondage of John Calvin: A Critique of Peter A. Lillback’s The Binding of God,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 35 (November 2001): n.p., Online: http:// www.prca.org/prtj/nov2001.html#ReviewArticle (accessed 17 January 2008).
4. Mark W. Karlberg, Gospel Grace: The Modern-Day Controversy (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 219-20.
5. Calvin’s understanding of righteousness as it applies to God is not in focus in this article, but it is important to note that Calvin believed that “God is the fountainhead of all righteousness” ( John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:530 [2.17.2]. All quotations from Calvin’s Institutes in this article will be from the Battles translation unless specified otherwise.) The concept iustitia Dei has three basic meanings in Calvin’s thinking. Firstly, it can denote the righteousness of God himself either in his spotless character(Inst. 1:783 [3.14.16]), or as revealed through the blamelessness of his actions (Inst. 1:311 [2.4.2]), or in the sense of “his faithfulness and mercy which he shows in defending and preserving his people” (e.g., John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms [trans. James Anderson; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948], 1:59; see also Psalms, 1:92, 389, 499; 2:13, 229-30, 302-3; 3:90, 93), or God’s just government of the world (Psalms, 1:159, 169; 2:9-10). Secondly, it can denote the standard of perfection that is “alone acceptable to God” (Inst. 1:354 [2.7.6]; and also 1:265 [2.2.8]; 1:340 [2.5.19]; 1:736 [3.11.9]; 1:756 [3.12.2]), to which believers are conformed in the process of spiritual renewal (Inst. 1:601 [3.3.9]; 1:684 [3.6.1]). Thirdly, it can denote the purity of Christ (Inst. 1:730 [3.11.5]), in which believers are clothed (Inst. 1:508 [2.16.5]; 1:510 [2.16.6]; 1:742 [3.11.12]; 1:753 [3.11.23]). In addition, iustitia Dei can be understood in a number of derivative or combined senses: the righteousness that is bestowed upon believers, of which God is the author (Inst. 1:736 [3.11.9]); God’s righteous character and his work of justifying believers (Inst. 1:763 [3.13.1]); God’s righteous standard of morality as revealed in his law (Psalms, 4:430, 456-57; 5:21-22, 35, 40); or even”the holiness manifested in the life that is so well-pleasing to [God]” (Psalms, 3:73).
6. These meanings of iustitia are cited from Collins Latin Dictionary Plus Grammar (Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1997), 120.
7. Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Doctrine of Justification (3d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 7.
8. Ibid., 16.
9. Ibid. McGrath cites D. H. van Zyl, Justice and Equity in Cicero (Pretoria, S.A.: Academica Press, 1991), as evidence for Cicero’s view of iustitia (Iustitia Dei, 16). He also quotes from Cicero himself: “Iustitia virtus est, communi utilitate servata, suam cuique tribuens dignitatem” (ibid.). According to Braden J. Hosch, the so-called Ciceronian definition of iustitia actually goes back to Simonides (Hosch, Truth in Our Practice: Representing Justice in Milton’s Poetry and Prose [Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2003], 45). Simonides’ definition of justice appears in Plato, Resp. 1.331d–332c, in Socrates’ discussion with Polemarchus: τὰ ὀφειλόμενα ἑκάσῳ ἀποδιδόναι δίκαιόν ἐστι (Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes [LCL; ed. G. P. Goold et al.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978], 5:20 [1.331e]).
10. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 17.
11. Inst. 2:1497 (4.20.9). The Latin reads: “Iustitia quidem est, innocentes in fidem suscipere, complecti, tueri, vindicare, liberare” ( John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis cum brevi Annotatione atque Indicibus locupletissimis ad Editionem Amstelodamensem accuratissime exscribi curavit A. Tholuck [Berlin: Gustaf Eichler, 1834], 2:482).
12. Inst. 1:692 (3.7.3): “Iustitia autem omnia aequitatis officia complectitur, ut reddatur unicuique quod suum est” (Institutio, 1:446). Other places in the Institutes where iustitia and aequitas are closely linked include sections 3.14.2 and 4.20.9, 15.
13. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (trans. John King; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 1:482.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Psalms, 1:206.
17. Ibid., 2:179.
18. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (trans. John Owen; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 3:343.
19. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. Thomas Myers; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 1:268; 2:83.
20. Ezekiel, 2:220.
21. Inst. 1:417 (2.8.53): “in Lege nobis tantum praescribi iuris et aequitatis inter homines observantiam” (Institutio, 1:272).
22. Inst. 1:416 (2.8.52): “For almost every time the prophets exhort men to repentance they omit the First Table, and urge faith, judgment, mercy, and equity”—”Nam fere quoties hortantur ad poenitentiam, omissa priore tabula, fidem, iudicium, misericordiam et aequitatem urgent” (Institutio, 1:272).
23. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (trans. William Pringle; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 4:175-76.
24. John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 1-3; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. A. W. Morrison and T. H. L. Parker; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:48.
25. Inst. 1:377 (2.8.11): “Principium ergo et fundamentum iustitiae vocamus Dei cultum” (Institutio, 1:246).
26. Inst. 1:599-600 (3.3.7): “praecipua iustitiae pars est, suum ius et honorem Deo reddere, quo impie fraudatur, ubi nobis propositum non est, subiicere nos eius imperio” (Institutio, 1:388).
27. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (Calvin’s Commentaries 2-3; trans. Charles William Bingham; 4 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 1:363.
28. For equity as fairness in justice, see Inst. 2.8.19; 3.23.9; 4.20.4.
29. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 2:38 (3.11.3): “acquirere iustitiam recte agendo” (Institutio, 2:7).
30. Ezekiel, 1:315.
31. Inst. 1:422 (2.8.59).
32. Ibid., 1:372 (2.8.5): “Legem nobis esse divinitus traditam, quae nos perfectam iustitiam edoceret: illic non aliam iustitiam doceri, nisi quae ad praescriptum divinae voluntatis exigatur” (Institutio, 1:242).
33. Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7): “Ut dem Legis praecepta vocari iustitias, nihil mirum” and “iustitiae sunt singula eius mandata” (Institutio, 2:59).
34. Inst. 2:1267 (4.13.13): “in se contineat Lex perfectam iustitiam” and “[Lex est] perfectae iustitiae doctrina” (Institutio, 2:344).
35. Psalms, 5:22.
36. Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7).
37. The Last Four Books of Moses, 1:363.
38. Psalms, 5:22.
39. Inst. 1:809 (3.17.7): ‘‘At vero plus longe difficultatis esse videtur in his locis, qui et bona opera iustitiae titulo insigniunt, et hominem illis asserunt iustificari. Plurimi sunt prioris generis, ubi mandatorum observationes, iustificationes vocantur seu iustitiae’’ (Institutio, 2:58).
40. Harmony of the Gospels, 1:130.
41. Inst. 1:246 (2.1.4): ‘‘nihil melius esse, quam Dei mandatis parendo colere iustitiam’’ (Institutio, 1:166).
42. The phrase perfect obedience, which appears as either perfecta obedientia or absoluta obedientia in the Latin, is found in sections 2.7.3-4; 3.14.11; 3.17.7; 3.18.10; and 4.13.6, 13 of the Institutes.
43. The phrase the complete observance of the law, i.e., absoluta observatio, is found in Inst. 2.7.3.
44. Inst. 1:780 (3.14.13): ‘‘Toties testificatur Dominus nullam se agnoscere operum iustitiam, nisi in perfecta Legis suae observatione’’ (Institutio, 2:39).
45. Inst. 1:351 (2.7.3): ‘‘Si verum est perfectionem iustitiae in Lege nos edoceri: istud etiam con-sequitur, absolutam eius observationem perfectam esse coram Deo iustitiam’’ (Institutio, 1:230).
46. Inst. 1:780 (3.14.13): ‘‘non alia iustitia admittitur in coelis quam integra Legis observatio’’ (Institutio, 2:39).
47. Inst. 1:777 (3.14.10): ‘‘etiamsi fieri posset, ut aliqua nobis essent omnino pura absolutaque opera, unum tamen peccatum satis est ad delendam exstinguendamque omnem memoriam prioris iustitiae’’ (Institutio, 2:37).
48. Inst. 1:777 (3.14.10): ‘‘Lex . . . mortem ac iudicium omnibus denuntiet, qui non integram iustitiam opere praestiterint’’ (Institutio, 2:38).
49. Inst. (trans. Beveridge), 1:302 (2.7.3): “Nec refragari licet, quin iustam Legis obedientiam maneat aeternae salutis remuneratio, quemadmodum a Domino promissa est” (Institutio, 1:230).
50. Inst. 1:352 (2.7.4): “promissiones Legis, quatenus conditionales sunt a perfecta Legis obedientia depende[nt]” (Institutio, 1:230).
51. Inst. 1:357 (2.7.8): “Deus enim in Legis praeceptis nonnisi perfectae iustitiae . . . remunerator” (Institutio, 1:233).
52. “Absolute righteousness is prescribed in the law” ( John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians [Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 8; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. Ross Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 47).
53. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 11; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 55.
54. Romans, 47.
55. Ibid., 87.
56. Galatians, 54, 51.
57. Ibid., 38.
58. John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 6-7; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. John W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 2:40.
59. Romans, 130.
60. Last Four Books of Moses, 1:313.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid., 3:262. This conclusion is not controversial, but it confirms Lillback’s observation that, for Calvin, the condition of the covenant from the human side is perfect obedience (Lillback, The Binding of God, 186).
63. Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7): “Fatemur ergo libenter, absolutam Legis obedientiam esse iustitiam” (Institutio, 2:59).
64. Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7): “Sed exstare usquam talem iustitiae formam negamus. Atque ideo Legis iustitiam tollimus, non quod manca per se sit ac mutila: sed quod ob carnis nostrae debilitatem nusquam compareat” (Institutio, 2:59).
65. Inst. 1:351-52 (2.7.3).
66. Ibid., 1:352 (2.7.3): “Legis imbecillitas se profert: nam quia in nullo nostrum illa Legis observantia deprehenditur, a vitae promissionibus exclusi in solam maledictionem recidimus” (Institutio, 1:230).
67. Inst. 1:352 (2.7.3): “quum enim longe supra humanam facultatem sit Legis doctrina, potest quidem homo eminus spectare appositas promissiones, non tamen fructum ex iis aliquem colligere” (Institutio, 1:230).
68. Inst. 1:747 (3.11.17): “quia nemo est qui impleat, non tantum ex vulgo, sed ex perfectissimis quibusque” (Institutio, 2:18).
69. Inst. 1:777 (3.14.10).
70. Ibid., 1:353-54 (2.7.5).
71. Last Four Books of Moses, 1:414.
72. Minor Prophets, 4:80.
73. A Harmony of the Gospels, 3:35.
74. Acts, 2:37.
75. Romans, 47.
76. Galatians, 54-55.
77. Ezekiel, 2:236.
78. Inst. 1:803 (3.17.1): “Non enim promittit Dominus quippiam, nisi perfectis Legis suae cultoribus, qualis nemo reperitur” (Institutio, 2:55).
79. Inst. 1:807-8 (3.17.5): “non sine causa dicitur illi placere fidelium vita, ad sanctitatem et iustitiam composita.... Siquidem ut in omnibus misericordiae suae pactis integritatem ac sanctimoniam vitae vicissim a servis suis Deus stipulatur...ne ludibrio sit sua bonitas” (Institutio, 2:57).
80. Inst. 1:809 (3.17.6): “Ne ergo ipsi adoptionis iure nos abdicemus, huc semper enitendum, quo tendit nostra vocatio” (Institutio, 2:58).
81. Inst. 1:814 (3.17.10):”Multo iam minus rationis est, cur nos conturbare debeat appellatio iustorum, quae fidelibus plerumque tribuitur. Iustos certe a vitae sanctimonia nuncupari fateor: sed quum in iustitiae studium magis incumbant quam iustitiam ipsam impleant, qualemcunque hanc iustitiam, fidei iustificatione cedere par est” (Institutio, 2:61).
82. Inst. 1:820 (3.17.15): “Neque interim negamus quin fidelibus sua integritas, dimidiata licet ac imperfecta, gradus sit ad immortalitatem” (Institutio, 2:65).
83. Inst. 1:787 (3.14.21).
84. Ibid., 1:829 (3.18.7): “Semper meminerimus, hanc promissionem . . . nihil fructus nobis allaturam, nisi praecederet gratuitum misericordiae foedus, cui tota salutis nostrae certitudo incumberet. Eo autem freti, confidere secure debemus, obsequiis etiam nostris quamlibet indignis non defuturum a Dei liberalitate praemium” (Institutio, 2:71).
85. Inst. 1:829 (3.18.7): “Iustitia igitur ista magis ad divinae promissionis veritatem, quam ad reddendam debiti aequitatem refertur” (Institutio, 2:71).
86. Genesis, 1:251.
87. Ibid., 1:251-52.
88. Ibid., 1:252.
89. Ezekiel, 2:74.
90. Ibid.
91. Harmony of the Gospels, 1:6.
92. Ibid., 1:7.
93. Ibid., 1:6.
94. Ibid.
95. John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 12; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. William B. Johnston; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 312.
96. John Calvin, The Gospel according to St John 11-21 and The First Epistle of John (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 5; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 238.
97. The First Epistle of John, 238.
98. Ibid., 255.
99. Romans, 86 (my emphasis).
100. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 6.
101. Inst. 1:726 (3.11.2).
102. Ibid., 1:728 (3.11.3).
103. Ibid., 1:726 (3.11.2).
104. Ibid., 1:727 (3.11.2).
105. Institutio, 2:6 (3.11.2).
106. Inst. 1:728-29 (3.11.4). The terms that Calvin uses in the Latin are acceptio and iustitiae imputatio (Institutio, 2:7).
107. Inst. (trans. Beveridge), 2:37 (3.11.1).
108. Galatians, 38.
109. Inst. 1:726-27 (3.11.2).
110. Ibid., 1:727 (3.11.2).
111. Victor A. Shepherd, The Nature and Function of Faith in the Theology of John Calvin (National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Dissertation Series 2; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 10, 14-16.
112. Inst. 1:549 (3.2.6).
113. Ibid., 1:550 (3.2.7): i.e., God’s benevolentia and misericordia (Institutio, 1:357).
114. Inst. 1:551 (3.2.7).
115. Ibid., 1:561 (3.2.15).
116. Ibid., 1:575 (3.2.29).
117. Ibid.
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid.
120. Inst. (trans. Beveridge), 2:38 (3.11.2).
121. Inst. 1:802-6 (3.17.1-3).
122. Ibid., 1:811 (3.17.8) (my emphasis): “Sed aliud est disputare, quid per se valeant opera, aliud quo loco post stabilitam fidei iustitiam habenda sint” (Institutio, 2:59).
123. The quotation is from Inst. 1:725 (3.11.1): “[Christi] participatione duplicem potissimum gratiam recipiamus” (Institutio, 2:6). Calvin’s discussion of the legitimate biblical doctrine of works righteousness is found in sections 3.17.8-10 of the 1559 edition of the Institutes.
124. Inst. 1:811-12 (3.17.8) (my emphasis): “Praeposita peccatorum remissione, quae iam sequuntur bona opera aliam quam a suo merito aestimationem habent: quia quicquid in illis est imperfectum, Christi perfectione contegitur.... Obliterata igitur omnium transgressionum culpa, quibus impediuntur homines ne quicquam Deo gratum proferant, sepulto etiam imperfectionis vitio, quod bona quoque opera foedare solet: quae fiunt a fidelibus bona opera, iusta censentur, vel (quod idem est) in iustitiam imputantur” (Institutio, 2:60).
125. Inst. 1:812 (3.17.9): “si a fidei iustificatione dependet qualiscunque tandem censetur operum iustitia, non modo per hanc nihil imminui, sed potius confirmari” (Institutio, 2:60).
126. Inst. 1:812 (3.17.9): “Quodsi constat a iustificatione fidei proficisci, ut opera impura alioqui, immunda, dimidiata, indigna Dei conspectu, nedum amore, iustitiae imputentur” (Institutio, 2:60). In the context, the subjunctive flavor of this protasis speaks of a real condition.
127. Inst. 1:813 (3.17.10): “Iam si ista qualiscunque operum iustitia a fide et gratuita iustificatione pendet, et ab ea efficitur: debet sub ea includi, et tanquam effectus causae suae (ut ita loquar) subordinari” (Institutio, 2:61).
128. Harmony of the Gospels, 1:7.
129. The First Epistle of John, 255.
130. This teaching is commonly known as double justification. That Calvin taught a doctrine of double justification is acknowledged by T. H. L. Parker and Anthony Lane, among others. See T. H. L. Parker, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification,” EvQ 24 (1952): 105; and A. N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 33-36.
131. Inst. 1:804-5 (3.17.2-3).
132. Ibid., 1:805 (3.17.3): “si [promissiones Legis] in se considerentur, quodammodo aboleri.... Sed dum promissiones Evangelicae substituuntur, quae gratuitam peccatorum remissionem denuntiant, non efficiunt modo ut ipsi Deo accepti simus, sed ut operibus quoque nostris sit sua gratia: neque hoc tantum, ut ea Dominus grata habeat, sed benedictionibus etiam, quae ex pacto debebantur Legis suae observationi, prosequatur” (Institutio, 2:55-56).
133. Inst. 1:805 (3.17.3): “Fateor ergo fidelium operibus rependi, quae iustitiae et sanctitatis cultoribus in Lege sua Dominus promisit” (Institutio, 2:56).
134. Inst. 1:787 (3.14.21): i.e., causae inferiors (Institutio, 2:43-44).
135. Inst. 1:804 (3.17.2) (my emphasis).
136. It is possible to argue, for example, that Calvin’s concept of nuda lex is problematic in that it abstracts Mosaic and Messianic law from its gracious covenantal context. Calvin’s understanding of justification by faith and justification by works as being abstract principles that operate in parallel throughout salvation history is also problematic from the perspective of those who argue that the Pauline distinction between these two forms of justification is strictly salvation historical or covenantal in nature, corresponding to the distinction between the old and new covenants.
137. Lillback, The Binding of God, 185-93, 205.